The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [1].
Spring has sprung. My wife is gone for a week. I'm happy and joyful. Therefore, I am nominating this for featured article to bring misery upon myself. This is my first nomination of what I hope is many more (I have good mental health insurance), so please be extra critical so I can learn from my mistakes.
Bgwhite (
talk) 02:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Reluctant OpposeComments: I hate to be the one who spoils your happy week, but there are significant problems here, all sortable however:-
In general I can see a lot that's good here, but more work is needed to bring it to featured level. You have a few days of freedom left to you, so all should be well. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Further comments: Here are some comments on the Early Mormon settlements section.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to go through all the remaining sections at this level of detail. I have struck the oppose on the basis of your obvious willingness to address the issues, which has already led to significant improvements in the article. I hope that another reviewer will point out what else needs attention, and that the article will continue to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton ( talk • contribs) 12:57, April 16, 2010
Comments
I've made some copy edits that you'll want to check over to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. This is a good article and quite detailed, although in some places could use a little more. There's some occasional odd phrasing, but for the most part the article reads well enough. All in all, a good effort for your first FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured article. —
Ed!
(talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose A solid and detailed article, but it could do with some work on the prose and putting some information in context. There's a slight imbalance in the content of the article as well, with more detail on the US troops.
I've made a few minor copy edits, but you'll want to double check them to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Nev1 ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments Nice article, but needs a little globalising as at the moment it is rather dominated by the US perspective. Apart from "Attempted crossings that night were repulsed to the south by South Korean forces" one would think that the US was fighting alone rather than as part of a UN force. Also the earlier "The division was consequently alone for several weeks" implies that the 24th was the only force fighting the communists in the peninsula rather than the only US force in theatre. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment by Doncram Interesting article, about a battle i knew nothing about. There is one map in the article which could/should be improved or supplemented by another map. A map should show Naktong, the Naktong River, and the "Naktong Bulge" of the article name. I presume that the "Naktong Bulge" is either a bulging shape on a map that comes in from the North Korean positions, i.e. their invasion formed a bulge like the German invasion at Battle of the Bulge formed, or it is the other way around, that there was a protruding bulge of the American and allies' position that the North Koreans attempted to reduce. Which is it? Note, there is a "Naktong-ni" located on the map; i don't know if that is Naktong. If the Naktong River is in fact labelled on the map, then i don't see it. But the article starts out saying the American forces were along the Naktong River, and i would like to know on the map where that is referring to. Hope this helps! -- doncram ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [3].
This article is once again being nominated for FAC because we believe the article meets those criteria. It has been worked on carefully by us, and others, since last July; we have made our best efforts to maintaining a NPOV on this difficult and polarised topic. We've been careful about POV, weight, referencing, and the reliability of sources. It was much improved by going through the last nomination, but failed because of a comment by an editor who we feel made an unfair criticism but which we perhaps failed to resolve in a convincing and decisive fashion. Ultimately it would be nice to get this to FA status in time for July 5, 2010 (the first anniversary of the riots). 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments. This is a very interesting, and generally well-written article. Congrats to all. A quick scan suggests that good sources have been used. I have a few prose niggles to start with:
Other issues
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [9].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it fulfills all the criteria for an FA. It has gone through a successful GAC and has been peer reviewed by a competent editor,
User:Finetooth. This nomination is part of my on-going attempt at improving all
Maya Angelou-related articles. I would appreciate any and all feedback to improve this article. My only concern is with the images; I've struggled with finding appropriate ones to add and would like additional input. Thanks. --
Christine (
talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
In short, this is a very interesting article, but I think a serious copy-edit is needed, especially in order to cull some of the repetitious phrasings and to ensure that the tenses are presented consistently (or something closer to it) throughout. I'm also a slightly concerned about the "Critical reception" section, as stated above, but if that's all that is available, so be it. I'll be happy to support or offer further review if these concerns are addressed. María ( habla con migo) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. Comment I'm doing some copyedit cleanup. Will report back when I'm done.
Scartol •
Tok 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
images File:Angelou3.jpg has no valid fu rationale Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't see the issues mentioned earlier in the review on a quick scan. It's a quick read, which I like. I'll revisit later today with a closer read-through in case I've missed something. Definitely leaning support. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward A few comments from me here. :) The article is interesting, but still has a few issues. I've outlined them below.
Oppose Overall this article is pretty good. I pointed out the most obvious prose issues, but there are a number more. This article could still do with a fair copyedit. The number of uncited quotes, the prose, and the usage of the the purple onion image make me have to oppose for now. None of these issues are hard to address though, and if you can I'd be glad to change to support. Great job so far, I see you've put alot of work into the article. Keep up the good work and you will have a feature article on your hands soon enough! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:33, 26 April 2010 [10].
I am nominating this for featured article because... the article has recently been improved and promoted to GA status, and I believe it meets FA criteria. Winjay ( talk) 10:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is not ready for FAC; I suggest a Peer review and a reassessment of its good article status. On a very quick glance, I found:
These are samples only; the issues are throughout.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:03, 25 April 2010 [12].
The article's
first FA nom got snagged on an image issue and a lack of comments for or against promotion. The image in question
survived a deletion attempt, which I hope puts that issue to rest. Also, the article was recently
promoted to GA with minimal issues raised. I hope to see it passed to FA on its second time around.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
oppose The image was kept as it was "probably free", clarification is needed on the licensing used for this image, if it is not free I fail to see how this image would meet
wp:nfcc
Fasach Nua (
talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
File:Seal_of_Kentucky.svg tagged as free, however the description seems to prohibit derived commercial works, and thus not free as far as wikipedia is concerned, can this be clarified? Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
File:Kentucky_quarter,_reverse_side,_2001.jpg - The linked license on this image states "Designs of the new quarter-dollar coins issued under the 50 State Quarters Program may be derivative works of designs covered by third-party copyrights licensed to or assigned to the U.S. Mint, or in some cases may be covered by third-party copyrights assigned to the Mint. You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain.", therefore on what basis is this considered to be devoid of copyright? Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
Very interesting article! I enjoy reading about politicians. My issues are mostly nitpicks, but the prose is a little troublesome in spots and there a few inconsistencies in the information, all of which I have noted. If you can address them, I'd be glad to support this article. Great job so far! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support I find the article a great read. The oppose above in regards to the image is not really relevant; its is clearly non-free based on its current licensing, but has an acceptable fair use rationale. I am neutral regarding the citations; there is not really a guideline that limits the use of citations, so I don't feel an oppose is warranted along that line. I do agree there are many unneeded citations though. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. It's clear you've done a lot of research, but I believe this article is an example of overcitation. I know you've worked hard on this article, but every single sentence is followed by a citation. with this many citations, the article becomes very hard to read.
Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
I see AC has combined a few citations.
Comment. I am working through the article, copyediting, and I think the prose does need improvement. As a result I am not ready to support yet. I don't want to oppose just yet either; most of what I'm seeing is fixable, and I'm leaving some queries on the article's talk page. I will try to finish the copyedit tomorrow. I will also note that the image oppose above doesn't seem valid to me, though I'm not an image expert; I think the image has a reasonable fair use justification.
Update: I've now finished going through the article and have posted notes to the talk page. My main concerns at the moment would be comprehensiveness and some prose choppiness. The latter can probably be dealt with after the talk page notes are responded to, but I'd like to hear from the nominator about the issue of sources. -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:59, 25 April 2010 [13].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fulfils the relevant standards set.
Ironholds (
talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments I'm not sure that this is quite ready yet. Just looking at para 2
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:55, 25 April 2010 [14].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now satisfies all the
featured article criteria. You may want to look at the archived peer reviews (
1,
2, and
3) and the previous FA nominations (1 and 2). For a more detailed explanation of why I feel this should be a featured article, read
here.
Stonemason89 ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Quick comment for now: some newspaper titles (Los Angeles Times, The Commercial Appeal, etc.) are not italicized in refs. There's just enough non-italics that I can't tell if that's intended. -- an odd name 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Images -
File:Politicalcesspoollogo.jpg has no valid FU rationale
Fasach Nua (
talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:25, 24 April 2010 [16].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been through
GA review and
peer review and meets the
featured article criteria. This article has caught on with bloggers who have never heard of the topic, and who write their own summaries based on this article (for example
here,
here, and
here), and one reader left a kind message on my talk page
here concerning this article.
Particular attention has been made to include contemporary sources, since most (actually, nearly all) modern-day reference works do not mention the subject of this article. When I began this article in 2007, the subject had only three valid Google hits. Luckily, that has changed.
I'm aware that the subject is on an obscure, unpopular topic; finding a GA reviewer took several months, and the article also ended up on the Peer Review backlog. So if the article fails FAC due to lack of support, but the content is improved, that's ok. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
This is a very nice article and an interesting topic. It is lacking in details in some areas, but I understand that the availability of published information equally lacking. Most of my comments are nitpicks, and once addressed I'd be glad to support this article. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
images File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg non-existent FU rationale! Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:16, 24 April 2010 [17].
I am nominating this for featured article because...
This was a significant figure in early television history. However, while there was much material in newspapers and books about him, little had ever been collected together. This article presents a balanced view of this controversial figure. I was careful to verify everything with citations and to leave my own opinions out of it.
BashBrannigan (
talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
images three non-free images....no FU rationales Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Work needed on alll of these points. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:58, 24 April 2010 [18].
I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent numerous months expanding and editing this article to the point that it is at. I believe it is well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the FA criteria. It has been promoted to GA for a fairly long time and the reviewer said that he or she believes it is a good candidate for FA. JHawk88 ( talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Not sufficiently well-written. Linking and MoS issues.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:47, 22 April 2010 [19].
Halo 3: ODST is the expansion to what was then, the biggest entertainment launch of all time, the release of
Halo 3. In this article: marketing blunders,
film noir influences, and
Peter Jackson. I believe it meets the FA criteria. 'Nuff said.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Three weeks, and this FAC hasn't gained consensus for promotion. Since it has no outstanding objections, David, bring it back in a week, or you can nom another article-- do some reviews! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:54, 20 April 2010 [20].
I have been working on this article for more than a year, It has reached Good Article Status, and now I think it's ready to be nominated for featured article. Harrisburg, Illinois was one of the leading bituminous coal mining distribution hubs of the American Midwest between 1900 and 1937.
