Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vsion (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 26 July 2006 (→Nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Nominations

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Singapore

Roy of the Rovers

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for a number of months now, in tandem with some extremely useful work from ChrisTheDude (who has also put in a load of work creating spinoff articles on some of the comic's more popular backup strips). It now, as far as I can see, represents a thorough and comprehensive overview of one of the UK's most popular ever comic book series, making use of just about every available reference and resource that exists online and in print (which, despite its popularity at its height, sadly isn't a huge number, particularly with regards to what's available online).

  • I've worked hard at the prose and section editing so that I think it flows as it should, including a concise and informative lead.
  • All images contained in the article are copyrighted, but they all have fair use rationales and each serve a separate purpose in illustrating distinct eras of the strip and comic - and I've spoken to the person who runs the official ROTR website, from which a number of the images come, and he states that as Wikipedia is a reference tool, he considers the use of the images to be fair, so long as copyright is correctly attributed to Egmont (which it is). He's also contributed information himself by posting it on the official site as requested (and has even used the WP for reference).
  • It's listed as a GA, and has been through a peer review, although the only comments it attracted were automated.
  • It's NPOV, and while it does make statements about the strip's popularity, I've tried wherever possible to show evidence of outside sources - newspapers, magazines - commenting on it. It goes without saying that it's stable, since it rarely receives edits from anyone other than myself and Chris.
  • In addition to external references and citations, it contains a number of footnotes that expand on certain information without clogging up the body text.

In just about every way I can see, then, it seems to meet the criteria, but I've held off for a while so as to find as much info as I can, and tweak it here and there (and read it a hundred or so times to check for typos and the general flow of the text). I think it's just about ready to run the gauntlet now, so here it is. Seb Patrick 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—Nicely written, except that there are a few snakes that need chopping up, such as "As such, it holds a unique place in British football folklore, demonstrated most clearly by the phrase "real Roy of the Rovers stuff" commonly used by football writers and commentators when describing displays of great skill or results that go against the odds, a reference to the dramatic storylines that became the strip's trademark". I've removed a few "alsos". Tony 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that sentence has been copyedited a few times in the last day or so. I did chop it into two sentences, but it got put back together, and as a good faith edit I didn't want to revert it. But I'll take another look at it, as it's still a bit awkward. Seb Patrick 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(and thanks for your comments. I'm aware of the fact that I constantly overuse the word "also" when bridging points together, so it's good that someone's gone through with a fresh eye and had a look at that!) Seb Patrick 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I must say that the quality of prose is quite good. But still, I see some problems. First of all, citation templates are not used in references(both inline and overall). Also, most of the references turn out to be notes from the author unsubstantiated by any reference. In a quick inspection, it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references, and author notes won't do. If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. If possible, separate the references from the notes (i.e. use different sections). Dashes need to be fixed per WP:DASH. Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. External link need to be eliminated from text as it can easily be provided in the external links section. There isn't a very good reason to have a list in "Spin-offs and merchandise" section. The "Others" section in "Regular features" looks too much trivia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to address your concerns :
  • I didn't realise that citations had to use the template. As far as I can see, this isn't a required criterion for FACs. As the criteria request, however, <ref> tags are used. I thought that the template was an optional way of compiling references - and since the notes section (as outlined below) does not simply consist of citations, it's not really workable to use it.
  • I wouldn't say that "most" of the references are notes from the author. Counting them, of twenty-four footnotes, six (#s 8, 11, 12, 13 and 19) are explanatory notes that expand upon the text, explaining information in such a way as to not intrude on the article with unnecessarily lengthy chunks of text. Some of the other notes do consist of quotations from articles, but when this is the case, they are also backed up with full citation of the source. Likewise, some of the citations (2, 3, 7 and 10) contain notes that explain what is being cited, but they're still citations.
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references". Do you mean that you've found statements in the article that require citation? If so, please feel free to elaborate on that - but also bear in mind that I have pretty much exhausted every available resource in terms of professional writing about the series (at least in terms of what's available online, and one newspaper article from 1993 that I was able to find and date).
  • If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. Just about every article listed in the "References" section is indeed mentioned in inline citations. The main exception is the Playing Years book, which was largely used to provide information on the plot history of the strip (as it was a compilation of fifty-years' worth of strips). If I cited every single instance that the book was used (i.e. most sentences in the "Plot" section), the citation list would edge towards the hundreds!
  • As far as I know, it's not possible to have two sets of <ref> tags in the manner that you describe - hence the explanatory notes cannot be separated from the references. However, I don't feel this is necessarily problematic - certainly, I've read (and written) essays and theses that use this format for footnotes.
  • I see what you mean about the dashes, and that's a copyedit issue that clearly needs sorting. I'll see what I can do.
  • Done.
  • Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. I really don't understand what you mean by this. Or, rather, I don't understand why it's a problem. The note is there to explain why the article refers to both "Division One" and "Premier League" for those unfamiliar with the structural changes in English football, without imposing on the article for those who are familiar.
  • I see your point about the external links; in both instances, however, it's simply that they are companies that are identifiable by name but do not have Wikipedia entries to link to. However, I take your point, and I'll remove the links and place them below.
  • Done.
  • I agree that the list of books could probably trimmed, with the more notable ones incorporated into a paragraph of prose. That's something else I'll get onto.
  • Done.
  • The "Others" section really isn't trivia, I don't think. The thing is, the article is about both the *comic strip* Roy of the Rovers, and the weekly/monthly comic *publications* of the same name. Most of the article is spent discussing the strip itself (the one that began in Tiger and finished in Match of the Day, running through the life of the comic), but I think it is worth spending time discussing the other strips that were published in the comic, particularly as some of them rivalled RotR in terms of popularity. And I think that the succint information outlined for each means that, while it is a bulleted list, it just about breaks free of being simple list format.
  • Comment. I haven't gone through the improvements you have made, so please don't mind if I missed something. First of all, citations are not only used for completeness of references, they are also used to enforce consistancy in citation styles (so that other editors don't have any problems in adding citations later). Also, citation templates allow structured querries to be carried out by any SQL engine. See Persondata to see how that specific template can be used to extract specific info. Citation templates provide similar flexibility. Now, there is a basic difference between citations (references) and notes. The former provides proof, while the latter only an insight. When the number of notes increase a lot, it is advisable to separate them from references section for clarity. As an example, Rabindranath Tagore does that. This is not a requirement, and just a suggestion, as the way it currently makes it appear that the article is more referenced than it actually is. Oh, sorry for being not very alert. I meant reference number 11 uses another article as reference (dunno how I wrote that self-reference, which it isn't). Will point out the required references soon, as soon as I have the time to go through the article again. If I don't, my objection wouldn't count, right? And yes, give inline references from overall references also. It helps in clear understanding of the article. Inline citation is a strong requirement of the current FAC standards. BTW, seeing your response, it is clear you have fixed most issues. Good work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Going through the article, I see that most of the work has been done, so I am striking off my objection. However I would still suggest the editors to use separate notes and citations as Rabindranath Tagore does. Incidently, that article also has references for notes, something this article also needs. Also, please standardize the citation formats. Its really important. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nicely written, interesting, good length, well-referenced. Just one fiddly thing: in the References section, you have commas after the names instead of periods/full stops. It means you end up with things like: "Acton, P, Jarman, C.M," where it's not completely clear (not at first glance) that there are two authors. I went to change it, but I don't know what style you prefer to use, so I'm leaving this comment instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. That would simply be the way I was taught to write bibliographies at Uni. I always found it a confusing way of doing things myself, but it was so drilled into my head as the "right" way of doing things that I simply carried it over here. If separating by full-stops, semi-colons or anything else is acceptable on WP, then please feel free to change it. Seb Patrick 07:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see what you mean, but I think the amount of images is justifiable in this article. There's no definite limits in the FUC (excellent abbreviation, by the way), just the vague "as little as possible". Other than the main annual pic at the top, all the images are small and low-res, and there's only ever one picture in a section, and not all the sections have one. I think removing "five or six", as you suggest, would be detrimental to the article. I think a compromise could be reached fairly easily, though. --IanIanSymes 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in addition, I have - as outlined above - spoken with the webmaster of the official site, from which almost all the images derive, and sought his approval - on behalf of Egmont - to use the images. As I don't have written confirmation from Egmont themselves, it doesn't constitute full permission, but I think that, since there's no objection to their being used in a reference work, the fair use is clearly validated. Also, while I don't generally like playing the "yeah, but look at this article" game, I would ask you to look at how overwhelmingly Final Fantasy VIII was recently passed, and the number of FU images there as opposed to here. Seb Patrick 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I have, however, removed two of the images, reducing it to what I think is a more acceptable five. Also, the only images now contained in the article are ones that Egmont Fleetway hold the copyright for.) Seb Patrick 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, so long as those images have valid fair use criteria, this is OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Social promotion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cividade de Terroso

Rudolf Vrba

A meticulously referenced article about an important and controversial figure in Holocaust historiography. Authored the first report regarding the death camps that was taken seriously and acted upon; after the war, his accusations regarding the Zionist leadership have been used by many widely varying groups for political purposes. This article lays out all the known facts, and all the controversies regarding Vrba, giving each side fair play, and achieving a remarkable level of NPOV on a topic which is usually raised or used for polemical purposes. This is a semi self-nomination; SlimVirgin and I have essentially written it. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—It's generally well-written, but there are a few problems.
    • In the second sentence, don't refer to him as an inmate until you've told us that he was a prisoner at Auschwitz; as currently worded, it looks as though UBC is a prison, which ... may well be the case. :)
    • Please consider closing the gap before each reference, and between references where more than one are clustered. They're intrusive enough visually without the added space.
    • Please go through and check the ambit of every reference. For example, does [13] refer to the remainder of its paragraph? (It's unclear.)
    • There are snakes that need chopping up for readability: e.g., "Historians differ as to whether there is any truth in Vrba's allegations, which have revealed a fissure in Holocaust historiography between "survivor discourse" and "expert discourse," [14] the latter fiercely protected by some academic historians suspicious of the emotional, subjective approach of the survivors."
    • There are a few stubby parapgraphs; why not merge the second para of "Early life" into the first? Check other stubs.
    • "On Friday, 7 April 1944, at 2 pm, on the eve of Passover, [12] with the help of the camp underground, the two men climbed ..."—This succession of five commas can be reduced in number.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of humanity that doesn't use the US system. Tony 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsection header "How much did Vrba really know?" fails to follow the manual of style, and the "See [[foo]] section below" seem to violate the avoid self-reference guideline. Both of these served to break the flow of the narrative for me. These are pro-forma and perfunctory objections only, lest I be accused of going soft when I say "Excellent work!" - brenneman {L} 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which footnotes, Sandy, and what's the problem with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has corrected them now. Sandy 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the categories in alphabetical order. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain they've all been fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the lead is far too long - think about what would appear on the main page and cut it back; see WP:LEAD. The text of the aticle isn't that extensive to require a four paragraph lead, and it goes into far more detail than is necessary for a summary. There is a bit much emotive langauge sprinkled though the text, for example death camp appears several times. What are the items in futher reading, if they were used to write the article they should be in references, if not what are they doing there? Why are awards and films stuck down at the end of the article, can't they be worked into the text somewhere?--Peta 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The further reading section is for material that's relevant to the subject and interesting, but which wasn't used as a reference. We can try to work the films into the text. I'm not sure I would call "death camp" emotive. Auschwitz-Birkenau was known as a death camp (Todeslager) or extermination camp, as opposed to a concentration or labor camp. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly shortened the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've included awards and documentaries in the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the lead needs to say is that he escaped with the report, he criticsed the timing of the release and that current historians are still in disagrement about whether he was right. The current 475 word monster is too detailed.--Peta 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section should given an overview of the whole article, one capable of standing on its own. Up to four paragraphs is recommended for an article of this length. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article isn't that long when you take out all the citations. I would say that it is medium sized.--Peta 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about 10,000 words. WP:LEAD recommends three-four paragraphs for anything over 30,000 characters, and it's well over that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put your finger on what you find off-putting about the current lead? Is it a visual thing, or does it flow badly? You wrote that it was too detailed: does the detail get in the way of understanding, and if so, which details exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph goes into more detial that it needs to, the blood for trucks discussion could be shorter for example. I also don't like the long quote at the end of the fourth paragraph, that kind of analysis should really only be in the body of the text.--Peta 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph is about the heart of the dispute, so it can't really be shortened. The fourth paragraph deals with how historians are responding to his allegations, and Yehuda Bauer is probably the leader of the group of historians who are critical of Vrba. The long quote from him sums up the feelings of those who talk about survivor v expert discourse, which is that the survivors know what happened to them but they are too distressed, and not knowledgeable enough, to attempt to analyse it and place it in context. And yet, of course, they do, and this leads to clashes with the academic historians, who may not have the personal experience of the Holocaust, but who do have the overview, or at least that is their argument. We could cut it out, but we'd lose the summary of an important aspect of the dispute. I like this lead because there's a paragraph devoted to each of four important points: (1) who he was; (2) what impact his report had; (3) the controversy and what it's related to; (4) what historians have said about it. It would be a shame to lose one of those, in my view, although I did slightly cut the long quote you didn't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I again agree that the lead is of the appropiate length, and that it follows the guideline. - brenneman {L} 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is a model article. Although it won't be of interest to many readers, it shows that Wikipedia can match the standards of Britanica. I think it also exemplifies the spirit of NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there an infobox possible? Why are there many references begenning with "__________"? Please use citation templates for references. Date wikilinking needs to be done consistantly. Apart from the Wikilinking issue, there is inconsistancy in using comma between dates. Avoid using words like "allegedly" (see WP:WTA and copyedit). Avoid using FA-star in templates used in the articles. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation templates are just a nuisance. It's far easier to write out citations without them. The line represents the name of the author in the preceding example: it's used to avoid repeating the same name over and over. Which dates are not linked in a consistent way, and can you give an example of the comma inconsistency? There's no reason to avoid using "allegedly." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Changing to Strongly abstain till issues are cleared on the talk pages. The citation templates are not a nuisance. They exist to provide uniformity to article citations and usability of the article while interacting with machines. If any new person comes in and adds reference, there should not be any problem for him/her to understand how to go about it. Also, with use of citation templates, the references become machine readable. For example, see Persondata to see how that specific template is used. It is not a citation template, but I am providing its link as the usage is well documented. What's easy is not always the right way, and I strongly suggest that citation templates be used. I am not aware of the line representation in citations, and hope that you have confirmed that it is an encyclopedic way of writing it. In "Early life and arrest" section, fourth paragraph has unlinked "June 30" (See MOSDATE). Similarly "April 10" in "Escape" section. Find other similar instances (there are many others). The article text has dates with no commas, while the references consistantly have commas (another reason why I strongly prefer citation templates). Also, all web-references need last accessed date. If possible, I would suggest separating the "Notes" section from the "Inline citation". Note: All issues mentioned by me are not objections. My objection is for the many issues mentioned, so please don't respond that a specific one is not a reason to object. Even those that are not are suggestions that will make the article better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your various points: (a) There's no requirement to use citation templates; one good reason not to is that they're not flexible and can't, for example, handle the need not to keep on repeating the author's name; (b) the only dates that the MoS suggests linking are complete dates so that date preferences work, and so I'll make sure these are all linked; (c) I still don't know what you mean about the dates and the commas, but I'll take a look; (d) I don't know what you mean by separating notes and inline citations. The notes are the inline citations. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't see what you mean about dates. April 10 in the Escape section doesn't include a year and therefore doesn't have to be linked. Also, I can't see what you mean about commas being used in the References section but not in the text. Can you give an example of a full date with no comma? (I'm assuming you mean the comma between 31 and 2006 as in July 31, 2006, which should also have a comma when linked, if your preferences are set for the U.S. way: July 31, 2006). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is not a requirement, as I said in the note above. But using it would have solved another problem of inconsistant commas that I mentioned. Dates like "June 30" should be wikilinked. Quoting from WP:MOSDATE: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." (italics mine). As it is clear from the quote above, partial dates "should normally" be wikilinked. I see no reason why this article should be any exception. Notes and inline citation are completely different. See Rabindranath Tagore for example, that goes a step ahead by using inline references inside notes. I hope you didn't miss my pointing out of requirement of last accessdate of external links. It is something that's essential. Coming back to your arguement about use of ciation templates, you don't need to use the full template everytime, again see Rabindranath Tagore. So the flexibility part doesn't come into picture. Hope this clears up your doubts. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then someone has changed the MoS recently because that's not what it's meant to say. Only full dates need to be linked. You may link others if you want to, but most people don't. Last access is not essential. The citation templates are not even recommended to the best of my knowledge; they are just an option, and one that many people don't like and don't use. See WP:CITE, which is the guideline for citations, and which this article, to the best of my knowledge, adheres to. Can you please point to an example of the inconsistent use of commas you've mentioned twice? By the way, what did you think of the actual article? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citations in this article all follow a standard and uniform format. Citation templates are not even recommended, and are a huge nuisance; they're a special language that must be learned to insert citations, yet they add no particular value, and are extremely inflexible. They certainly don't allow for the kind of lengthy, complex, and nuanced footnotes used in this article. It astonishes me that two people can write an 11,000 word article on a complex topic, using dozens of high quality references and hundreds of footnotes, yet the only comment other people can make is to oppose it as a featured article because it doesn't use a fiddly citation template, and follow their preferred date style. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World of Warcraft

Bricker Amendment

Completely rewritten version of this article on a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. Was previously on peer review here and here. It had a prior featured article candidacy here. Has been designated a Wikipedia:Good article. Thoroughly researched with notes and illustrations. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 47 KB of prose as of 4 August 2006. (This note was added by User:Maveric149. This ID added by PedanticallySpeaking 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
The section is called a "select bibliography" and there I have the note "this list contains only works with significant content related to the Bricker Amendment." Many works cited in the notes have only background material on isolationism and American history but are not about the Bricker Amendment. I thought it best not to list every single work cited—and believe me if I did that, I would get an objection to that practice—but instead offer a list of "where to start" for those who want more on the subject. PedanticallySpeaking 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think it's quite confusing, but that might just be personal preference. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Merovingian - Talk 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object As a non-American I have read the lead text twice, and found several stumbling blocks, including: What's the ABA (an unexplained abbreviation)? And this sentence doesn't read easy to me: The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution. And added to this very tough read, I find that the article is 80 kbyte large (that is more than double the recommended good size) on a VERY difficult topic. Perhaps less in-depth information may be just as good? And lastly, I find several non-compliance issues with standard wikipedia guidelines such as how to write dates and how (not) to wikilink years. I left details of these on the talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
User:Kaisershatner has kindly gone through and given the article a copy-edit and reworked parts of it, a service for which I am grateful. Does that mitigate any of your concerns? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. The "tough read" that my colleague refers to above is in the overly long sentences, IMV. In fact, this nest of snakes provides excellent material for the exercises in controlling sentence length that I'm preparing. Take the opener:
    • "The Bricker Amendment is the name applied to a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s which would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the United States." Why not split it, and while we're at it, trim a bit of fat: "The Bricker Amendment was a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the Senate in the 1950s; they would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the U.S."

Can you go through the whole article to split the long ones? There's a lot of them. Make it easy for our readers. Tony 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been redone courtesy of Kaisershatner. Is that an improvement? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Nicely-referenced. The long sentences are very hard on the reader, but there are some other prose problems as well, example: Likewise, executive agreements were found to be subject to the Constitution in Seery v. United States. There the government argued that an executive agreement allowed it to confiscate property in Austria owned by an American citizen without compensation. Sandy 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kaisershatner has gone through and edited this. Does that help? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better! Struck my objection above. Sandy 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-cited. I did a full copyedit, the sentences are still long but I think I caught most of the typos. Some minor comments: did Stephen Johnson Field not capitalize "Constitution", can the mention of protectionist tariffs/Hawley Smoot be deleted on the grounds that economic isolationism is a wholly different subject fit for its own article and need not reflect the political isolationism referenced in this article, in one of the older versions wasn't there something about the adoption of the UN Genocide Charter coming with provisional language specifically noting the primacy of the Constitution? But nice job- if anything, it could be cut down, but to me it's just pushing the boundary of overkill on the early US history without quite crossing it.Kaisershatner 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw my object, but next time, please consider making the sentences shorter on average—in any register. It's not entirely free of problems (e.g., spot the redundant word in "Once hostilities were concluded"; there's a wrong upper-case letter in a title—I'm sure there are more). (This comment added by User:Tony1. This ID offered by PedanticallySpeaking 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Denis Diderot

Battle of Blenheim

I came across this last night and have been tidying it - it's a good-sized article, copiously cited and decently written, on a major historic event. Doesn't seem to be missing anything obvious that I can see. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this very nice article! Lead could use a little expansion though. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rlevse 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Only three sources are given, all from British writers (one of which is the brother of Princess Diana). I would hope that 300 years on nationalism and historical romanticisation wouldn't creep into any of the text or bias the accounts, but I would feel more comfortable if more sources were included; preferably some French and German. --Oldak Quill 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added information for the referenced text The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army. Unfortunately, since David Chandler is both the editor of this book and the author of the first book in the references list, the notes section is unclear as to which book is being referenced. MarkBuckles 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with Oldakquill in seeing this as undersourced. One author (discounting the feeble efforts of Spencer, see note 11 for an example) is not enough. I suggest that Lynn's Wars of Louis XIV might be a useful second source. Churchillian and Creasyesque nationalist tub thumping are quite unnecessary and have no place in an FAC. A general problem with writings on the War of the Spanish Succession is the same as those on the Hundred Years War; you don't see the wood for the trees. Same here with the "decisive" victory claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Object It's a good article, but the source issue is bothering me too. The reason is because the article seems too British-centered, which would obviously follow from sole use of British sources. There is analysis of Franco-Bavarian movements, but not nearly as much as those of Marlborough. The "decisive victory" label is more than appropriate; Blenheim was one of the greatest tactical masterpieces of all time. It was not politically decisive, but few individual battles in this era were.UberCryxic 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The battle is a particular milestone for the British. It was the Waterloo of the century before Waterloo, and consequently it's not off the mark to have some of that tub thumping, so long as it is understood as "from the British point of view, Churchill's decision was brilliant," etc. I.e. it would not be a critical stop to have the Anglo point of view, if it were clear throughout that what is being reported is that this is the perception of the battle rather than an objective reality. To set the more objective scene, other sources would be necessary, and Angus McLellan has good tips. British political history is still overshadowed by the positivist and Whiggish historians of the 19th century, and the military history still has too few cynical or critical sources. No vote. Geogre 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all thank you Shimgray for nominating the article. I’m also very impressed by all the comments made by the all the other contributors.

Let me briefly address Angus’s comments on Creaseyesque and Churchillian ‘tub-thumping’. Both historians are credible and important sources of historical appreciation. One quote from Creasey (which was added by another writer) and one from Churchill, that are fully sourced, is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopaedic article. It is just as relevant to quote these historians as it would be, for example, to quote Gibbon in an article on the fall of Rome. History is not a pure science it is about interpretation of the ‘facts’ as we know them: John Lynn’s ‘facts’ are no more or no less coloured by his interpretation and perspective than Charles Spencer. Spencer is a source I shall continue to use, and am using, in a rewrite of another battle in the 1704 campaign, the Battle of Schellenberg. It is acceptable as long it is backed up by other sources, which was in this case John Tincey’s ‘Blenheim 1704:The Duke of Marlborough's Masterpiece’. Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2004. ISBN 1841767719. I omitted to add it to the reference list but every detail of the battle was checked using Tincey’s book. Adding German or French sources is not going to change the details of the battle. As John Lynn says 1704-1706 were ‘years of triumph for Marlborough and Eugene’. There is no debate in historical circles that the battle was a resounding victory for the allies – this is not a moot point.

What’s wrong with the word decisive? Knocking Bavaria out of the war and routing the Franco-Bavarian army was pretty decisive in that all the allies’ goals were accomplished. Again let me quote Lynn – ‘The crushing Allied victory at Blenheim did not decide the fate of the war, but it ended the war on the Danube’. Maybe we need to agree on a definition of the word ‘decisive’.

It is fair to say that the article is somewhat Anglo-centric. Part of this was because I was concerned that the article was getting too long. This is why I labelled one sub-heading as ‘Marlborough’s march’. I could have gone into more detail about Tallard’s shambolic and near disastrous march to the Danube but I was concerned about the article’s length. What is the ideal length of an article? Is there a limit?