At its peak, Harrisburg had a population that reached 16,000 by the early 1930s, and had one of the largest downtown districts in Southern Illinois. Ruhe1986 ( talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
images File:Hburgil_logo.jpg does not have a valid FU rationale, File:Hbgnatbank1.jpg has no rationale Fasach Nua ( talk) 16:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Oppose on criterion 1a
At a glance the article appears good, but after reading the first three sub-sections, it's clear the article needs a thorough copy edit to and attention paid to the way information is structured. Nev1 ( talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [21].
This biography passed as a GA in May 2009. Article is stable, with no edit wars. Biography is well researched and meets
WP:NPOV guidelines. Sources are excellent, and plentiful. Seems to be FA quality to me.
Sugar Bear (
talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Charles makes some good points below - I'll revisit after they are addressed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
Oppose for now. The prose is my primary concern, its pretty rough in places, has spots where it suddenly shifts topics, then bounces back, which makes it a bit hard to follow a narrative. I pointed out the instances I noticed in my first read through. Something you may consider is separating out some of his personal life information and combining it into its own section, running parallel to his professional career, or adding enough personal life information to make full paragraphs out of them; either option would take most of the choppiness out of the text.
Another item that feels like it is missing is the limited information on his personal life - I am not intimately familiar with the topic, but did he have siblings, if so mention a number? The only mention of his children is where he is was banned from seeing them; how many are there? are they by Laura? Ages and names may be appropriate if they are adults. Did he become estranged from his father, if so mention it? What is his financial situation, did he earn a substantial income from his music? There is little or no mention of his legacy (he is largely considered a joke nowadays, right?) Who were his musical influences? There seems to be a significant body of missing information expected in a biography of this nature, nothing extensive, just many little things.
I understand given his low profile, there is probably no biography of his life written which can be used as good source for a full complete article, but the article could really benefit from such a source if one exists. As it is now, the article is sourced almost exclusively from news stories (which tend to be less than comprehensive) and short online bios.
Overall the article is well researched and well referenced. Good job on it so far! Keep up the good work, and if you can resolve the prose issues I've raised, I'd be glad to change to support. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [22].
I am nominating Dancing the Dream for FA because I have worked on this book article for several months and feel that it meets the FA citeria. Billed as "an inspirational and passionate volume of unparalleled humanity", Dancing the Dream was written by
Michael Jackson and received somewhat negative reviews upon its release in 1992. Little has been published about this book in relation to the more "juicier" aspects of Jackson and his life, but I feel that this article is comprehensive in documenting Dancing the Dream. Thanks,
Pyrrhus
16 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Support Very good article. A bit on the short side I'd say, but with over 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, the shorter the better. I'm so proud that the wikiproject I founded is producing such great work, and I should commend you personally Pyrrhus for being an amazing editor on all things related to MJ in Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. I hope to see you at FAC many more times. UBER (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. While I'm not very familiar with GA and FA books, from what I can see the article meets the FA criteria because it is well sourced, well written, has a neutral point of view and is informative. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
More to come. Parrot of Doom 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Steve 08:33, 20 April 2010 [27].
I am nominating this for featured article because it satisfies
WP:FACR, has passed
a peer review, has been promoted to GA-status, and
its GA reviewers suggested that it be nominated for FA.
Cinosaur (
talk) 17:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - Inappropriate use of multiple non-free images, not plausible as a FAC
Fasach Nua (
talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:47, 16 April 2010 [28].
I am nominating this for featured article: it has recently been through a peer-review (13 March) and successfully promoted to GA (14 April), so I feel it is ready to meet the nit-picking of a FAC.
Sandman888 (
talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Why is File:FCB.svg used in this article? Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I get 9 hours to respond to critique? Is this really normal FAC policy? Sandman888 ( talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:49, 16 April 2010 [29].
Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics is a well-researched article, a survey of the best sources, which gives the reader a detailed representation of Rio's Olympic campaign.
Felipe Menegaz 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments –
This article was widely used in the internet, been copy-pasted by several reliable and unreliable sources. Even large media organizations, like the British Broadcasting Coorporation (BBC), used the text from this article. Take a look:
“ |
|
” |
— Wikipedia, Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics February 8, 2009. |
“ |
|
” |
— BBC, Candidates for 2016 Olympics Updated on September 30, 2009. Published on February 13, 2009. |
The original text was added by me on June 29, 2008. [30] After months, I made sure that BBC used my text because of an error. Actually, the Brazilian Olympic Committee did not choose Rio de Janeiro over São Paulo, as I wrote in 2008; because São Paulo was not disputing (I made a mistake, it was during the 2012 bid process). However, BBC stated on its article: "The Brazilian Olympic Commitee chose Rio de Janeiro ahead of Sao Paulo three years ago to bid for the 2016 Olympic Games."
Well, there is no copyvio. Actually, the text displayed on www.brazil2016olympics.co.uk is a copy from Wikipedia. As you can see is not only that sentence but the entire paragraph was copy-pasted. I wrote those sentences about one year ago, and this website must have added the text much later. Is there any way to find out what date the website has been created? Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments: I will make some general comments and afterwards, will try to make a deeper scrutiny. Parutakupiu ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:45, 16 April 2010 [36].
I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a good article, and has been through a peer review since that time. I've just gone through and applied some formatting changes to the references and corrected the points raised in the review. I've raised a few articles to GA now, but this is my first attempt at an FA. There is only one dog breed article currently at FA, which is
Beagle.
Miyagawa
(talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Review by Charles Edward
Oppose for now, the number of referencing issues is my primary concern. Everything else is pretty well in order, and I find the article well wrote. Its an interesting topic, and I see you've put alot of research into it. Great job so far, keep up the good work and if you can address these issues I'd be happy to change to support. :) — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments. I would lean toward oppose, based on referencing issues to which Charles referred. I did take the liberty to tweak the lead a bit, reducing the numbers of which, what and wherefore. My issues with the references is that they are not all listed. A basic listing of the references in alpha order would make it more obvious that the fundamental sources have been covered. I have other prose issues that I'll bring up if the reference issues can be addressed. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 April 2010 [37].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA requirements and I am willing to improve the article further to meet those requirements if needed
TheBigJagielka (
talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Questions I've been reading the article and have a few questions or things that need to be clarified. I'm only part way through so maybe I'll have some more later...
undue weight seems given to quirky matches, can these be taken out of tables and put in narrative form, the results aren't really that important Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:33, 16 April 2010 [40].
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has the qualities to be a featured article with good citations and correct grammar usage along with images. DragosteaDinTei 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the article is quite far away from FA standards and I would urge the nominator to withdraw the FA nomination and instead, start a peer review, where further suggestions for improvements can be requested. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [41].
I am nominating this for featured article because:
Oppose because this BLP article contravenes policy in several ways. In particular, primary sources (court records, indictments, psychiatric/psychology/forensic evaluations, affidavits) are liberally used, often without secondary sources to support them, in direct contravention of BLP's Misuse of Primary Sources section. Also very worryingly, allegations sourced from legal documents of accusation are inappropriately presented as facts rather than attributed: the first 5 sentences of the third paragraph of the Lead are a particularly obvious example of this, but there are multiple other instances. I pointed these major problems out at length on the talkpage several weeks ago, [42] and others have given similar advice at WP:RSN [43]. No changes have been made, and unfortunately I haven't yet had the time to fix the problems myself.
There are also other reasons why the article does not meet FA standards, including problems with prose, manual of style and citation, and some very close paraphrasing of sources (cf: the WP article "She also helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that distributed Qurans and offered Islam-based advice to prison inmates" with the source "She helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that operates out of Faaruuq's mosque, distributing Korans and offering Islam-based advice to prison inmates." [44]), but the sourcing and verifiability difficulties are significant enough in themselves. -- Slp1 ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
PSTS is part of Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR). In this context—and, as spelled out right in the PSTS, Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event. In many cases it clearly preferable that we not rely upon a primary source; for instance, some guy in Chevy Chase, Maryland, who purportedly received and read the contents of a letter written by Elvis in 2006. In this context, secondary sources are preferred, such as a Newsweek article that endorses the witness’ first-hand account as being credible and doesn’t mention that the witness is currently being treated by a mental health expert.
Clearly, one would rightly call “court records, federal indictments,” etc. to be a “primary source” and that has you all sideways on the logic. Why? Because just as clearly, they are WP:Reliable sources and are not—by any stretch of the imagination—what is considered to be “original research.” In fact, court records will often take precedence over secondary sources. For instance, if Newsweek reported that a federal prosecutor had indicted a terrorist for possessing hollow-point bullets when in fact, the federal indictment papers themselves state right there in black & white that the bullets were armor-piercing, then one goes with what the indictment papers say. That doesn’t mean that the terrorist was guilty of possessing armor-piercing bullets or even possessed them; only that the federal indictment was for possessing armor-piercing bullets.
Seeking the most authoritative sources is what I typically do; I often contact the Ph.D. authors of scientific papers and have them send me PDFs of the actual paper so I can quote straight out of the papers. Besides, corresponding with the Ph.D. saves me money because I don’t have to subscribe to the journals. Exchanging dozens of e-mails with the author of the scientific paper in question until I thoroughly understand the issue sure beats simply ralphing out some gibberish gleaned from Popular Mechanics.
I suggest you get over the primary/secondary-source issue since it seems to have gotten you all confused and just focus on the objective: cite reliable sources, which courts and federal prosecutors are considered to be. And such sources aren’t considered to be “original research”. This all falls under the heading of WP:Common sense, or, in the rest of the world is known as a Well, DUH thing.
It is obvious that if the article in question possesses, as you say, “liberal” citations referencing the actual court records and indictment papers, then this is a strength of the article and reflects well upon the editor, who obviously devoted great effort to cite accurate and unassailable facts. Greg L ( talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
P.S. I fully endorse what DGG wrote, which summarizes what I was trying to say, only with far fewer words. Good job, DGG, next time I might run my posts by you for some copy editing. Greg L ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.
Because, User:Collect employed the ol’ shotgun-of-alphabet-soup trick ( here, 23:31, 15 November 2009) where he/she wrote …contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP… without providing links or quoting the governing text. Apparently, everyone is supposed to think “Gee, he quoted so many acronyms and that looks like a lot to read and I don’t even know where to go find them because they are unlinked. He must be smart and is one of those types that makes Wikipedia go.”
And when User:Collect finally does quote text ( ∆ here), he/she did one of those Professor Marvel-style “ Pay no attention to that guideline behind the curtain!” stunts and quoted only a fragment 180° out of context: To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."
For yucks & giggles to anyone new to this thread, compare the meaning of that last, green-colored quote to the entire guideline in the above quote box in my 01:09, 10 April 2010 post. Then ponder over how sad the state of things are here when some editors perceive they can get away with these stunts. (*sigh*)
Could it be that we are beating around the bush here because editors are coming to these terrorist-related articles with an agenda? I don’t have a jones one way or another about terrorist articles; my contributions tend to be stuff like fixing that profoundly lousy looking photograph in Anwar al-Awlaki that no one seemed to give a dump about as editors battle away. It seems there is one camp there trying to introduce unflattering but well-cited facts that make the dude (who has presidential and National Security Council approval to bomb him clean out of his sandals) come across as a thoroughly mean & nasty person who kicks puppies. The other camp cleverly manages to delete such information and *balance* the article with stuff like how he volunteers and swings a hammer for Habitat for Humanity on weekends.
Similarly over here, both camps, rather than having the backbone to speak up and admit to what they are really trying to do, just busy themselves with slapping up a facade of smokescreens, such as citing imaginary “guidelines” like how <Cognitive dissonance>
you can’t quote a
CIA transcript because quoting
Readers Digest is preferred!</Cognitive dissonance>
Caught in the middle is a whole bunch of regular editors really don’t give a darn, simply want germane, topical, authoritatively cited, encyclopedic facts, and long for a way to simply vote editors with agendas off this island.
(Oops, I did it again: using plain-speak, which was going out of fashion on Wikipedia there for a while, to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom.) Greg L ( talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support - Obviously a well-done article. Greg L ( talk) 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [48].
Typhoon Kirogi, the first typhoon to threaten Tokyo since a storm in 1989, caused severe damage in parts of eastern Honshu and Hokkaido. Peaking as a Category 4 equivalent storm, Kirogi had weakened to minimal typhoon status before impacting Japan. Throughout Japan, rainfall in excess of one foot led to 15 billion yen ($140 million dollars) in damage as well as five fatalities. All thoughts and comments are welcome.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
I suggest that you double check the MH as the ATCR produced by the HKO reports that Kirogi under went a Fuwijara with Kai-tak. Jason Rees ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments – No one seems to be reviewing this one, so I'll bite.
The article was not promoted by Ucucha 02:02, 13 April 2010 [49].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I this article has come such a long way from 6 months ago (as it used to average 30-40 views, now over 200 a day). Because of the college's roll in the New Hampshire Primary election cycle, I feel it would serve as a good featured article!
Ericci8996 (
talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Thanks for the advice
As nominatior, I WITHDRAW this article for consideration! To quote
General MacArthur - "I Shall Return!"
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:05, 12 April 2010 [50].
I am nominating this for featured article because it apparently meets the criteria for FA status.
Airborne84 (
talk) 03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Found some dab links: APA, En, Linotype, Period. English Spacing and French spacing redirects to the article itself. One dead link [51] Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments—minor stuff. I'll be neutral for now.
Given the (few) punctuation and language articles I've seen, this does look (from a glance) way better than I expected. (For what my opinion's worth, I prefer two spaces.) -- an odd name 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose As above, very US-centric, one section on "international" (ie non-US), one on "US" (of course), and then sections purportedly about practice in various areas, like science and law, but all about US practice. This needs to be completely rewritten or resubmitted as "Sentence spacing in the United States" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Sorry, but it needs a lot of work before it is anything like good enough. It is seriously over-written, far too long, and obscure in its style. It does not read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like a high-school essay written by a smart kid desperate to show off his "learning" at every step, and this showing-off, and the tedious length, gets in the way of the reader's understanding. In the opening sentence, "refers to" is meaningless and confusing, and "horizontal" is too restrictive. Then why on earth does Gutenberg need to be mentioned in the third sentence? And it goes on (and on) like this. Prune it to at most a quarter of its length, restrict it to the facts and get rid of the flourishes. Almost entirely written by one editor at present, and needs input from others. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:01, 12 April 2010 [52].
I am nominating this for featured article status because, since its last FAC, it has completed a
Peer Review and a
compromise has been reached regarding some of the more controversial elements through formal mediation. I realize that this is a provocative topic that engenders strong opinions. Special effort has been made, however, to reference every possibly contestable statement and an FAQ has been included to address some of the more common prima facie concerns like bias and content-forking. A number of controversial articles (e.g.
global warming,
intelligent design,
Xenu, etc) have achieved FA status and I'd like very much if the Christ myth theory could join their ranks. If as a reviewer you see a problem with the article, please, rather than immediately object to the FAC, indicate what the problem is and give the involved editors time to reply and possibly alter the article.
Eugene (
talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Comments – for now. This is a well-written and engaging contribution. I have made a few notes during my two readings. They are not in any particular order so forgive me.
That's all for the time being. Graham Colm ( talk) 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Following my third reading, I have decided to oppose the promotion of this candidate. I think it contravenes WP:NPOV. In the Lead for example, there is "the proponents of the theory" rather than the theory, and the last sentence of the Lead—"The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship"—establishes the biased theme of this contribution. This article is essentially an a attempt to debunk the "myth" and is not written from a neutral point of view. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:58, 10 April 2010 [56].
I am nominating this for featured article because... the USS Triton completed its shakedown cruise on 11 May 1960, which included the
first submerged circumnavigation of the world, fifty years ago. Triton was commanded by
Captain Edward L. Beach, a highly-decorated U.S. naval officer and
best-selling author. This article has just undergone a
MILHIST A-class review. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to our collaboration.
Marcd30319 (
talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
--
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Query: What is the current status of this FAC review? I have responded to all issues raised thus far, corrected any subjunctive, typographical, or grammatical errors, and replied to the question regarding the Cultural references section. What issues remain to be addressed? Thank you for your assistance.
Marcd30319 (
talk) 14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments:
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:55, 10 April 2010 [57].
I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It was promoted to GA status last October, was peer reviewed and copyedited by
Brianboulton in January, and has received a copyedit from
HJ Mitchell of
WP:GOCE. There is currently one dead link in the article, which is used once as attribution for a direct quote. The convenience link may not resurface online but can be verified in the hard copy issue of City Life.
Bradley0110 (
talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Three weeks with no Support; perhaps bring this back in about ten days? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:26, 9 April 2010 [58].
I am nominating this for featured article because it was previously nominated two and a half months after she assumed the role of
First Lady of the United States. There were issues with recentism and what her long term role is. Now that she has established her legacy objective and undertaken a role in running an administrationwide initiative, I think it is time to reconsider whether this article is among the finest at summarizing the bio of this living person.
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 8 April 2010 [59].
I believe this article meets the criteria for FA Status. It was promoted to
GA in December 2008 and received a
peer review in January 2010. All issues raised in the PR have been addressed. The article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well.
Paul Largo (
talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Here are links to the "About Us" pages of the websites in question together with some brief information;
Not sure how helpful this information is. I was talking to a friend off-wiki yesterday about this and he suggested I could ask for help at WP:RSN in determining whether or not these are reliable sources. I have to be away from my computer for a while shortly so will post a question there later this evening. Cheers Paul Largo ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Hope these, though pernickety, are helpful. – Tim riley ( talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. Full (but not too full) of relevant and evidently comprehensive information, well referenced and well written. - Tim riley ( talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I suggest upgrading the sourcing concerns before bringing this back to FAC; reviewers are unlikely to support with so many sourcing concerns raised. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 8 April 2010 [60].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article, which I have been working on for a long time and got it up to GA status without any objection, and feel that it is one of the best examples of contemporary historical fiction and this article covers the scope of literary criticism on it. I wish to pursue the expansion of other parts of the
Baroque Cycle and want to get the whole series up for a featured category nomination. It is my first nomination of this sort, but it is about time, I have been on
WP:Novels for quite some time.
Sadads (
talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
I don't really understand the need for File:NealStephenson_Quicksilver.jpg, could this be clarified Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I haven't gone beyond the lead at this point, but I obviously have doubts about the state of the rest of the article. I won't oppose at this point, but until a thorough copy-edit is done (preferably by more than one editor), this article does not fulfill the FA criteria. María ( habla con migo) 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Addressing copy edit concerns: I have contacted several editors (new and old to the article page), asking for some support. Hope it will be timely, will address above issues of María's and continue my own reviewing of it. Sadads ( talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose: On the issue of the lead image I agree with you. However, on the prose question I agree absolutely with Maria; this article needs some thorough attention, and here at FAC is not the appropriate place for this. Just a few examples of prose problems in the lead, apart from those raised by Maria:-
With so many errors or questionable phrases so early, it is clear that the article does not meet featured criterion 1(a). There is no doubt much good stuff in it, but time needs to be spent by one or more uninvolved editors with FA experience, to bring the prose to standard. I don't believe this can be done in the structure and timescale of FAC and would recommend a peer review. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 8 April 2010 [61].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly improved since it's last attempt at featured article. It now has pictures and the citation formatting has been unified among many other things. Several dedicated wikipedians and I have scoured the article numerous times and have deemed it worthy. Thanks
Publichall (
talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
(not intended as what?) and
(why so complex a sentence structure?). Then we get:
with mathematical rigor? Further redundancies further down ("becoming", "proceeded to"), then inappropriate use of a first name only, overlinking to email. Full of quotes, more than would be appropriate (cf. the essay WP:QUOTE). I see more similar problems in the rest of the article, but won't list them all; a good copyeditor will catch those. Ucucha 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 8 April 2010 [62].
The articles seems to be quite complete, detailed, referenced and extensively discussed and challenged. The headers might be tweaked, but I'm hopeful that will likely be the least of the issues brought up during the FA process. I've added the co-nominators to acknowledge their content creation, their participation is optional. -
Roy
Boy 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Question about this article's role - I see this question has already been discussed extensively on the article's talk page, apparently without resolution:
Comment - Have the co-nominators agreed to this FAC? Orangemarlin has not edited the article since December 2007 and has not edited Wikipedia for over one year. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 8 April 2010 [65].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that Scooter are large players in the Electronic Dance Scene. They have been around for a very long time, have had an album go number 1 in the U.K., and many top 10 singles
AlmanacManiac (
talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010 [66].
A few months back, this film article was nominated by a user for the FA Queue. At the time, the article was essentially a skeleton. It had a foundation, and certain elements necessary for FA approval, but nothing in terms of comprehensive researched content. Although not a huge success at the box office, the film still retained a popularity for its original concept. I've taken a passing interest in the film, and spent my own time sprucing it up in trying to meet the criterea necessary for FA Status. It is thoroughly filled with referenced content this time around, and I believe in its current incarnation, it merits FA inclusion.