I agree with the basic thrust of the comments made however. I will try to bring up to FA standard that we can all accept, fully sourced and with a few minor additions/alterations. I would be very appreciative if you would then get back to me and comment. Please don’t read anything I say as belligerent. All your criticisms are valid, welcome and much appreciated. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: There isn't an ideal FA length. Some people will complain if it gets very long, but "very long" is always subjective. If you hold your readers' attentions, they won't complain at length, and if you don't.... Well, that's not going to be an issue. Some FA's have been extremely long (I'm guilty with A Tale of a Tub and Augustan literature), but the subject matter will excuse detail or punish it. If you need the length, use it and let people ask for tightening. It's better to do that than to abridge ahead of time and confuse your readers. Geogre 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One thing that should be added is the importance of Bavaria to the Austrian war effort after Blenheim. Because of the weak Austrian finance and the rebellion in the east the contribution they could levee in Bavaria was vital to continuing the war, especially later in the war when the English and later the Dutch betrayed them.--Carl Logan 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the time being. Here are some suggestions for improvement from the first half of the article. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scholarly tone: "It also resulted in knocking Bavaria out of the war." and "he would return in good time", and "side-stepping Thüngen's efforts to intercept him"
    • NPOV: "leading to the brilliant Villars being replaced by the less dynamic Marsin" and "with considerable skill, Marshall Tallard managed to bring 10,000 reinforcements" and "The whole operation was an outstanding military achievement." (for this last one, would like to see some information on who thinks so in the article body, even with a cite). Also "Marlborough skilfully encouraged this apprehension"
    • Unexplained, unlinked vocab: "whose loss would almost certainly have led to the collapse of the Grand Alliance"
    • Redlinks: Robert Alexander Hillingford and Jacob van Schuppen. possible to create a stub or network to find a art-interested wikipedian who can? Also, Gross Heppach and Launsheim
    • Table proportion: Is it just my browser, or does is the France and Bavaria side of the table almost twice as big as the England side?
    • Single-sentence paragraphs: "The only forces immediately available for the defence of Vienna were Prince Louis of Baden's force of 36,000 stationed in the Lines of Stollhofen[5] to watch Tallard."
    • Long quotes should use block quotation style.
    • Context of quotations: "A scarlet caterpillar, upon which all eyes were at once fixed, began to crawl steadfastly day by day across the map of Europe, dragging the whole war with it." Poetic, but not sure this is a good way to begin a section of an enyclopedia. Full quotes like that should have some in-line explanation. I would prefer the situation be presented and then illustrated with a quote. And why is Churchill talking about this? Was he a scholar on the subject? I would want to know.
    • Voice: "It was decided that Eugène would advance" who decided?
  • Support: It's a great article on an important subject. I can certainly see the uses of each of the things others are objecting to and decipher the passives, etc. If sentence 1 is "the three met" and sentence 2 is "it was decided that," then the passive, while still being a passive, is comprehensible. The epigrammatic quotations are interesting, too (the tactic depends upon others following Churchill; if they don't, then Holland freaks out; Churchill IV says that Churchill Sr. is a red (lobster back) caterpillar that everyone watches: the tactic worked), so I have no problem. The general assessment also works. My own knowledge is mainly of the effects of the battle back in London, the very large political effects. Great stuff. Geogre 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - masterful. It is ages since I read Churchill, but, if I may suggest, some details from the chapter on John Churchill in Mark Urban's recent book, Generals, could add even more colour to an already rich tapestry (it would be nice to explain how difficult Marlborough found the Dutch - he essentially presented them with an ultimatum, either they could come with the British or he would march his troops south alone; it would also be good to explain how unusual it was for a British army to venture so far away from the coast and the possibility of escape with the Royal Navy; there is no mention of the Allied centre essentially remaining still, taking artillery fire, for an hour or two as it was reinforced and Eugene's attack was organised - Marlborough ordered his infantry to lie down and the cavalry to dismount; after being captured, Tallard sent to Marlborough asking him to let the French army withdraw, and Marlborough replied "Inform M Tallard that in the position in which he now is, he has no command."; after the battle, Frenchmen were heard to plaintively say Oh que dira le Roy!; later, Tallard congratulated Marlborough on beating the best soldiers in the world, and Marlborough replied "execpt those who had the honour to beat them".) -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object on a few formatting issues that need to be cleaned up:
    • Quotes should not be italicized if they are in quotation marks.
    • The source of an epigraph should be separated from the text of the quote by an em-dash.
    • The nested header in the "Cultural references" section is unnecessary.
Fix these points, and I'll be happy to support. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bicocca

A somewhat obscure battle, but one that's quite important in terms of the evolution of warfare. I respectfully await all comments. Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (terminology)

I'm restarting this nomination - the old discussion was too long to parse and contained a number of no-longer applicable sections. I'd like to see more work done on addressing the issue of list-heaviness. Raul654 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. in current form. The article is list-heavy, but also extremely informative. The lists seem appropriate here, but could be improved by converting into prose. If any section needs it, the one which needs it most is "In History." Neutral in curent form, would support fully with some list conversion. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We tried converting history to list form, it made it very confusing. - FrancisTyers · 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! I know it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I Support! RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well that was easier than I expected :) Besides, Niko took care of the history section now :) - FrancisTyers · 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As before on the basis of it not being an article, but a list. As before, looking at, for quick examples, most of the featured lists of birds contain blocks of prose as this article does but are fundamentally lists as this one is. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: FLs that were specified before (List of Anuran families, List of Kansas birds, List of Florida birds, List of Oklahoma birds) contain extremely less prose.
    • On the other hand, there are many precedents of featured articles that also contain lists:
    • This is an article, which has the following main differences from lists (of birds or anything):
      • It has a subject: To clarify the mess and semiological confusion among terms used in Macedonia. (Birds only have identical names for everyone, which are simply listed)
      • It illustrates the controversy that created this mess (UN did't deal with birds, and different species don't quarrel over who's to be called eagle.)
      • It explains which term, under which context (referred for whom, addressing whom, and said by whom) can be considered pejorative and for what (cited) reason. (Nobody is offended when someone calls a bird by another name.)
      • The text/list ratio is 58% - 42%, including references. Compare the truncated versions I created:
      • The 'lists' that have remained, are not essentially 'lists'. They are paragraphs that have been bulleted only to illustrate semiological confusion. No other featured list contains paragraphs for every single entry (excluding the bottom part of 'terminology by group' section).
      • On the other hand, there are featured articles with greater dominance of lists (examples above), plus their lists are indeed lists and not bulleted paragraphs.
      • Three (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to remove the bullets from these paragraphs. See examples of ways to reformat the history section:
        • One by Errant: here
        • One by myself: here (note, 'history' didn't exist as a section yet, see bottom of intro)
        • Another by myself: here
      • The proof that it is not a list, lies in the fact that it was indeed formatted as prose, but then bulleted back only to illustrate semiological confusion. Try doing that in the lists of the precedent featured articles I specified above!
      • Nine users who had 'list' concerns, removed their opposition in view of the large scale additions and modifications in this article.
    • Please consider the gravity of each objection: It seems there are like 30 users who approve it as it is, 9 users who thought it used to be a list and isn't now (6 of them on top of that now support), and we are trying to deal with a veto of one or two users who just object on bullet-formatted text. The veto power of the users who objected to bullet removal, the main contributors included, was overwhelming. I request you follow user Robth's example to reconsider your votes, and go for Neutral, which will not veto the wishes of the extreme majority here. :NikoSilver: 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Veto power :) - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have no idea what this veto crap is but I am still objecting on the list issue. NikoSilver has tried to argue against it instead of addressing it. Please address it since it has been a concern since the beggining and both attempts to fix it have been, in my opinion, tentative at best. Joelito (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as before. Tony 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, im still going against the grain here, although I see why people are arguing this is a list it also wouldn't make it through the FL process. In fact it definitely wouldn't and would be very out of place as a featured lists. I think the problem here is that this is an article worthy of featred status - plus it is on an interesting and controversial topic and deals with it so well!! It is a shame that it gets denied that by being too list'y but I suppose that is the way things go. In fairness to Nikosilver and Frtancis they have done a sterling job addressing all the problems as best they may so I think Joelito is being a little unfair, in truth they did experiment with more prose but they are right that it made the article more confusing.
The thing is that this is (and never was) a list - so if it's not an article then what is it. Regardless I am supporting this still simply because it is a great piece of work that both these 2 and others have spent a long time perfecting... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand the objections. We could view all wiki articles as a "list" of facts, especially since there is no room for original research, and we have the POV factor. Indeed, most articles consist of a list of different facts, in appropriate order, they build a picture of the same object. Here we have a list of facts describing a same noun/appelation but which is interpreted in different ways. It is that difference of interpretations that forms the core of the article, one that has preoccupied a number of academics, politicians and historians. In my opinion, several experts in the field - some of them also true experts in the ways of wikipedia - have poured over the article, debated and concured that it is an article, not a list. Therefore, I think its FA suitability needs to be evaluated in terms of a bona fide article. Politis 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Errant and Politis. I too think that it may have been something close to a list earlier, but it is simply unfair towards the extensive efforts and attempts that have been made to de-bullet it, to simlply stick on the list issue and not want to discuss! The precedents are numerous and the arguments above were compelling (did the opposers read them? Why don't they respond?) I will make one more attempt, though, but I strongly believe it will be to the detriment of the article's readability. Again, please do not ignore the wide consensus of the rest of the users who support, and of those that have dropped their 'list' objections. It is simply unfair to veto this great article, without any real basis, and without any discussion! I am deeply dissappointed. :NikoSilver: 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To opposers: Please see it now, and respond if this is the direction to which you wish the article was formulated...:NikoSilver: 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody responded to this, but my opinion is it sucks coz it repeats the same thing in three places, just to include some prose: maps+text+table. :NikoSilver: 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Support I want to express my strong disapproval of Joelito's comments. At first, I too accused Niko of not addressing that issue and trying to argue around it, but since then there has been clear and extensive improvement in that area. "Tentative" means something like "experimental," and while I'm not trying to give anyone a vocabulary lesson, the changes that Niko has implemented are very sweeping, not tentative at all. Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!UberCryxic 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply eye-jogging through the article reveals massive differences, either large white spaces where none existed or new material. I am not going to document every change, but you can see that the lists in the lead were taken away. Beyond that, you haven't really addressed my point. Some of the lists are still there, but Niko has made huge strides in adding prose to what is now firmly an article. This statement by me, "Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!" holds very true with your link. Anyone can see that there have been huge changes made. At the very least, you questioning Niko's efforts to address the problem are disingenuous in light of evidence that you yourself have presented.UberCryxic 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joelito: Point? Where exactly do you see the same lists? Also, I think the diff is so messed up, that I am beggining to think you haven't followed the article's evolution since nomination. Let me put simply:
  • Major additions:
  • WP:LEAD 1 par -> 3pars
  • Etymology: ->New section, 3 pars
  • History: 1 sentence + a list (still incorporated in lead) -> 3 pars + list, separate section + 2 subsections
  • Templatised Maps: as cool as always. Unchanged
  • Geography: 2 lists with 3 pars intermingled -> 2 lists plus 6 pars
  • Demographics: Just a list -> a paragraph and a list with much lengthier entries
  • Linguistics: Just a list -> 3 pars + 1 opening sentence + a list
  • Politics: List with sublists containing 1 par -> No list + 3 pars
  • Names in the languages of the region: Unchanged
  • Terminology by group: 1 opening sentence + 3 lists -> 3 pars + 3 lists
  • Notes (one of the most important parts): 4 essential notes -> 5 essential notes
  • References: 4 -> 73! (we even have an objection for that now below!)
  • Totals: 9 pars + 2 sentences + 9 lists + 4 refs -> 27! pars + 2 sentences + 8 lists + 73 refs
  • How can you (Joelito) not notice that and ironicaly request us to verify UberCryxic above? I think you better strike that last unfortunate comment (at least), or your opposition is likely not to be taken seriously at all. :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop trying to dismiss anyone (attacking the messenger) who opposes you and start addressing the concerns. I have commented every time a new section for the FAC has been created so I have been following the progress. 9 lists --> 7 lists + 1 table are still too many lists for an article. If I am not mistaken only 1 of the lists has been converted to prose. I know the article has been expanded considerably (also some of my past concerns) but the list concern has not been addressed to my (and others) satisfaction. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not dismissing you. He has already significantly addressed concerns like the ones you have brought up. We can certainly have a conversation regarding what degree of satisfaction Niko has given those objecting, but don't making the categorical statement that he is not addressing your concerns. That's just a plain lie. Obviously he has; you can see the article for yourself. Niko has actually proven himself to be one of the most involved and quickest FA nominators I've ever seen.UberCryxic 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006: I suppose 5 tables and 3 lists would be fine then, huh? Nobody attacked you. It is your insufficient arguments I am attacking. You have never responded on the issue. You always just post a message to keep the conversation alive. Kindly respond to every single argument in my two lengthy posts above. If you can't then you're wrong. I am certain the article is in the wrong path with the recent irrational additions. This is not Macedonia (region) we're writing here. It is Macedonia (terminology). :NikoSilver: 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • object so many references to such a small article. Needs proper development not to reference every word. Very nice and instructive maps!!! --Pedro 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much refs isn't a reason to oppose any FAC Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the article are refs, that's original! An article is not a collection of references. It seems a reference page in a PHD, not an encyclopedia article. --Pedro 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not very kind, Pedro. How can references be original? All articles in wikipedia are, arguably, a list of referenced facts because we do not accept POV or original research. I would say this article is an OK introduction to a PhD thesis, not its reference pages. Politis 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I cannot satisfy you and remove references. Feel free to keep opposing. Thank you.:NikoSilver: 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i'm just saying it needs expansion and better formating and not concentrating to much on references, many of those references are not very useful, but you shouldn't remove them - That would be stupid. --Pedro 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, we can't expand it further. (a)It is already almost 50Kb, without the templatised maps. (b)We will not be "tightly focused on the subject". The subject is terminology. Why the hell should we expand further e.g. history? The parts that are relevant in illustrating the controversy and confusion in terminology are expanded more than adequately. After reading it, do you have any question on the how's and why's of the terminology? Anything you believe would apply? The fact that we have so many refs, is because we can't tolerate nationalist rant about 'unsubstantiated material'. (Greeks included). :NikoSilver: 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • changed to neutral. It doesnt look great (except for the maps that are great, it is informative enough, most important in a FA is information).--Pedro 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing statement: After extensive attempts to ruin the article towards the direction indicated by Joelito, without real argumentation, or any substantial responses to my arguments, I have decided to revert the article to the version before these attempts. If anyone still thinks this is not an article, then so be it. Let's put it in the Featured Stubs! Raul, feel free to close this, list it in FL, dump it, delete it or... (why not? 30 users emphatically say so!) feature it as it is. I am out. :NikoSilver: 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of work here has been done. A lot of various things have been tried. The essential problem I see is scope. This isn't a history article, nor is it a geographical article. It isn't an article on linguistics either. It is an article on terminology. The stated purpose of the article is to describe the way that the terminology surrounding Macedonia is used by various groups. Now then, people may say "but why on earth do you need that, and whats with all the lists?", the reason for the lists is simple. The principle that was decided upon on the inception of the page was to use Self identifying terms. So many other articles related to Macedonia have been edit warred into oblivion because of terminology. In fact, you can even see it in the history of this one.
The more prose that was added, the closer we got to edit warring. It really is very difficult to write an article regarding Macedonia that all sides accept. By and large everyone accepts this. Back to the lists! The lists as they are so lovingly called are imperative to keeping the content readable. When we have 6 different meanings for the term Macedonia, how else are we to present them, We have 3 different meanings for the term "Macedonian" relating to linguistics, and 5 relating to "Macedonian" in demographics.
How then should we format this, whilst maintaining self-identifying terms that it wouldn't be entirely opaque? Is it possible to have a featured article on terminology? I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I may be naïve, but I think that the article has the potential to improve articles about Macedonia as a whole. When a non-Balkanian comes to a Macedonia related article and sees such a large dispute going on, the first instinct is to hop it, get out of there, it isn't worth the trouble to get involved, those guys will never agree. A top class reference on terminology might help to lessen that, and get a larger number of non-Balkanian editors involved, something that the articles are in serious need of. This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this.
So, my final plea, do not oppose solely on the fact that there are a large number of lists in the article, perhaps oppose because you don't think that is some of Wikipedia's best work, or oppose because you don't think it is neutral, or there is a full stop out of place. Just not the lists. - FrancisTyers · 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the length of my reply. Feel free to remove parts you feel are irrelevant in order to keep the page more legible. - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Neutral - Political tensions on Wikipedia is not justification for making this a featured article, Francis. If the article is so great now in easing the flame wars that occur in Balkan-related topics, then it should be a significant help regardless if it is featured or not. Telling someone to look beyond the tangible aspects of the formatting and to support it for its spiritual merits is just wrong. If this was a "Articles that create a paradigm shift and further the cause of togetherness" nomination I would be in favor. But it is not, and so I won't vote in favor until the list issue is resolved. --Sean WI 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gone through a considerable change since it was first put up for a nomination. I now see the work that has gone into transforming the article into a stable, informative, and interesting read. My prior objections to the format have been aleviated by the endless work that a select few people have accomplished. I now feel that the bullet points are an acceptable way to convey the message, making it easy for the uninformed to digest the material. This article has my support. --Sean WI 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you didn't want to read the whole post, it was pretty long, so I'll direct you to, "This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this." - FrancisTyers · 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should better direct him to: I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I second your whole comment 100%. Let it burn, I don't care. I am not ruining a great article because some people cannot justify their opposition. I have presented compelling precedents and arguments in two lengthy posts above and nobody has responded to either. You can't veto something unless you have a solid rationale. Therefore, I consider all 'list' oppositions moot. :NikoSilver: 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys lets stay calm and friendly! The article has improved alot and will continue to do so over the years. I think you should forget about FA for now and wait a couple of months - then relist it and see if time has matured it enough for people to have changed their minds --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Errant, but thanks. I sincerely believe that all 'list' oppositions are invalid. Reasoning above.:NikoSilver: 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some recent additions in prose. Mainly, a new 'etymology' section, and several paragraphs in 'history' section, which was also split in two subsections. For more details, refer to my comment above under 'Major additions'. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm even less convinced now that this should go to FLC. As an article it is properly referenced and the prose is good. The maps are a great aid in understanding the subject. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, really good and illustrative maps. I didn't understand, very well, the war between Macedonia and Greece because of the name, just by seeing the maps you understand it immediately.--Pedro 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niko, you do not have any authority to dismiss these arguments as 'moot' or 'invalid'. Okay, the scope of the article is thoroughly explained by the title itself. This is the terminology of the region of Macedonia. Maybe it is easier to make lists when explaining six different points. I understand this, too. But these reasons do not make it alright to ignore the central problem - the formatting does not agree with many people. And because the formatting is so rigid, the entire article does not have a "flowing" quality. A proper featured topic should read like a novel - there is a beginning, middle, and end (though the end is less important). This feels like a grocery list. Now I fear that some people are giving support for all the wrong reasons. You reverted all of your "in history" section (which wasn't satisfactory, anyway) and made it a list again...and this guy above me says the prose are now good? What!? I will vehemently oppose this article and try to convince others to do the same until this is solved. Perhaps this is just one article that can never be featured...or maybe it needs a slight re-write. --Sean WI 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean WI. Here is an article: List of United States mobile phone companies. Now this is what I call a list - a collection of US companies and it does not "read like a novel", as you mention above; but then. But if that is a criterion (and under normal circumstances I would probably agree with you) where will you find a novel accessible to the editorial whims of anyone browsing the net, coming across wikipedia, and wanting to have a go? That is why wikipedia articles are a collection of information, a list of information. So how does anyone draw the line between a list of mobile phone companies, this article in question and an article on windmills or sugar? What are the criteria you espouse? I would have thought that such article would make fascinating reading as a FA; the information races along, it is varied, full of links and dynamic - those are not qualities you will find in a "grocery list". Politis 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean: No I don't have the authority, but I have a right to express my opinion. My opinion still is that none of the 'list' arguments has a basis in the requirements. Also, opposers have not addressed any point in my rationale above, including the precedents that I listed. So, having both requirements and precedents in my side, I am safe to express that opinion: Any 'list' opposition is moot!
  • Speaking about authority, I see a very small minority still complaining about any list within the article. Kindly read User:Jimbo's page, rule #7 for inspiration.
  • Still, I have made further additions in prose. So, what about now? :NikoSilver: 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Politis. I must apologize for using the term "grocery list" to explain my position because even I know that it is absurd. I was merely a bit peeved that someone could dismiss the points of myself and others as being not relevant to the discussion. Most of the opposition (including the archived portion) has a problem with the format, and not the information. This article has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Remember, I initially voted in favor of it. However, as trivial as something like formatting seems, it can allow for a powerful voice while reading. If we take a good featured article, say Kolkata, and compare it to this one...the difference is not in the amount of information, but in the way it is presented. If the people who are most active in this article decide that they will not budge, I guess I will change my vote to a neutral like I did in the previous vote.

I ended the paragraph, but when I tried to save, I noticed the new reply, so I will address that, too. Niko, I am withdrawing my vote. You are free to make it a featured article. --Sean WI 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive approach and your frankness. Also thanks to Niko for his relentless work/ Just to point out that though I believe this is, indeed, an article - and a very useful one, I have not voted on the FA issue. Politis 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change from Support to Object - Sorry to have to do this. First of all, I find the large quote above the image at the top of the article to be obnoxious. Second of all, I am VERY much opposed to wrapping the text around the table of contents.
Additionally though, I've re-looked over the prose/list issue, trying to really get to the heart of the matter, and I've concluded that while there have been leaps and bounds of improvement towards this being an article, it still contains too many lists to be one of our best. If this came up at Featured Lists, I would probably still support it there, as the list content is pretty heavy and still seems to be the focus of the page. Nearly all the information currently contained in lists could be re-written as prose... heck, much of it already has! Why not go all the way with the rest of it, and get rid of all these objections once and for all. Fieari 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, I just inserted those maps for editing/commenting/etc. You don't have to object to the FAC for that. We can solve it in the talk (and it is being discussed as we speak). Now for the prose, we tried to get rid of it all, three times (see above). It doesn't work, because the present format is simply unbeatable! The present format is:
[[Macedonia/n/s (foo)|Macedonia/n/s]] (as in foo) refers...
This is a hell of a way to illustrate that... we all mouse-over in our brains when we use those terms! :NikoSilver: 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason stability is a FA requirement... for situations like these. Fieari 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Right. Only we're not talking POV reverts here, I just drew some new maps for God's sake! You and others don't like them? Fine! I'll revert. Now if you mean stability vs prose, then I think you're right. The article's prose has multiplied. If it came up at FLC's, I'd dump it because of too much prose! :NikoSilver: 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the article now is exactly as it was before your latest objection, with two minors:
  • Changed grey maps to colorful sat-maps. This may be changed back to the originals if you feel they are too colorful.
  • Added the (attempted) intro template below in the 'Notes' section to create attention, as this section is quite important. This too may be deleted later if the rest of the editors do not agree.
Please participate in talk and state your opinion for this trivial issue.:NikoSilver: 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, I'd first discuss at the talk page, address these concerns, look for any previous replies and then, if nothing has been done, change my vote. Are you sure these are lists and not bulleted paragraphs (and they're as limited in number as possible now!), because that's what I think they are? I wouldn't ever object because I don't like the TOC and the large quote over the image too, I'd fix and make it look it the way I like it. It's a wiki. And that's just my opinion anyway :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a Macedonia-related article without any edit wars?? Amazing! :p —Khoikhoi 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The older maps were better, and especially the last map is completely unreadable. I'm also not sure I like the quotes above the pictures. —Nightstallion (?) 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, support, support. This one deserves to be a featured article and I won't ever let it fail because of objections I mostly find silly, childish and ungrounded ("don't like the quote above the image", "it has too many references", "liked the old maps better", "can't stand bullets", etc.) People, just have a look at this thing — it's a thorough, perfectly-referenced, neutral, well-written and informative, extremely useful, unbelievably necessary article on a topic that has puzzled and continues to puzzle Europe and the world. Consider the immense work needed to create this, think about the impact it's going to have on all related articles that are currently packed with bias and confusion, think whether your objections really sound serious compared to the article's overall quality, scale and impact, and then vote. I call upon everyone — let's not be small-minded, but instead appreciate the real value of things. Todor→Bozhinov 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors would stop dismissing the formatting objections (lists) as "ungrounded" then this would be a featured article. Stop trying to convince us that the topic is worthy of featured status and start convincing us that the article is worthy of featured status. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists or bulleted paragraphs? IMHO the bullets only provide clarity and are actually very useful (you're using them at this very page to separate your comment from the others). The article contains as much prose as possible, but some things are actually worse as lists (for example, ever thought how messy this FAC page would look de-bulleted?). Could you please specifically say which lists exactly you're referring to, and how you would solve the problems you believe there are with them? I'm sure Niko, Francis or whoever else (me including) would be glad to improve the formatting if what you suggest would really be an improvement. Also, perphaps you've got me wrong; I've never meant it's because of the topic that the article should be featured — but its current and future impact on the topic's Wikipedia coverage is more than remarkable — take that in consideration. And that impact is because of its undispited pure quality. Todor→Bozhinov 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joelito, we did our best in three attempts to meet your requirements ([2], [3], and [4]). Your approach is highly unconstructive. None of your comments has contributed anything to the article (unlike the comments of all others). You didn't even respond if you thought the third attempt was in the right path. Can you specify what exactly it is you want? Do you want maybe to push characterise the 'bird lists' as articles as well through this opposition? I see you've created many of them... :NikoSilver: 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the following (a) "typical list entry" or (b) "full-fledged paragraph that has been bulleted"?
  • Please respond below...:NikoSilver: 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments/Update:
      • Thanks Todor, I won't say that this is exactly the way I feel, for ...diplomatic reasons.
      • All of Fieari's concerns were dealt with in the present version.
      • Regarding new maps/templates, there are some options discussed in the article's talk. Nightstallion, Fieari, Todor and everybody else with an opinion/idea, is free to state it there. Maybe we'll end up with something even better.
    • Hope that covers it all.:NikoSilver: 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support -- Great article! I agree with Todor. My one comment is this: I think the Etymology section should have three bullets, as it includes one line descriptions of three separate theories. -- Rmrfstar 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha ha! Thanks. However, your proposal would make those one line descriptions look like a 'list' to some people... I'll do the opposite there: I'll join all sentences in one paragraph as it was in the beginning. These sentences were split in order to lengthen the section so that it would align with the TOC, which used to be to the left of the section text. The TOC is now above, so I'll just merge the section back. :NikoSilver: 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I objected during the previous nomination, primarily due to the lack of references and some awkward sentences, but believe that the article is much improved. I don't mind the use of bulleted paragraphs as they add to the clarity of the article. I have a few minor thoughts/comments which i'll post here:
    • Etymology: I'm pleased that you included an etymology section. "Αccording to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians." It would help to provide an inline citation to an online English translation for the appropriate point in Herodotus Histories. Likewise for Homer.
    • In History: Was there a region or administrative area called Macedonia within the first or second bulgarian empires? It may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that the Macedonia region was incorporated into the Byzantine empire as the thema of Bulgaria?
    • In Geography: It would be helpful to know the size of Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo, and Gora and Prohor Pchinski, to give an idea of how they compare to the major sub-regions.
    • In Demographics: "Macedo-Romanians" - is there an approximate figure for the number of Macedo-Romanians?
    • In Demographics: "As of 2001 the inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia, who in their vast majority self-identify as Bulgarians, are 341,245." It may be worth mentioning the number of people who identified as ethnic macedonians in the 2001 census - 3,117?
    • In Politics: "The term came to be used following a naming dispute with Greece." It would be helpful to provide the year when the term FYROM came into use (1993?) and the source of the term (the United Nations?).

Good luck with the remainder of the nomination process. Jazriel 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support, as in the old discussion. One tiny suggestion would be to outline somehow the Bulgarian flag in the terminology section, so that the top white stripe doesn't blend into the white background. Another: the Churchill quote isn't really relevant, as the article obviously doesn't deal with the entire Balkan region, just one small part, and the fact that it produces "more history than it can consume" isn't really relevant, as the article isn't (solely) about history. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectNeutral Incomplete: 2b. Omits the meaning with which the 1911 Britannica begins: a district of European Turkey stretching from Salonica to Üsküb . This contained several Ottoman administrative districts, but the Western usage is clear, and became international in the Mürzsteg Programme. Septentrionalis 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that "Geographical Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No; it was treated as a political entity in 1904; also, the statement is that Macedonia was not used on maps for several centuries is extremely misleading, since it was so used as soon as there began to be maps of the interior of the Balkan Peninsula in English. Septentrionalis 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the main issue. The point about maps may be unintentional ambiguity. If these can be resolved stably, I shall strike this objection. Septentrionalis 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial concerns are dealt with, for now. I see the colored map has been discused before; but who supports it? The present version is
  • I think the list in the early history section could be better as prose. There is an annoying self-reference in the first caption - "For more details see the boundaries and definitions section in Macedonia (region)." - and there is still at least one "citation needed" tag. If this fac fails I would encourage running again soon at it is a very good article on a touchy subject. RN 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yikes. I supported last time and I guess that means I still do. I still think it looks great, if anything better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me. Mieciu K 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is simply too much article here for it to ever be able to pass Featured List Candidates, so I do not accept that as ground for exclusion. Beyond that, I think it fulfills all the criteria for FA. Andrew Levine 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I would like to support; my comments are not enough for oppose, but here they are. All pretty minor.
  • I'd like to see the [citation needed] tags dealt with.
  • I believe the etymology section slightly mis-states one of the hypotheses. The main article linked to says that there is an unattested word form that is hypothesized to be the basis of the name; this is rephrased in this article to be an "unattested hypothesis". This isn't really right. Struck since I went ahead and fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to create a stub for Crna hills, to avoid a redlink.
I would support if the citation needed tags are replaced with citations. I should add that I do not see the lists as a problem; they are a good, clean way to present data that is inherently better treated this way than in prose. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While obviously done by someone with a mission to 'show the facts' with regard to the region and dispute, it is featured-worthy. Extra kudos for its neutrality. michael talk 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I understand the objections of other users, but I must underscore that this is one of the best-constructed, best-referenced and best-worked articles I've ever seen.--Yannismarou 09:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well, the bullets in this article improves the clarity of the way the article is being presented, which makes it a vety good read. Moreover, the extensive notes and references in this article more than proves its accuracy. It is also written in a NPOV style which is comprehensive as well. This is indeed a great article and I wish to offer my compliments to the respective editors who toiled very hard on this subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to all contributors and to all those who made productive comments. This article has been tremendously improved since nomination. On a lighter note, maybe I should stick to having such long wikibreaks! :NikoSilver: 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Smith

This is a self-nomination. Elliott Smith is a good article which has had all the issues at its first FAC nomination and its peer review resolved as far as I know. - Phorque 19:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright status is not settled for all images. No reson to oppose, however, the article is quite high-quality. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thought this was ready by the end of the last FAC, and it's improved even more since then. Fg2 07:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I made some suggestions in the PR that weren't taken onboard (there's still, for example, no mention of Thumbsucker) ;-) Great article, though, appears to have had most if not all of its issues cleared up, extremely well-referenced (as it needs to be, for the various pieces of controversy surrounding Elliott's life and death). Maybe I'm biased as a fan, but I'd like to see this on the front page, and I think it does him justice. Although it'd be nice if the article made mention of his distinctive vocal styles (his voice itself, the double tracking, etc.) Seb Patrick 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a bash at including those in the article. - Phorque 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See "Final years and death". - Phorque 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool :-) I just think it's an interesting point to raise, as it demonstrates that his life wasn't in a complete downward spiral when he died, and that he was (or at least appeared to be) upbeat and enthusiastic about some things. Plus, unless I'm much mistaken, the two covers represent his final ever recorded work, do they not? Anyway, a nicely-done addition that only serves to enhance my support vote. Seb Patrick 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trouble" is supposedly the last thing he recorded, but I'm pretty certain that "Thirteen" was recorded during at least 1997 or earlier. Shamrox 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in order to enhance readability, you might want to turn the soundclips into inline soundclips whenever possible (especially with "Miss Misery") and possibly do away with the album image gallery in the discography (which most featured articles on bands/musicians don't have). WesleyDodds 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the soundclip idea. However, I don't see having the album images there much of a problem so unless somebody can object on other grounds than "all the featured kids are doing it", I'll just leave them there. - Phorque 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are kind of redundant, given some of them show up in the body of the article anyway. WesleyDodds 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia:Music samples states that should be distinguished in boxes and not inlined with text in oder to justify fair use. Therefore it would be better to include them back into boxes. CG 17:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot I also did that. - Phorque 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't album covers not applicable to the unfree image rule? Shamrox 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, also consider what Miles Davis' featured article looks like. - Phorque 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added rationales. If they aren't good enough, I just give up. So there. Someone else can do that. - Phorque 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brooke-Little

John Brooke-Little was a great heraldic author and supporter. He did more in the last half-century to promote heraldry than any other individual to promote its understanding. This article has been previously nominated, peer-reviewed and very much improved. It is currently listed as a "Good Article," but I think that it has what it takes to be a FA.--Forlornandshorn 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Much great work has been done since this was last up for FA. It looks like editors have taken all of the advice to heart and have produced a very nice and well referenced article. Interesting character! --Holymoly888 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Llywelyn the Great

Battle of Rennell Island

I respectfully self-nominate this article on a naval battle from World War II for Featured Article consideration. The article was peer reviewed, reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA, and received key edits by Wwoods and others. Cla68 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cla68 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. ^_^ -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cameron Crowe

Final Fantasy VI

I think this article is close to the level of Final Fantasy VIII. Both articles have similar styles and whatnot; the prose may need work, but I'll leave you guys as the judges of that. I'll keep this nom short, since I basically explained everything on the FF8 nomination below. — Deckiller 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nom/Support: Pretty much what Deckiller said above and what we both said below. This article's pretty solid, I think. There might be a few spots where things could be better, but that's what you guys are here to determine. Overall, like Deck, I feel that it's about level with FFVIII below. Ryu Kaze 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nom/support. Improved a lot since it was last nominated and failed. Then, the censorship section was overdone, now it has been toned down. Then, there were only three references, now there are thirty-five. It's definitely on par with FFVIII (and in a way I feel it's better, but that's just me). Redundancies and weasel words are pretty much gone. Crazyswordsman 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is truly amazing to see how the article has changed since I nominated it last year. The quality of it has improved dramatically and the editors who lead the recent round of improvements to it should be commended. Great job guys. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support The development section doesn't have a single inline citation. Once that's fixed, full support. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The reception section is pretty skimpy considering this is commonly listed by critics as one on the greatest games of all time. This article is well on its way, but it's lacking significant discussion of what the critics particularly found so great about it --someone who had never played this game would not have a sense of what made it so special and historically important, ie, the unusual depth (and length) of story, the unique visual aesthetic, etc. Also, am I correct in my recollection that this was the first RPG to juggle such a large cast of playable characters? I would love to see an FA on this, but considering it's one of the most beloved games of all time, I feel this article is incomplete without giving the reader a sense of what set it apart from other games of its era. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, it would be difficult to reference. Crazyswordsman 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we do make mention of FFVI having the largest FF cast, but the problem with what critics thought of the game is how old it is. There's certainly reviews buried in 12 year old issues of gaming magazines somewhere, but most of us don't have those and the most we've been able to find online were some scores that were given out back then (which I was surprised to find even that). Nonetheless, I certainly understand the concern with this section and felt much the same. It's just that given our limitations, I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about it. Of course, that just makes the information all the more valuable. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I found a retroreview by RPGamer and a review from IGN for the Anthology version. They make some comments about the effect rendered at the time of the original release, so that'll have to do, I think. I'll try working them in. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I've gone back and made a ton of edits to the Reception area. I believe it should now address your concerns, Lee. Thank you for your input and please let us know if there's more that could be done. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reception and criticism looks much better now, Ryu. I'll see if I can find anything to fix later tonight.— Deckiller 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looking better -- speedy work! I'd still like to see a smidge more in the "gameplay" section acknowledging what was new to FF in this game (the esper-system, and possibly the degree of customization allowed for by the equipment/relic system). Also, if I'm correctly remembering that this was the first FF to allow the player to use hi-tech weaponry, that's probably deserving of a nod. Incidentally, has anyone tried a proquest/magazine database search at their local libray? I'm not sure how commonly game magazines are archived, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one else has. I believe in particular, old Nintendo Power magazines are not especially rare. Overall, good work, though. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the fast response. I'll see if there's a way to fit in the stuff about Relics, as I believe you're right with regard to their innovative inclusion. As for hi-tech weaponry, there's only one character who uses any (Edgar), but I'll see if there's any way to fit it into the flow. Thanks. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've addressed these matters. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support wonderful game, and the article is more deserving of the FA than ever. igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object – The Game Boy Advance section should probably have a future game tag. The Reception and criticism has absolutely no criticism whatsoever. Additionally, the PlayStation section needs work:
The only notable changes to gameplay involve the correction of a few software bugs from the original, the addition of new bugs and the addition of a new "memo save" feature, allowing players to quickly save their progress to the PlayStation's RAM. The rerelease included other special features, such as a bestiary and artwork gallery.
I believe the addition of a cutscene is also notable. What bugs were fixed, what bugs were created in the process? Source, if possible. ♠ SG →Talk 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's one in the story section. Crazyswordsman 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the future game tag, but I'm not seeing quite how the Reception and criticism section is lacking in criticism. It features two paragraphs of it. Two paragraphs of substantial size, in fact. Criticism isn't just negative views of something. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's merely the act of analyzing something and passing judgement on it. Even were it only negative, though, there's quite a bit of negative criticism in the second paragraph.
I'll see if I can find out what added cutscene you're referring for adding to that sentence you quoted, by the way (you weren't referring to the FMVs were you? Those are mentioned earlier in the paragraph and aren't changes to gameplay anyway), and also see if I can get us a source on the bugs. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SG, I've added the future game template and gotten some references for the bugs, as well as added a few other references throughout the article. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Nothing but support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has come a long way. Tarret 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many thanks for your supports. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, I have to object. It's well written, and the flurry of activity recently has only served to improve it further. But that's a problem in and of itself: the last time this was brought up for FAC, I had to concede that the article was just being too much, and too quickly, following the initial FAC posting. At this point, the article does not appear to be stable, one of the listed requirements for featured articles. Obviously, this is no fault of the editors who've toiled away at the thing, and I'm loathe to respond this way, but there you go. – Seancdaug 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • During an FAC, changes made in accordance with other things brought up wouldn't count toward an instability problem I would think. It would either be leave things that people are saying is wrong with it, or fix them. Unless you mean all the work done immediately prior to the FAC, in which case no one would have nominated it for FA in the first place without that. All that work was performed for the purpose of getting it ready for the nomination. Looking at it with these newest changes, it's very likely to remain as it is unless another problem is brought up here that needs to be addressed. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Ryu said, addressing concerns during an FAC doesn't count towards instability. The article was pretty much stable for several months, and edits made in good faith don't necessarilly make an article instable, especially when only three or four editors are touching it. Crazyswordsman 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sean, the stability criteria was designed for instances where the article was undergoing massive swings of changes based on an edit war, not improvements. — Deckiller 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully disagree. The stability required was designed to ensure that the article was stable. Period. Featured articles should be the kind of article that we can cite in a scholarly manner, and feel reasonably safe that, when we come back in a few months, little of substance will have changed. In particular, Crazyswordsman, it's not an issue of good vs. bad faith, and I appreciate that the changes have not only been made in good faith, but have served to improve the article. There's nothing wrong with an article being edited and adjusted to improve it as needed. And, quite frankly, I'd prefer that such positive changes be made even if it results a period of relative instability. But until the article reaches a point where it is obvious that it will "not change significantly from day to day" ("and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars," not "because it is the subject of ongoing edit wars"), it's cannot be cited as a reliable, scholarly source. And if it cannot be cited as such, for whatever reason, it's not ready to be featured. It tears me up to vote like this, and I don't want to slap you guys in the face for all your hard work and the superb article you've produced, but there's still the one additional factor of time, and and that's pretty much out of anyone's hands. Again, I'm really horribly sorry, everyone. – Seancdaug 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has gone a long way. I also looked at the edit summary and saw Crazyswordman, Ryu Kaze, Hibana, and deckiller's hard work to make this of FA status. Extreme support here. -ScotchMB 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Renmiri; I've never played the game either and I've always been a bit mystified as to the frenzy it invokes among FF fans; the article explains it well. I imagine that's a large part of what brings people to this article - "what's the big deal about this game, anyway?" - and that's definitely answered. Great job, guys. -RaCha'ar 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I imagine every FF game will one day be featured! Did a thorough read of the article and liked it. Nice work. Thunderbrand 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to hold things up! The changes that have been made here are all for the better -- good work again. I had a few little nagging qualms about the respresentation of critical response, so I went looking for sources, and found some old Nintendo Power issues that cover the game, as well as a reference to EGM's coverage. I was going to quickly add these things in order to avoid slowing things up, but by the time I re-touched the relevant sections, I felt iffy about it, especially considering that stability issues have been raised above. I decided to split the difference and place what I came up with in my sandbox, here. The article is really well done in any case, so please consider my vote a Weak Support without any changes, or Full Support with some reference to mention of the game's critical standing in the lead -- my version does not have to be taken literally, but take whatever's useful. Sorry to be extra-picky. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much, Lee. Your research into this matter is also very much appreciated. I'll certainly be adding some of that info to the article. I realize Sean has some concerns over stability, but making the article's content the best it can be comes first. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks from me for everybody's input. I don't have much time during the week to monitor the article and debates, so I'll just make this a universal thanks for everyone's input from today. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objections all satisfied now, and as I read this over, it looks very much like an FA to me. Thanks for a great CVG article. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your constructive input and the aid you offered with those additional criticism references. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger

Self-Nomination. Article has been almost completely rewritten and sourced with almost 50 notes and 7 regular references. Images now have strong fair use rationale and fancruft / weasel words / POV have been cut out. Excess sections have been split to sister articles. Main article is now stable with no major contributions coming in. Article assisted by expert contribution. Any OBJECTs will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for commenting. --Zeality 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed due to discussion at CVG (Spoiler Tags). I haven't read it myself yet; I'll check it out. --Zeality 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I was hoping that this would be as well written as Final Fantasy VIII below, but no such luck. Please find someone to copy-edit the whole text thoroughly. Here are examples from the top.
  • "Chrono Trigger was developed by a group named the "Dream Team" by Squaresoft". What is "Squaresoft"?
  • "composer of Final Fantasy games". Should there be a "the" somewhere here?
  • "Traveling place to place is accomplished through the use of a "world map", which depicts the lay of the land". "From" needed somewhere; I think it's "lie of the land", but perhaps a more formal word, such as "landscape" or "topography" would be better (not sure).
  • "... role-playing gameplay. Players ..." "Play..." occurs three times in three words.
  • "... can converse with locals to procure items or other services ...". "Or" should be "and". This is the second sentence in this para that finishes with an "other" phrase, which is vague.
  • "Many tools exist to help the player, including weapons, armor, helmets, consumable items, and accessories that provide a special effect in battle". Clumsy start to this sentence; why not "Players are assisted by tools such as weapons,..."? Surely "a special effect" should be pluralised.
  • " For both player and enemy, each attack reduces the hit points of its victim; they can be restored through potions or spells". ", which" would be better than "; they". And it's "the store/number of hitpoints", isn't it?
  • "... must be restored from a previous saved chapter." Surely "previously"?
  • "... and progress through the plot until a final battle with the strongest enemy occurs." Last word redundant. Tony 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These points have been taken care of.
      • Just to update, the article has been massively copyedited since then. --Zeality 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strange. I thought I had responded here already. Anyway, as Zeality said, the entire thing has now been copyedited from top-to-bottom (even the External Links), and various changes have been made throughout. Please give it another look. Ryu Kaze 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just so everyone's aware, we've left a couple of requests on Tony's talk page for additional comments, but I guess he's been unable to respond so far. Ryu Kaze 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I performed a minor copyedit, but the prose still needs some work in the plot section down. Good things to watch out for are excessive compound sentences, short sentences, and awkward wording caused by an attempt to compress information. I agree with tony; it needs a minor to moderate copyedit from someone different. — Deckiller 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (Edit conflict; I'll see if some of this no longer applies) I don't want to object, given that there's lots of good information and signs of effort here, but I can't offer support either at the moment. There's various things that need to be retouched throughout, particularly where the prose is concerned. At times, wording just doesn't flow smoothly (ex: "Contact with enemies causes a battle, in which players must defeat the monsters or the game ends...") and has some redundancy.
Also, there's not really a lot of exposition for gameplay elements. The description of the world map, for instance, doesn't allude to what this means where landscape-to-town scale is concerned. The same is true of the Techs. Obviously you want to describe how these concepts are implemented, but you want to balance that with what the concepts mean and how that relates to this overall concept of standard RPG gameplay.
The Story section needs to be more comprehensive, and shouldn't be rushing itself quite as hard as it is. As thing stand, it's moving at such a breakneck pace that it would be very difficult for someone who is unfamiliar with the game to follow it. Also, lose the parenthetical notations (ex: "they challenge this man (named Magus)..."; "This kingdom (named Zeal)..."). Touch on all of the game's major story arcs and their resolutions. In doing so, the pacing should be a lot more comfortable and you wouldn't have these sentences that sound like they're trying to include everything in a single breath, which leads to the inclusion of parenthetical notations, and the like.
I know you're probably concerned with length, but being comprehensive is more important than length. Don't try molding the article to fit some imaginary standard of length. The only standard of length is that it cover everything important and do it with clarity without going into the territory of detail that only fans would look for.
To give you an example of how you could rework this: "After defeating the Heckran, the party learns that a powerful sorceror named 'Magus' apparently created Lavos during the Middle Ages. They then travel back to 600 A.D. to defeat him before he can create the creature, and soon learn of a legendary sword called the 'Masamune', said to be required to defeat Magus. After discovering the broken pieces of the weapon and acquiring the ancient mineral needed to repair it, they recruit Frog, who is now revealed to the player to have been the friend of its former owner, Cyrus. Etc."
Chrono Trigger's story isn't even very long by RPG standards (and a heck of a lot easier to describe than Chrono Cross'), so you can easily fit a comprehensive summary in. Also, you're going to probably want to introduce the Characters section first to give readers some familiarity and backstory before getting into the thick of the "main event". Think of it like that: preliminary bout(s) and main event. You want to introduce enough material previously for the reader to know who you're referring to when you bring up a main character in the Story section. By the way, you shouldn't bold the character names. It's somewhat distracting to the reader and not terribly necessary. You really don't want to use bolding on more than the primary title and its other names (when it has some).
There's some good information further down, but some of it is a bit trivia-ish and therefore expendable. You could probably retain a good bit of it through compression (ex: "It also featured an 'extras' mode. Each ending reached unlocks more of the following: all 10 of the added anime movies, 69 songs from the game including the extras menu songs, statistics on all the monsters, a list of all of the endings with a screenshot from each, an art gallery with 16 anime-style drawings of characters, a list of all characters' techs, descriptions of the bosses with strategies, and a "treasure map" which shows the locations of hidden items"-->"It also featured an 'extras' mode, including an anime cutscene viewer, concept art gallery, music box and enemy bestiary"), while other bits should be dropped altogether (ex: "Nearly half of all auctions at a given time label the game rare, though around thirty copies are constantly available. The misconception of rarity is probably created by the game's comparatively high price to other SNES titles'. In a study lasting a week, cartridges were found around $36.00 while full games netted around $90. A range of other games, mostly sold in lesser numbers, usually sold under the $10.00 mark.[13] Confirming the findings is the Digital Press rarity guide, which lists the game as common"). Really, you could condense the different releases info by as much as 30%, though you should keep mention of the notable fan-attempted remakes and how SE put a stop to them.
The Reception section contains too much use of the game's title and doesn't have enough critical response information. I know some of that can be difficult to get given the game's age, but if you can at least find how various magazines scored the game at the time of its release (do include rerelease scores too, particularly how X magazine rated it then and how they rated it later) and anything that might have liked or disliked about it, that would help a lot.
Finally, you could pretty easily condense the sequels section. Each part doesn't need to have its own header. The OVA should be set to itself (perhaps at the end), while the Satellaview entries (which are only a small paragraph) should include Radical Dreamers, which would then logically lead into mention of Chrono Cross and the fact that the latter used elements of the former and superceded it in canon hierarchy. From there, you could logically lead into future developments of the series (or the lack thereof, as the case happens to be). You want sections to flow into one another smoothly and reasonably. As it stands, the list-style is not only unnecessary and aesthetically unappealing, but it simply doesn't flow well.
Anyway, there's a lot of good stuff in there, but the presentation on much of it falls short. Also, do look into expanding the Story and Reception. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the prose is looking a bit better with the recent edits, but it still has some ways to go. I might try to help out later on if I have time. Ryu Kaze 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll work fastidiously. A fresh pair of eyes will definitely help. After cutting the references out (lots of text), I've found that the main article itself isn't quite as long as I thought. I'll definitely expand the story section if it isn't a problem. I'll be back to post when my copyedit drive is complete for the time being. --Zeality 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll separate this for ease of location. I've got a question about shortening the different versions section. What should we do with those small mini-CVG template boxes? Chrono Cross has a special section for its boxart, and since those boxes could no longer fit in a shortened section, perhaps we could do something in this vein? --Zeality 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, it's done. I fixed up everything in tune except the reception, in that we might have to find someone with back issues of EGM to get another source for the 1995 release. I added some commentary from Nintendo Power to make it more descriptive as a remedy, though. Also fixed references and added some story ones. --Zeality 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another question about references. Back when we had actual quotes, it seemed necessary to list the same source several times (one for each quote). Now, we just have a bunch of identical Nintendo Powers floating around in the references section. Should we simply take the first reference and add <ref name="firstreference name" /> in place of all the other ones for multiple references? --Zeality 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that would probably be best unless you identify which specific page is being referred to in each case. As long as you're referring to the whole group of pages from the review, there might as well be only one umbrella reference. Ryu Kaze 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, sadly. The article is much better than many other CVG ones, but I do not like the fact that, to add sources, Chrono Compendium did specific researches (in example, www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Chrono_Trigger_Price_Study.html). For me, that is original research, as there is no difference between that and doing my own research, uploading it to GeoCities, and then using it as resource. Also, Image:Radical Dreamers Frozen Flame.png has no Fair use rationale, and Image:CT Pre-release.jpg and Image:Ctsnesjapanboxart.jpg are too high resolution. I tagged them with {{fairusereduce}}. -- ReyBrujo 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, the research was done by a Wikipedia editor. And I am not sure I would calify Chrono Compendium as a reliable independant source. There are other "technicisms" (as like the information should come from several independant sources), but I am happy the image ones have been settled (which are likely to get the most negative reviews). -- ReyBrujo 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The auction data can be completely removed anyhow when we shorten the versions; it's not exactly relevant to the article. We'll just use the Digital Press guide to say it's marked as a common game. The other sources from the Compendium shouldn't be a problem; there are only 7 or 8, and they're all fan translation / prerelease / rom hack stuff done months ago. No professional journal or magazine will ever cover these, and they aren't of pressing importance to the article's main points (what CT is, its story, etc.) They also form a minority of the references. Can you list anything else wrong with the article? I'm about to fix up the references and experiment in shortening versions (as well as addressing Ryu Kaze's other notes). --Zeality 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two "studies", What is CT's worst flaw? (www.chronocompendium.com/Stories/37.html) and Chrono Cross: The Good, The Bad, and The Fans (www.chronocompendium.com/Stories/36.html). And the price one. If you remove or change the price one, I will change my vote to neutral. If you change or remove the other two, I will change it to support. Sorry, but for me, that is original research. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely! Okay, I'm about to look for more review sources, so I'll try and pull out a review describing the game as a tad short. That would take care of that one. The price one has been orbitally nuked along with the rest of the unimportant auction rabble. The Chrono Cross one can probably be remedied by finding a review that criticizes the direction. That might take a while, but I should have a lot of sources to go through. Time to rock and roll. --Zeality 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck with finding some refs. Hope you can. Ryu Kaze 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's done. Auction stuff is gone, and two game review references each exist for the short play time and poor handling of the plot / direction for Chrono Cross. --Zeality 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, changed my vote to Support, if it is still valid (I have worked in some formatting in the article some months ago). I would suggest adding a link to Nintendo page about the game (www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-677, even if it has little information, it is the only official link). And to create a subsection for Non official sites. -- ReyBrujo 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Worked on this article months ago, taken much needed leaps in quality and copyediting, looks fantastic. Judgesurreal777 22:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I condensed the Sequels section. While there was some great info in there, I think that some of it was a bit fluffy for this article. Things are looking a lot better in there and I now offer my support. I'd still like to see somre more work done, though, and I'll probably try doing some more copyedits later myself. Ryu Kaze 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I just remembered something I meant to mention earlier: the info in the second paragraph of the lead needs to be added to a Development section, and that second paragraph should be used more to try summarizing the article. For examples, check out Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII. I might do it later if no one else beats me to it. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, Zeality, if I've gone overboard any on edits, I apologize. I don't know if you remember me from GameFAQs or not, but I recognize and respect your work and dedication with regard to the Chrono series and its fans (your Chrono Compendium site is a gem to the fan community), so I gave a bit more focus to someone else's FAC efforts than I might have normally done. I don't want to step on your toes or impede your personal pride where this article's construction is concerned, so I think I might just try to restrict my aid to constructive criticism from here on. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here; I think I also went a little overboard earlier today. — Deckiller 02:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem at all. Doing this article has been quite an experience, and once it gets Featured Article status, it'll bring some new life to the community. I've learned a lot about editing, and in the process, I've made a good article and hope to get Radical Dreamers the same status. The CT article is totally fluid as far as I'm concerned. Veritas omnia vincit, truth is beauty, let the facts speak for themselves, and all that...we've made the article much more informative and truthful. I'm really thankful for all the help; I've been trying to get some assistance at the Compendium, but there's always a certain pervasive laziness over there. I hardly expected the assistance, and I'm completely grateful. If there's anything else to do before it can get FA, by god, we'd better do it. I'm ready! --Zeality 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am having a little trouble finding a place for the developer information. It's a small paragraph, and would fall on its face as a one paragraph section. It could be stuck with Audio, but it'd still be relatively small and unrelated there. I've noticed that other CVG articles list that sort of stuff in the lead. Could we just add the proposed article summary in the middle and have the developer information round it out? --Zeality 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, glad you didn't take offense. Anyway, after thinking over what you've pointed out, without extra development information it might be best to leave that developer info in the lead after all. The most development info otherwise is for the audio, and this wouldn't mesh well there, even under a "Development" header with "Audio" as a sub-header. I might do a slight copyedit on the lead, though. Ryu Kaze 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ryu, you're amazing as ever. You should become admin. Crazyswordsman 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ryu isn't the type to need to be bogged down by administrative duties. Plus, the RfC issue may cause him a lot of opposition. I tried to nominate him once before. He is an asset to the editing community, and I'd hate to see him leave over admin claptrap. — Deckiller 03:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, it's appreciated, CS, but I don't think I'm the type. I'm sure there are plenty of duties involved that I'm not accustomed to and probably wouldn't mesh with my random, but obsessive approach to editing (lazy in 99% of cases, but then 100% dedicated to a particular article or mission of the moment, like adding references to all FFX and FFVII story pages, or changing "computer role-playing game" to "console role-playing game" on the summaries of over 100 image pages) and my attitude's probably not best-suited for it. I can follow rules that I've agreed to follow, but were it personally up to me, I'd have absolutely no patience with vandals or stupid people. It's probably best that I stick to just being the best editor I can be. Ryu Kaze 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, Zeality, I meant to recommend it earlier: at one point, it was suggested to us during construction of the Final Fantasy X page that we only completely write out our referenced information when it came to script references. For things like interviews and such at other websites, it was said that we should just leave it at a referenced link. We were doing it the same way you've been doing it (which identifies specifically what's being referred to, and seemed like a good idea to me), but we were informed that it's best to leave it at just the link, as anyone looking for the info would find it anyway by following the link. It also prevents you from having a lot of extra wording within paragraphs that future edits could stumble over. Ryu Kaze 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went ahead and took care of condensing all the references that needed to be, and adding cite book and cite web templates to them. I also gave the lead a copyedit that mostly consisted of rearranging the sentences. I think I'll take a break from it for now. Ryu Kaze 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've made a copyedit to the reception section. We really need more critical response info. I'm going to try to find some. Ryu Kaze 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, good news. I've found a review on IGN and one on RPGamer. I also remembered that I have a magazine review from when the game was rereleased on the PlayStation. We should be good to go. I'm going to make some adjustments. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, the Reception and criticism section should be good to go. There's not a lot of negative criticism, but there's not a lot of negative criticism about the game in reviews in the first place. There's still some work that needs to be done throughout with prose and such, and some of the images need a little licensing tweaks, but it's looking a lot better. Ryu Kaze 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Images taken care of. Ryu Kaze 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd just like to comment now that I've given a copyedit to every section except the Plot areas, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm sure they're going to be of quality. Out of all the sections I've gone through since further edits were made by Zeality, Deckiller and Crazyswordsman, I've not had to make any ground-up changes (with the exception, of course, being the Reception and criticism section). Mostly it's been tweaking wording and punctuation for flow, or rearranging the placement of a few sentences. The information in these sections has been good, relevant info that should definitely have been included. Good work to everybody involved. I might not perform a copyedit of the Plot section tonight, but if I don't, I'll certainly get to at some point in the next 24 hours. Ryu Kaze 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain besides my despise for CT , the article, well, is more detailed than Final Fantasy VI, and I still think the second is better (must be the huge paragraphs in CT). igordebraga ≠ 16:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPOILER TAGS Please add much-needed spoiler tags to the plot. I think documenting the entire journey is overkill and people who havent played the game may accidentally spoil the story for themselves.
    • Spoiler tags aren't needed. The Plot section is very clearly marked "Plot" and its divided Character and Story sub-sections are also clearly marked. Anyone looking at those sections and not expecting to find plot details isn't going to be saved by a spoiler tag.
    • And touching on the game's entire story is not overkill. This is an encyclopedia, which is defined as a comprehensive body of information. You don't come to an encyclopedia if you don't want comprehensive overviews. Ryu Kaze 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a pass through the gameplay section. The section is starting to read and flow more like an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a lot better, so I've struck out my object. But please fix things like: "Each character can take action in battle" ("can be active in battle"? I'm unsure; perhaps it's a standard expression in this context.) I wondered about the use of "tomboy" in "an active, spirited tomboy often at odds with her father"—Does that mean that a sprited girl is a tomboy, but a spirited boy is ... just being a guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 July 2006
    • It doesn't mean that she is so spirited that she is a tomboy, it merely means she is a spirited girl who is also a tomboy. A spirited boy could "just be a guy", or any number of other things, just like the girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steampowered (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 July 2006
      • Yeah, Steampowered explained it. As for the "action in battle" line, that is actually more... to the point, I guess, in this context, since it's a turn-based battle system and their meter has to refill each time. Thanks for getting back to us, by the way, Tony. Ryu Kaze 11:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This article has progressed quite far since just a couple months ago, and I feel that this article gives an excellent description of this game. If I had not already played this game before, there wouldn't be much more I could learn about this game that I haven't already read about in this article. (Steampowered 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - You guys have done an excellent job on this article, and I think it's FA quality. --PresN 03:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since there is so much text struck out here, here's a summary of the discussion to date: 8 Supports/Strong supports; 1 Abstain, 1 Spoiler Tags, 1 Support dependant on spoiler tags, 0 Objects. --PresN 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As someone who has touched up the article from time to time and watched it evolve into the outstanding piece of work it is today, I do believe it's FA material. ~ Hibana 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandy Moore Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andy Lau

Salvador Dalí

Restarting old nomination - many objections, most of which were addressed. Raul654 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nice job.Rlevse 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I feel that the article is a bit under-referenced. One potential POV example is "In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory." How do we know this is his most famous work? Who says? I mean... it clearly is, but since it is, someone is sure to have said so, right? But in general, most of "Later years in Catalonia" is simply unreferenced. Fieari 18:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a non-contentious fact such as "In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory." be referenced? If there is no debate about it (and I agree that there isn't) then it does not need to be cited. No need to cite common knowledge. Joelito (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the way we do things around here. It's important to reassure our readers of the quality of articles, and it helps everyone to resist the temptation to include original research. Some editors work very hard to ensure that every point in their article is fully referenced before they submit it to FAC, and it would be unkind not to hold others to the same standard. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way we do things wrongly here. If I state that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun do I need to cite this? Come on, common knowledge does not need to be cited. Even worse is objecting because of one missing citation. Can you specify any other areas where citations are needed? Joelito (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the time it took you to write that response you could have easily found and added a reference for the statement. Don't be so defensive. Fieari was only offering constructive criticism. Kaldari 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference for the statement and edited it to say it is "one of Dali's most famous works" rather than "the most famous", as this is how it is decribed by the Salvador Dali Mesuem (which is the source I used for the reference). Kaldari 22:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well compare Feari's objection to SG's statement. SG clearly states where he feels the article is unreferenced and thus his objections are actionable. I don't mind the objection but prefer actionable objections unless the article is really far from being a FA. Joelito (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support – The article is great as it is, but I would like to see a few more refs where Fieari said. ♠ SG →Talk 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are a few sentences needing refs:
      • In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory.
      • The general interpretation of the work is that the soft watches debunk the assumption that time is rigid or deterministic, and this sense is supported by other images in the work, including the ants and fly devouring the other watches.
        • This can be read as a paraphrase of the referenced material that appears later on on the same topic in the Symbolism section. As this is the case, I have added a citation to it as well. --DanielNuyu
      • The fact that he chose to live in Spain while it was ruled by Franco drew criticism from progressives and many other artists.' As such, probably at least some of the common dismissal of Dalí's later works had more to do with politics than the actual merits of the works themselves.
        • RyanGerbil10 listed this line verbatim as one of his points of concern in his objection (turned support) in my nomination. It was agreed that the diatribe entitled "The Jackboot of Dada" by Vicente Navarro (see refs) is a case in point for this notion. For clarity, I have added a citation at the end of this line to that ref since it seems to keep coming up. --DanielNuyu
      • Breton vehemently fought against the inclusion of Dalí's Sistine Madonna in the International Surrealism Exhibition in New York the following year.
        • An article I found via MLN on Project MUSE called "The Old Age of William Tell (A study of Buñuel's Tristana)", now referenced, contains much material in support of this claim. In case you cannot access MUSE, an excerpt from the article reads, "In 1960, Dalí had abjured those principles and, to mark his re-birth into Catholicism, he filled his new sky with bishops approaching heaven. This religious conversion shocked the Surrealists. Dalí sent his Sistine Madonna (also known as Ear with Madonna) to the International Exhibition of Surrealism organized at the D'Arcy Galleries in New York in December 1960. Infuriated by his inclusion in the Surrealist retrospective, André Breton published one of the many anti-Dalinian leaflets he would publish in his lifetime. On this occasion it was titled "We Don't Ear it that Way." In his leaflet, Breton made a mockery of Dalí's religious conversion and the text contained a brutal attack on Gala, whom the painter had used as a model for the Madonna in spite of the fact that her sexual behavior was a constant source of scandal throughout the European tabloid press..." --DanielNuyu
      • he made bulletist works and was among the first artists to employ holography in an artistic manner.
        • More refs added. The second point has been properly qualified (given information at its ref and here; he was not the first, but among the first). --DanielNuyu
      • In his later years, young artists like Andy Warhol proclaimed Dalí an important influence on pop art.
        • I would say the information in the ref I just added for this point corroborates the view in this line. --DanielNuyu
There are also a couple of quotes attributed to Dali which are unreferenced, but I'm not sure if they'll be troublesome. ♠ SG →Talk 17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are taken from Wikiquote. That project should (and has to some extent) cited these famous quotes. I too don't think they are an issue. Please take another look at the article now that I've added this new set of refs. --DanielNuyu 10:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm supporting the article now. However, as Andrew Levine pointed out below, certain quotes will probably need citations, even if they came from Wikiquote. Just a minor detail. ♠ SG →Talk 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes have now been cited. --DanielNuyu 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that citation do you see any other areas needing citations? Joelito (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the citation for Dalí saying "Surrealism is me"? Andrew Levine 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes, including that one, have now been cited. --DanielNuyu 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:07, 1 June 2007.

Indonesia

previous fac
  • Self nomination Comprehensive but succinct, numerous references to reliable sources, it's gone through major collaborative processess, several peer reviews, it has Good Article status, is factually accurate and the world's fourth largest country. Perhaps this could even be the Wikipedia Feature Article on 17 August - Indonesia's national day. --Merbabu 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree with the previous reviewer's assessment of the writing. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that the entire text needs a good massage by fresh eyes.
    • "since at least the seventh century when Srivijaya Kingdom traded with China." Comma before "when", and "the" before "Srivijava".
    • "drawn to its wealth of natural resources; including Indians, under whose influence Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms flourished"—semicolon should be a comma, or make it "resources; these powers include ...".
    • "Europeans fighting for monopolization of the spice trade"—I'm sure they weren't fighting for the spice trade to be monopolised by anyone. Each wanted to monopolise it themselves. The grammar indicates the former.
    • A Dutch colonial presence existed"—awkward; try "There was a Dutch colonial presence" (but that's a mild statement, implying relatively weak power; if you mean "Indonesia was a Dutch colony for more than three centuries, say it).Tony 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The entire Indonesia was not a Dutch colony for 300 years, in fact, much of it wasn't - to say so is factually inaccurate. The final borders were not established until the early 20th century. Furthermore, Dutch control, where it did control, was often tenuous. In fact, where this point comes up twice in the text it has a footnote to explain. It's a shame it's not a simpler concept and we have struggled with the best way to say it. Any suggestions are welcome.Merbabu 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) So use ""There was a Dutch colonial presence", as I suggested; that's weak enough. Tony[reply]
    • "Indonesia's post-independence history has been turbulent with elements of separatism and corruption, periods of rapid economic growth and decline,...". Comma before "with", please, in a formal register such as this. Makes it easier to read. Audit the whole article for the non-use of commas.
    • "Indonesia is a unitary state consisting of numerous distinct ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups spread across its numerous islands that have not always been united." We have "numerous" twice. Remove "spread". What has not always been united? The groups or the islands?

In addition to 1a, I find a POV problem (1d) in the absence of any mention in the lead about the long history of domination of the archipelago by the Javanese. Tony 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The grammar can be fixed. How would you suggest we solve the apparent POV problem? It could be easily be made worse by saying "long history of domination by the Javanese". Merbabu 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a milder statement? Long history of cultural and economic ascendancy? Or even "influence", although that might be too mild. You need to debate that among yourselves; I have no expertise in that matter, but have heard from authoritative sources that it is the case.
When you say "the grammar can be fixed", it's not only grammar, but a number of issues, including redundant wording and punctuation; and not just in the lead, but throughout. Can you find a native speaker with an interest in SEA? Research FA edit history pages to find edit summaries indicating copy-editing. Flatter anyone you find, because they will be valuable collaborators now and in the future. I suppose my conern is that the topic deserves the respect and authority that can only come from polished prose.
There's an apparent breach of protocol here: Arch dude has a raft of edits, yet has not announced his/her contributions, as Indon has done. It's a matter of being open about potential conflicts of interest. Tony 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding arch dude, he made those edits after we requested he elaborate on his comments here at FAC. I'm working on the Javanese dominanace now and will reply latr. Yes, it is easy to get too close to material, but the problem we have had with people 'outsiders' copyediting is that they bring in factual errors - but, it does need to be collaborative accuracy/prose process, to which Arch Duke, for example, helped us with. thanks. Merbabu 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I too am a biased contributor and am inclined to support the nomination, well done to everyone who has contributed! There are still however aspects where the article can be improved:
  • "[Indonesia] has been an important trade region since at least the seventh century when Srivijaya Kingdom traded with China". The qualification about China doesn't make sense to me given that the article later makes the statement - "The region established trade with both India and China several centuries BCE.". China isn't the only region Srivijaya traded with, so as it stands the sentence is misleading. The citation goes into a lot of detail about the trade Srivijaya had with China, but that is likely because most of surviving records of the time are Chinese.
I don't quite understand the problem here. The information is reliably sourced. It is significant that there were trade links with China - but that doesn't mean we should list all of Srivijaya's trade links (even if they were actually known). Anyway, it has since been changed:
The Indonesian archipelago has been an important trade region since at least the seventh century, when the Srivijaya Kingdom formed trade links with China.
--Merbabu 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poverty and unequal distribution of wealth are defining features of contemporary Indonesia". I agree with the poverty aspect of this claim, but the unequal distribution of wealth aspect doesn't seem to be supported by the citation, nor emperical data such as List of countries by income equality. According to the UN, Indonesia has a more equal income distribution than Australia, New Zealand, the UK, USA, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and so on.
  • Further comment - although I also endorse (and made) the above-suggested change in accordance with statistics, the 'inequality' referred to the vast gap between the top and bottom. THe fact that so many people (the vast majority) are indeed near the bottom implies equality (ie, equally poor) with a small but extremely wealthy upper class, but a very small middle class - unlike, say, Australia which has a very large middle class. Of course though, we need to go with what's verifiable before 'the truth'. Merbabu 05:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Etymology seems seems overly large. I'd like to see the overbearing quote replaced with a picture representing the island nature of the country as per the etymology of Indonesia - some coastline and water for example.
  • The "Administrative divisions" section is an aspect of the governement and politics of Indonesia. As such I believe it is more logical to include it as a subsection of the "Government and politics" rather than its own top level header. The Encarta encyclopedia for example has a similar organization - "Introduction; Land and Resources; The People of Indonesia; Arts and Culture; Economy; Government; History". I know Merbabu prefers the existing structure, but I'd like to hear what others think.

My proposed header structure is:
3 Government and politics
3.1 Structure and affiliations
3.2 Administrative divisions
3.3 Foreign relations
3.4 Contemporary issues
Instead of:
3 Government and politics
3.1 Structure and affiliations
3.2 Foreign relations
3.3 Contemporary issues
4 Administrative divisions
4.1 Indonesian provinces and their capitals

Comment while there is some logic to the way you have presented your structure here - ie, under one single section - in practise, it makes the section too long and it looks unwieldy and clumsy. Looking at all the FA country articles, they too would have this size problem and thus, these four division are not presented as one single section (with subsections), rather they are always presented as two or more sections - with subsections as required. That's my view on it anyway. Merbabu 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on Chinese Indonesians takes up 40% of the Ethnic groups section, which feels like it's given too much weight - should probably be trimmed a little. Also, the first sentence contains weasle words - "Chinese Indonesians are arguably the most influential ethnic minority".
  • Good points re Chinese Indonesians - I have addressed them - please check if i have done so adequately. PS, there was a comment about anti-Chinese violence that was in the footnotes, but I've put it now into the main prose as it is important. maybe wording could be reviewed. thanks. Merbabu 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Caniago 03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Tony on the need for a thorough copy edit; there's a lot of redundancy, common misspellings, and other errors. For example, the serial comma is used in some places but not others, and Commonwealth and American English are used willy-nilly. Further concerns:
    • Although prose size is acceptable (31 KB of readable prose), the Table of Contents is large and imposing. There is no need for sub-subheads like "Executive" and "Parliament" that introduce one- or two-paragraph sections, for example.
      • Comment - I have removed the sub-sub headings, and even the new sub-headings in the govt section. It's set-out is now similar to most other country articles (including the FA countries :) ). --Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inline citations should be removed from the lead. The lead should not give any new information that is not repeated in the body of the article, so the inline citations should be in the body instead.
    • "Contemporary issues" is a problematic section. It seems like a dumping ground for anything negative about the country. A better approach would be to distribute these facts throughout the article. For example, the information on poverty would fit well under "Demographics" or "Economy". Information on separtatist conflicts would fit with information about the military (as it represents one of the threats to which the military responds).
      • Comment - OK, i've merged it into 'Economy' and a couple of re-arranged govt related sections. This version. And I've removed the associated sub-sections/headings. The section was a way to handle accusations of NPOV and glossing over of issues which has been a common accusation of not just this article but Indonesia in general. But, you are right - it did have a 'sore thumb' look to it. Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The massive "Further reading" section should be scrapped. List just the sources that were actually used to write the article, and place them under "References".
  • The biggest fish to fry at this point is the prose, though. — Brian (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes indeed. Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the quick responses. I'll check the changes over this weekend sometime. The "Further reading" thing isn't an FAC killer to me, but I do really hate "Further reading" sections in Wikipedia articles. If something is important enough to merit mention, it should have been used as a proper reference. I also prefer that full-form references be given in a separate section that lists all references alphabetized by author's last name (as I did in Cameroon). This allows the "Notes" to be much more abbreviated and improves the reader's ability to scan all of the sources used and to determine if they are reliable or not. But that's just my personal style, I admit. — Brian (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck (stricken?) two objections, by the way. — Brian (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further note: I copy edited the article, but problems still remain. Namely, I did not try to fix the inconsistent use of the serial comma nor the flip-flopping between Commonwealth and American English. The article's main editors will have to decide which style they prefer and make these changes themselves.
        • Comment: I am sure American English was the accepted way (unfortunately - he he) and I thought I had checked already for that. I will have a closer look hopefully tomorrow. But what words are still causing concern? Merbabu 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few other points:
        • "murdered under contentious circumstances" -- Can this be reworded? When is a murder not contentious?
          • Done. I've changed this to 'disputed circumstances but I think this is not quite right. Perhaps someonce can suggest further. It is the circumstances around the murders (ie, who was the 'mastermind') that are contentious/contreversial. Ie, no accounts of who was behind it can be proven, including the official version. On the other hand, there was no big national 'dispute'. The army had their version and being the victors, it was their version that became the official line - any dispute (ie, 'contention') has been behind the scenes, and now amongst overseas historians/academics. It is not a big issue in Indonesia as the official version has become so ingrained.Merbabu 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we have a source citation for the five largest cities?
        • Please insert non-breaking spaces between all numbers and units of measurement. And please be sure that both metric and Imperial measures are given (mostly the article is good about this, but there is at least one spot I noticed where metric only was given).
        • Please replace all - characters with n-dashes for ranges of numbers or dates.
        • The first two sentences of the second paragraph of "Demographics" are confusing to me. Are "Austronesian" and "Melanesian" considered ethnic groups? Or are these larger groupings? The "However" in the second sentence makes it sound like they are ethnic groups.
          • Done Yeah - i can see the problem. Now changed to:
Most Indonesians are descendant from Austronesian-speaking people who originated in Taiwan. The other major grouping are Melanesians who inhabit eastern Indonesia.[97] There are around 300 distinct native ethnicities in Indonesia and 742 different languages and dialects.[98] Merbabu 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Though now minority religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and classical India remain defining . . . " Classical India is not a religion, but I wasn't sure how to reword this.
        • The article seems to be overlinked. Please take a long, hard look at each and every bluelink and make sure it is relevant to the article. For example, little is gained by linking to terms such as earthquake and Brazil.
          • Done - two editors have gone through the whole article closely. We think we have got it covered, what do you think? Some are linked twice but only in a few instances where it seems useful and never in the same section. Merbabu 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a related note, please click through every link and make sure it goes where it's supposed to. Featured Articles should not point to redirect and disambiguation pages.
        • Wow, citation templates made this piece a headache to edit! (Just a comment!)
          • You're telling me!?! Well, articles are first and foremost for the benefit of readers, not editors and intend to provide quality info rather than ease of editing. :) Merbabu 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be a touchy point: I'm glad to see that the "liberal democracy" claim has vanished from the opening. However, a balanced view of Indonesia's politics, government, administration, economics and, indeed, the lives of its citizens, is not possible without mention of the endemic corruption that has beset and continues to beset the country. It was recently rated (by which international body, I can't recall) as one of the top few nations in the world (or the top one?) for corruption. Yet a rather bland picture is painted of the way public life works in Indonesia. I think this issue needs to be aired somewhere in the article. It's a POV issue (1c). Tony 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Specify "nominal" GDP, against the PPP per capita. And what's the nominal per capita income? (It's important because it's an indication of the tradeable-goods purchasing power of Indonesians.) Tony 09:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption is mentioned in three places in the article - the intro, History and in Economy. Are you suggesting it needs to be made more prominent or otherwise reworded? (Caniago 09:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've added in nominal GDP/capita alongside the PPP figure. I've also updated, for 2006, these two plus total GDP. And what is nominal per capita income? Isn't GDP/capita simply a way of measuring income/capita? see here. And PPP means an attempt to takes into account the 'purchasing power'. It's not clear what you mean. Merbabu 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a sentence into the Economy section on corruption, Transparency International and their Corruption Perceptions Index. Merbabu 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitary break (for ease of use)

  • Oppose. --

1. Mos for units (m, mi, km, C not followed) -- see formatting for Climate of India.

Done - i think. Most issues seemed to be in the 'Geography' section.[8]. One thing i did not change was the use of "%" rather than "per cent" or "percent" - I have kept it consistent with FA countries

2. Image sizes are inconsistent, try thumbing the images, removing the set pixel.

Yes, should be consistent and I've reviewed all pics. I'm not sure that we must simply use thumbnail size as a matter of course. 220px horizontal is a good size in my opinion for landscape - not too big - although 200px could be good. Note, there is one portrait I set to 180px which means the area is on par with the landscape - i don't think portrait size pics should have the same size horizontal as a landscape, as the vertical would thus be excessive. Let me know what you think and if it needs further adjustment. --Merbabu 05:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Many words linked repeatedly.