Theatrickal (
talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
I do particularly like how much content is available about the production, and it's nice to see Cinefex used. Hard periodical for me to find! Anyway, these are the broad strokes, for a start. I'll have to read the content more closely for additional suggestions. [edit: I would like to say about this article, though, it is a vast improvement from when it was previously nominated. Nice job! It's now a matter of meeting the FA criteria, obviously.] Erik ( talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Additional Comment Hi Steve. I will look through that scrapboard as well. But just after a quick run-through, some of the information from that list is already in the article. Posts from Ebert, Maslin and Kempley. The racism card and references towards Outer Heat/In the Heat of the Night are also present. Plus, other references with immigration officials and the alien mix are mentioned numerous times. But I will do a thorough check tonight. Thanks. Theatrickal ( talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak object Comment While there are many things that are good about the article, there are a few things that are bothering me:
Cheers.-- Guy546( Talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010 [67].
I feel this article is up to the FA snuff. It's been through
a PR, a
failed FAC, got listed as a GA, and here I am again. The previous FAC really just went stale, I was happy to respond to any comments people brought up. As per Yellow Monkey's request at the time a Series Preview section was added, and a section noting the scandal involving NY governor
David Paterson and his attending this World Series has now been added to the aftermath section. I have used
1926 World Series and
2004 World Series (the current FA World Series articles) as general style guides. The only major current issue of contention is the inclusion of a "Quotes" section. I have reverted the addition of uncited quotes (and will continue to as uncited material). I personally do not feel a quotes section follows Wikipedia's style guidelines (whether cited or not), but would welcome input on this subject.
Staxringold
talk
contribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment I'll try to give a full review at some point, but some of the captions might be improved. Some of them are a bit too detailed.
This is just from a spot check, so please go over the captions, particularly in the ones in the Series section, and see if anything can be shortened. Also, reference 15's publisher is AOL Sports, and you have both "MLB.com. Major League Baseball." and "MLB.com (Major League Baseball)." Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments - as I go through this article in the next few days, I will leave comments.
I'll continue to add to this section as I have more to say. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:48, 8 April 2010 [74].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been some time and I have done my best after a PR to clean up what little remained about the article. No major info on the subject has appeared since the last FAC either.
陣
内
Jinnai 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments
These are just a few points I picked out of the opening. I think it needs an independent copy-edit; but it's really not bad at all. Tony (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:41, 8 April 2010 [75].
I started this article in September 2007. Since
the peer review in August 2009, I've moved it from "
Evenness of zero" to "
Parity of zero" and made improvements to the prose. Very recently, I've also rearranged some of the material in the "
History" introduction (per the PR) and in "
Group discussions".
I haven't done a FAC in years! Hopefully this article is like 0.999... — except, you know, better. ;-) Melchoir ( talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
I also have a theoretical concern, namely, all the material about explanations is taken from books and journal articles written by educators, for educators. The cited sources are discussing explanations with the assumption that the reader doesn't need them. If we just state the explanations, implying that the reader does need them... it's not exactly sticking to the sources, and it's a little condescending. Of course you could argue that my version is patronizing in its own way. We'll see how the execution works. Melchoir ( talk) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
One drawback of the current scheme is that Ball has many entries, but only one is called out. Mostly for that reason, I'm willing to move to a more standard-looking format. But I would still want some text at the top of References that points to the most valuable sources. Melchoir ( talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose, this article still needs a fair bit of work. The referencing issues are my biggest concern, followed by the tone of the education section. I have not listed all the issues with the references or tone, but this should be enough to demonstrate where the issues are. Good job on the article so far, its really is a very interesting read and I can see alot of research has went into it. Keep up the good work and you will soon have it up to FA standards. :) — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 8 April 2010 [76].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it addresses the subject completely and fully and meets the quality standards of a Featured Article.
mynameinc (
t|
c) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [77].
I am nominating this for featured article because the prior FAC was closed although I had addressed most of the concerns. I believe this is one of the finest articles on WP.
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose: The prose is way below featured standard. I have only looked at the lead, where I found a whole parcel of problems. It would have been wise, after the last FAC, to have had a thorough prose review and major copyedit, because that's what looks like is required now. Here are the more egregious issues from the lead:-
Someone needs to go through the remainder with the proverbial fine toothcomb and check out the prose. Can't be fixed quickly, I fear. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [78].
This article just finished a
peer review and I think it satisfies the criteria for becoming an FA. It's well referenced, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable, and reads well.
fetch
comms
☛ 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
← I have created Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack, but I think a bit more can still be cut out of the main article. I tried the web archive, but none were found, unfortunately. fetch comms ☛ 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Voila one condensed lead, now for the rest of the article I'll await your response to these suggestions. Overall its got a lot information and is well written its just there is redundancy within the prose. Gnan garra 11:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Image Check: Passed - 9 images; 8 free, 1 fair use. Free images are all PD-self or PD-USGOV, and are at commons. Fair-use image is the one of the plane, and is not reproducible. -- Pres N 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
oppose - File:NWA_Flight_253_landed.jpg conveys no information beyond what is already contained in the caption, therefore failing wp:nfcc Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [79].
This article covers the history of astronomical and spacecraft studies of Jupiter's moon Io. It recently completed its
peer review (though it only incited one reviewer to comment), which was helpful in assessing new official and unofficial FA criteria. I now believe the article is of sufficient comprehensiveness for an FAC run. Thank you all in advance for your comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism.
Volcanopele (
talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments just on the lead:
Well done: this is an admirable nomination, and it deserves to succeed. I do think these issues in the lead indicate the whole article needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor, though. Tony (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [82].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the criteria. It is also part of
Apterygial (
talk ·
contribs)'s
Insane Idea to make
2008 Formula One season a featured topic;
2008 Monaco Grand Prix,
2008 Japanese Grand Prix and
2008 Brazilian Grand Prix are the articles which have already reached FA status in this series, and may be useful for comparison. --
Midgrid
(talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
|image-alt=
to the infobox template for that.
Ucucha 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments – Haven't gotten to the race recap itself yet, but am somewhat concerned with what I've seen so far. There is quite a bit of wordiness lurking in the article, along with some punctuation issues and a referencing concern. A copy-edit from someone new to the article may be worthwhile.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [83].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article. It recently passed an A class review under the milhist project and since then I have added a lot of content so that it would meet the criteria.
Kumioko (
talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Once again, sorry for the large number of comments. Overall the article looks quite good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Not entirely satisfied with the prose. Here are issues just at the top.
Image Check: Passed - 7 images, all free-use from commons (PD-GOV or PD-OLD) plus some ribbons that don't need to be checked. -- Pres N 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - structure of history section seems to get off to a strange start with the hybrid Early life and family section. Why combine "family" here, in what is ostensibly a "background" section? It causes the history to jump from 1905 back to 1898 as we enter the next section—and, meanwhile, we have been confronted with the idea of "his former commanding officer in China". PL290 ( talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
(History) Early life and family Military career Director of Public Safety Military retirement and later years Honors and awards Published works See also Notes Footnotes References Further reading
I am unconvinced that deviating from this general pattern produces an intelligible biographical article. PL290 ( talk) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Leaning to support (prose) - Further to my comment on structure above, I've now been right through the article, and copyedited a few things that jumped out along the way. The relocation of the marriage passage is, I think, effective, and I see no other structural problems (and agree with Rusty Cashman that the resulting section titles can perhaps be simplified without fear of implying a section is exclusively concerned with military service). I found several minor loose ends (missing words and the like) which I tidied up as I went. There are one or two passages where the prose seems a little casual or informal, such as "Not all of the city felt he was doing a bad job though and when the news started to break that he would be leaving ...". A few specific points (some of which are very minor ones that I couldn't fix as I went):
PL290 ( talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Leaning towards supporting What is the current status? Has Andy been asked to comment on the changes. Have Tony's comments been fully addressed, including those regarding the images? I don't think the structure of the article is a problem, but there are still one or two long sentences that lack flow. Graham Colm ( talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments What is the status here. I had promised Kumioko that I would give the article a ce, and I've done that. The longest sentences are more manageable, and the verb on verb on verbs are fixed. There are still some areas that I just didn't know what to do with, particularly in the last part of the Dickson committee section. Kumioko, if you look at it in edit mode, you can see where someone has left you some notes. I think it reads better now, although it's still choppy. In terms of content, I think this is a very good article. I'd have appreciated some more context at places, but I'm not as familiar with early 20th century American history as I might be. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:54, 5 April 2010 [84].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been dramatically improved and has been promoted to GA status. I feel that the article meets all the FA criteria, and is comparable in quality to Manchester City F.C. and Arsenal F.C., both of which are FA.
Tomlock01 (
talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [86].
I present an article on singer-songwriter Gillian Welch as a FAC. After an extensive revamp, improvement during GA nom and promotion, and a PR, I feel it is ready. Thank you in advance.
Omarcheeseboro (
talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [87].
I am nominating this because it is well written, images are good, and it is well referenced. None of the references are dead links (I checked). The article is also made of a variety of sources, not solely from one source; like
FEMA,
NHC, or
NOAA. It is a good size of information for a storm that barely affected land as a tropical cyclone. It is clearly not a skin and bones article like it was about 4 years ago.
12george1 (
talk) 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
|alt=
parameter of {{
storm path}}; this was added in July 2009.
Eubulides (
talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments: Generally well done, prose is still a bit weak.
Maxim (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [88].
An extensive article about Kentucky's only modern governor to succeed himself in office. Unfortunately missing a picture of the man, but hopefully an editor in or near Pikeville can remedy that in the future. I look forward to addressing everyone's concerns.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This is a
WikiCup nomination.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:03, 3 April 2010 [89].
Nobel Prize is a important part in Wikipedia. Many articles link to it and if a person has received the Nobel Prize it is bound to be mentioned in the lead (even in
Winston Churchill who undoubtedly did greater things than win a Nobel Prize). That is why I am nominating this article a second time, the last time the major problems were sources and images and I believe those have been addressed.
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
--Mike" Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
|language=
field.This isn't comprehensive and issues like odd/inconsistent linking, not putting Surname first seem to recur regularly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just some examples of prose which isn't of a professional standard:
These were found without really reading the article and came from just one section. This only passed GA the other day and is a long way off FA standard. Suggest withdrawing and getting this peer reviewed.
I oppose the promotion of this article because currently it fails 1a and 2c (at least). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [1].