Done --Merbabu 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says regarding internal links: These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere; for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.. So, repeated links are fine (and in fact encouraged) as long as they are not repeated in the same section. (Caniago 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

4. {{tl|main}] should come before an image in a section.

Done I found two instances [9] & [10] Merbabu 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. It's interesting that Indonesia shares a sea border with Australia, but not India. Considering that the northern tip of Aceh is 140 odd km from Indira Point in the Nicobar Islands, what would be the basis for the omission?

Done I've re-written this in line with the FA Australia article:
The country shares land borders with Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Malaysia, and other neighboring countries include Singapore, the Philippines, Australia and the Indian union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
To put in India as a neighbour because Aceh is close to the Nicobars is, in my opinion, dwelling to much on a relatively small technicality. It could be a bit misleading - 'most' of India is not really a neighbour and we need to draw the line somewhere. But, I have put it in for now and I think other opinion would be helpful. :) --Merbabu 06:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. (not an oppose) Maps should be SVG
7. ...these include Indians... -- inaccuracte; India was not a unified country back then; "Indian kingdoms" would be more accurate.

Done. --Merbabu 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. (check possessive noun) Earl's --> Earl Done I corrected this instance and checked every example of "'s" --Merbabu 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 9. Wikify dates --> 21 May 1998[reply]

Done - i went through and checked all - corrected 3 instances in references. But couldn't find any probs in main article body. --Merbabu 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


10. "Significant" separatist? -- Why not just Separatist?

Done - yeah, good point. --Merbabu 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. 'have led to armed conflict and allegations -- not clear which side (IND or the separatists) is alleged to be behind these. Is there a co-relation between the two? I don't think so

Comment - actually, it is intended to mean 'both ways' - part of the propaganda war on both 'sides'. No doubt much is true, and much is exageration, even fabrication - from both sides. To say 'There have been allegations of HR abuses' is a factual comment, on the other hand, saying 'There have been HR abuses' adds a bit grease to the POV slope - no matter that there is no doubt substantial truth in it. Merbabu 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added a few more words that will hopefully clarify. Hopefully people can review and improve/suggest as appropriate. I've also added more referneces. The main point is that we are talking about violent armed conflict, ie - claim and counter claim about brutality are thus hardly unusual. But, your point is a good one and I hope it has now lead to article improvement.Merbabu 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Review 2: Most of it are done, thanks, so here's part 2:[reply]

  • For SVG maps, submit a request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. They should take care of it on a priority basis.
  • I checked again and noticed that images still precede the main link. Images are part of the section body. The body begins after main, so images should come after it, never before.
Done (Caniago 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Regarding the sea neighbours: I think the cut off you mention should be the internationally accepted 200 nautical miles.
  • Units are not formated as per the WP:MoS. There should be a non-breaking space between a unit and number. Use the {{convert}} template for automatic simple conversions. -- That's why I referred you to Climate of India. PS This (26 to 30 °Celsius (79 to 86 °F) is incorrectly formatted and the way of mentioning it is: 26 °C to 30 °C (79 °F to 86 °F) -- I've used ALT+160 for the non-breaking space instead of the HTML entity &nbsp;
Done. Regarding the °C °F issue the range has been replaced by en-dashes, which is the same as the climate article you cite. (Caniago 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • square kilometers vs sq km -- both are fine; MoS recommends that it is spelled out the first time.
  • About the image sizes: MoS says that it should be without a set pixel value. Those with high res monitors find the images too tiny. [[image:abc.jpg|thumb|Caption]]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done with two exceptions; as 'thumbing' pics makes only the horizontal size uniform, the two portrait shape pics in 'History' seem way oversize without setting pixel size. Merbabu 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've given one on-line reference and one from a book. Merbabu 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Didn't expect such a fast response. CG 13:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A bit biased as one of the contributors, but the article has gone though many improvements since the last FAC. Worth for FA, that is for sure. Imoeng 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- spent a little more time to review after prodding by the nominator so here goes:
1. ...was inhabited by 500,000 to two million years ago -- reads odd. And why not 2 million to 500,000 years (reverse)? We always count from the early dates in time to the nearer dates in time.

Done [11] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Dutch rule ended with the Japanese occupation during World War II. -- Two problems with this sentence. 1. The sentence is choppy, it does not flow with the preceding and following one. 2. it contradicts the fact that Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands. So, who ruled Indonesia between 1945 to 49?

hmmmm - to answer the first part, I can accept if wording can be improved, and I have tried to improve it by expanding it and linking it to the previous sentence (see below). But I must disagree with you on the second part. This is not a 'black and white', 'on/off' peice of history, but we have limited words. Furthermore, rather than simply focus on one sentence in isolation, if we read the whole paragraph that deals with the watershed period of Indonesian history (1942 to 1950), it is factually accurate and not contradictory (section below includes my update and could be reworded for 'prose' but not 'accuracy')...
For most of the colonial period, Dutch control over these territories was tenuous; only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become Indonesia's current boundaries.[20] However, Dutch rule ended with the Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during World War II.[21] Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, cooperated with the Japanese in an attempt to bolster the independence movement.[22] On 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno unilaterally declared Indonesian independence.[23] He was declared the president and Muhammad Hatta the vice-president.[24] A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.[25]
Indeed, one paragraph is simply not enough, but that is all we have in a summary country article. perhaps look at the linked Japanese Occupation of Indonesia (end of Dutch rule, dismantling of {European} colonial system and politisation of Indonesia, which together enabled independence movement), and Indonesian National Revolution for the 45-50 period. I completely re-wrote this latter article from a number of sources so I feel reasonably qualifed to (politely!) suggest that saying "it contradicts the fact that Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands. So, who ruled Indonesia between 1945 to 49? " misses much of the point and over-simplifies history such that it is completely misleading. But, i can always accept if it can be re-worded to improve prose and clarity, but I can't see the accuracy problem. kind regards Merbabu 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


3. 17 August 1945 -- wikify!!!

Done [12] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. maneuvered himself into the presidency. -- why the Euphemism? why not mention that he overthrew the incubent Sukarno?

It was not intended as a euphemism, rather that it how the events unfolded over time. But I've changed it to Politically, Suharto capitalized on Sukarno's gravely weakened position; in a drawn-out power play between the two, Suharto maneuvered himself into the presidency by March 1967. Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it again: I removed 'maneuvered' - although this describes succintly and accurately what happened at the time, it is clearly causing some readibility issues. :) It now reads:
Politically, Suharto capitalized on Sukarno's gravely weakened position; following a drawn-out power play with Sukarno, Suharto was formally appointed president in March 1968.
Merbabu 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. However, in 1997 and 1998, -- don't start a paragraph with 'However'

Done [13] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. soccer --> football (soccer) -- I don't suppose it is called soccer in Indonesia. Liga Indonesia could be mentioned.

DoneMerbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Sports seemed to be toned down. Culture of Indonesia has a few indigenous sports that could be added as a sentence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added a bit: [14]:
The most popular sports in Indonesia are badminton and football; Liga Indonesia is the country's premier football club league. Traditional sports include sepak takraw, and bull racing in Madura. In areas with a history of tribal warfare, mock fighting contests are held, such as, caci in Flores, and pasola in Sumba. Pencak Silat is an Indonesian martial art. Sports in Indonesia are genenerally male-orientated and spectator sports are often associated with illegal gambling.
Merbabu 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above regarding this specific request, I'm not about to make requested inaccurate changes to history merely for some subjective notion of prose or clarity. Nor do i suggest a re-hash of the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia or Indonesian National Revolution articles - I suggest some degree of brevity - it already has a whole paragraph. We can't put 101 finer points into 100 words. Thus, please identify which part specifically is not clear and I will see what I can do...
For most of the colonial period, Dutch control over these territories was tenuous; only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become Indonesia's current boundaries.[20] However, Dutch rule ended with the Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during World War II.[21] Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, cooperated with the Japanese in an attempt to bolster the independence movement.[22] On 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno unilaterally declared Indonesian independence.[23] He was declared the president and Muhammad Hatta the vice-president.[24] A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.[25]
--Merbabu 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good summary, but I have a suggested reword: The Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation in during WWII effectively ended Dutch colonial rule. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, was made the president, and unilaterally declared independence. A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when, in the face of mounting international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.

Let me know if this fits the bill. It's even shorter that the present text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah - brevity is the best. :) Thanks. A great way forward - i will tweak it a tiny tiny bit (Sukarno was appointed president a day or two after his declaration) and I threw in a bit about the Japanese nuturing the indepenence movement (which really deserves a whole article).
The Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during WWII effectively ended Dutch colonial rule, and encouraged the Indonesian independence movement. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, declared independence, and was appointed President. A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when, in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence. Merbabu 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've changed the admin division map back to the plain map rather than the map overlayed with province hyperlink labels. The hyperlinked map looks really bad on my system, with different problems depending upon which browser I use. With Firefox the (see screenshot [15]) the labels merge and become incomprehensible. With IE (see screenshot [16]) the map is overwhelmingly large, forcing the text in the section into a very narrow column. Either way, the map looks very strange in the context of the article and the size and layout we have used for the rest of the images. The Indonesia map in the geography section has the standard image size, so why should the map in the admin division be treated differently and emphasized by increasing its size? Also, the labels on the map already duplicate the complete listing of provinces already contained in the text. Are the provinces really so important we need to repeat the information twice in the article and cause presentation problems with the article in some people's web browsers? (Caniago 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I think the problems are being overstated and use of this pic is by no means unsalvagable. You are correct, we do not need a map and the list - thus, scrap the list as it doesn't go anywhere near the useability-at-once-glance. As for your screenshots, the first is not incomprehensible - just a little messy and can be fixed no doubt. The second (firefox) is exactly how I see it and I think it looks outstanding. Yet another reason to use firefox and not IE. Look at Australia, United States, for example. Brilliance. Why does style have to win over 'usefulness'? Merbabu 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australia has six states and 2 territories. The map on that article is quite a bit smaller yet its still comprehensible, even on my system. Indonesia has 33 provinces, quite a big difference. Even with the map set at the very large size it was, its still a mess. The eastern half of the USA map has the same problems as the Indonesia one. I doubt it can be fixed without making the font size unreadibly small. What the people adding these maps to articles don't seem to realize is that you can't take the font size of people's web browsers for granted. People with reading difficulties will set their browsers to have a large font size which will also cause problems. One of the advantages of the province list is that we have the capitals also listed, so I wouldn't like to see it go. BTW, the second image you say looks like your system is actually from IE not Firefox. (Caniago 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I suggest you ask User:Indon, the creator for an svg map with labels. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is easy to read, highly informative, and very pleasing to the eye. It also does an excellent job of handling the the two great challenges of any article on a country, which are to ballance the treatment of all the different topics (history, politics, culture, economics, geography, natural history) appropriately, and to treat political and historic issues in way that is NPOV but still informative. As far as one of the issues raised in previous comments. I have not seen the version of the pronvincal map with the links to the provinces on it, but I would strongly suggest against removing the list of provinces that is currently in the article. That list is attractive, well organized, and easy to navigate. I have a hard time believing a map with links would be nearly as easy to navigate. I might suggest making the existing provincal map larger rather than thumbnail size so that the provincal names on it were readable without expanding it. That way it would be easier to use the list and the map in conjunction with one another. However, this is not a major point.Rusty Cashman 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atomic line filter

This is not a very important topic; however, it is an interesting article and meets the criteria. See the Good article review and peer review. This is a self-nomination. -- Rmrfstar 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A comprehensive article that fits the criteria well. -Shrinkness 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is almost entirely one author's work, and that author is the same person who proposed it as a FAC. I would like to see more review and broader participation in the editing of this article before it is considered as a Featured Article.--Srleffler 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I left the simple peerreviewer script output on the talk page for recommendations for improvement. The things pointed out are not minor, but can of course be worked on. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I believe I have now dealt with all of them. I have even shifted around the last few sections that the TOC may be in proper order. Now, however, the spacing of the three column bit at the end is not as good. Is this version really better? -- Rmrfstar 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good improvement! A thorough check of spelling (I happened to stumble on supressed in the lead), and (as pointed out by tabushidu) the move all references from the lead to the main text (the lead is merely the summary of the article, see WP:LEAD) remain actionable. And if you remove the lines in See also that are already mentioned in the text (see WP:GTL), then you won't need the multi-column output. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • Spell-check completed, and I have lessened the number of refs in the lede, (it was admittedly excessive before), but according to WP:LEAD, "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text,". Oh, and I followed your advice on the See Also, also ;).-- Rmrfstar 21:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll be on wikibreak from now on, so I just assume you'll keep copy-editing that lead, until all refs will have disappeared, and the text will be superbly fluent. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
          • I have removed my object, but will not change it to support for the current text version: I have read it through in full and done some copy-editing. Definitely this copy-editing must continue to improve the phrases and the general text, and to remove superfluous vague words (sometime, maybe, etc). Really the Tony1 text does give good read. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Srleffler's comment is not actionable. Tony 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very well referenced article with good writing, good use of images, and a good scientific tone. I evaluated the article for GA status recently, was pleased with it (and passed it accordingly), and have since put a little energy into it, mostly formatting and copyediting. It may be a largely single author effort, but it has had a lot of fingers in it recently, including the GA review, and the author has a good track record. Phidauex 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - needs a copyedit to make sure that all wikimarkup is OK (I noticed at least one instance of a mistake). Also needs to have less references in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent scope, range, and references in this page serve as an example for other pages especially, but not limited to scientific pages. -- M0llusk 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Diagrams should be in SVG. WP 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, as soon as I can crop them. -- Rmrfstar 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cropped the SVGs, but they're not working quite right. The SVG version of Image:ALFConcept.png is Image:ALFConcept.svg, and though I set the background to be opaque, it still appears transparent, and the arrows are appearing as little squares. What can be done? I'm using Inkscape by the way. -- Rmrfstar 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that you save the images as proper SVGs instead of "Inkscape SVG" (changeable in the "Save as" dialogue). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did try that. -- Rmrfstar 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone maybe download them, replace the arrows and white background and upload them again? I've tried everything -- Rmrfstar 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In order to keep this FAC moving, I linked the current images to the svg versions, so that if someone wanted to, they could use the SVG version. While I was try everything else, I hope that this can still become a featured article. -- Rmrfstar 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: The two diagrams with possible SVG replacements have been repaired. Explanation of repair left on User:Rmrfstar's talk page. Phidauex 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; looks pretty good to me. Extremely well referenced. Some formatting and prose touch-ups are in order, however: remove all bold from the article body (everything below the lead), and eliminate redundant words like "very". Looks solid though. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all but one "very" and most of the bolding below the lead: that which I thought was not necessary. -- Rmrfstar 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Darth Vader Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spider

Caroline Island

Self-nomination. Since creating this article about two years ago, I've developed it up to a point of rather remarkable comprehensiveness for such an obscure and unsung corner of the world. It's presently a good article, and having gone through peer review, and many rounds of being inflicted upon folks in the IRC channel for comment I feel that it's ready for the next step and for the worthy nitpickers of WP:FAC. -- Seth Ilys 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The lead could be a beter summary, for example shouldn't the lead mention that the islands are uninhabited, and how does "near pristine" fit with the cited fact that much South islet was deforested to make way for coconut palms?
Actually, the lead does mention that the islands are uninhabited, and sources are uniformly consistent in calling Caroline one of the most untouched islands in the world. However, I've reworded the introduction to mention human impact on the islands, which is an important part of their history, and to clarify that Caroline is "relatively" untouched I also moved the "near pristine" quote down to the flora/fauna section. (I was never thrilled with it in the introduction, but your comment finally helped me figure out where it should go.) Any additional hands at polishing the intro would be welcome. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For the non-geographer, an expalnation of how several islets are considered a single island would be useful.
This is well-explained in coral atoll, but I've also added a clause to the geography section noting the common origin of all the islets. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article also says that there are 40 islets, the intro on the list says 39.
The article actually said "around 40," but I've corrected to the precise 39, the number given by the Kepler survey, which was the most recent and most detailed. - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Islet sizes are given in km2 and others in Ha, a consistent unit would be good.
Converted all areas in the main article to km2 - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Peta 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for fixing those so quickly.--Peta 06:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to do this, but I've made another pass through the article and found a few places I previously missed. Let me know if you notice any remaining instances where I've neglected to include imperial units. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's accounted for, and I have accordingly changed my vote. Thank you for your promptness in these changes. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those two links are immediately relevant to the portion of the article where they occur and I felt like it would be most useful to readers to have them within the body of article text; however, I've now duplicated them within the "external links" section as well. Does this satisfy your concern? -- Seth Ilys 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And thanks for your improvements to the article as well! -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I threw out my object vote... I modified some of the conversions on the page to be a lottle bit more precise, so now i'm all for this article.
Daniel: It would be useful to know precisely which conversions you are referring to. Some of the figures in the article I have quoted as approximate (such as distance to neighboring islands or the overall dimensions of the atoll) because sources disagree and I would rather be accurate but less precise than precise but less accurate. Let me know which ones you find deficient and I'll be happy to improve them. -- Seth Ilys 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan: You mention that some of the metric/imperial conversions are done "approximately or inaccurately." The reasons that some of the figures may appear approximate is that the original measurements are approximate. Sources disagree, for instance, on the precise north-south dimension of the island, which I have quoted as "9 km (6 mi)" -- I have done so because then both units have the same degree of precision (significant figures). Likewise, the maximum elevation of the islands above sea level (6 meters) is an approximate figure and does not warrant a precise conversion (which is why I used the round figure of 20 feet rather than 19.7, as you have done.
Furthermore, I believe that your attempts to "correct" my area conversions are also somewhat misguided. 1.04 km^2, for instance, is actually equal to 0.40 mi^2, as can be verified by Google's calculator tools. I believe that your changes actually decrease the accuracy of the article, and therefore request that you revert them to my original figures. -- Seth Ilys 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: User:Simetrical has done so. Thanks. - Seth Ilys 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (cited in the article) are consistent about naming Caroline Island as pristine, although I tried to indicate (whenever such a statement is made in the article) that 1) this is a relative assessment, and 2) there was a significant amount of human impact. I'll see if I can't tweak those bits to make it clearer. -- Seth Ilys 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Ledyard Stebbins