Spring has sprung. My wife is gone for a week. I'm happy and joyful. Therefore, I am nominating this for featured article to bring misery upon myself. This is my first nomination of what I hope is many more (I have good mental health insurance), so please be extra critical so I can learn from my mistakes.
Bgwhite (
talk) 02:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Reluctant OpposeComments: I hate to be the one who spoils your happy week, but there are significant problems here, all sortable however:-
In general I can see a lot that's good here, but more work is needed to bring it to featured level. You have a few days of freedom left to you, so all should be well. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Further comments: Here are some comments on the Early Mormon settlements section.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to go through all the remaining sections at this level of detail. I have struck the oppose on the basis of your obvious willingness to address the issues, which has already led to significant improvements in the article. I hope that another reviewer will point out what else needs attention, and that the article will continue to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton ( talk • contribs) 12:57, April 16, 2010
Comments
I've made some copy edits that you'll want to check over to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. This is a good article and quite detailed, although in some places could use a little more. There's some occasional odd phrasing, but for the most part the article reads well enough. All in all, a good effort for your first FAC. Nev1 ( talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured article. —
Ed!
(talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose A solid and detailed article, but it could do with some work on the prose and putting some information in context. There's a slight imbalance in the content of the article as well, with more detail on the US troops.
I've made a few minor copy edits, but you'll want to double check them to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Nev1 ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments Nice article, but needs a little globalising as at the moment it is rather dominated by the US perspective. Apart from "Attempted crossings that night were repulsed to the south by South Korean forces" one would think that the US was fighting alone rather than as part of a UN force. Also the earlier "The division was consequently alone for several weeks" implies that the 24th was the only force fighting the communists in the peninsula rather than the only US force in theatre. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment by Doncram Interesting article, about a battle i knew nothing about. There is one map in the article which could/should be improved or supplemented by another map. A map should show Naktong, the Naktong River, and the "Naktong Bulge" of the article name. I presume that the "Naktong Bulge" is either a bulging shape on a map that comes in from the North Korean positions, i.e. their invasion formed a bulge like the German invasion at Battle of the Bulge formed, or it is the other way around, that there was a protruding bulge of the American and allies' position that the North Koreans attempted to reduce. Which is it? Note, there is a "Naktong-ni" located on the map; i don't know if that is Naktong. If the Naktong River is in fact labelled on the map, then i don't see it. But the article starts out saying the American forces were along the Naktong River, and i would like to know on the map where that is referring to. Hope this helps! -- doncram ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [3].
This article is once again being nominated for FAC because we believe the article meets those criteria. It has been worked on carefully by us, and others, since last July; we have made our best efforts to maintaining a NPOV on this difficult and polarised topic. We've been careful about POV, weight, referencing, and the reliability of sources. It was much improved by going through the last nomination, but failed because of a comment by an editor who we feel made an unfair criticism but which we perhaps failed to resolve in a convincing and decisive fashion. Ultimately it would be nice to get this to FA status in time for July 5, 2010 (the first anniversary of the riots). 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments. This is a very interesting, and generally well-written article. Congrats to all. A quick scan suggests that good sources have been used. I have a few prose niggles to start with:
Other issues
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010 [9].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it fulfills all the criteria for an FA. It has gone through a successful GAC and has been peer reviewed by a competent editor,
User:Finetooth. This nomination is part of my on-going attempt at improving all
Maya Angelou-related articles. I would appreciate any and all feedback to improve this article. My only concern is with the images; I've struggled with finding appropriate ones to add and would like additional input. Thanks. --
Christine (
talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
In short, this is a very interesting article, but I think a serious copy-edit is needed, especially in order to cull some of the repetitious phrasings and to ensure that the tenses are presented consistently (or something closer to it) throughout. I'm also a slightly concerned about the "Critical reception" section, as stated above, but if that's all that is available, so be it. I'll be happy to support or offer further review if these concerns are addressed. María ( habla con migo) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. Comment I'm doing some copyedit cleanup. Will report back when I'm done.
Scartol •
Tok 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
images File:Angelou3.jpg has no valid fu rationale Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't see the issues mentioned earlier in the review on a quick scan. It's a quick read, which I like. I'll revisit later today with a closer read-through in case I've missed something. Definitely leaning support. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward A few comments from me here. :) The article is interesting, but still has a few issues. I've outlined them below.
Oppose Overall this article is pretty good. I pointed out the most obvious prose issues, but there are a number more. This article could still do with a fair copyedit. The number of uncited quotes, the prose, and the usage of the the purple onion image make me have to oppose for now. None of these issues are hard to address though, and if you can I'd be glad to change to support. Great job so far, I see you've put alot of work into the article. Keep up the good work and you will have a feature article on your hands soon enough! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:33, 26 April 2010 [10].
I am nominating this for featured article because... the article has recently been improved and promoted to GA status, and I believe it meets FA criteria. Winjay ( talk) 10:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is not ready for FAC; I suggest a Peer review and a reassessment of its good article status. On a very quick glance, I found:
These are samples only; the issues are throughout.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:03, 25 April 2010 [12].
The article's
first FA nom got snagged on an image issue and a lack of comments for or against promotion. The image in question
survived a deletion attempt, which I hope puts that issue to rest. Also, the article was recently
promoted to GA with minimal issues raised. I hope to see it passed to FA on its second time around.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
oppose The image was kept as it was "probably free", clarification is needed on the licensing used for this image, if it is not free I fail to see how this image would meet
wp:nfcc
Fasach Nua (
talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
File:Seal_of_Kentucky.svg tagged as free, however the description seems to prohibit derived commercial works, and thus not free as far as wikipedia is concerned, can this be clarified? Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
File:Kentucky_quarter,_reverse_side,_2001.jpg - The linked license on this image states "Designs of the new quarter-dollar coins issued under the 50 State Quarters Program may be derivative works of designs covered by third-party copyrights licensed to or assigned to the U.S. Mint, or in some cases may be covered by third-party copyrights assigned to the Mint. You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain.", therefore on what basis is this considered to be devoid of copyright? Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
Very interesting article! I enjoy reading about politicians. My issues are mostly nitpicks, but the prose is a little troublesome in spots and there a few inconsistencies in the information, all of which I have noted. If you can address them, I'd be glad to support this article. Great job so far! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support I find the article a great read. The oppose above in regards to the image is not really relevant; its is clearly non-free based on its current licensing, but has an acceptable fair use rationale. I am neutral regarding the citations; there is not really a guideline that limits the use of citations, so I don't feel an oppose is warranted along that line. I do agree there are many unneeded citations though. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. It's clear you've done a lot of research, but I believe this article is an example of overcitation. I know you've worked hard on this article, but every single sentence is followed by a citation. with this many citations, the article becomes very hard to read.
Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
I see AC has combined a few citations.
Comment. I am working through the article, copyediting, and I think the prose does need improvement. As a result I am not ready to support yet. I don't want to oppose just yet either; most of what I'm seeing is fixable, and I'm leaving some queries on the article's talk page. I will try to finish the copyedit tomorrow. I will also note that the image oppose above doesn't seem valid to me, though I'm not an image expert; I think the image has a reasonable fair use justification.
Update: I've now finished going through the article and have posted notes to the talk page. My main concerns at the moment would be comprehensiveness and some prose choppiness. The latter can probably be dealt with after the talk page notes are responded to, but I'd like to hear from the nominator about the issue of sources. -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:59, 25 April 2010 [13].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fulfils the relevant standards set.
Ironholds (
talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments I'm not sure that this is quite ready yet. Just looking at para 2
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:55, 25 April 2010 [14].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now satisfies all the
featured article criteria. You may want to look at the archived peer reviews (
1,
2, and
3) and the previous FA nominations (1 and 2). For a more detailed explanation of why I feel this should be a featured article, read
here.
Stonemason89 ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Quick comment for now: some newspaper titles (Los Angeles Times, The Commercial Appeal, etc.) are not italicized in refs. There's just enough non-italics that I can't tell if that's intended. -- an odd name 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Images -
File:Politicalcesspoollogo.jpg has no valid FU rationale
Fasach Nua (
talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:25, 24 April 2010 [16].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been through
GA review and
peer review and meets the
featured article criteria. This article has caught on with bloggers who have never heard of the topic, and who write their own summaries based on this article (for example
here,
here, and
here), and one reader left a kind message on my talk page
here concerning this article.
Particular attention has been made to include contemporary sources, since most (actually, nearly all) modern-day reference works do not mention the subject of this article. When I began this article in 2007, the subject had only three valid Google hits. Luckily, that has changed.
I'm aware that the subject is on an obscure, unpopular topic; finding a GA reviewer took several months, and the article also ended up on the Peer Review backlog. So if the article fails FAC due to lack of support, but the content is improved, that's ok. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
This is a very nice article and an interesting topic. It is lacking in details in some areas, but I understand that the availability of published information equally lacking. Most of my comments are nitpicks, and once addressed I'd be glad to support this article. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
images File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg non-existent FU rationale! Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:16, 24 April 2010 [17].
I am nominating this for featured article because...
This was a significant figure in early television history. However, while there was much material in newspapers and books about him, little had ever been collected together. This article presents a balanced view of this controversial figure. I was careful to verify everything with citations and to leave my own opinions out of it.
BashBrannigan (
talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
images three non-free images....no FU rationales Fasach Nua ( talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Work needed on alll of these points. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:58, 24 April 2010 [18].
I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent numerous months expanding and editing this article to the point that it is at. I believe it is well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the FA criteria. It has been promoted to GA for a fairly long time and the reviewer said that he or she believes it is a good candidate for FA. JHawk88 ( talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Not sufficiently well-written. Linking and MoS issues.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:47, 22 April 2010 [19].
Halo 3: ODST is the expansion to what was then, the biggest entertainment launch of all time, the release of
Halo 3. In this article: marketing blunders,
film noir influences, and
Peter Jackson. I believe it meets the FA criteria. 'Nuff said.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Three weeks, and this FAC hasn't gained consensus for promotion. Since it has no outstanding objections, David, bring it back in a week, or you can nom another article-- do some reviews! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:54, 20 April 2010 [20].
I have been working on this article for more than a year, It has reached Good Article Status, and now I think it's ready to be nominated for featured article. Harrisburg, Illinois was one of the leading bituminous coal mining distribution hubs of the American Midwest between 1900 and 1937.