Biography for one the the important writers of the modern evolutionary synthesis, covers all the currently available biographical information on the subject and hopefully provides an overview of his ideas without alienating non-biologists.--Peta 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Object. The text is very thick, but manageable. I can't think of a better way to rewrite it. Anyway, the legacy section is a bit short. Very good article though. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Want to make an actionable objection :) I've moved some stuff into the legacy section, but his contribution to scientific thought is his major legacy and that is covered.--Peta 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't objecting on prose density. Even though it's dense, it can't be redone any better, so kudos to you. See, in my time zone, 05:21 UTC is 12:21 AM, so sometimes I'm a bit unclear. If the legacy section can't be further expanded, then no issues remain, so consequently, I Support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (although I should declare that I copy-edited this one a while back). Interesting topic, nicely put together. The article says a lot about the experience of being a brilliant scientist in the 20th century. Tony 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Beautiful. Clean references, excellent lead, no link farm, concise TOC, and brilliant prose. I would like to see some things referenced, though. I can't determine which source supports the details on his personal life, school life, CV, bio, etc. If you can reference some of those statements, I'll support. And, for an exceedingly trivial comment, would you mind putting the Categories in alphabetical order? Sandy 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference point is disingenuous, and in the vein of please provide a reference that the sky is blue. There are no points of contention and only one person has written extensively on his life, and to provide 15 inline links to that article instead of one general reference is not worthwhile for anyone.--Peta 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated, the point was not disingenuous, and I'll be glad to support once the article is thoroughly referenced. The link you provided above results in a dead link for me, so I am unable to verify its content. As a random example from the top of the article, where do I find the reference for this content:
        • Stebbins was born in Lawrence, New York, the youngest of three children. His parents were George Ledyard Stebbins, a wealthy real estate financier who developed Seal Harbor, Maine and helped to establish Acadia National Park, and Edith Alden Candler Stebbins; both parents were native New Yorkers and Episcopalians. Stebbins was known throughout his life as Ledyard, to distinguish himself from his father. The family encouraged their sons’ interest in natural history during their periodic journeys to Seal Harbor.
      • With named refs, it is not hard to use the same reference more than once, so that the reader knows where to find specific content. Sandy 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's a well-written biography that bubbles along nicely, but the article skips several beats as to his private life (what happened with the three kids? his second marriage gets suddenly mentioned at his death...) and fails to summarise his relevance to science. It doesn't matter how many books and papers he published, what was the content? What was the broad picture that emerged from his research, and how does it relate to concepts that are described in more detail elsewhere in this encyclopaedia, e.g. polyploidy, speciation. For instance, reading between the lines, it seems like he provided substantial support for the hypothesis that speciation by polyploidy underlies major adaptive radiations in plants. I'm sure there's more that could be said. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a date for the second marriage, but to add it eariler in the article seriously disrupts the narrative - and nothing has really be written about his married life to warrant a more prominent inclusion - discussion of the children is more trivial than encyclopedic since they all must have gone on to lead regular lives.
I have added more on the significance of his book, which really was the major work of his career, and some other bits and pieces, but as I tried to make clear in the article his stength wasn't his own reseach, it was the synthesis of ideas from the work of others.--Peta 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just pick on two examples of recent changes that you've made to explain what I mean:
In particular the book argues for the role of adaptive radiation in the diversification of the angiosperms and the usefulness of applying out current understanding of species' genetics and ecology to inform us about the evolution of ancient species.
Good because it goes into some detail, but still vague. Better would be "the book argues that".
explains how research on polyploidy, chromosome size and number can shed light on evolutionary processes in plants.
Again, you're phrasing things in a "meta" sort of way. Now we know what the paper is about, but we have no idea what it says! Suggestion: "explains howsuggested that". Does this make sense? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty here is that Stebbins can up with a lot of theories and wrote lots of reviews - to present that research as fact isn't correct. He also wrote on such a breadth of subjects here that discussing them all in a biographical article would be seriously counterproductive. I've fixed the instances you mention, but to be honest I'm not really sure what you want here.--Peta 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about presenting things as fact. Just tell us what he says in those papers. Outline the frameworks he developed. Whatever it was, tell us the content. Same example again:
explains how research on polyploidy, chromosome size and number can be used to study evolutionary processes in plants.
Better would be: established the causal connection between the evolution of polyploidy, chromosome size and number. For instance, ...
Any biography of a scientist has to clearly show his notability, his contribution to the field. Maybe he did write a lot of reviews, but clearly there are distinct ideas contained therein, and these should be described. As the article is now, I don't get a very distinct sense of what he contributed, what the commonality, the direction of his body of work was. Maybe he was just a vague dabbler who jumped on any new paradigm for a little while. If that's the case, the article should make this clear. At the moment, like someone said, it says a lot about being a scientist. It doesn't, however, say a lot about G. Ledyard Stebbins. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another example:
synthesized the literature on polyploidy, concluding that polyploidy had been most important in developing large, complex and widespread genera.
It's woolly, and I can see that it's difficult to summarise in one sentence. I'd try something like, In examining the patterns of polyploidisation and adaptive radiation, Stebbins found large genera to contain more independent polyploidisation events than expected by chance, and ... (made some suggestions about establishing whether some plants are more prone to polyploidisation, or whether polyploidisation simply helps in diversifying? Not having read the paper, I'm just guessing that he might have discussed something along these lines.) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what you want. I'm not going to make false assertions about his work. He came up with ideas based on what he knew at them time. Those ideas continue to direct how research is done - that is how theories work. I think that is clear in the article.--Peta 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so deeply disappointed. I'd honestly hoped you might understand. It just seems so imperceivable that you would have read all of those biographies and learnt nothing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? Mabye, since I am clearly dense, you could either spell out the problem clearly, or help to fix it.--Peta 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object at the moment. Reading this, I still don't think it really lays out why he was notable. In the introduction, it says "who is widely regarded as one of the leading evolutionary biologists and botanists of the 20th century." but never really says why. One sentence here giving a clue about why he is regarded so highly would be helpful. Instead, one has to read all the way down to legacy to get an overview. Also, the red link in the middle of the article for polyploid complex is a little disturbing, especially if it is as important as the surrounding text and hinted-at importance of G. Ledyard Stebbins would indicate. Last, I realize this man did a lot of work. However the descpritions of it gloss over what the importance of most of it is. It says he does things, but never really makes it clear why they are or were important. Obviously this man's work is what made him notable in the first place, so better descriptions that show its importance to biology or botany would be useful.pschemp | talk 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have missed that he 1. developed the first comprehensive synthesis of plant evolution and 2. that his book was a major contribution to modern evolutionary synthesis.; both of which are there in the lead and expanded on further in the article. Futher red links are not a criteria for FAC - but I plan to write that article later today anyway.--Peta 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I didn't miss those, I'm saying that just those phrases are not enough to make it clear. Why is the first comprehensive synthesis of plant evolution important? And why was his contribution important? You have focused almost exclusively on the details, and they need to be there, but the umbrella explaining why they are are important is missing. Just giving details later doesn't tell me why why he is important in the overall scheme of science. The overall relation is not stated explicitly, its just barely hinted at. You can't expect the reader to be able to make those kind of general inferences. Relate it to the big picture please. I'm also aware that redlinks are not an automatic disqualifier but if its important concept it just looks bad to be red.pschemp | talk 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself and several other commenters don't think this is an issue.--Peta 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm not sure what the above objectors are missing. It seemed pretty clear to me what the claims were for fame and importance of the figure. I'm so far from science as to be a litgeek, and yet I understood that his work on speciation was pivotal to all subsequent developments. This is in addition to his work as a public educator. I understand that the chronological biographical approach puts off the major breakthrough until it actually occurred in life, and there aren't signpost phrases pointing all other achievements to it, but that is certainly not universally desirable, nor is it a matter for objection. Well done. Geogre 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - with a heavy heart, I must object. I don't understand "Some genera, such as Crepis, have a complex of reproductive forms that center on sexual diploids that have also given rise to polyploids; sometimes, as in Crepis, these are apomictic polyploids. Apomictic polyploids are able to perpetuate unbalanced polyploid types, such as triploids and pentatetraploids, which would be sterile if they had to sexually reproduce." - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I get the impression that monographs and papers are similar: should they be in quotes or italicized? I see "Types of polyploids: their classification and significance" and "The significance of polyploidy in plant evolution" but The American Species of Crepis: their interrelationships and distribution as affected by polyploidy and apomixis. Also, the spacing around dashes isn't consistent. Will look at this more later. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about the convention for italics and monographs, sometimes monographs are really long papers in a journal other times, like the Babcocks and Stebbins work, they are stand alone volumes.--Peta 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's a stand along work, it should probably be italicized. No problem. The article looks fine to me. Support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VIII

I believe this article is FA-worthy. First, it is comprehensive because it covers the major points of the gameplay, story arcs, setting, criticism, development, and so on. Second, it has been the target of numerous copyedits from four or five different editors (and one or two other good copyeditors did absolutely nothing to this article, which either sends us a false message or shows that it's fine). Third, the story section is balanced in that it covers all major story arcs without having to go into excess detail on the main article (or a parent article, for that matter). Additionally, the article has been surprisingly stable outside of the major edits by Ryu, myself, and several others. Sure, it gets the occasional fansite and a "cruft" injection every now and then, but it has shown stability even after the major editing push concluded. The pictures portray a well-rounded visual of the game, and the captions are succinct.

I know that some of you will have issues with the length, which is actually secondary to comprehensiveness. The length is 41 KB, which is significantly less than some other game articles. We tried to strike a compromise between inclusonism and deletionism here, and we hope you can understand that we editors go through a lot of stress trying to play monkey in the middle. So, I ask you, look at the content and the prose, not the superficial stuff. If this nomination turns into an inclusion/deletion battlefield, it will be withdrawn, because the editors of this article do not believe in tailoring the article to meet someone's personal beliefs and opinions — stuff that is not clearly stated in the criteria. In other words, please keep your objections and supports based on the criteria, and not wikiphilosophy. This is absolutely nothing against any user or group of users; we just want to nip this in the bud. Thank you, and let the nomination begin! — Deckiller 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination/Strong Support: Like Deckiller, I've been one of this article's dedicated editors. Together the two of us — and a few other skilled copyeditors who have offered input — have attempted to make the article cover all major aspects of the game and its notable relations, as well as ensure that it covers the storyline's major arcs while remaining concise.
I'd also like to second Deckiller's request that the focus of comments be on the criteria for FA and the content of the article rather than any wikiphilosophy related to length. It's very trying for us as editors to be caught in a war between opposing philosophies seeking to make an article they didn't personally work on be the example of their standard. We believe that as the article stands, it is a fair compromise to both schools of thought. While touching on the major story arcs and their resolutions, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail on every sub-plot; however, while being succinct, it also doesn't cater to a "one size fits all" ideal with regard to length. There is no one size fits all, for not all plots are the same size. These matters should always be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I respectfully ask that this be done here. Ryu Kaze 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Ohio Wesleyan University

I've spent a considerable amount of time working on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. The article has had two peer reviews (which are here and here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 and user:SandyGeorgia from the League of Copyeditors have been incredibly helpful with both feedback and editing over the course of the last three months.

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Thanks for any feedback, LaSaltarella 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article is thorough, well-written and meets FA standards. (Full disclosure: I am one of the editors LaSaltarella contacted to review the article, and made a few edits and suggestions which have been incorporated into the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm an alumn of OWU and want to see this as an FA. I've also been one of the articles main critics. The article has improved drastically (namely in the POV aspects that bothered me during it's previous FAC nomination) but it still has problems and reads choppy to me.
-The introduction is choppy---possibly the most important section of the article, but in this article it is the weakest section.
  • Comment. Thank you for the comments! I appreciate it very much! Since I have to give credit where credit is due the League of Copyeditors has been behind improving the writing in the article. I will bring up the same issues that you mention here with the two editors who helped me with the copyediting and will try to address them, if necessary. Thank you once again for providing valuable feedback! LaSaltarella 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't, IMO, too far away... and I do believe that I will probably be able to support it... but as much as I would like to, I think it needs to be cleaned up a little more. One thought on the intro... I REALLY liked the into to the sports section and felt like that first paragraph could be moved to the intro to flush out the intro. It really is almost there.Balloonman 08:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-I have major problems with the continual usage of term Wesleyan as there are over 20 different schools that have rights to that moniker, but most notably Wesleyan University. OWU or Ohio Wesleyan would be much more appropriate. Since the school uses OWU on it's own website, I think the occurences of Wesleyan (by itself) should be replaced by OWU.
  • I suspect that this would be an exception, because "OWU" as you know is how the students/faculty refer to the school (for those not familiar, we say "Oh-wooo", not O.W.U.) I very rarely, if ever heard somebody refer to the school as "Wesleyan" because that does create confusion. I would posit that this abbreviation is more along the lines of an accepted acronymn for the school.Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-"In the annual celebration for George Washington's birthday in 1862, an attending senior endorsed Wesleyan's "ideals of democracy" during his oration." What does "attending senior" mean? What relevance does he/she have?
-The Female College should have it's full name used the first time it is used, not just it's common name.
-"yet no major buildings were built in this time." seems out of place/disjointed.
-The article states, "formal ties to the Methodist church were severed in the 1920s" but the official website reads "OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church."<http://www.owu.edu/about.html> The affiliation is loose, but it is more than just a historical one.
-"More recently, Wesleyan has achieved several academic and athletic recognitions." The only academic citation to follow is from 1986.
  • Is there something more recent? Otherwise, get rid of the words "more recently." You introduce the period starting with 1984 and the item used to support "More recently" is 2 years later.Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line covers the athletic recognitions, which start 16 years later. Can we think of another way to rephrase that? LaSaltarella 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-The article jumps around in tense--- EG the chapter that begins with "Wesleyan continues to undertake construction projects" immediately gives a recounting (in past tense) of construction over the past 15 years.
  • I am not sure how we can avoid this for this specific paragraph. The focus in the paragraph on the transition between the past history and the present. Any suggestions will be much appreciated. LaSaltarella 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the lines of, "Over the past 2 decades, OWU has undertaken numerous construction projects. This began with the rebuilding of [what's that dorm that was rebuilt] and the new union building.... It continues on today with the construction of...."Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-None of the sources cited support, "Since 1983, Ohio Wesleyan has been listed in U.S. News & World Report among colleges that attract the highest percentage of international students." One doesn't work, the other three deal with specific points in time and raw numbers. They are citing places that offer awards based on numbers not percentages (granted, the fact that the school has more international students than larger schools is a good indicator of percentage, but it isn't what is cited.)
-"because of resulting shortage of people wanting to live in off-campus housing due to the off-campus lottery cap." Shouldn't this be: "Because of the number of people forced to remain on campus due to the off-campus lottery cap?"Balloonman 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if my rewording that last point is any better. But when I read that there is a "shortage of people wanting to live in off-campus housing" it says "We need more people to live off campus, thus we are going to force people to live off campus whether they want to our not." When I was there (and I believe you said it is still the case) that the problem is that more people want to live off campus than the campus allows. So the shortage isn't the number of "people wanting to live off campus," but rather the number of lottery picks allowing people to live off campus. If I'm wrong, let me know.Balloonman 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now, concerns met Comment: (mostly taken from User_talk:LaSaltarella#OWU_final_thoughts and edited for conciseness). I became involved with the article in peer review and have made comments since. I think it is much improved but am still concerned about the following before I can support it here.

    When OWU opened, it was an academy (prep school) for 2 years before becoming a University. This is mentioned in connection with the academy's closing in the 1920s, but I think it needs to be said at the beginning first. Also, the first college of the university was the College of Liberal Arts established in 1844. I think it is inaccurate to say "By the end of the 19th century, Wesleyan had added a College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1844)..." as adding implies there is something in existence to add to, but this was the first college and my understanding is that the University came into existence with the college's formation (unless the Academy was somehow the same as the University, which would also need to be explained here if true). The Academy and College of Liberal Arts need to be mentioned in the Founding section.

    I also wonder about the choice of buildings in the article and worry it might run into WP:Recentism problems, as it seems most buildings built in the past 50 years are mentioned, but none are mentioned between the purchase of Elliott Hall in 1842 and building University Hall in 1893 (the first 51 years). See History of Ohio Wesleyan University for other buildings built then. I would argue that for a very new University the decision to build a second or even third building is a much bigger event than building two dorms 110 years later (i.e. Thomson and Bashford Halls). Obviously not all buildings on campus now or in the past need to be mentioned, but some are omitted that probably should not be.

    Finally three minor points: I would add that the Ohio Legislature approved Poe and Elliott's charter; I am also not sure of the significance of a student in Ohio in 1862 praising Washington; and I am not sure that the other members of the Ohio Five (now mentioned in the article body) are worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraphs (which are a summary of the most important things in the article). Ohio Five yes, all other members no. I think the article is very close to FA and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support - Great article definitely worthy of FA status. Clearly, a lot of time and energy has been invested in this article. Extensive copyedits from so many editors (such as user:Josiah Rowe, user:LaSaltarella, user:Ruhrfisch, user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 user:SandyGeorgia, user:Indrian, user:A bit iffy, user:BryanD, and user:Balloonman; I probably missed a few other significant contributors in the history). It is amazing how many people helped out. Full disclosure: I did some copyediting of the history section as well. I think most the minor issues raised above are valid, and I will assume that you will fix those. I agree with Balloonman that the lead is a bit weaker than the rest of the article, which is somewhat disturbing since that is what should be the strongest. I think adding a bit about athletics would be a wise decision (also, I agree that the first paragraph of athletics would be a prime candidate for picking stuff from) or something else that is particularly important. I think two more sentences in the lead should make it more thorough and perhaps flow more naturally as right now somebody might say the lead is a bit choppy. -Bluedog423Talk 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despondent comment. In brief, I haven't read this article and I don't want to do so. ¶ I'm very much in favor of providing explicit sources, e.g. via footnotes, for information given. However, I'm amazed and dismayed to see an encyclopedia article with over two hundred footnotes. For an academic paper in law, or possibly an encyclopedia article on a Really Big Subject (e.g. general relativity), perhaps. But for an encyclopedia article on one university? I'd take it as a tip-off that something has gone very wrong here. ¶ Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: [[Patricia Wettig]] (1974), the actress who plays vice president Caroline Richards on ''[[Prison Break]]''; and [[Clark Gregg]] (1984), the actor playing Richard in ''The New Adventures of Old Christine'' with [[Julia Louis-Dreyfus]].<ref name= "clarkgregg">{{cite web| url = http://www.cbs.com/primetime/old_christine/bios/clark_gregg_bio.shtml | title = The New Adventures of Old Christine | publisher = CBS |accessdate = 2007-01-06}}</ref> I wouldn't have thought that TV actors were sufficiently notable even to be worth a mention in this article (though I don't begrudge them their own articles); if they are notable then surely their appearances are known by those who will be interested and don't have to be repeated here, and their own articles will anyway both tell which programs they appear in and also provide evidence for their having graduated from this or that university. ¶ That was alumni, but I could have chosen something else. It's necessary that "information" is verifiable and relevant and of interest to some readers, but from my PoV -- perhaps atypical, which is why this is a comment and not an oppose vote -- it's not sufficient. From my PoV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience. A lot of what's in this article does not seem to be important, and the result is an article so garrulous that I for one don't want to read it. -- Hoary 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't that the article somehow "overreferences" what it presents as facts; it's that many of those facts are trivial. ¶ I suspect that this article isn't actually intended to be read straight through; rather, it's intended to be searched within, via Ctrl-F or however the reader's browser does it, and have bits of it read. To me, that's not a good encyclopedia article. ¶ Back to my example. Do you really believe that the article is helped by having descriptive sentences (referenced, of course!) about individual television actors who've graduated from OWU? I'd suggest either a list of people, of which a sample entry would be "Patricia Wettig, actor (1974)", or (much better) to relegate that function to a category and instead to survey the indisputably notable graduates (as opposed to mere TV actors and the like) in a single short paragraph. -- Hoary 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a fine article, with good structure, but it suffers from foonote overkill. A proper lead is a summary of the body and won't need 10 footnotes, they should be in the body. But in this case, the body has over 200. Something seems amiss here.Sumoeagle179 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, thank you for the compliment regarding the article. I really appreciate it! Many users have invested a lot of time in improving it via several Peer Reviews. Regarding the footnotes, I am reposting my comment from above. My understanding throughout the whole process of improving the article is that, unless it is a fact, the rule given in the page "Ten tips to make an article FA" is Cite everything!. User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA provides more explicit advice than that by saying One citation for each sentence!. For a couple of sentences the citations were added as they seemed to be controversial issues at a particular point in time and in others, the context dictated it if it covered a longer period. Correct me if the User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA is to be interpreted differently. If there are facts that don't citations, do let me know and we'll correct that. Thanks again for your time! I greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that for featured articles unless there is a direct quotation in the lead paragraphs (which needs a ref), typically citations are in the body of the article. Leaving one ref in for the direct quote saves 9 (from 205 refs now to 196 refs). It appears to me that the refs were added piecemeal as the article was written and so have some duplicates that could be condensed into one ref with the use of <ref name ="blah"> tages (as is already done for a few refs, such as current ref #3 "About US. The Five Colleges of Ohio"). For example current refs #114 and #115 are both "Learning at Linden" and seem to be the same ref (and neither works when you click on the link). Or current refs #132 and #133 are both to the OWU Greek life web page and its History sub page, so you could link both to one ref and add see also History subpage.

      I also wonder if there couldn't be some condensation of book footnotes. I searched on the Tull book notes and there are currently 14 different refs for this book, four of which are duplicates (current refs #49 and #50 are both "Tull p. 182", and refs #139 and #140 are both "Tull p. 132"). I think you could get away with condensing all 14 into just five refs, saving 9 more refs (at end of my comments). So just these saves 20 refs or about 10%.

Tull A = "Tull pp. 180-183" (substitute for current refs #43 (p. 180), 49 and 50 (p. 182), 51 (pp. 182-183) and 52 (p. 183))
Tull B = "Tull pp. 40, 127-132" (current #6, #139, #140)
Tull C = "Tull pp. 26-29, 49" (current #91, #190)
Tull D = "Tull pp. 140, 142-143" (current #105, #146) or pp. 140-143
Tull E = "Tull pp. 98, 99, 102" (current #152, #156) or pp. 98-102
    • There are 19 refs for Hubbart, two of which are duplicates (to p. 38, #20 and #21). Suggested way Hubbart refs are condensed to five refs, saving 14 more (34 refs gone, about 16% fewer): A (six notes now) "Hubbart pp. 10, 14, 22, 38, 45"; B (five notes now) "Hubbart pp. 68, 72-80, 87-88, 90, C (six notes now) "Hubbart 110, 112, 121, 127", D (three now) "Hubbart pp. 140-160" (now #42 plus #39 (p. 142) and #41 (p. 141)) and keep one "Hubbart pp. 160-164" (now #44).

      My guess is that the other books and other duplicates could save 20 or 30 more refs. In any case, the use of p. and pp. is not consistent for the books and needs to be cleaned up. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I really appreciate your help! User:SandyGeorgia helped me tremendously with the referencing two months ago as is evident in both Peer Reviews. I added and dropped a few since then, but it is entirely possible that some of the formatting rules have changed. By all means, let me know if there are formatting issues. :) Thank you, once again! LaSaltarella 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are very welcome. Combining duplicates violates no policies. Putting similar page numbers together doesn't as far as I know, but you may want to check with SandyGeorgia to make sure it doesn't violate policy. If this doesn't work, another thought would be to do the book refs by chapter (all from Ch. 1, all from Ch. 2, etc). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I understand it correctly, the last of those ideas is a bad one, reducing the number of notes (and, trivially, of bytes) while retaining the same number of places where notes are referenced and causing the reader who actually wants to look the stuff up to go through entire chapters rather than directly to the specific page. You may wish to reread my comment above (newly elaborated), where I say that the problem is of the number and triviality of the factual assertions that are made (and that of course need referencing). -- Hoary 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has a self-congratulary mood that kinda bugs me, and can be pretty boring at times, but I can't really argue with its FA status. Good work LaSaltarella and congratulations! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really wanted to find at least one major mistake... Nearly all of the sentences are referenced. Well done! NCurse work 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very comprehensive page but I do wonder if over 200 footnotes are strictly necessary. Is the place that contraversial? Giano 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would put this article as much better than good article but less than featured. The pictures are superb and the article certainly cannot be accused of not citing its sources. However, it seems disjointed in many places, whether this is a result of someone just turning a list into a paragraph, a lack of context for the content, or just the sheer volume of footnotes seemingly following every sentence, the reasons vary. What I'm trying to say is that I don't get the point of the content in many sections.
In the history section, for example, I don't necessarily care about when every building was built when I don't know what the building is or why it matters - these details might be better left on the List of Buildings page. The article does good job of pointing out how Wesleyan responds to major historical/cultural events (Great Depression and Vietnam), but what of the Civil War, WW2, or end of the Cold War? There are passing references made to the troubles Wenzlau had, but what are they and how did national coverage by the Washington Post contribute to his resignation? Given the authors' ability to marshal facts for the profile section, I would like to know more about how Wesleyan was challenged in this period between Vietnam protests and pre-9/11. Why did Warren conduct so many interviews and what topics did his discuss?
The profile section is just a torrent of facts, which, granted, many other universities' sections are as well, but this seems as though someone turned a common data set questionnaire into a paragraph. Tell me about trends, not just numbers in the abstract - ie, are average SAT scores, yield rates, etc going up or down? The whole paragraph starting on socio-economic equality is unnecessary - need-blind admissions, financial aid, etc are not unique to this university and no arguments are advanced as to why OWU is unique.
The campus section is too concise, probably a by-product of information being parceled off into sister pages. Now would be a good time to mention the size of the campus, not in the introduction. Where is it in relation to notable/major landmarks/cities? Is the campus urban or rural, does the campus blend into the neighboring area or is it strictly demarcated? What's its approximate shape and how are buildings distributed within it?
Many items in the student life section (acapella groups, governing bodies, etc) do not seem to merit mention. That they exist is uninteresting - most universities have analogous groups. What have they done or why are they interesting?
Reading over the sister page Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University, I think almost all of it should be brought back to the main article because it talks about events and topics that have stimulated debate and reveal something of the moral/ethical character of the university's community.
The notability criterion for the alumni seems to have been set low, as was mentioned before. Authors of textbooks, professors at Harvard, actors in minor roles? Scrub away some of the cruft.
If the international character of the university figures so prominently in both the intro and in rankings, why does it only warrant 3 paragraphs? In conclusion, I feel (1) this comes across as a "glossy brochure" and (2) that this page has become too balkanized - I can tell that a lot of interesting information was moved off onto sister pages, leaving this main page with many sections filled with, well, filler. Madcoverboy 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Madcoverboy, thank you for your feedback! I really appreciate your time and comments! I've been working very closely with two editors for two current Featured Articles for Universities, the Duke University and the Michigan State University ones. They were incredibly helpful and at various points even contributed as much as I did! I have worked with numerous others editors (evident from my Talk pages and the PR pages) who had brought many articles to FA status in the past. Some of your concerns brought up above relate to requests from these editors in the past two Peer Reviews. I encourage you to take a look. Unfortunately, striking a balance at times may involve tough decisions: what one editor dislikes may be what another editor likes. As most of them had substantial experience with Featured Articles, for the most part I only listened to what they had to say. My guiding criteria has been consciously trying to stay with the general editors' consensus. Unless a concern is brought up by more than one users, it is hard to strike an aggregate balance between likes and dislikes of the WP community. I will try to address the specific concerns brought up above. Thank you, once again! I really appreciate your feedback! LaSaltarella 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaSaltarella, I don't think that anyone has disputed that you (together with others) have put an enormous amount of work into the article. No need for you to remind us. ¶ "Unless a concern is brought up by more than one [user]": the concern about length and exhausting coverage of relative trivia has been brought up by at least two users, Madcoverboy and myself. It's possible that Madcoverboy and my ideals are incompatible with those of the other people who have rushed to say "support"; but I find this hard to believe: most FAs are long and (while I cannot speak for Madcoverboy) I usually approve of them, reading them (by which I mean reading them in their entirety) with pleasure. ¶ By contrast, I find this article unreadable. I keep wanting to skip. As I skip, I notice such attractions (?) as photographs of Charles Fairbanks, Frank Sherwood Rowland, Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli and Branch Rickey. I had never heard of any of them. This is not necessarily a criticism of either them or the article. My criticism of the article is its presentation of stuff about them that is (or should be) in the articles about them, to the extent of showing their photos: I don't understand how the physiognomy or taste in clothing of (say) the 26th US veep tells anyone anything about OWU (moreover, I have a niggling feeling that I've read somewhere, perhaps in a piece by Gore Vidal, that the position of veep was near-meaningless until fairly recently). -- Hoary 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hoary! I appreciate your time and opinion! It certainly adds an interesting perspective. You mentioned earlier "From my POV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience." Several considerations have guided my inclusion of material to account for what is important on the subject, most notably, Undue weight and Let the facts speak for themselves. I realize that these NPOV rules might have compromised what some consider interesting in general. My first priority has been to follow the FA guidelines and NPOV is certainly one of them. Just to help me understand your request, what are the specific changes in the text that you would like to see? Specific example of what you want to see get changed and how you want it changed will help me a lot! Thank you for your time again!!! LaSaltarella 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article that is definitely worthy of FA status. A lot of time and energy has been invested in this article and it shows. Enduchus 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - worthy of featured status - I've got no complaints. CloudNine 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great prose, amazing pictures. Definite FA. к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lot of work has gone into this article; this is one reason why I didn't want to oppose it previously, when I instead wrote a "despondent comment". That comment doesn't seem to have had any effect; perhaps this will. A lot of material in this article might belong in an OWU website (which already exists and within which any interested person is free to browse) but it does not assist an article within an encyclopedia, which should cut away trivia dutiful listing of the unremarkable and instead provide a summary that (among other things) is sufficiently concise to invite a straight-through reading from start to finish. -- Hoary 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hoary! I appreciate your time and opinion! It certainly adds an interesting perspective. You mentioned earlier "From my POV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience." Several considerations have guided my inclusion of material to account for what is important on the subject, most notably, Undue weight and Let the facts speak for themselves. I realize that these NPOV rules might have compromised what some consider interesting in general. My first priority has been to follow the FA guidelines and NPOV is certainly one of them. Just to help me understand your request, what are the specific changes in the text that you would like to see? Specific example of what you want to see get changed and how you want it changed will help me a lot! Thank you for your time again!!! LaSaltarella 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and comprehensive article. It caters to readers across levels of interests and deserves to be Featured. One suggestion though; it may be helpful to trim and consolidate the footnotes, so as to balance comprehensiveness and compactness. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Wiggum Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of Australian Football League premiers Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battery electric vehicle

Adi Shankara

Old nomination was long and most of the comments there already addressed, so I'm restarting it. There appear to be language issues, but other than that, it seems almost ready to go. Raul654 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As mentioned above, the lead is not a good summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  2. I might have missed it, but I couldnt find what language he spoke or wrote his books in.
  3. Are all the foreign terms sanskrit? If so, it needs to be mentioned somewhere.
  4. Would it be possible to mention in which language Shankara means "bestower of happiness"?
  5. Who wrote the Shankara Vijayams? When were they written?
  6. With King Sudhanva of Kerala as companion - Kerala did not exist until many centuries later. ~~Could you mention the name of the kingdom?
  7. Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya -should be italicised for clarity.
  8. Are any of his works still available in its original form?
  9. Could the ISBN number of Tapasyananda Swami's Sankara-Dig-Vijaya be given?