At its peak, Harrisburg had a population that reached 16,000 by the early 1930s, and had one of the largest downtown districts in Southern Illinois. Ruhe1986 ( talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
images File:Hburgil_logo.jpg does not have a valid FU rationale, File:Hbgnatbank1.jpg has no rationale Fasach Nua ( talk) 16:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Oppose on criterion 1a
At a glance the article appears good, but after reading the first three sub-sections, it's clear the article needs a thorough copy edit to and attention paid to the way information is structured. Nev1 ( talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [21].
This biography passed as a GA in May 2009. Article is stable, with no edit wars. Biography is well researched and meets
WP:NPOV guidelines. Sources are excellent, and plentiful. Seems to be FA quality to me.
Sugar Bear (
talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Charles makes some good points below - I'll revisit after they are addressed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
Oppose for now. The prose is my primary concern, its pretty rough in places, has spots where it suddenly shifts topics, then bounces back, which makes it a bit hard to follow a narrative. I pointed out the instances I noticed in my first read through. Something you may consider is separating out some of his personal life information and combining it into its own section, running parallel to his professional career, or adding enough personal life information to make full paragraphs out of them; either option would take most of the choppiness out of the text.
Another item that feels like it is missing is the limited information on his personal life - I am not intimately familiar with the topic, but did he have siblings, if so mention a number? The only mention of his children is where he is was banned from seeing them; how many are there? are they by Laura? Ages and names may be appropriate if they are adults. Did he become estranged from his father, if so mention it? What is his financial situation, did he earn a substantial income from his music? There is little or no mention of his legacy (he is largely considered a joke nowadays, right?) Who were his musical influences? There seems to be a significant body of missing information expected in a biography of this nature, nothing extensive, just many little things.
I understand given his low profile, there is probably no biography of his life written which can be used as good source for a full complete article, but the article could really benefit from such a source if one exists. As it is now, the article is sourced almost exclusively from news stories (which tend to be less than comprehensive) and short online bios.
Overall the article is well researched and well referenced. Good job on it so far! Keep up the good work, and if you can resolve the prose issues I've raised, I'd be glad to change to support. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [22].
I am nominating Dancing the Dream for FA because I have worked on this book article for several months and feel that it meets the FA citeria. Billed as "an inspirational and passionate volume of unparalleled humanity", Dancing the Dream was written by
Michael Jackson and received somewhat negative reviews upon its release in 1992. Little has been published about this book in relation to the more "juicier" aspects of Jackson and his life, but I feel that this article is comprehensive in documenting Dancing the Dream. Thanks,
Pyrrhus
16 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Support Very good article. A bit on the short side I'd say, but with over 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, the shorter the better. I'm so proud that the wikiproject I founded is producing such great work, and I should commend you personally Pyrrhus for being an amazing editor on all things related to MJ in Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. I hope to see you at FAC many more times. UBER (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. While I'm not very familiar with GA and FA books, from what I can see the article meets the FA criteria because it is well sourced, well written, has a neutral point of view and is informative. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
More to come. Parrot of Doom 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Steve 08:33, 20 April 2010 [27].
I am nominating this for featured article because it satisfies
WP:FACR, has passed
a peer review, has been promoted to GA-status, and
its GA reviewers suggested that it be nominated for FA.
Cinosaur (
talk) 17:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - Inappropriate use of multiple non-free images, not plausible as a FAC
Fasach Nua (
talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:47, 16 April 2010 [28].
I am nominating this for featured article: it has recently been through a peer-review (13 March) and successfully promoted to GA (14 April), so I feel it is ready to meet the nit-picking of a FAC.
Sandman888 (
talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Why is File:FCB.svg used in this article? Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I get 9 hours to respond to critique? Is this really normal FAC policy? Sandman888 ( talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:49, 16 April 2010 [29].
Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics is a well-researched article, a survey of the best sources, which gives the reader a detailed representation of Rio's Olympic campaign.
Felipe Menegaz 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments –
This article was widely used in the internet, been copy-pasted by several reliable and unreliable sources. Even large media organizations, like the British Broadcasting Coorporation (BBC), used the text from this article. Take a look:
“ |
|
” |
— Wikipedia, Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics February 8, 2009. |
“ |
|
” |
— BBC, Candidates for 2016 Olympics Updated on September 30, 2009. Published on February 13, 2009. |
The original text was added by me on June 29, 2008. [30] After months, I made sure that BBC used my text because of an error. Actually, the Brazilian Olympic Committee did not choose Rio de Janeiro over São Paulo, as I wrote in 2008; because São Paulo was not disputing (I made a mistake, it was during the 2012 bid process). However, BBC stated on its article: "The Brazilian Olympic Commitee chose Rio de Janeiro ahead of Sao Paulo three years ago to bid for the 2016 Olympic Games."
Well, there is no copyvio. Actually, the text displayed on www.brazil2016olympics.co.uk is a copy from Wikipedia. As you can see is not only that sentence but the entire paragraph was copy-pasted. I wrote those sentences about one year ago, and this website must have added the text much later. Is there any way to find out what date the website has been created? Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments: I will make some general comments and afterwards, will try to make a deeper scrutiny. Parutakupiu ( talk) 19:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:45, 16 April 2010 [36].
I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a good article, and has been through a peer review since that time. I've just gone through and applied some formatting changes to the references and corrected the points raised in the review. I've raised a few articles to GA now, but this is my first attempt at an FA. There is only one dog breed article currently at FA, which is
Beagle.
Miyagawa
(talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Review by Charles Edward
Oppose for now, the number of referencing issues is my primary concern. Everything else is pretty well in order, and I find the article well wrote. Its an interesting topic, and I see you've put alot of research into it. Great job so far, keep up the good work and if you can address these issues I'd be happy to change to support. :) — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments. I would lean toward oppose, based on referencing issues to which Charles referred. I did take the liberty to tweak the lead a bit, reducing the numbers of which, what and wherefore. My issues with the references is that they are not all listed. A basic listing of the references in alpha order would make it more obvious that the fundamental sources have been covered. I have other prose issues that I'll bring up if the reference issues can be addressed. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 April 2010 [37].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA requirements and I am willing to improve the article further to meet those requirements if needed
TheBigJagielka (
talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Questions I've been reading the article and have a few questions or things that need to be clarified. I'm only part way through so maybe I'll have some more later...
undue weight seems given to quirky matches, can these be taken out of tables and put in narrative form, the results aren't really that important Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:33, 16 April 2010 [40].
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has the qualities to be a featured article with good citations and correct grammar usage along with images. DragosteaDinTei 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the article is quite far away from FA standards and I would urge the nominator to withdraw the FA nomination and instead, start a peer review, where further suggestions for improvements can be requested. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [41].
I am nominating this for featured article because:
Oppose because this BLP article contravenes policy in several ways. In particular, primary sources (court records, indictments, psychiatric/psychology/forensic evaluations, affidavits) are liberally used, often without secondary sources to support them, in direct contravention of BLP's Misuse of Primary Sources section. Also very worryingly, allegations sourced from legal documents of accusation are inappropriately presented as facts rather than attributed: the first 5 sentences of the third paragraph of the Lead are a particularly obvious example of this, but there are multiple other instances. I pointed these major problems out at length on the talkpage several weeks ago, [42] and others have given similar advice at WP:RSN [43]. No changes have been made, and unfortunately I haven't yet had the time to fix the problems myself.
There are also other reasons why the article does not meet FA standards, including problems with prose, manual of style and citation, and some very close paraphrasing of sources (cf: the WP article "She also helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that distributed Qurans and offered Islam-based advice to prison inmates" with the source "She helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that operates out of Faaruuq's mosque, distributing Korans and offering Islam-based advice to prison inmates." [44]), but the sourcing and verifiability difficulties are significant enough in themselves. -- Slp1 ( talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
PSTS is part of Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR). In this context—and, as spelled out right in the PSTS, Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event. In many cases it clearly preferable that we not rely upon a primary source; for instance, some guy in Chevy Chase, Maryland, who purportedly received and read the contents of a letter written by Elvis in 2006. In this context, secondary sources are preferred, such as a Newsweek article that endorses the witness’ first-hand account as being credible and doesn’t mention that the witness is currently being treated by a mental health expert.
Clearly, one would rightly call “court records, federal indictments,” etc. to be a “primary source” and that has you all sideways on the logic. Why? Because just as clearly, they are WP:Reliable sources and are not—by any stretch of the imagination—what is considered to be “original research.” In fact, court records will often take precedence over secondary sources. For instance, if Newsweek reported that a federal prosecutor had indicted a terrorist for possessing hollow-point bullets when in fact, the federal indictment papers themselves state right there in black & white that the bullets were armor-piercing, then one goes with what the indictment papers say. That doesn’t mean that the terrorist was guilty of possessing armor-piercing bullets or even possessed them; only that the federal indictment was for possessing armor-piercing bullets.
Seeking the most authoritative sources is what I typically do; I often contact the Ph.D. authors of scientific papers and have them send me PDFs of the actual paper so I can quote straight out of the papers. Besides, corresponding with the Ph.D. saves me money because I don’t have to subscribe to the journals. Exchanging dozens of e-mails with the author of the scientific paper in question until I thoroughly understand the issue sure beats simply ralphing out some gibberish gleaned from Popular Mechanics.
I suggest you get over the primary/secondary-source issue since it seems to have gotten you all confused and just focus on the objective: cite reliable sources, which courts and federal prosecutors are considered to be. And such sources aren’t considered to be “original research”. This all falls under the heading of WP:Common sense, or, in the rest of the world is known as a Well, DUH thing.
It is obvious that if the article in question possesses, as you say, “liberal” citations referencing the actual court records and indictment papers, then this is a strength of the article and reflects well upon the editor, who obviously devoted great effort to cite accurate and unassailable facts. Greg L ( talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
P.S. I fully endorse what DGG wrote, which summarizes what I was trying to say, only with far fewer words. Good job, DGG, next time I might run my posts by you for some copy editing. Greg L ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.
Because, User:Collect employed the ol’ shotgun-of-alphabet-soup trick ( here, 23:31, 15 November 2009) where he/she wrote …contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP… without providing links or quoting the governing text. Apparently, everyone is supposed to think “Gee, he quoted so many acronyms and that looks like a lot to read and I don’t even know where to go find them because they are unlinked. He must be smart and is one of those types that makes Wikipedia go.”
And when User:Collect finally does quote text ( ∆ here), he/she did one of those Professor Marvel-style “ Pay no attention to that guideline behind the curtain!” stunts and quoted only a fragment 180° out of context: To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."