-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply I have addressed 1 and 2. Yes all foreign terms are sanskrit. How could I include this in the article? I have addressed 4 and 5. The date of the Shankaravijayams would be proper in the article Shankara Vijayams. The name of the kingdom is not mentioned in the reference. So I reworded it as "the Malayali King...". I have addressed 7 and 8. 9 is already there :) Babub→Talk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: Technically speaking, even "Malayali" would be incorrect, as Malyalam never existed at that time. But I think it is fine, as it could also refer to the ethinicity.(Please wikilink it to Malayali though) Leaning on support, but a few other points:
  1. In the Smārta tradition, Adi Shankara is regarded as an incarnation of Shiva. - There is a slight confusion caused here for people unfamiliar with Hinduism. Is Shankara considered as a God or a philosopher, or both?
  2. You mentioned the works are still extant. Where can an interested reader see them today?
  3. I'm confused at the liberal use of foreign terms in the article. For example, wouldnt saying Advaita Vedanta is based on scriptures/science, reason and experience, and aided by spiritual practices., be better than Advaita Vedanta is based on śāstra ("scriptures"), yukti ("reason") and anubhava ("experience"), and aided by karmas ("spiritual practices"). Is there any reason for using all the foreign terms, when there are words in English that can very aptly describe them?
  4. Vadakkumnathan (Vṛṣācala) Could you please confirm if the IAST is correct?
-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done with "Malayali". 1) He is considered as an incarnation and worshipped in Smartism. But, his works are studied universally. So speaking from the Smarta view, he is an incarnation and obviously a philosopher. 2) More details regarding the numerous available editions of his works are at Works of Adi Shankara, linked from the relevant section of this article. 3) Well regarding the non-english terms, Adi Shankara's works are in Sanskrit. Frankly the English terms are just vague meanings. So it may be better if we give the actual terms he uses. 4) (Vṛṣācala) is given as "Vrishachala" in Tapasyananda's referenced book. I'll remove the IAST for now until I can confirm it. P.S. Your signature is making weird spaces appear on this page. Could you possibly shorten it? :) Babub→Talk 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All my concerns have been met.--thunderboltz 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support per last nom. Rama's arrow 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but only because I don't think WP copyright policy is officially met until a copy of the copyright release is sent to Wikipedia as well as the author who requested it. I think the image page must reflect this. Bureaucracy but needed. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) OK, opposition withdrawn. I assume this should go thru with no problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify how to send a copy to Wikipedia? Is it ok if the copy of the mail (stating the copyright/photo use permission) is displayed in a user subpage?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor is requesting to follow this policy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've forwarded the email to the PR dept per the above policy. Babub→Talk 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Darkblue Bakaman Bakatalk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per who? Lol, thats HTML code. :) -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update per Babub. Lol that was funny.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Mack Stadium

I think that Connie Mack Stadium is a great article. --South Philly 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer

I somehow began working on this article several months ago. I knew almost nothing about The Inquirer when I started, but found the paper's history fascinating. There was no "complete" news media article to base it on, but I believe I managed to get it to FA quality. I look forward to reading your comments.Medvedenko 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Seems in order, has references and notes, and seems to cover reasonably well the aspects of a newspaper. It you wanted to be truly comprehensive though, you should include a list, past and present, of which comics have run in the newspaper, of course :) . RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't read the whole article so I'm not going to vote, but the three HUGE sections into which the article is divided concern me. I don't think it's a matter on which one could object in and of itself, but, as a personal preference, I like articles which have a slightly more modular level of ToC organization than exists here. --DanielNuyu 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added subsections and it does seem to make the article more presentable.Medvedenko 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job, Medvedenko! --Kitia 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. The prose in the second paragraph of the "corporate ownership" subsection is a little bit strange - it seems to meander all over the timeline, and is a bit confusing. More generally, some of the prose is a bit fragmented - it could do with a little bit of a copyedit. It is nonetheless a fantastic article though. Rebecca 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danaman5 did a nice job fixing up the paragraph before I got a chance. Also thanks for all the nice comments. Medvedenko 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AK-47

Autostereogram

See also: archived discussion page for the first expired FAC nomination

This is a self-nomination. This article was first nominated by User:Skittle two months ago and it went through a month-long enhancement, mainly in inline citation. It has been a month since the nomination was retired. And I believe all previous problems are now addressed. The article was given Wikipedia:Good articles status on June 29th. Fred Hsu 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like it deserves to be featured. 11kowrom 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I apprecate that the images are necessary to explain the subject, but the current layout is pretty messy, and I'm sure must look worse at some resolutions.--Peta 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative objection. Agree with Peta and also find the style unencyclopaedic in places:
    • "converging the two eyes at a point behind the pattern" - how about "focus"?
    • "One needs to fight this urge"
Looks like a great article otherwise.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first quote doesn't refer to focus. Both eyes are focused on the image (they have to be or else it would be blurry, 3D or not), they are just focused on different parts of it, so the lines of sight intersect at a point behind the image. I'm not sure how the wording could be improved... —Keenan Pepper 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. It was looking well-written until I hit "such as in a repeating pattern like you might see on wallpaper", which crashes on several counts. Further scrutiny revealed problems such as:
    • "Julesz used a computer to create a stereo pair of random-dot images which when viewed under a stereoscope, caused the brain to see 3D shapes. This proved that depth perception was a neurological process."—Tense: shouldn't it be "cause" and "is", for permanent facts? More commas please, such as after "which". Please go through and audit the text with respect to both of these issues.
    • "Around 1849-1850, David Brewster, a Scottish scientist, improved the Wheatstone stereoscope by using lenses instead of mirrors, thus reducing the size of the contraption. Brewster also noticed that staring at repeated patterns in wallpapers could trick the brain"—Can't you make it "In 1849 and 1850"? (Maybe not; it just looks awkward as is.) Get rid of "also" to strengthen the flow of the text. The word reduces the impact of your main point (what he noticed).
      • It is not clear in which year this incident took place. I changed it to "Between 1849 and 1850". What do you think? I also removed "also" as you suggested. Fred Hsu 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish you'd tell us how to look at the first image, on the spot. Perhaps in the image info page, since you invite us to click on the thumbnail image?
      • I made the words "viewing technique" a link to the "Viewing Techniques" section. I wish I could explain the technique in a few words. But it is impossible. Fred Hsu 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, but please get a colleague, whether a WPian or external person, to sift through the whole article; the prose is not yet "compelling, even brilliant". Tony 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else gets to it by this evening, I'll go over it with a fine-toothed comb. —Keenan Pepper 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Keenan, for going over the entire article again! I'll address the rest of issues our dreaded Tony brought up tomorrow, if you don't get to them. Thanks again. Fred Hsu 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't gotten to the last section Autostereogram#Viewing techniques yet, and that may be the one with the most problems. I'll look at it right now. —Keenan Pepper 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how nice to be famous. You do want to be proud of the article, don't you? Tony 09:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he didn't mean it personally. Anyway, the article could still use a little work. Specifically, it's 33 kB long, slightly over the suggested limit of 32 kB, and it could use some omitting of needless words, as Strunk and White say. I'll try to do some pruning. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I meant it personally, as a compliment :) I read Tony's comment on other candidates and his Guide on 2a with admiration. But I simply don't have the skills to perfect English writing :( I knew he would strike sooner or later, and hoped that someone like Keenan would step in to help ;) Fred Hsu 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one takes the 33 kB limit as a strict boundary, and much larger FACs are regularly promoted. But prune for readability and concision. Tony 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... what's the verdict? I believe all known problems are addressed during this latest round of copyediting. I hate to see this second nomination 'expire' like the first one. Will some kind soul put a stamp of approval or disapproval on this article? Fred Hsu 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very interesting, and, in my opinion, sufficiently well-written. It even talks about the type of people (like me!) who can't see the things. A few minor points: please remove all bold from the article except that which appears in the first sentence. If possible, make images that are next to each other have the same frame size (will be based on the length of the captions and the width vs. height of the images). Consider reducing the size of the largest images (perhaps a max of 300-350px would be more approriate for people with 800x600 screens). Also, using a gallery may be a good idea for the first three images in the 3D perception section. Finally, I'd suggest renaming the section currently called "How they work", though I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selena

Archive1

Re self-nom This article barely failed it's FAC the first time around, and I'm trying again. Since it failed it went though a copyedit, and reached GA status. I would be around for any concerns you may have. Thanks Secret wat's sup 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - very accurate article; many wikipedians (especially latino music fans) would find the article interesting and relevant; well cited and organized; front page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only comments are, with all that stuff about her father steering her career and controlling her love life, I wondered if the sources had anything to say as to whether he was a domineering personality, sometimes to Selena's dismay. Also, a couple paragraphs starting with "Selena released her next album..." seemed a little tedious/repetative to me, although I couldn't think of a way to reword them without making them passive sentences. About.com is referenced, although given that website copies a lot from Wikipedia itself, I wouldn't think of it as the greatest source. Other than that, good job. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would object based on the sources, but they can probably be fixed. Very good start, worthy of consideration. The first thing I look at is references, and they cause a problem for me. I should not have to click on a link to see what the reference is. Can you please convert them to a bibliographic style, and use a consistent style? For example, your first reference should be (depending on what reference style you choose) something like, Mitchell, Rick. "Selena". Houston Chronicle, 05/21/95 (with the link to the article as "Selena"). The idea is, if the Chronicle takes down the link, I should still be able to find the article. The problem is created by the use of cite web, when you are really citing a newspaper. I can't tell if most of your references are news media primary sources, or websites put up by fans. I have to click on each one to evaluate their reliability, and would prefer to see what kinds of sources you used without having to click on each one. For example, when I click on the reference for Selena and Coca-cola, I find what appears to be a fan website, which is not a reliable source. If Selena was a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, there must be a reliable source mention of it somewhere. The mention (above) of about.com as a source is a concern, as every article I've ever encountered on about.com had accuracy problems. I'll take another look if you'll improve the references. Sandy 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I replaced the Coke ref with a The Handbook of Texas ref, I don't know how to convert them to a bibliographic style though, do you still leave the link, also I didn't see any refs from about.com. Finding credible refs online is very hard and I'm trying my best to look. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want, I can do a couple for you as a sample. Let me know. I do them manually because I *really* dislike citeweb (it doesn't work well for medical articles), so let me know if you want me to tackle them. I'm sorry to have parroted the comment from above regarding about.com, if there is no about.com reference. Hmmm??? Sandy 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Working my way through the references, mystery solved. I think the editor above meant answers.com rather than about.com. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, so is circular reasoning as a source. Sandy 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the discography section could benefit from a table, similar to the one in the Alison Krauss article. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something I don't know how do to, several music FAs don't have them though like Celine Dion. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a simple matter of copying from Alison Krauss' article and changing the text accordingly. See:

[table snipped from this FAC page] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—2a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required.

    • "Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple,..."—Spot the redundant word.
    • "four number one Spanish hits"—hyphen required.
    • The link As of June 2006 takes me to stuff about the German intelligence agency, Iran, and Cape Town. Delink it.
    • "The family soon went bankrupt, and they were evicted from their home." Spot the redundant word.
    • "Taking all their musical equipment and an old bus,..."—"In" would be better than "and".
    • "There they performed whenever they could; at street corners, weddings, quinceañeras, and fairs." No, the semicolon should be a ... (you tell me). Tony 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fixed all, mostly edits a annon user made not long ago, I don't know how to use an hyphen well so I might have done it wrong thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples were evidence that the whole text needs editing. Can you network on WP to find people who are relatively unfamiliar with the text to improve it? Tony 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be willing to look at the text, but after the article is thoroughly referenced. For now, there are still three personal or fan websites as references, so I have to object based on prose and referencing. Sandy 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I fixed it all. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck references above as completed: all of the references are now to reliable sources, but you should check that every statement in the article is referenced before we work on the copyedit. Sandy 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look, there are still numerous statements that aren't referenced. A few examples from early on in the article (I didn't go through the entire article):
She continued her education on the road; at age seventeen she earned a high school diploma from The American School of Correspondence in Chicago and was accepted at Louisiana State University.
They initially performed at the Quintanilla family's restaurant, "Papagallos," but the restaurant failed shortly afterwards.
I also saw this in the lead, so wonder about the copy edit that was done: her 1994 album Amor Prohibido produced four number one Spanish' hits. Sandy 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alot of the info comes from the same refs, might be a bit of an overkill. As for the sentence, that was when I tried to fix Tony1 objection, but as I really never used an hyphen before. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ref the family resturant one, but I don't agree with every sentence has to have a ref part, as it's not a contverisal article, and would be an overkill to add the same refs, people just can read the refs. Thabks Jaranda wat's sup 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your work, Jaranda, but there's still the need to engage collaborators in the task. Here are examples why, which are from the first part I inspected this time, at random—the opening of the "Legacy" section.
    • "In fact, the Guinness Book of World Records, in 2003 (she had previously graced the book's pages as the "most dominating artist"),..."—Stop-start structure; remove "In fact" to start with, since it adds nothing; perhaps replace it with "In 2003,".
    • "López was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best Actress."—Do you mean for her role in that film?
    • "Over 12,000 people tried out for a role in the film.[17] This film stirred some controversy in the Mexican-American community since López is Puerto Rican and was playing the role of a singer who was of Mexican descent." To qualify as "compelling, even brilliant" prose, it might be something like this: "More than 12,000 people auditioned for a role in Selena.[17] The film stirred controversy in the Mexican-American community, since López is Puerto Rican and played the role of a singer of Mexican descent." And just why that community was upset is not quite clear.

Someone unfamiliar with the text needs to sift through it to make it really good. Nothing less is sufficient. Tony 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok User:Hoopydink did a decent copyedit, even though I had to revert like half of it, but most was useful. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd go through the text in order to help, but I think it's still rather incomplete and not quite ready for a thorough going over. Jaranda, I know the woman is idolized, but is there *no* criticism of her anywhere? With bios such as hers, you have to carefully watch that the article doesn't veer into POV fan worship. A little more content addition, and I'll help with the copy edit. Sandy 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a major problem, all the sites I went to has no crticism of her, maybe some older newspapers and magazines have them but they are not in the web, also her career was cut short by the murder before she managed to reach the U.S english market, limiting the critism there. I would look but it will be hard to find. Jaranda wat's sup 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out obvious bad faith vote Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on my object: It is better than it was, but if it's going to be promoted, I shouldn't be able to easily find things like this stubby little paragraph with imperfections:

"In October of 1995 a Houston jury convicted Saldívar of first degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in thirty years."—See WP:MOS about the "of" before a year. Comma after "1995" might be nice. AmEng goes easy on hyphens, but US editors would still insist on a hyphenated "first-degree" here.

And the next sentence I saw was:

"Meanwhile, "I Could Fall In Love," while ineligible for the Hot 100 at the time due to it not being released as a commercial single, did reach #12 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart and the top 10 on the Adult Contemporary Chart. To date, "Dreaming of You" has sold approximately four million copies in the USA." Meanwhile ... while. "Due to it not being released is awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. What is the earthly point of writing "to date"? How will our readers know when you're referring to? Just remove it and update when necessary.

And:

"People magazine published a commemorative issue in Selena's honor, this being only the third occasion on which People had released such an issue."—The same grammatical issue, in the second clause. Tiresome repetition ("People" and "issue"). Reword the whole sentence.

And:

"Stern's comments, predictably, outraged the Hispanic community"—Remove "predictably" as POV (if it's not POV, it's unnecessary).

I'm not yet satisfied that this is FA-standard prose. I want to be able to pick out a few sentences without finding these types of problems. Tony 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those above examples were fixed, and fixed a little bit in the last section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I provided the examples at random to show that the entire text needs a final, good run-through if it's to be promoted. Just fixing the examples is not the point. Can you ask someone new to look at it? Do you have a list of good copy-editors? (I do, but I keep it to myself.) Tony 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, what I will do is try and place a tag for copyeditors to come and look at it. After doing a bunch of FAC's, you know that copyediting is not my strongest point, and about 9 times out of 10, I get someone else to do it for me. I'll see what I can do myself, too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but you know what they're like (rather passive); try active networking with a few—flatter, engage, then ask.Tony 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since grammar is pretty much the only sticking issue with this FAC, at least we should get this down right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bana

Self-nomination: This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations and such. It received very little attention in peer review, but I think that this article is ready now, and I hope you agree. -- Underneath-it-All 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I put critical appraisal within the body of the film career section of the article, so everything about that certain film is all in one section. -- Underneath-it-All 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm late. I change my vote to Support. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely suggest a lot more sources throughout. Statements like "The Castle was a critical and financial success, but its humour was not well received by audiences outside of Australia" definitely need a source (or two:)) . Mad Jack 05:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources throughout the entire article. -- Underneath-it-All 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following sentence is missing some information (which I assume is the $ symbol) but someone who knows should probably add it. The Castle was a surprise critical and financial success, earning 877,621 at the box office in Australia. JenLouise 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the missing dollar sign. -- Underneath-it-All 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also alot of the phrasing is pretty bad (eg. Dominik had been working on the project for five years and had been having a difficult time finding an actor to portray Read. I'll go through and rephrase where I can, but it needs a serious look at. Specifically, the word had is way overused and sentences containing it could be better articulated.JenLouise 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the line to Dominik had been working on the project for five years, but was unable to find an actor to portray Read. I have also went through the article again and have fixed minor grammer and spelling errors. -- Underneath-it-All 03:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not geographically specific. Many financial figures are simply quoted as "$" but apparently at different places "$" means different things. See WP:NUM - I suggest writing [[United States dollar|US$]] and [[Australian dollar|AU$]] on first appearances and simply US$ and AU$ thereafter (no redundant wikilinks). TheGrappler 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this, but what about international money totals? I have stated the international box office gross for Troy but do not know what to put in front of it. Do I just leave it? -- Underneath-it-All 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's actually measured in US$, I think it would be a good idea to say so. Makes things less ambiguous. TheGrappler 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have fixed all the financial figures. -- Underneath-it-All 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object—nice job with the article, but I've got a few questions:
  • "for his impressions of his teachers, which he used to get himself out of trouble." Could this be expanded more?
Expanded a bit. Explained why he performed impressions and when he began to do them. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supporting himself by clearing tables". Was he not successful as a comedian?
Explained why he had to continue to clear tables. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which told the story of a Melbourne-based family's struggles". Not interesting. What kind of struggles? Could this be expanded somehow? If not, take it out.
Expanded the film's plot and why the family is stuggling. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the film received a limited release outside of Australia, Bana's performance was met with positive reviews." Not sure what this is trying to convey—is "limited release" a good thing or bad thing? How is it related to the type of reviews he received?
Reworded sentence to just say it was given a limited release outside of Australia. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections in "Personal life" are rather short. Can they be expanded at all?
I have expanded the interests section, but cannot really expand the section on his family life as he is a private man and not much is published about his personal life. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace or remove the "Newspaper unknown" reference; that's scary.
I have replaced it with a reference with a magazine name. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How were the three general references used? I'm a little confused about those.
The general references were for used in place of articles I could not source (ex. these articles did not have the newspaper they were published in etc.). These general sources are pretty reliable, as they have been used as his biographies on web sites such as IMDB and All Movie Guide. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any books exist that could be used as sources? Any biographies of this guy yet?
Bana is not really well known outside of Australia and as far as I know, there hasn't been any biographies published about him. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't far from FA status, just needs a few more touches. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. I don't suppose there's any way to get a free image. Thanks for making the fixes. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can try and see if I can find one. Thanks for your suggestions. I think they have improved the article greatly! -- Underneath-it-All 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The whole this needs a copyedit. A few specific comments:
  1. His most popular films include Hulk, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005). -- how can that be the case is Hulk was a box office disaster?
  2. What is an "audition tape"?

--ppm 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the article. While Bana did gain a lot of media exposure for Hulk and he is well known for his role, you are right in the fact that it was not one of his most popular films. I have changed this to Black Hawk Down. As for the last sentence, I have reworded it. -- Underneath-it-All 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other biographies that were featured articles talked briefly about the subjects children, so that's why I included a bit on his children. -- Underneath-it-All 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—I'm sorry to have entered this page late. The entire text—not just the following examples—needs a run-through to weed out bad prose.
    • "featured skits, stand-up and celebrity guests but failed to attract a substantial audience and was cancelled due to low ratings after only eight episodes."—Comma required before "but" (more commas throughout the article would improve readability). Don't you mean that it "was cancelled after only eight episodes due to low ratings"?
    • "Bana was invited to perform on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live, making his television debut."—Better prose is required by the FA criterion 2a: "Bana was invited to make his television debut on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live."
    • "he was persuaded to try stand-up comedy while working as a barman at Melbourne's Castle Hotel."—What, he did the stand-up comedy act at the bar? Make it clear.
    • "Bana performs predominantly in leading roles in a variety of low-budget and major studio films, ranging from romantic comedies and drama to science fiction and action thrillers. His most popular films include Black Hawk Down, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005)."—Why not plain and simple: "Bana mostly performs"? Pick the group of three redundant words (and as well, we have "ranging from" in the subsequent clause). Can you possibly replace "include" with "are"? You're implying that there are other "most popular films" that you're not listing here.
    • "The two were married in 1997, after Bana proposed to her"—Not three? Just make it "They were married ...".

A copy-editor who is relatively unfamiliar with the text is needed—it will take about an hour. Please network to identify such a person. Tony 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha! I'm about to do the unthinkable and suggest that Tony's suggestion still contains redundant words: instead of "Bana was invited to make his television debut", why not "Bana made his television debut"? ;-) I'm working on doing a more thorough copyedit—I did the first level two section, and will hit the others tomorrow. Hopefully I'll catch the important stuff. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, Spangineer. Tony 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Seperating the "early life" and "personal life" sections at each end of the article makes the article flow poorly. It also contains very little about his comedy career, including only one sentence on his time as Full Frontal, which was the break that first brought him to nationwide fame. Rebecca 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a brief summary of Bana's career. Everything cannot be mentioned. How would you suggest expanding this section? Also, other Featured Articles on performers such as Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman and Katie Holmes have seperate sections on the performer's "early life" and "personal life". -- Underneath-it-All 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've crossed out my former objection, as while it is bad practice, I can't hold it against you for following earlier precedent. That said, it really does need more about his time on Full Frontal. This series launched him to national fame, and paved the way for his entire later career, and it is given only one sentence in this article - compared to his fleeting bit role in The Castle, which is given an entire paragraph. There should be plenty around from the time, although it may require some searching of newspaper archives (as, being in 1994-95, there probably isn't much online). Rebecca 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a small bit on where he got his character inspirations from, but other than that I am lacking info on this time in his life. Most biographies only include one quick sentence about his time on Full Frontal (such as his official bio on his managements website). Other articles (which I have looked up on http://www.ericbana-archives.com/ spend very little time discussing this period. -- Underneath-it-All 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed an image. Now there are only two. -- Underneath-it-All 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian chant

Self-nominationThis article has been through a major overhaul. The content has been reorganized to give a more comprehensive coverage of the topic. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by several editors, and has gone through a peer review. This is a great demonstration of the advantages to Wikipedia not being paper, using both images and sound files to illustrate the essay. Thanks for your consideration! Peirigill 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I'd like to see this promoted, but the prose is not yet good enough. Here are examples.
    • The opening sentence is a long snake that needs splitting. I'd love an en dash for "800–1000"—perhaps "the ninth and tenth centuries" might be safer, or are you sure of those exact boundaries? PS I've learnt a new word: "redaction"—nice.
    • "but came to be associated"—are you contradicting the previous statement? If not, use "and" instead.
    • "Musically, it is organized ..."—I think we've lost sight of what "it" refers to.
      • Does anyone else insist? Unless there is a serious short term memory problem, flows good here to me.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every use of "it" and "its" in the lede refers to "Gregorian chant." I've reworded the lede slightly to make that more clear.
    • "outside OF"—please no.
      • If you insist

- though I have a bit of a musical problem with that statement...Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • I have a bit of a musical problem with your edit here, Bridesmill. The B-flat isn't a "deviation" from the diatonic scale, it's a result of Guido's hexachords. "Deviation" has a negative connotation of "introduced error" that strikes me as incorrect and even POV. Moreover, a very small number of Gregorian chants include E-flats and F-sharps - not enough to dwell on, but enough that your statement "B-flat is the only deviation" is incorrect. If the concern is with the phrase "outside of," a simpler fix is to just say "outside the diatonic scale." Unless you disagree, I'd prefer to use this wording, and revert your edits, Bridesmill. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had the sense of 'deviation' as 'exception to the rule' rather than 'deviance'. My real problem though it the B flat - my music theory was in 1974 or so, hence I'm quite rusty, but seems to me this would be the case only in key of C; my recollection is that the rule is actually the 6th note rather than specifically B flat. If that's the case, it could read "...hexachords using the diatonic scale and (in solfege notation) Te" ?216.168.114.215 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid your music theory is, in fact, a bit rusty, at least as regards the medieval use. There was no "key of C" during the period when Gregorian chant was being made to conform to the system of modes. The theory involved "hexa"-chords - patterns of six notes - so there was, in fact, neither "ti" nor "te" in Guido's solfège, only ut re mi fa sol la.It was very specifically the B-flat, and no other note, that was allowed. Specifically, the "B" from the the G hexachord was the "hard B," and the "B" from the F hexachord was the "soft B." This latter was drawn as a rounded b, which is the origin of the flat sign. If anything, it was the note beneath the clef marker, not the sixth note, that became linked with the flat. This is why the E-flat was the second "accidental" to be used; there were two "clefs" in common use, one clef where the C was marked and another where the F was marked. The soft-b sign originally placed beneath the C line was eventually stripped of its meaning as a "B," reinterpreted as a flat, and placed on the space beneath the F line to indicate an E-flat. The B-flat was not an "exception to the rule." It was an application of the hexachord pattern (whole tone-whole tone-semitone-whole tone-whole tone, the intervals between ut, re, mi, fa, sol, and la) to the core notes C, F, and G (the Pythagorean tonic, fourth, and fifth of the diatonic scale). But this takes us into territory that isn't germane, and belongs not in the Gregorian chant article but the solfège and music notation articles. The original wording - minus the redundant "of" - is more accurate.Peirigill 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a vocabulary of particular musical motifs"—Can you clarify "particular"? Either remove it, or disambiguate.
      • I believe this is clarified further down, to do so in lead would make the lead too big, at the same time, the point shouldn't be left out of lead altogether.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nowhere in the article do I write out these motifs. There are hundreds of them, each consisting of around ten to thirty notes. As the article states, some motifs are used only as incipits, some only as cadences, some only in between. Honestly, I don't believe that writing out the particular musical phrases is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about chant, as opposed to a monograph. Even a representative sample, such as the motifs used for the Iustus ut palma chants, takes several pages in Apel. However, they're not completely absent from the article; a few of these motifs are included in the Tract "De profundis." One cadence motif in particular occurs several times. I could draw the reader's/listener's attention to that more explicitly, if you think it necessary. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from which the modern five-line staff would develop"—Since you've already located the development of the GC in time, can you specify the century here?
    • "Gregorian chant also played an important role in the development of polyphony." "Important"? No, be stronger: "critical" or "crucial".
    • "It is the music of the Roman Rite of the Mass, and of the monastic Offices"—"of the" occurs three times.
    • "Although it is no longer obligatory, the Catholic Church still officially considers it the music most suitable for worship"—maybe a reference for this? Unsure. And can you go through the whole article to audit the use of "it"; I find the referent unclear sometimes. Here, the first "it" might refer to "the Catholic Church"; although this becomes clearly not the case as you read on, you shouldn't have to be left hanging, even for a few seconds. There are three "its" at the end.
      • One 'it' & ref for Cath.Church opinion done Bridesmill 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you look at the talk page, you'll see that this issue has been raised and addressed.There's a more direct (and less biased) source than the Catholic Encyclopedia cited later in the article.Is it really necessary to cite this in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article, when this exact point is elaborated and given a citation in the main body of the article?Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with Bridesmill's citation for modern notation in the 16th century; per WP:LEAD, the lede isn't supposed to contain information not in the article, and that detail isn't in the article.I'd prefer to move that added phrase about the 16th century down to the section on Medieval and Renaissance music, and use Bridesmill's citation there rather than the lede.Is that acceptable?Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you make a good point, but for me, it seems like the kind of statement that, while true, is immediately called into question and begs for verification. What about a link that just sends you down the page to the appropriate section for more info and your better reference? I was also surprised to find the relevant part ("Vatican II officially allowed worshipers to substitute other music, particularly modern music in the vernacular, in place of Gregorian chant, although it did reaffirm that Gregorian chant was still the official music of the Catholic Church, and the music most suitable for worship.") in the "Texture" section. This doesn't seem appropriate. MarkBuckles 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding the use of "it": I'm going through the article, editing the word "it" per your instruction, and I'm finding that this is primarily an issue in the lede.The word occurs hardly at all in the body of the article.I'm revising where I think there's even a slight chance of confusion.In general, I'm not rewriting the impersonal use of "it" in phrases such as "it is believed" or "it is common for" where "it" does not have a specific referent.Please let me know if there are specific cases that you find problematic.Your request for an "audit" is addressed below, in response to your request for better copyediting. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote underneath the ogg link starts with quote marks and with a lower-case letter. I'd like the author of this statement in brackets, plus the year, rather than having to hit the reference link for this.
      • Done Bridesmill 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:CITE, Wikipedia style doesn't prefer one style over the other, but it does require that citation style be consistent throughout the article: "All three are acceptable citation styles for Wikipedia. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."With all due respect, Tony, I don't think this particular objection is legitimate.The footnote should stay, and the Harvard reference be removed.Please let me know if this request of mine is unacceptable, and if so, why your instruction overrides WP:CITE.Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption for the image: can we have the year or century? Where is "St Henry"? Can you fix the funny angle of the page? (Even my computer will do this.)

The article needs a thorough copy-edit; then we'll look at the musical side. Tony 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The primary copyediting issue that you raised, the use of "it," isn't really an issue in the main body of the article.Prior to Bridesmill's editing, the word "it" occurred only sixteen times in the entire article."Its" occurred five times, and "itself" only once.However, I've cleaned up these cases where corrections seemed merited.If you have other specific copyediting concerns, you would be helping me out a great deal if you could point them out.Having copyedited this article a great deal, I'm less able to identify problems than I would be were I editing someone else's work with a fresh eye.Thanks to you both for your comments! Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx; it's customary not to strike out reviewers' points as you address them. Tony 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. Is the performer of the "Alma Redemptoris Mater" a Wikipedian? Nice, but I wonder whether a tiny bit of reverb wouldn't be inappropriate: it's a dry acoustic. I guess it's not mandatory, but there's nothing in the "file info" about the recording—date, recordist, venue, whether it's a private recording.

  • Yes, the performer of all the chants is a Wikipedian, namely me working with a broken microphone and recovering from a bout of bronchitis.If someone would like to instruct me how to add reverb using GarageBand, or wants to take it upon themself to add reverb, they're welcome to do so. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then my eyes strayed onto the first para in the first section:

"Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy of the Christian church since its beginnings. The singing of hymns is mentioned in the New Testament, and other ancient witnesses such as Tertullian, Pope Clement I, St. Athanasius, and the abbess Egeria confirm the practice,[4] although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on how music sounded in these first centuries."

Does it change the meaning too much to start with "Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy since the beginnings of the Christian church"? Sorry to be snapping terrier about "it" and "its", but here the pronoun could refer to "unaccompanied singing" or "the Christian church". Of course, after thinking about it for a few milliseconds you realise that it's the latter, but crystal clear prose typically avoids such ambiguities. There's further ambiguity in "although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on ...". Here, "that" could refer to the confirming of the practice by the specified witnesses; it's the way I first comprehended it, only to do a reverse after finishing the sentence (realising that the referent is "a poetic or obscure way"). Have you got a few copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text to collaborate on this job? (Lack of familiarity is an inherent advantage, of course.) Tony 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I spend a few hours making exactly this kind of edit... Unfortunately, that resulted in an edit conflict, so it'll be a little while before I can post all the changes. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Certain classes of Gregorian chant have special musical formulae for each mode, allowing one section of the chant to transition smoothly into the next section"—I'm uncertain of the meaning of "special", which is rather broad in meaning. I wonder whether you mean "specific". Or perhaps "particular". Tony 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically, we're talking about species of formulae, so "special" is precisely the right word, as opposed to the usual, vaguer meaning of "special."I'll take the surgical solution and just remove "special" altogether, and make the problem go away. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image I can't find where the image is discussed above; Bridesmill has uploaded a straightened-out copy, however to my eye it is not nearly as sharp (can I see some artefacts at the top even in the thumbnail?) Looking at the file sizes it seems to be 85-ish KB vs. 125-ish KB. As it is now I prefer the older image. Mak (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what happened - hazards of jpegs - will fix later 2day.Bridesmill 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My preference was for the original, at a large enough size that I could read the music and words clearly enough to sing the chant.Shrinking it made for better page layout, and rotating it made for less awkward composition, but both make it nearly impossible to read the score.I guess the "pretty" outweighs the "musicological" in this case, but it would be nice to have both.Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Peirigill that once the image is restored to its original resolution/filesize it would be nice to make the image large enough to read, making it not simply a pretty picture, but also demonstrate its use as a musical artifact. I have seen instances where images are made larger in the lead in order to increase their encyclopedic and pedagogic value. Mak (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of" and "inside of" have crept into the oral mode, particularly in North America. The preposition is absolutely idle, and professional editors in North America will remove it, solely for that reason; any serious editor will remove redundancies. Same as "she brought along food for the poor". Tony 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • English is a Germanic language, with a rich heritage of compound prepositions.I'm not giving up "in between" regardless of what anyone says.To my ear, "outside of" implies a metaphor ("outside of this group") whereas "outside" implies physical location ("outside the house").Mandating that the only good prose is that which reduces language to its most sparse strikes me as aesthetic as Orwellian Newspeak and as arbitrary as outlawing split infinitives (another fine Germanic linguistic convention) on the grounds that Latin prose didn't allow for it.But you're the one with your name on the style guide, and you're the one with veto power; so be it.I'm not arguing the point - I hope my "hors d'œuvres" comment was understood as a jest; I've already been accused of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN during this FA review, and trust me, I have no desire to repeat that experience - but I don't want you thinking that my position is completely unconsidered. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In between" is fine in the right context, because it can mean more than "between". I'm unsure that your metaphor argument is substantive; can't "outside" be metaphorical? Sparse, no; plain and elegant, yes. Since you can't split infinitives in other Germanic languages, the concept was specifically English in the first place. It's a long-shot to compare my plea to drop the "of" to the outmoded ban on split infinitives. And thanks for the note about the style guide, but I don't mind being challenged, and my word should count just as much as that of other reviewers. I continue to learn. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stray afterthought #2... Re: "she brought along," it's not the case that "she brought" and "she brought along" are absolutely identical.Just ask our comrades on the German Wikipedia whether "bringen" (to bring) ("sie bringt es," she brings it) and "mitbringen" ("to bring along") ("sie bringt es mit"), she brings it along) are absolutely interchangeable. I'm reminded of an Iowan friend of German blood who would say, "We're going to the store.Come with!"It was a disconcerting phrase, but one that makes sense as German-influenced dialect; "come!" means "get over here!" whereas "come with!" means "join me!"A small but important difference, that implies a personal connection.I don't mean to push this example too far; clearly, in standard English, "she brought along food to the poor" is for all practical purposes equivalent to "she brought food to the poor," and I wouldn't challenge such an edit.But it does seem to me that a trace of that personal connection lingers in the phrase "brings along," which seems to imply that the food was hers to bring, or that she carried it herself.It's not true that the phrases are absolutely equivalent in connotation or even in denotation. Again, I hasten to say, not to challenge your editorial policy.Just food for thought. One thing about being a medievalist is that you start paying attention to the long-lost connections between languages like this.Peirigill 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but only when they're substantive; I'm unsure that your ascription of additional meanings to "along" would strike a chord in others. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of copyedits of the kind I hope Tony was requesting have been added. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, flows better IMHO; though the "This results in melodies that fall within the diatonic scale, but allow both B-natural and B-flat." in the lead, not sure if its adding anything - the 'Modality' section expands on it in a very clear & understandable fashion, but summarized (as it needs to be) in the lede, to my ears it only confuses - also, it is providing expansion, explanation, or assessment (depending on how you look at it) which is not the place of the lead. Bridesmill 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Phrasing this point has been a thorn for some time (see the talk page).Here's the crux: the lede should mention hexachords, and give a very brief, non-technical description of the word, since hexachords are discussed in detail in the article.The lede should also mention, in some precise but not overly technical language, that Gregorian chants (generally) can be sung using the white notes (including B-natural) and B-flat.In practical terms, that's more important than the hexachords are.The role B-flat and B-natural play in Gregorian tonality comes up in the discussion of modality and of Communions... and it occurs to me that the "soft b" should really be mentioned in the notation section, as well. Now, how to word all of this succinctly in the lede? The B-flat isn't really an accidental.In fact, it's not technically even a B-flat.As you pointed out, Bridesmill, B-flat is a modern term, anachronistic in the context of Gregorian chant, and yet it's the only reasonable way to discuss the note without getting far too technical for the lede.I still prefer my original phrasing, but I tried to incorporate your phrasing into the last edit, and felt I had to split the sentence into two in order to meet Tony's stylistic requirements.I agree that "diatonic - but not really" isn't the best way to say express the situation, but I also think introducing solfège is both overly technical and misleading.Is there a better solution that
  • mentions and briefly explains hexachords,
  • indicates that Gregorian melodies primarily use the diatonic scale,
  • mentions that B-flat is also permitted, and
  • makes it clear that the B-flat and B-natural can coexist in the same melody, or at least doesn't imply that one "B" has tonal "priority" over the other?
Peirigill 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it really need to mention it any deeper than the brief explain of hexachords, given that as you say (and I agree) the Modality section does a stellar job of explaining how this fits in with our modern understanding? I'm afraid that any more either risks getting too technical for a good lede, or too brief and confusing. You're right about the solfege - that just thows a 3rd monkey into the works.The lengthy version which meets your wishes might be: " Instead of octave scales, six-note patterns called hexachords underlie the modes. These patterns use elements of the modern diatonic scale as well as what would now be called the B-flat " Anyone else with an opinion?Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inserted this version, minus one "the." Peirigill 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support (of somewhat involved editor) with all due respect to Tony's copy-edit reservations, I believe the article is well and clearly written , very thorough, covering all important aspects of the topic without too much "cruft" creeping, good solid supporting articles, especially on neumes and other types of chant in the Catholic tradition. The images, although few, are of high quality and free, as well as adding significantly to the article. It is neutral and factual, and well sourced with inline references, using the most important and well respected sources for the topic. The article is not and never has been subject to edit wars, and the number of recent edits are mainly copy-editing, so I would say that the article is stable. In addition it follows the Manual of style. I believe that's all of the criteria. I also feel that, aside from simply meeting the criteria, it is also a very good article on a somewhat difficult topic. Mak (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know I've been working on tweaking this the last few days, but most of this is very much picking nits among perfectionists rather than being an active contributor. A very good article that explains the subject understandably, links well into background, does not get 'too' absurdly technical, is well documented, in short - better than most FA's currently out there IMHO. Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. Here's a jingle I don't know how to fix: "was common practice until the beginning of common-era practice". I'm uncomfortable referring to organum as harmony, which I've always thought of as involving triads, whether sounded or implied. Organum is essentially anti-triadic, isn't it? "Individual composers" is odd if not placed in the context of anonymous composition that characterised the invention of GCs. Tony 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a fix on that one.Maybe try "usual" or "predominant" instead of "common" -- in general I don't like sticking the two words "common" and "practice" together unless the usual, very specific musical meaning is intended. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harmony doesn't have to involve triads.(Check out Antandrus' article on bicinia.)The usual definion of harmony is "two or more pitches sounded simultaneously," especially in the context of independently moving lines.Organum qualifies.The difference between chant and organum is the difference between melody and harmony."Harmony" can mean different things in other contexts, but here the broader meaning of harmony should be clear. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Individual composers" is odd.I think it's trying to get at the idea of a deliberate composition of a unified Mass, which you'd expect to be composed by an individual, as opposed to most Gregorian Masses, whose songs are musically unrelated.I'll revise it. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The independent bass line existed in Renaissance times, but it became a standard feature in the baroque.I'll reword the article to split the difference. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Well-written, thorough, and informative.I really have to struggle to find nits to pick.A question on content:are there any examples of early, early Christian liturgical music in ancient musical notation?I don't think so, but maybe one of you know better.Ancient musical notation survived until around 300, at least that is the date of the latest scraps of which I'm aware.Isidore of Seville famously mentioned around 600 AD that it was "impossible" to notate music, so there was a gap of around 600 years during which chant was an oral tradition only.Later on in the article, it could be mentioned that the chant made its way into Protestant services as well:for example, Christ lag und Todesbanden is the Victimae paschali laudes, fitted with a D# as the second note, at least in Bach's version, and there's lots more chants that ended up as Protestant hymns.Nice article, excellent work, and thank you to all who helped with the writing and copyedit.Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any notated ancient Christian songs before medieval plainchant.The Ugaritic notation's all pre-Christian, and the Greek songs are all pagan, so far as I know.You got me on the early Protestant stuff.I know that the earliest attested vernacular hymns were German versions based on Gregorian, but that was c. 1100, well before Luther. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact at least one Greek Christian hymn. You can see it included on this cd (track 16) and this CD (track 17); I think I have both but I'm in the middle of moving and it may be a while until I can find them. I think there is a bit of a discussion in the liner notes about how it is the earliest known notated Christian hymn. It is notated in the same way as other (mostly older) ancient Greek music, which used a letter notation. Rigadoun 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool!Here we go, from Grove:

"There exists only one certain monument of early Christian music, and a possible second. The first is the so-called Oxyrhynchus Hymn, a substantial fragment of a hymn to the Trinity discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Lower Egypt in about 1920 by Grenfell and Hunt (1922); it was copied on the back of a papyrus towards the end of the 3rd century by a Greek-speaking Christian (seeillustration). Its Greek letter notation allows for an accurate transcription. It is a diatonic piece of slightly less than an octave in range, with its final on G, and with most syllables of its text set to one or two notes. Scholars have held widely divergent views on how characteristic of early Christian music this seemingly isolated fragment was. The possibly contemporary example of Christian song is the simple Sanctus melody that is best preserved in the Western medieval Requiem Mass. Kenneth Levy (1958–63) has argued persuasively that this melody, and indeed the entire dialogue between celebrant and congregation of which it forms a part, dates from the 4th century. It is narrower in range than the Oxyrhynchus Hymn, as befits a congregational acclamation, and slightly more syllabic, while its diatonic tonality differs from that of the Hymn in that it has a half-step below its final."

"Even if this Sanctus is accepted as authentic music of the 4th century, and its rough similarity to the Oxyrhynchus Hymn is noted, the two provide little evidence on which to generalize about the character of early Christian song. Only a number of broad reflections on the subject are possible. It can be said with some degree of certainty that early Christian music was largely diatonic. The one or two preserved examples aside, it appears that the music of the entire Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamian area, over a period of many centuries, was basically diatonic, even if sometimes embellished chromatically and microtonally (see Crocker). No doubt Christian music inevitably participated in this tonal environment." (James W. McKinnon: 'Christian Church, music of the early', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 11 July 2006), <http://www.grovemusic.com>)

It doesn't sound like it really fits into the Gregorian chant article, though... would it go under Notation, Modality, or History? Peirigill 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restructuring the early history, following suggestions by Sarabil701, created an obvious and integral place to mention the Oxyrhynchus hymn.Yay! Peirigill 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Tony's interpolated comment: "!--Is this a reference to neumes? If so, most readers won't have a clue. Refer them to the image above, and specify square noteheads?--" Yes, it's a reference to neumes.Square notation is mentioned at the top of the article (in the lede image caption) and discussed in the Notation section.Should I assume that the reader hasn't read the article up to this point?If not, the reader should have a clue.If so, then I shouldn't assume the reader will know what a "neume" is, either.I was taught to assume an intelligent but uninformed reader: assume they know nothing until you tell them, but you only have to tell them once.... Hm.I'm worried that "the square noteheads of square notation" is going to cause the same problem as "common practice in common-era practice."Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the objections have been addressed.Several of us have continued to fine-tune the writing even after Tony withdrew his objection.Still, a week has passed without further comment on this page.Is this a concern?Peirigill 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm wondering why this nomination is still here. The contributors have worked very hard to make it excellent. Tony 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I went over this with a fine-tooth comb and found virtually no problems. Comprehensive, NPOV and excellently referenced. Moreschi 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In the rhythm section it says Mocquereau's approach was "promulgated" by the Ward system. I had changed it to "popularized" but it's back to "promulgated". For me "promulgated" is a legal term that seems out of place here. Two other nits I puzzled over: the comma after "monophonic" in the lead made me parse it as a noun at first, and I read "significative letters" as "significant letters." Gimmetrow 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary meaning of "promulgate" is to officially declare in a public way that a law is in effect; the secondary meaning is to make something widely known.The primary meaning of "propagate" is to cause plants or animals to reproduce; the secondary meaning is to spread ideas to many people.Justine Ward was disseminating a performance style that had just been mandated by Vatican decree, and thus "promulgating" it, but I'm sure she saw herself as sowing musical seeds in the dear little children, and thus "propagating."Neither word is perfect, but both are acceptable.I only included Justine Ward and her impenetrable, moralizing pedagogy under duress, so I'm certainly not going to fight about which 50-cent word has the least objectionable primary connotation.;-)"Propagate" it is.
    • I'm not sure what to tell you about "monophonic" and "significative letters."These are technical terms in musicology.I really think that they're the correct terms to use, and that the opening sentence is grammatical.Would it be less confusing if the opening sentence read "unaccompanied, monophonic" instead of "monophonic, unaccompanied"? Peirigill 11:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (game show)

previous FAC

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=65869529"