For yucks & giggles to anyone new to this thread, compare the meaning of that last, green-colored quote to the entire guideline in the above quote box in my 01:09, 10 April 2010 post. Then ponder over how sad the state of things are here when some editors perceive they can get away with these stunts. (*sigh*)
Could it be that we are beating around the bush here because editors are coming to these terrorist-related articles with an agenda? I don’t have a jones one way or another about terrorist articles; my contributions tend to be stuff like fixing that profoundly lousy looking photograph in Anwar al-Awlaki that no one seemed to give a dump about as editors battle away. It seems there is one camp there trying to introduce unflattering but well-cited facts that make the dude (who has presidential and National Security Council approval to bomb him clean out of his sandals) come across as a thoroughly mean & nasty person who kicks puppies. The other camp cleverly manages to delete such information and *balance* the article with stuff like how he volunteers and swings a hammer for Habitat for Humanity on weekends.
Similarly over here, both camps, rather than having the backbone to speak up and admit to what they are really trying to do, just busy themselves with slapping up a facade of smokescreens, such as citing imaginary “guidelines” like how <Cognitive dissonance>
you can’t quote a
CIA transcript because quoting
Readers Digest is preferred!</Cognitive dissonance>
Caught in the middle is a whole bunch of regular editors really don’t give a darn, simply want germane, topical, authoritatively cited, encyclopedic facts, and long for a way to simply vote editors with agendas off this island.
(Oops, I did it again: using plain-speak, which was going out of fashion on Wikipedia there for a while, to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom.) Greg L ( talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support - Obviously a well-done article. Greg L ( talk) 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [48].
Typhoon Kirogi, the first typhoon to threaten Tokyo since a storm in 1989, caused severe damage in parts of eastern Honshu and Hokkaido. Peaking as a Category 4 equivalent storm, Kirogi had weakened to minimal typhoon status before impacting Japan. Throughout Japan, rainfall in excess of one foot led to 15 billion yen ($140 million dollars) in damage as well as five fatalities. All thoughts and comments are welcome.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
I suggest that you double check the MH as the ATCR produced by the HKO reports that Kirogi under went a Fuwijara with Kai-tak. Jason Rees ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments – No one seems to be reviewing this one, so I'll bite.
The article was not promoted by Ucucha 02:02, 13 April 2010 [49].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I this article has come such a long way from 6 months ago (as it used to average 30-40 views, now over 200 a day). Because of the college's roll in the New Hampshire Primary election cycle, I feel it would serve as a good featured article!
Ericci8996 (
talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Thanks for the advice
As nominatior, I WITHDRAW this article for consideration! To quote
General MacArthur - "I Shall Return!"
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:05, 12 April 2010 [50].
I am nominating this for featured article because it apparently meets the criteria for FA status.
Airborne84 (
talk) 03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Found some dab links: APA, En, Linotype, Period. English Spacing and French spacing redirects to the article itself. One dead link [51] Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments—minor stuff. I'll be neutral for now.
Given the (few) punctuation and language articles I've seen, this does look (from a glance) way better than I expected. (For what my opinion's worth, I prefer two spaces.) -- an odd name 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose As above, very US-centric, one section on "international" (ie non-US), one on "US" (of course), and then sections purportedly about practice in various areas, like science and law, but all about US practice. This needs to be completely rewritten or resubmitted as "Sentence spacing in the United States" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Sorry, but it needs a lot of work before it is anything like good enough. It is seriously over-written, far too long, and obscure in its style. It does not read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like a high-school essay written by a smart kid desperate to show off his "learning" at every step, and this showing-off, and the tedious length, gets in the way of the reader's understanding. In the opening sentence, "refers to" is meaningless and confusing, and "horizontal" is too restrictive. Then why on earth does Gutenberg need to be mentioned in the third sentence? And it goes on (and on) like this. Prune it to at most a quarter of its length, restrict it to the facts and get rid of the flourishes. Almost entirely written by one editor at present, and needs input from others. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:01, 12 April 2010 [52].
I am nominating this for featured article status because, since its last FAC, it has completed a
Peer Review and a
compromise has been reached regarding some of the more controversial elements through formal mediation. I realize that this is a provocative topic that engenders strong opinions. Special effort has been made, however, to reference every possibly contestable statement and an FAQ has been included to address some of the more common prima facie concerns like bias and content-forking. A number of controversial articles (e.g.
global warming,
intelligent design,
Xenu, etc) have achieved FA status and I'd like very much if the Christ myth theory could join their ranks. If as a reviewer you see a problem with the article, please, rather than immediately object to the FAC, indicate what the problem is and give the involved editors time to reply and possibly alter the article.
Eugene (
talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Comments – for now. This is a well-written and engaging contribution. I have made a few notes during my two readings. They are not in any particular order so forgive me.
That's all for the time being. Graham Colm ( talk) 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Following my third reading, I have decided to oppose the promotion of this candidate. I think it contravenes WP:NPOV. In the Lead for example, there is "the proponents of the theory" rather than the theory, and the last sentence of the Lead—"The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship"—establishes the biased theme of this contribution. This article is essentially an a attempt to debunk the "myth" and is not written from a neutral point of view. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:58, 10 April 2010 [56].
I am nominating this for featured article because... the USS Triton completed its shakedown cruise on 11 May 1960, which included the
first submerged circumnavigation of the world, fifty years ago. Triton was commanded by
Captain Edward L. Beach, a highly-decorated U.S. naval officer and
best-selling author. This article has just undergone a
MILHIST A-class review. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to our collaboration.
Marcd30319 (
talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
--
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Query: What is the current status of this FAC review? I have responded to all issues raised thus far, corrected any subjunctive, typographical, or grammatical errors, and replied to the question regarding the Cultural references section. What issues remain to be addressed? Thank you for your assistance.
Marcd30319 (
talk) 14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments:
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:55, 10 April 2010 [57].
I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It was promoted to GA status last October, was peer reviewed and copyedited by
Brianboulton in January, and has received a copyedit from
HJ Mitchell of
WP:GOCE. There is currently one dead link in the article, which is used once as attribution for a direct quote. The convenience link may not resurface online but can be verified in the hard copy issue of City Life.
Bradley0110 (
talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Three weeks with no Support; perhaps bring this back in about ten days? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:26, 9 April 2010 [58].
I am nominating this for featured article because it was previously nominated two and a half months after she assumed the role of
First Lady of the United States. There were issues with recentism and what her long term role is. Now that she has established her legacy objective and undertaken a role in running an administrationwide initiative, I think it is time to reconsider whether this article is among the finest at summarizing the bio of this living person.
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 8 April 2010 [59].
I believe this article meets the criteria for FA Status. It was promoted to
GA in December 2008 and received a
peer review in January 2010. All issues raised in the PR have been addressed. The article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well.
Paul Largo (
talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Here are links to the "About Us" pages of the websites in question together with some brief information;
Not sure how helpful this information is. I was talking to a friend off-wiki yesterday about this and he suggested I could ask for help at WP:RSN in determining whether or not these are reliable sources. I have to be away from my computer for a while shortly so will post a question there later this evening. Cheers Paul Largo ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Hope these, though pernickety, are helpful. – Tim riley ( talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. Full (but not too full) of relevant and evidently comprehensive information, well referenced and well written. - Tim riley ( talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I suggest upgrading the sourcing concerns before bringing this back to FAC; reviewers are unlikely to support with so many sourcing concerns raised. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 8 April 2010 [60].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article, which I have been working on for a long time and got it up to GA status without any objection, and feel that it is one of the best examples of contemporary historical fiction and this article covers the scope of literary criticism on it. I wish to pursue the expansion of other parts of the
Baroque Cycle and want to get the whole series up for a featured category nomination. It is my first nomination of this sort, but it is about time, I have been on
WP:Novels for quite some time.
Sadads (
talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
I don't really understand the need for File:NealStephenson_Quicksilver.jpg, could this be clarified Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I haven't gone beyond the lead at this point, but I obviously have doubts about the state of the rest of the article. I won't oppose at this point, but until a thorough copy-edit is done (preferably by more than one editor), this article does not fulfill the FA criteria. María ( habla con migo) 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Addressing copy edit concerns: I have contacted several editors (new and old to the article page), asking for some support. Hope it will be timely, will address above issues of María's and continue my own reviewing of it. Sadads ( talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose: On the issue of the lead image I agree with you. However, on the prose question I agree absolutely with Maria; this article needs some thorough attention, and here at FAC is not the appropriate place for this. Just a few examples of prose problems in the lead, apart from those raised by Maria:-
With so many errors or questionable phrases so early, it is clear that the article does not meet featured criterion 1(a). There is no doubt much good stuff in it, but time needs to be spent by one or more uninvolved editors with FA experience, to bring the prose to standard. I don't believe this can be done in the structure and timescale of FAC and would recommend a peer review. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 8 April 2010 [61].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly improved since it's last attempt at featured article. It now has pictures and the citation formatting has been unified among many other things. Several dedicated wikipedians and I have scoured the article numerous times and have deemed it worthy. Thanks
Publichall (
talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
(not intended as what?) and
(why so complex a sentence structure?). Then we get:
with mathematical rigor? Further redundancies further down ("becoming", "proceeded to"), then inappropriate use of a first name only, overlinking to email. Full of quotes, more than would be appropriate (cf. the essay WP:QUOTE). I see more similar problems in the rest of the article, but won't list them all; a good copyeditor will catch those. Ucucha 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 8 April 2010 [62].
The articles seems to be quite complete, detailed, referenced and extensively discussed and challenged. The headers might be tweaked, but I'm hopeful that will likely be the least of the issues brought up during the FA process. I've added the co-nominators to acknowledge their content creation, their participation is optional. -
Roy
Boy 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Question about this article's role - I see this question has already been discussed extensively on the article's talk page, apparently without resolution:
Comment - Have the co-nominators agreed to this FAC? Orangemarlin has not edited the article since December 2007 and has not edited Wikipedia for over one year. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 8 April 2010 [65].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that Scooter are large players in the Electronic Dance Scene. They have been around for a very long time, have had an album go number 1 in the U.K., and many top 10 singles
AlmanacManiac (
talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010 [66].
A few months back, this film article was nominated by a user for the FA Queue. At the time, the article was essentially a skeleton. It had a foundation, and certain elements necessary for FA approval, but nothing in terms of comprehensive researched content. Although not a huge success at the box office, the film still retained a popularity for its original concept. I've taken a passing interest in the film, and spent my own time sprucing it up in trying to meet the criterea necessary for FA Status. It is thoroughly filled with referenced content this time around, and I believe in its current incarnation, it merits FA inclusion.
Theatrickal (
talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
I do particularly like how much content is available about the production, and it's nice to see Cinefex used. Hard periodical for me to find! Anyway, these are the broad strokes, for a start. I'll have to read the content more closely for additional suggestions. [edit: I would like to say about this article, though, it is a vast improvement from when it was previously nominated. Nice job! It's now a matter of meeting the FA criteria, obviously.] Erik ( talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Additional Comment Hi Steve. I will look through that scrapboard as well. But just after a quick run-through, some of the information from that list is already in the article. Posts from Ebert, Maslin and Kempley. The racism card and references towards Outer Heat/In the Heat of the Night are also present. Plus, other references with immigration officials and the alien mix are mentioned numerous times. But I will do a thorough check tonight. Thanks. Theatrickal ( talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak object Comment While there are many things that are good about the article, there are a few things that are bothering me:
Cheers.-- Guy546( Talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010 [67].
I feel this article is up to the FA snuff. It's been through
a PR, a
failed FAC, got listed as a GA, and here I am again. The previous FAC really just went stale, I was happy to respond to any comments people brought up. As per Yellow Monkey's request at the time a Series Preview section was added, and a section noting the scandal involving NY governor
David Paterson and his attending this World Series has now been added to the aftermath section. I have used
1926 World Series and
2004 World Series (the current FA World Series articles) as general style guides. The only major current issue of contention is the inclusion of a "Quotes" section. I have reverted the addition of uncited quotes (and will continue to as uncited material). I personally do not feel a quotes section follows Wikipedia's style guidelines (whether cited or not), but would welcome input on this subject.
Staxringold
talk
contribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment I'll try to give a full review at some point, but some of the captions might be improved. Some of them are a bit too detailed.
This is just from a spot check, so please go over the captions, particularly in the ones in the Series section, and see if anything can be shortened. Also, reference 15's publisher is AOL Sports, and you have both "MLB.com. Major League Baseball." and "MLB.com (Major League Baseball)." Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments - as I go through this article in the next few days, I will leave comments.
I'll continue to add to this section as I have more to say. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:48, 8 April 2010 [74].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been some time and I have done my best after a PR to clean up what little remained about the article. No major info on the subject has appeared since the last FAC either.
陣
内
Jinnai 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments
These are just a few points I picked out of the opening. I think it needs an independent copy-edit; but it's really not bad at all. Tony (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:41, 8 April 2010 [75].
I started this article in September 2007. Since
the peer review in August 2009, I've moved it from "
Evenness of zero" to "
Parity of zero" and made improvements to the prose. Very recently, I've also rearranged some of the material in the "
History" introduction (per the PR) and in "
Group discussions".
I haven't done a FAC in years! Hopefully this article is like 0.999... — except, you know, better. ;-) Melchoir ( talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Review by Charles Edward
I also have a theoretical concern, namely, all the material about explanations is taken from books and journal articles written by educators, for educators. The cited sources are discussing explanations with the assumption that the reader doesn't need them. If we just state the explanations, implying that the reader does need them... it's not exactly sticking to the sources, and it's a little condescending. Of course you could argue that my version is patronizing in its own way. We'll see how the execution works. Melchoir ( talk) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
One drawback of the current scheme is that Ball has many entries, but only one is called out. Mostly for that reason, I'm willing to move to a more standard-looking format. But I would still want some text at the top of References that points to the most valuable sources. Melchoir ( talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose, this article still needs a fair bit of work. The referencing issues are my biggest concern, followed by the tone of the education section. I have not listed all the issues with the references or tone, but this should be enough to demonstrate where the issues are. Good job on the article so far, its really is a very interesting read and I can see alot of research has went into it. Keep up the good work and you will soon have it up to FA standards. :) — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 8 April 2010 [76].
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it addresses the subject completely and fully and meets the quality standards of a Featured Article.
mynameinc (
t|
c) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [77].
I am nominating this for featured article because the prior FAC was closed although I had addressed most of the concerns. I believe this is one of the finest articles on WP.
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose: The prose is way below featured standard. I have only looked at the lead, where I found a whole parcel of problems. It would have been wise, after the last FAC, to have had a thorough prose review and major copyedit, because that's what looks like is required now. Here are the more egregious issues from the lead:-
Someone needs to go through the remainder with the proverbial fine toothcomb and check out the prose. Can't be fixed quickly, I fear. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [78].
This article just finished a
peer review and I think it satisfies the criteria for becoming an FA. It's well referenced, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable, and reads well.
fetch
comms
☛ 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
← I have created Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack, but I think a bit more can still be cut out of the main article. I tried the web archive, but none were found, unfortunately. fetch comms ☛ 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Voila one condensed lead, now for the rest of the article I'll await your response to these suggestions. Overall its got a lot information and is well written its just there is redundancy within the prose. Gnan garra 11:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Image Check: Passed - 9 images; 8 free, 1 fair use. Free images are all PD-self or PD-USGOV, and are at commons. Fair-use image is the one of the plane, and is not reproducible. -- Pres N 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
oppose - File:NWA_Flight_253_landed.jpg conveys no information beyond what is already contained in the caption, therefore failing wp:nfcc Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [79].
This article covers the history of astronomical and spacecraft studies of Jupiter's moon Io. It recently completed its
peer review (though it only incited one reviewer to comment), which was helpful in assessing new official and unofficial FA criteria. I now believe the article is of sufficient comprehensiveness for an FAC run. Thank you all in advance for your comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism.
Volcanopele (
talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments just on the lead:
Well done: this is an admirable nomination, and it deserves to succeed. I do think these issues in the lead indicate the whole article needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor, though. Tony (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [82].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the criteria. It is also part of
Apterygial (
talk ·
contribs)'s
Insane Idea to make
2008 Formula One season a featured topic;
2008 Monaco Grand Prix,
2008 Japanese Grand Prix and
2008 Brazilian Grand Prix are the articles which have already reached FA status in this series, and may be useful for comparison. --
Midgrid
(talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
|image-alt=
to the infobox template for that.
Ucucha 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments – Haven't gotten to the race recap itself yet, but am somewhat concerned with what I've seen so far. There is quite a bit of wordiness lurking in the article, along with some punctuation issues and a referencing concern. A copy-edit from someone new to the article may be worthwhile.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [83].
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article. It recently passed an A class review under the milhist project and since then I have added a lot of content so that it would meet the criteria.
Kumioko (
talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Once again, sorry for the large number of comments. Overall the article looks quite good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Not entirely satisfied with the prose. Here are issues just at the top.
Image Check: Passed - 7 images, all free-use from commons (PD-GOV or PD-OLD) plus some ribbons that don't need to be checked. -- Pres N 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - structure of history section seems to get off to a strange start with the hybrid Early life and family section. Why combine "family" here, in what is ostensibly a "background" section? It causes the history to jump from 1905 back to 1898 as we enter the next section—and, meanwhile, we have been confronted with the idea of "his former commanding officer in China". PL290 ( talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
(History) Early life and family Military career Director of Public Safety Military retirement and later years Honors and awards Published works See also Notes Footnotes References Further reading
I am unconvinced that deviating from this general pattern produces an intelligible biographical article. PL290 ( talk) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Leaning to support (prose) - Further to my comment on structure above, I've now been right through the article, and copyedited a few things that jumped out along the way. The relocation of the marriage passage is, I think, effective, and I see no other structural problems (and agree with Rusty Cashman that the resulting section titles can perhaps be simplified without fear of implying a section is exclusively concerned with military service). I found several minor loose ends (missing words and the like) which I tidied up as I went. There are one or two passages where the prose seems a little casual or informal, such as "Not all of the city felt he was doing a bad job though and when the news started to break that he would be leaving ...". A few specific points (some of which are very minor ones that I couldn't fix as I went):
PL290 ( talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Leaning towards supporting What is the current status? Has Andy been asked to comment on the changes. Have Tony's comments been fully addressed, including those regarding the images? I don't think the structure of the article is a problem, but there are still one or two long sentences that lack flow. Graham Colm ( talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments What is the status here. I had promised Kumioko that I would give the article a ce, and I've done that. The longest sentences are more manageable, and the verb on verb on verbs are fixed. There are still some areas that I just didn't know what to do with, particularly in the last part of the Dickson committee section. Kumioko, if you look at it in edit mode, you can see where someone has left you some notes. I think it reads better now, although it's still choppy. In terms of content, I think this is a very good article. I'd have appreciated some more context at places, but I'm not as familiar with early 20th century American history as I might be. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:54, 5 April 2010 [84].
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been dramatically improved and has been promoted to GA status. I feel that the article meets all the FA criteria, and is comparable in quality to Manchester City F.C. and Arsenal F.C., both of which are FA.
Tomlock01 (
talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [86].
I present an article on singer-songwriter Gillian Welch as a FAC. After an extensive revamp, improvement during GA nom and promotion, and a PR, I feel it is ready. Thank you in advance.
Omarcheeseboro (
talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [87].
I am nominating this because it is well written, images are good, and it is well referenced. None of the references are dead links (I checked). The article is also made of a variety of sources, not solely from one source; like
FEMA,
NHC, or
NOAA. It is a good size of information for a storm that barely affected land as a tropical cyclone. It is clearly not a skin and bones article like it was about 4 years ago.
12george1 (
talk) 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
|alt=
parameter of {{
storm path}}; this was added in July 2009.
Eubulides (
talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments: Generally well done, prose is still a bit weak.
Maxim (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [88].
An extensive article about Kentucky's only modern governor to succeed himself in office. Unfortunately missing a picture of the man, but hopefully an editor in or near Pikeville can remedy that in the future. I look forward to addressing everyone's concerns.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This is a
WikiCup nomination.
Acdixon (
talk •
contribs •
count) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:03, 3 April 2010 [89].
Nobel Prize is a important part in Wikipedia. Many articles link to it and if a person has received the Nobel Prize it is bound to be mentioned in the lead (even in
Winston Churchill who undoubtedly did greater things than win a Nobel Prize). That is why I am nominating this article a second time, the last time the major problems were sources and images and I believe those have been addressed.
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
--Mike" Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
|language=
field.This isn't comprehensive and issues like odd/inconsistent linking, not putting Surname first seem to recur regularly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just some examples of prose which isn't of a professional standard:
These were found without really reading the article and came from just one section. This only passed GA the other day and is a long way off FA standard. Suggest withdrawing and getting this peer reviewed.
I oppose the promotion of this article because currently it fails 1a and 2c (at least). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply