This article is about... Mulberry Street, basically Dr. Seuss's first book. Because it was his first, many writers have focused on it, and as far as I know, this Wiki article cites all of them. I don't really know anything about FACs, but Curly Turkey, who has been working with me on this article and who seems to be a regular here, says this article is just about ready. I'll take his word for it and brace myself for the deluge of constructive criticism. :D Bobnorwal ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Great topic, really interesting read. I made some small changes. (I love the link between Seuss and Potter, which I'd never heard of before, despite reading them both as a young child.)
Really nice read- I'll take a snoop around for other sources soon, as I note that you haven't cited any journals- I imagine that there's going to be a bit of coverage of Seuss out there. J Milburn ( talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus for promotion, no activity for a couple of weeks, and apparently further research to do, it's time to archive this nomination. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before returning to nominate this or any article; you can take that time (or as long as you need) to improve the article outside the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm resubmitting this article following its first unsuccessful nomination, here, and here.
Since that time I've attempted to address all the issues raised by previous reviewers. These had to do with the use of lists; reliance on List of metalloid lists (another Wikipedia article); the structure of the article; use of notes; citation formatting consistencies; and citations to multiple editions of the same work.
Lists have been converted to prose. The List of metalloid lists is now referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as is also the case with the metalloid article itself). The article structure has been overhauled so that the focus is on the metalloid category as a whole, rather than the commonly recognised metalloids. I've checked and adjusted the notes to make sure the article can be read and understood without necessarily needing to refer to the notes. I've checked and adjusted the formatting of citations for consistency. Multiple editions of the same work have been removed where redundant. Other minor improvements were made along the way.
I thank the earlier reviewers, Squeamish Ossifrage and John for their comments in response to my initial nomination. Despite my (unhelpful) initial misgivings the article is significantly better now. Sandbh ( talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Just having a look at the mind-numbing "References" section, I am reluctantly leaning towards oppose. The citations are not properly and consistenly formatted -- for example, title case is not used, and ISSNs and ISBNs are missing for some of the print publications (ISSN 0040-1692 for Technology Review, ISSN 1536-3686 for American Journal of Therapeutics, ISSN 0165-0513 for Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, etc). This makes them difficult to digest and verify. I would like to know of Nikkimaria's views of the references first before I go any further.
Having said that, I appreciate your work on this important article and hope that you'll be a regular on FAC (if you aren't already). Cheers, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. I've had this article in my Watchlist for a long time, since its first FAC, but wasn't really looking at edits and how it was changing. During the first FAC, I felt it was far from FA standards for a number of reasons; now, however, the article looks a lot better. I gave it a quick read and now it is a decent work. Specifics will follow, but knowing the main author cares about the article, I feel positive about it.-- R8R ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Here goes:
Lead is very good. One thing I have to ask is, why show aluminum and carbon in the main diagram. I mean, selenium as a metalloid can be found easily in literature (esp. environmental and such), but Al and C are a lot rarer hits.
Germanium was also thought... -- I can't find this in the main text of the article, where it would be benefitial (for example, in the Origin and usage subsection, or elsewhere)
In the Generic subsection, you first mention the common metalloids, then you mention Se, Po, and At; next, I would expect Al and C. At least in the list of elements "ocassionally classified as metalloids."
(for example, nitrogen; carbon) -- why a semicolon here?
Why use "same" in the table when you can just copy the word in the cell above?
(see the mini-example, right) -- "right" is little use when, for example, you use a mobile version of Wiki
It could be cool if you managed to find someone to turn the dark gray color square into a line of the same color (since you use a line of that line, with the color of the line having a different function than other colors. Don't know if this is a requirement, but this could be a good idea.
First you say two of the six are toxic, then you say all six are. I've removed the first phrase, but if you want it back, you can do that (but please explain why).
Notwithstanding -- this word is too fancy for me. Fancy is not maybe the word, but there is a MOS rule you should use less complex words when it's possible (for example, always "on" and never "upon," except for quotes and proper names). This might be an issue here. (If it's not, please let me know.)
Unlike metallic antimony -- made me think for a second I'd missed somrthing. Maybe better use "While metallic animony is relatively non-toxic" or smth like that?
(I'm somehow glad there's no polonium radioactivity mention here :) (no action required)
type III-V semiconductors (such as ...) -- I think a small parentesized explanation would not hurt, for example "type III-V semiconductors (a semiconductor composed of one or more group III elements and one or more group V elements, such as ...)" Don't insist, though.
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) -- previosuly, you refer to a compound either by a name or a formula, and two lines later you have just "bismuth telluride" (don't know if such consistency is a good idea, just noting)
When I find time, I'll continue from the section Elements commonly recognised as metalloids-- R8R ( talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It is about 10% less dense than aluminium but, unlike the latter,[219] is hard and brittle. -- a somewhat questionable antithesis. 10% isn't that much. I think the point was about as dense as Al, but a lot harder, then I suggest you remove the mention of percents. same for Si.
figures in the end of the same para, and almost all figures in this section --- mmm. not so great. I do realize what these figures are for and find them useful, but only because I know what they mean. Many, many people won't. Note that later on, you have the following: "with an electrical conductivity of 1.0–1.3 × 104 S•cm−1, a value similar to that of liquid mercury." (a very good note). This is a serious question. Luckily enough, it's not too difficult to solve. I suggest you do the following: you explain the difference between metals, nonmetals, and metalloids in the corresponding section, so you can explain the typical values for the parameters in that section as well. You should also explain what those parameters even are (by the way, it gives you possibilities for some awesome notes, like (hence metallic bonding) when explaining the band gap). Readers' love will be all yours ;)
the energy required -- makes sense, but raises question about P (no action required, just noting)
aluminum: electron potential: It's very cool that you have that external link here. seriously. (no action required)
Up to polonium's profile, the only thing I have concerns about is the understandability of figures. Astatine's profile, though, reads as if it were written by another person in a different writing style (encyclopedia vs journal). My personal feeling is, that is because here, there are many authors names. I suggest you drop them because the text is always easier to read when it has fewer names unless we're discussing a story. There are a lot of reasons. Some are psychologic (for unprepared readers, names are attractions and deviate them from the point, etc.). My concern is that 99% of readers won't ever need these names, but , again, for an unprepared reader, these names are a ballast. This is different for journal articles. Even the 1% that needs them, will find them in ref descriptions. A de-personified text is easier to read, when it comes to an overview article. In a journal article, this is not relevant. Moreover, in journal articles, a reader may need those names. This is rarely the case for Wikipedia.
The next section is hard to write without names, though. Actually, it can go w/o names as well, but this would require rewriting. Besides, I don't see a point in having the 1954 and 2007 classifications when discussing near-metalloids (the text has only metalloids). Actually, are these authors crucial to the near-metalloid definition? Can't you go with something like "In 1935, a new concept of near-metalloids, elements that behaved like metalloids, but also like metals or nonmetals, emerged. This concept has occured in many works since then, and the elements classified as such were ..., ..., more rarely also ..." Authors are really secondary detail. They could be fine in a close-up spinoff article, but not in the overview article.
On aurophilicity, see also.[23] -- shouldn't this very sentence be "see also [23]," as [23] isn't just a ref, but also a part of the sentence
IE -- better spell out
A more technical thing -- wikilinking is not always done at first occurrence. (Maybe there's a script that checks this. If you don't have it, tell me, and I'll fix it. errr, I only have the duplicate links script, sorry) An outsourceable thing. (I only noticed
band gap inconsistency.)
Again, a very good article.-- R8R ( talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about a famous unsolved crime spree in Texarkana in 1946. It was the inspiration to the movie The Town That Dreaded Sundown, which a new meta-remake will be out soon. I believe the article should be featured because the story will be interesting to those who will try looking into it because of the new movie and because I've worked very hard on this article for more than 3 years. I've done extensive research and contributed one of the most complete writings of the subject to Wikipedia. The article is very thorough and the references are well cited by extremely reliable sources (the original 1946 newspaper articles). I am an expert on this subject, having done some extensive research and investigation on this topic and have spoken with many family and relatives of the victims and investigators from that time. JeremeK ( talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Thanks for calling my article poor without giving any constructive criticism, and because you didn't give any, it was just criticism. I have cited every quotation. I have sourced and cited almost all newspapers found on this subject. I can't produce any more newspaper accounts. What's there is there. All sources are reliable. If you can find more reliable sources, you'd be the expert on this topic; but there are none. Most "sources" are not reliable; but what does this expert know? I guess this will never reach FA; oh well. JeremeK ( talk) 06:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Response...
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [2]. reply
This article is about... a new roller at Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio. I am nominating this article for a 2nd time because the comments from the first nomination have been addressed and is ready to be reviewed. It has gone through copy edits, a peer review and a GA review. As the creator, I've been watching and contributing to the article from the beginning and could answer any question that might come up about the ride. Thanks, Astros4477 ( Talk) 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - I had to stumble by, given I have an FAC of my own, and I've been to Cedar Point before.
All in all, it's a pretty good article! Good read. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- with no activity for some weeks this review has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [3]. reply
This article is about a junior branch of what later became known as the House of Plantagenet, as the most powerful nobles in England bar the monarch they played a significant part in the medieval history of England but apart the Wars of the Roses this is largely forgotten, as is much on the background apart from the three Lancastrian monarchs. Hence it is a bit of a backwater on Wikipedia that perhaps deserves a greater prominence. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support All my points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review (in addition to the issues raised by Hawkeye7)
Oppose at this stage
Examples from the lead and the first section include:
Note -- As far as FAC's concerned, I think it's a bit late in the day for a copyedit to be made to this article, and I'm inclined to archive this and recommend, as Hchc2009 does, that you take it through MilHist ACR or Peer Review before renominating here. However, I'll give Hchc2009 and Ruby2010 a chance to revisit their comments/opposition before going that route. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [4]. reply
Billy Bates was a second baseman best remembered for scoring the winning run for the Reds in Game of the 1990 World Series. After that one memorable moment, he never played in Major League Baseball again. Noted for his speed, Bates also beat an unchained cheetah in a race. It passed as a good article, and I think it's better than my other FA, Mike Capel, just due to the increased notability. Thus, I give you Billy Bates. Seattle ( talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
Sandbh ( talk) 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Lede
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
'Though defensively he played as a second baseman, the Reds primarily used Bates as a pinch runner.'
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
'Drafted by Milwaukee in the 4th round of the 1985 MLB Draft, he rose through the Brewers' farm system and won multiple minor league titles.'
Rise to the majors
'El Paso's 85 wins were the most in the managerial career of Duffy Dyer, which lasted eleven years.'
'His 117 runs scored also led a Denver club that won its final 11 games to finish 79–61, one game ahead of the Louisville Redbirds for the best record in the AA.[17][20]'
'In a Brewer's spring training game in early March, Bates committed two errors against the Chicago Cubs in the top of the 11th inning, as the Cubs scored the winning run without recording a hit, but his 4th-inning single scored two runs.[22]'
MLB debut
'Bates began the season with the Zephyrs and in July was named to the Triple-A All-Star Game.[28] On the MLB level, the Brewers suffered multiple injuries to starting players, having 9 athletes on the disabled list (DL) on August 22 and 14 total players on the DL up to that point.[29] In a game against the New York Yankees on August 15, Gantner played at second base as the Brewers tried to hold on to a 1–0 lead. With Marcus Lawton on first base, Yankees batter Wayne Tolleson hit a ground ball to shortstop Bill Spiers for a potential double play. Lawton ran into Gantner, who had trouble fielding a low throw from Spiers; umpire Dave Phillips called both Lawton and Tolleson out due to Lawton's illegal roll-block, but Gantner tore the medial collateral ligament in his left knee and was placed on the DL. Bates was called up as his replacement.[30]'
'After the injury, Milwaukee's general manager Harry Dalton said that Bates…'
'Wade Boggs hit a ground ball to Bates, but he committed an error that allowed Boggs to reach…'
'Facing the Red Sox on April 14, Bates hit his only MLB extra base hit, a double, in the 8th inning but committed two errors on defense.[2][38] He later scored the go-ahead run on a Gary Sheffield double in a 9–5 Milwaukee victory. Previously, he stole second base and home plate in the 2nd.[38]'
Cincinnati Reds
'When he arrived with the Reds organization, Bates was assigned to the Triple-A Nashville Sounds of the AA.'
'…hit a double that scored Bates.[47]'
'Doran– a second baseman the Reds acquired from the Houston Astros in a "last-minute" deal before the trade deadline– was hospitalized with back pain and spasms on September 29.[52][53] Doctors performed an operation on October 3, which would hold him out of postseason play as Cincinnati won the National League West; the Reds were the first team in National League history to lead a division for an entire 162-game season.[53][54]'
'In Game 1, the Reds defeated the Athletics 7–0 in what Associated Press writer Jim Donaghy called "a stunning combination of power and pitching": Cincinnati scored four runs off of Dave Stewart, who had a six-game winning streak in the playoffs, while pitchers José Rijo, Rob Dibble, and Randy Myers combined for a nine-hit shutout.[15][16] The game ended the Athletics' ten-game postseason win streak.[15] Bates did not play.[16]'
'Like Game 1, Cincinnati was the home team for Game 2, where Danny Jackson of the Reds faced Bob Welch of the Athletics.[17] Oakland opened the scoring with a run in the top of the first inning, a ground ball by Jose Canseco that scored Rickey Henderson. The Reds responded for two runs in the bottom of the first. Oakland scored three more runs in the third, and Piniella removed Jackson from the game as the Athletics led the Reds 4–2. Cincinnati added a run in the bottom of the fourth and managed to tie the game in the eighth as Billy Hatcher hit a triple and scored on a groundout. After nine innings, the game remained tied, 4–4.[18] Rob Dibble came into pitch in the ninth and held the Athletics scoreless for the two innings he pitched; Oakland countered with future Hall of Fame inductee Dennis Eckersley for the bottom of the tenth.[18][19] Leading off for the Reds was Davis, who grounded out to shortstop.'
'The Reds won Game 3 after scoring seven runs in the top of the third inning off of Mike Moore. Pitcher Tom Browning earned the win for Cincinnati, as the game ended at a score of 8–3.[23] The Athletics took a lead in Game 4, as Carney Lansford hit a single that scored Willie McGee from second base. In the eighth inning, however, the Reds loaded the bases after singles by Barry Larkin and Herm Winningham, and an error that allowed Paul O'Neill to reach base. Larkin scored on a groundout and Winningham scored on a sacrifice fly to give Cincinnati the lead, 2–1. The lead held, as Myers came in for Rijo after one out in the bottom of the ninth inning, and the Reds became World Series champions.[24] Bates did not play in either game.[23][24]'
This concludes my review comments, for now. Sandbh ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I think that after remaining open a month with no activity for a couple of weeks, even allowing for the holiday period, that this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [5]. reply
Coming right off of the recent promotion of Sega Genesis, here's a related video game topic. The Sega CD was one of two major add-ons for the aforementioned console that had its own independent game library and very much its own place in the history of video games, though unfortunately more as a warning to other manufacturers than anything else. This article went through a GA review a few months ago, though not one without controversy, as the Sega Genesis WP:LAME naming debates spilled over into this article, but since then it's been nice and stable, and I managed to take some significant time today with some more new sources to really flesh out the article and make it thorough, deep, well presented, and reliably sourced, and I believe it meets the FA criteria at this point. As always, I'll be more than glad to handle any issues that come up during this FAC, and will do what it takes to make this happen. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- this review has well and truly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic. This is the second nomination for this article - the other failed, in part due to lack of discussion.
For those who aren't familiar with the game, this was a college football game between the Michigan Wolverines (members of the upper-tier Division I-FBS) and Appalachian State Mountaineers (members of the second-tier Division I-FCS). Michigan, ranked the fifth-best team in the country, was projected to win big because FCS teams almost always lose to FBS teams, even a team like Appalachian State, who had won two consecutive FCS championships and were favored to win a third. However, Appalachian State stunned everyone by pulling out a 34-32 win, sealed by a last-second blocked field goal; analysts immediately called the game one of the biggest upsets in college football history. A rematch of the game is scheduled to open the 2014 season for both teams
Toa
Nidhiki05
18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Source spot-checks – In response to plagarism concerns at the first FAC, I checked the wording of the article against sources 14, 17, 20, 26, 56, and 57. Mostly, I see a tendency to use keywords from the sources in the articles, with or without quotes. That isn't optimal, but the good news is such instances are not hard to resolve.
Source comments - Just looking at sources:
These are the only concerns I had in my first look at the sources. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- With no further reviews during January, this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [7]. reply
This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. Any issues can be easily addressed. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review: Only two images used here, and both are fair use.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 02:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll work on the rationales. As to the suggestion, I personally find no use for those types of images on any article (except for bios or a cast where an image is of that person[s]). They don't add any significance to the article in my opinion. When I see those in other articles, I ask myself "why is this here? It does not tell or show me anything about the game, which is what I want to know about." I own the collector's edition, so I can take a pic of the contents of it and upload it (been meaning to for awhile). -- JDC808 ♫ 08:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review: - spot-checks not done.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll be working on these very soon. Been busy past few days. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - Image and source reviews are good, although I haven't done any spot-checks. I've reviewed the prose and formatting, and I don't see anything major that serves as a deal breaker for me—minor issues I can just do some WP:BOLD copyediting if anything glares at me. Sections and content are good, the subject is covered in-depth and appropriately. Well done. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Great work. — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note There is not enough discussion here to establish whether the FA criteria have been met. With one exception, the reviews are shallow and unhelpful. Without more substantive reviews the prospects for this candidate's promotion are not good, despite the three "supports". Graham Colm ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support: I can't see anything wrong with this article. Refs, phrasing and structure all alright. I'd pass this. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 13:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support: I agree with all above. Great job, and hope it gets passed! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I'm unconvinced this article meets the FA criteria, and in places I found it to be almost incomprehensible, depending as it does on knowledge of the previous games. A few more specific points:
Eric Corbett 21:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Generally avoid computer game articles, but this one seems to be in a bit of a hole... Bit of a random scan of issues here, as I'm short on time... Oppose at present:
That's all I have time for now. hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment This candidate has been here for a long time but I am not convinced that a consensus for promotion has been reached and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please note that superficial reviews such as "I can't see anything wrong with this article", "Great work", "I'd pass this" and "I agree with all above" and not helpful and indeed make it more difficult for the closing delegates to decide. We prefer to see critical comments, either here or at a former peer review, and opposes that are resolved by discussion between the nominators and reviewers. Graham Colm ( talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [8]. reply
I'm sure everyone recognizes the article title. :)
I’m nominating this article for FA because, after spending a couple hundred hours researching this compound with the research tools at my university, and six months editing the article, I’m fairly certain it’s the most comprehensive source of information currently available on amphetamine in humans. Moreover, the article received an
extremely rigorous GA review by
Sasata to help prepare the article for this FA review, along with constant input from
WP-MED and
WP-PHARM. Consequently, I feel the article is now prepared to go through this process. I really enjoyed (re-)writing it, so I hope you enjoy reading it.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - although it is clear that a great deal of effort has been put into this article, it currently doesn't meet the FA criteria.
Aa77zz ( talk) 12:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
A comment on the lead
The first paragraph contains a factual incorrect sentence: "Amphetamine refers to equal parts of the enantiomers, i.e., 50% levoamphetamine and 50% dextroamphetamine." This is not correct. Amphetamine is a general term that can refer to either enantiomer, the racemate, or any mixture of the enantiomers. For example David Nutt's article (Heal et al 2013) contains the sentence "As a molecule with a single chiral centre, amphetamine exists in two optically active forms, i.e. the dextro- (or d-) and levo- (or l-) isomers or enantiomers." Aa77zz ( talk) 11:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
References
Annotation: a specific chem: do not confuse with AMPHETAMINES; d-amphetamine = DEXTROAMPHETAMINE; N-methylamphetamine = METHAMPHETAMINE
This looks like an excellent, if rather technical, article. Couple of things.
Looks extremely well researched and generally written with great precision. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Really great work, Seppi, thanks!
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note to self: Pharmacology section not reviewed yet.
Sorry for the delay! -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
References
Closing comment This candidate has been here a long time but there is no indication that a consensus for promotion will be achieved on this occasion and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. I urge the nominator to resolve remaining issues on the article's talk page and return this to FAC later. This can be done after two weeks from when the closing bot runs. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [9]. reply
This article is about the song made by Psy. This song has hit very high population numbers in Youtube. This is the first time this article has been nominated for a featured article. It already is a good article. Order of the sword ( talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose In a way, this article does very well to reflect its subject—I got the same sense of "WTF!" reading it that I did when I first saw the music video. More seriously, the version that was awarded GA in Nov 2012 is much tighter and more concise. Since then, going by the top of the article talk page, several daughter articles have been merged wholesale into this parent article as the result of several AfDs. Subsequently, the current clusterfuck has risen.
To fix this article, I reckon the the GA-approved version would be a good starting point. Unless that is done, this doesn't even deserve to be a GA.— indopug ( talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note Yes, i'm aware this is a very long article. However, note that the korean pop songs have been going on for a long time. This allows this for a GA nomination, along with many citations. Plus, Open Gangnam Style IS a popular song, after all, and many people that like it likely had a lot to say about this. Order of the sword ( talk) 06:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [12]. reply
This article has gone through two FACs, both of which were archived because of not enough feedback. Trying again, as an FAC coordinator said this may be exempt from the two-week wait ( [13]). Dan56 ( talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources and images: I checked these out at the previous FAC, at which a few issues were resolved. All is well. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Here I'm concentrating mostly on the prose (criterion 1a) of the article. I think some sentences in the article need some minor adjustments because they don't flow well, or I had to pause and think about what the sentence meant, or perhaps the wrong choice of word is used. Below are some of the sentences I think need improving:
These sentences just need to be a bit clearer as to what they mean. It is by no means an exhaustive list, a few other sentences could also be improved with additions of words or punctuation, or the elimination of unnecessary words. Hzh ( talk)
Oppose: Structure, NPOV (including treatment of sources), and a handful of minor issues. Hzh's prose concerns are also applicable; I tried to avoid duplication. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: The recently archived FAC is still open on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Strong support: shame that "Sleep Talk" audio clip is only 21 seconds. (If it was me, of course, I'd probably have linked to the full album on YT tut tut.) Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support a great balance of information on all aspects of the album. The sourcing is immaculate. Great work! — JennKR | ☎ 13:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - Statements of support without explicitly saying why the article satisfies the FA criteria are of little value in judging whether a consensus for promotion has been achieved. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Having read through the article a few times, I say it clearly fulfills the FAC criteria. It's well written, concentrated with information yet concise, focused, neutral and really well sourced. Always enjoy reading through your articles Dan. Et 3 rnal 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Article is well written and sourced. A good read as well. TheOnlyOne12 ( talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am concerned that canvassing might become a problem here. This has posted on at least three user pages by the nominator: "Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? I've gotten supports, but an FAC delegate noted that comments should include mentions as to how the article fits FAC criteria. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore this message and happy holidays!" Graham Colm ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply
GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Further sources comment: When I did the sources review at the previous FAC, because close paraphrasing had been a major issue at the article's first FAC I paid specific attention to this aspect and carried out various spotchecks. I didn't find anything I considered untoward – but of course spotchecking is by its nature not exhaustive, and opinions differ as to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if this remains a major issue with the article, and I do believe that the nominator has done his best to deal with this problem. On another point raised by GabeMc, I got the impression when source-reviewing other music articles that Christgau websites were accepted as reliable sources – is this not the case? Brianboulton ( talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment
Comment on source & moving on
On the "discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony" possibly being plagiarized, the original has "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." I don't see how "keys" or "polyphony" could be changed, or any need to do so.
What seems to be needed (this is the third time this article has been listed here in a short period of time, and the only real objectors appear to have dropped out of the process), is for someone to go through all of the comments – vague and specific – and list those that have not yet been addressed. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I must oppose the promotion of this article due to concerns about plagiarism. Reading through the previous comments and Dan56's responses, I get the impression that he simply lacks a suitable understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. It's a common problem, the solution to which is not simple word substitution and reordering items. The very first two sources I checked have problems:
I must presume the whole article is rife with such problems since even ones as simple as these escaped the previous sweeps. I do accept that opinions on what constitutes close paraphrasing differ, but I don't believe these would pass muster even in a high school composition class. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
This has been open six weeks and I don't see the possibility of consensus to promote being reached anytime soon in light of the concerns about close paraphrasing raised by both Laserbrain and GabeMc. Each FAC should be treated on its own merits, and the issues raised by Gabe re. other articles do not have a direct bearing here, though I realise he's trying to illustrate a pattern in the face of what he sees as Dan's resistance, and these examples may well indicate FAR needs to be considered for the pages in question (I note that several of Dan's earlier FACs were spotchecked with reasonably clean bills of health, but by its nature such checks may not find evidence of an underlying problem). I can understand the frustration Dan expresses when it comes to finding new ways to convey the essence of a source without losing meaning, but that's the challenge we all face as editors, and I can only echo Laserbrain's advice on one way to attempt it; the alternative is to simply quote and attribute what you can't satisfactorily paraphrase, which as Hzh pointed out may well be a better way of presenting opinions anyway, but it needs to be done judiciously. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [28]. reply
This one is close to heart for me, Marie is truly the queen of the people here in Romania. I've spent nearly a month on this article and I believe it is now ready for FAC. I'm looking forward to suggestions for improvement. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Minor Note: I see a few citation errors coming up (as of this version) -- refs 16, 50, & 51 currently are not pointing anywhere. Ruby 2010/ 2013 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment – The main text of the article is a mixture of British and American spellings. For instance we have both "honour" and "honor" and inconsistent –ise/ize endings. I imagine the intention is to use British English, and I will be happy to go through and make it consistent if that would be of help. – Tim riley ( talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Aside from this attracting little in the way of commentary, it doesn't look like Alex has been around since mid-December, which even allowing for the silly season is too long a break for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [29]. reply
Another boring article about long-out-of-print comics by the ever-boring Curly Turkey, destined to spend two months worming its way to the bottom of the list before somebody finally feels guilted into giving it a peek. Luckily, you won't find its contents in the least enticing, otherwise it would tantalize you to learn that it has been 29 years since this material was last in print—and in incomplete form, at that.
Maybe you'd find it a little more interesting to learn this character had a cartoon sex change in 1962—and became the buxom, always-naked Little Annie Fanny for Playboy magazine, which Harvey Kurtzman wasted the last quarter-century of his life writing. But at least we have this out-of-print Goodman Beaver material to remind us how good he actually was! Or at least I do ... Curly Turkey ( gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I've likely missed some wording and structure concerns, because prose editing is not my strong suit. Reference formatting seems okay. A quick review suggests the cited literature is a comprehensive survey of modern material; is there anything worth going back to 1960s sources for, or do the recent works summarize period reactions sufficiently? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I know nothing about comics, and my comments about prose are from a BE perspective, so may not be applicable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
SUPPORT Regarding the FA criteria--Curly Turkey has presented an informative and interesting article that is sufficiently neutral, well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well researched. The article's history appears stable. The lede is comprehensive, the structure is logical and covers the relevant scope of the subject, and the article employs an acceptable and consistent method of citations.
Just a few comments to be addressed:-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Sorry Curly but with no activity for three weeks, despite some notices at WT:FAC that might've generated further interest, this review isn't progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. As you've done your best to resolve comments, I don't need you to wait the usual 14 days before renominating but I'd still prefer you leave it at least a week to give more people a chance to return from hols and hopefully review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [30]. reply
This article is about Major League Baseball's current consecutive scoreless innings record streak by Orel Hershiser. This is a new type of article at FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Looks like this nom would be more appropriate for featured list. Beerest 2 talk 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose You can't assume everyone is a baseball expert. The lead didn't help me at all, so I didn't read further. I'm baffled by unexplained jargon like 7-time All-Star... baseball Hall of Famer... relievers... born an asterisk...— I can't even visualise how you can give birth to an asterisk, irrespective of any jargon meaning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- As the reviewer of the GA nominee. It just became a GA: take some time to expand, reference, and clarify. Jimfbleak is right. Although I do happen to know about baseball, nor everyone does. Sportsguy17 ( T • C) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [31]. reply
This article is about the character Tintin, the eponymous hero of the series The Adventures of Tintin. I have been editing the Tintin articles since 2007 and recently rewrote this article. My respectful plan is to work with other editors to raise the quality of all Tintin articles. Thank-you for your time. Prhartcom ( talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments. Here are some suggestions to help improve this article:
I hope these suggestions were helpful. Best of luck, -- 1ST7 ( talk) 06:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments. (Thank you for asking)
Years before Tintin first appeared on the pages of the children's newspaper Le Petit Vingtième on 10 January 1929, [1] Hergé was drawing pictures in the margins of his school workbooks of an unnamed young man battling les Boches (slang for the Germans) whilst German armies marched through the streets of Belgium during World War I. [2] Later Herge drew a Boy Scout character for the national magazine Le Boy Scout Belge. This young man, whom he named Totor, travelled the globe and righted wrongs. [3] Tintin appeared after Hergé got his first job working at the Catholic newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, where his director challenged him to create a new serialised comic for its Thursday supplement for young readers. [4] Totor had been very much in Hergé’s mind; its new comics character would be, Hergé himself later said, "the little brother of Totor ... keeping the spirit of a Boy Scout." [5] As inspiration for Tintin Herge also mentions his younger brother whose physical appearance included a round face and a quiff hairstyle. [6][note] As well, Hergé may have been inspired by the stories of two adventurous individuals printed in the pages of Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter, [7] and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world as a reporter. [8]
Soerfm ( talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments/suggestions for the lead:
More later. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments on the origin section:
As a side note, I think this review would be simpler (and more likely to result in a pass) if the article were submitted to the WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then resubmitted as an FA candidate, as Kailash suggested. The sourcing appears to be well organized with every fact having a reference, but the text has too many phrases that don't sound encyclopedic (ex: "a vibrant testimony to the deep and everlasting importance of Tintin", "If he had perhaps too much of the goody-goody about him, at least he was not priggish", and "both Hergé and his readers feel they know Tintin well"). -- 1ST7 ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose: The article is not even a good article, and one needs great courage to take it to FA status without making it a GA. But I say first get it well edited with help from the GOCE, then continue work here. Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Withdraw: FAC coordinators, please assist me by withdrawing this nomination at this time, for the following reasons:
I will address both of these until their resolution is completely satisfactory, then re-submit in approximately one month. Thank-you. Prhartcom ( talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [32]. reply
I created this article in response to a request at my featured topic nomination of Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899. This article covers the Supreme Court case that settled said election, which was very contentious and resulted in the only assassination of a U.S. governor in history. The article was promoted to GA shortly after its creation, has been peer reviewed, and is part of the aforementioned featured topic. I'm not a legal expert, so a review from someone who is would be great. I'll try to respond to comments promptly, but no promises with a fairly new baby at home. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a fascinating bit of history, and as a native Kentuckian, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before. The article's prose is excellent, as is the sourcing. I have just a few comments and suggestions.
I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ( talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose.
Note -- The nominator hasn't been editing for some days. Given it's the silly season I'll leave this open a few more days to give him a chance to respond to Greg's concerns, otherwise we may have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Based on AC's response I think we'd best archive the nom at this point so that he, perhaps with assistance from Greg, can improve it at leisure and then renominate. Thanks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [33]. reply
I completed a near-total rewrite of this article on November 20th. It then passed GA review on November 24th, and I have spent considerable time after the successful GA pass to address additional comments from the GA reviewer. Some of these changes were to the substance of the article, but the majority addressed formatting concerns – I have tried to consistently apply the Chicago Manual of Style.
The number of featured articles related to philosophy is depressingly small, so it is difficult for me to assess the worthiness of the current entry for the FA distinction, but it seems to me to meet all the criteria.
I must make one note on my availability. In case this nomination lasts longer than twelve days, reviewers should know that I will be away for the holiday break from the night of December 21st to the 27th. I may still be able to address some concerns during this period, but I will be away from my books, and so will likely be unable to check most citation-related problems. However, I will certainly respond quickly and thoroughly to all concerns upon my return.
Joseph Petek (
talk)
23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Stopping that part of the check there: please look for other places where sources may be needed. Also, I find myself rather uncomfortable with the way in which "we" is used in some places - do go through to make sure the tone remains encyclopedic throughout, before another reviewer takes a look
Stopping this part of the check here. Oppose for now pending nominator response and edits to the article. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no new comments for three weeks, even allowing for the distractions of the festive season, this review appears to have stalled. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly, and it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions. Looking briefly over the prose, however, I'd suggest that it be copyedited and go through Peer Review before returning here, as some of the phrasing seems more appropriate to an essay than an encyclopedic article, e.g. "This is not to say that", "Indeed, it may not be inappropriate", "To put it another way", "It must be emphasized, however", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [34]. reply
This article is about the pre-dreadnought battleship Iowa. I believe it should be featured because of the concise nature of the article, its comformity to established writing style, and the extensive but not overwhelming detail about the ship's history. Magus732 ( talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Oppose and recommend early closure I agree with Parsecboy's comments about the article being under-developed at present. It is currently probably not of GA standard, and falls well short of FA quality. In addition to Parsecboy's comments, I'd add the following:
Closing comments -- I'll be archiving this nomination shortly so that improvements can be made outside the pressure of the FAC process. Pls take onboard the valuable comments above, particularly to discuss with the article's main editor(s) and to progress through GAN and MilHist ACR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [35]. reply
The Brazil article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and United States, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the Brazil article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you. VitorAzBine ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose The nominator's statement is not very encouraging. There are a lot of tags indicating the article has issues, such as missing citations, dead links, etc. -- Rs chen 7754 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Even at first glance, there are basic issues, such as the unresolved tags and dead links mentioned above, and an incorrectly capitalised heading. These may well be fixable, but the defensive tone of the nomination is likely to deter editors from engaging with this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose One should fix tags, and double check the sources (i.e. dead links) before coming to FAC. The article has some merits, but have to agree with other comments that the nominations tone is combative. FAC aims at improving articles with that last-stage polishing of already great material, it is not an arena for mortal combat. Check the tags, check the attitude, then come back. Not now.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Agree with comments above. A few specifics:
Not ready for FAC I would have thought. hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comments -- Per above, I'll be archiving this nomination shortly. Pls take the comments on board and note that, per FAC instructions, there's a two-week minimum waiting period between an article being archived and the nominator bringing another (or the same one) here. Remember also that a little humility at FAC never goes astray. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
This article is about... Mulberry Street, basically Dr. Seuss's first book. Because it was his first, many writers have focused on it, and as far as I know, this Wiki article cites all of them. I don't really know anything about FACs, but Curly Turkey, who has been working with me on this article and who seems to be a regular here, says this article is just about ready. I'll take his word for it and brace myself for the deluge of constructive criticism. :D Bobnorwal ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Great topic, really interesting read. I made some small changes. (I love the link between Seuss and Potter, which I'd never heard of before, despite reading them both as a young child.)
Really nice read- I'll take a snoop around for other sources soon, as I note that you haven't cited any journals- I imagine that there's going to be a bit of coverage of Seuss out there. J Milburn ( talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus for promotion, no activity for a couple of weeks, and apparently further research to do, it's time to archive this nomination. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before returning to nominate this or any article; you can take that time (or as long as you need) to improve the article outside the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm resubmitting this article following its first unsuccessful nomination, here, and here.
Since that time I've attempted to address all the issues raised by previous reviewers. These had to do with the use of lists; reliance on List of metalloid lists (another Wikipedia article); the structure of the article; use of notes; citation formatting consistencies; and citations to multiple editions of the same work.
Lists have been converted to prose. The List of metalloid lists is now referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as is also the case with the metalloid article itself). The article structure has been overhauled so that the focus is on the metalloid category as a whole, rather than the commonly recognised metalloids. I've checked and adjusted the notes to make sure the article can be read and understood without necessarily needing to refer to the notes. I've checked and adjusted the formatting of citations for consistency. Multiple editions of the same work have been removed where redundant. Other minor improvements were made along the way.
I thank the earlier reviewers, Squeamish Ossifrage and John for their comments in response to my initial nomination. Despite my (unhelpful) initial misgivings the article is significantly better now. Sandbh ( talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Just having a look at the mind-numbing "References" section, I am reluctantly leaning towards oppose. The citations are not properly and consistenly formatted -- for example, title case is not used, and ISSNs and ISBNs are missing for some of the print publications (ISSN 0040-1692 for Technology Review, ISSN 1536-3686 for American Journal of Therapeutics, ISSN 0165-0513 for Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, etc). This makes them difficult to digest and verify. I would like to know of Nikkimaria's views of the references first before I go any further.
Having said that, I appreciate your work on this important article and hope that you'll be a regular on FAC (if you aren't already). Cheers, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. I've had this article in my Watchlist for a long time, since its first FAC, but wasn't really looking at edits and how it was changing. During the first FAC, I felt it was far from FA standards for a number of reasons; now, however, the article looks a lot better. I gave it a quick read and now it is a decent work. Specifics will follow, but knowing the main author cares about the article, I feel positive about it.-- R8R ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Here goes:
Lead is very good. One thing I have to ask is, why show aluminum and carbon in the main diagram. I mean, selenium as a metalloid can be found easily in literature (esp. environmental and such), but Al and C are a lot rarer hits.
Germanium was also thought... -- I can't find this in the main text of the article, where it would be benefitial (for example, in the Origin and usage subsection, or elsewhere)
In the Generic subsection, you first mention the common metalloids, then you mention Se, Po, and At; next, I would expect Al and C. At least in the list of elements "ocassionally classified as metalloids."
(for example, nitrogen; carbon) -- why a semicolon here?
Why use "same" in the table when you can just copy the word in the cell above?
(see the mini-example, right) -- "right" is little use when, for example, you use a mobile version of Wiki
It could be cool if you managed to find someone to turn the dark gray color square into a line of the same color (since you use a line of that line, with the color of the line having a different function than other colors. Don't know if this is a requirement, but this could be a good idea.
First you say two of the six are toxic, then you say all six are. I've removed the first phrase, but if you want it back, you can do that (but please explain why).
Notwithstanding -- this word is too fancy for me. Fancy is not maybe the word, but there is a MOS rule you should use less complex words when it's possible (for example, always "on" and never "upon," except for quotes and proper names). This might be an issue here. (If it's not, please let me know.)
Unlike metallic antimony -- made me think for a second I'd missed somrthing. Maybe better use "While metallic animony is relatively non-toxic" or smth like that?
(I'm somehow glad there's no polonium radioactivity mention here :) (no action required)
type III-V semiconductors (such as ...) -- I think a small parentesized explanation would not hurt, for example "type III-V semiconductors (a semiconductor composed of one or more group III elements and one or more group V elements, such as ...)" Don't insist, though.
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) -- previosuly, you refer to a compound either by a name or a formula, and two lines later you have just "bismuth telluride" (don't know if such consistency is a good idea, just noting)
When I find time, I'll continue from the section Elements commonly recognised as metalloids-- R8R ( talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It is about 10% less dense than aluminium but, unlike the latter,[219] is hard and brittle. -- a somewhat questionable antithesis. 10% isn't that much. I think the point was about as dense as Al, but a lot harder, then I suggest you remove the mention of percents. same for Si.
figures in the end of the same para, and almost all figures in this section --- mmm. not so great. I do realize what these figures are for and find them useful, but only because I know what they mean. Many, many people won't. Note that later on, you have the following: "with an electrical conductivity of 1.0–1.3 × 104 S•cm−1, a value similar to that of liquid mercury." (a very good note). This is a serious question. Luckily enough, it's not too difficult to solve. I suggest you do the following: you explain the difference between metals, nonmetals, and metalloids in the corresponding section, so you can explain the typical values for the parameters in that section as well. You should also explain what those parameters even are (by the way, it gives you possibilities for some awesome notes, like (hence metallic bonding) when explaining the band gap). Readers' love will be all yours ;)
the energy required -- makes sense, but raises question about P (no action required, just noting)
aluminum: electron potential: It's very cool that you have that external link here. seriously. (no action required)
Up to polonium's profile, the only thing I have concerns about is the understandability of figures. Astatine's profile, though, reads as if it were written by another person in a different writing style (encyclopedia vs journal). My personal feeling is, that is because here, there are many authors names. I suggest you drop them because the text is always easier to read when it has fewer names unless we're discussing a story. There are a lot of reasons. Some are psychologic (for unprepared readers, names are attractions and deviate them from the point, etc.). My concern is that 99% of readers won't ever need these names, but , again, for an unprepared reader, these names are a ballast. This is different for journal articles. Even the 1% that needs them, will find them in ref descriptions. A de-personified text is easier to read, when it comes to an overview article. In a journal article, this is not relevant. Moreover, in journal articles, a reader may need those names. This is rarely the case for Wikipedia.
The next section is hard to write without names, though. Actually, it can go w/o names as well, but this would require rewriting. Besides, I don't see a point in having the 1954 and 2007 classifications when discussing near-metalloids (the text has only metalloids). Actually, are these authors crucial to the near-metalloid definition? Can't you go with something like "In 1935, a new concept of near-metalloids, elements that behaved like metalloids, but also like metals or nonmetals, emerged. This concept has occured in many works since then, and the elements classified as such were ..., ..., more rarely also ..." Authors are really secondary detail. They could be fine in a close-up spinoff article, but not in the overview article.
On aurophilicity, see also.[23] -- shouldn't this very sentence be "see also [23]," as [23] isn't just a ref, but also a part of the sentence
IE -- better spell out
A more technical thing -- wikilinking is not always done at first occurrence. (Maybe there's a script that checks this. If you don't have it, tell me, and I'll fix it. errr, I only have the duplicate links script, sorry) An outsourceable thing. (I only noticed
band gap inconsistency.)
Again, a very good article.-- R8R ( talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about a famous unsolved crime spree in Texarkana in 1946. It was the inspiration to the movie The Town That Dreaded Sundown, which a new meta-remake will be out soon. I believe the article should be featured because the story will be interesting to those who will try looking into it because of the new movie and because I've worked very hard on this article for more than 3 years. I've done extensive research and contributed one of the most complete writings of the subject to Wikipedia. The article is very thorough and the references are well cited by extremely reliable sources (the original 1946 newspaper articles). I am an expert on this subject, having done some extensive research and investigation on this topic and have spoken with many family and relatives of the victims and investigators from that time. JeremeK ( talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Thanks for calling my article poor without giving any constructive criticism, and because you didn't give any, it was just criticism. I have cited every quotation. I have sourced and cited almost all newspapers found on this subject. I can't produce any more newspaper accounts. What's there is there. All sources are reliable. If you can find more reliable sources, you'd be the expert on this topic; but there are none. Most "sources" are not reliable; but what does this expert know? I guess this will never reach FA; oh well. JeremeK ( talk) 06:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Response...
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [2]. reply
This article is about... a new roller at Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio. I am nominating this article for a 2nd time because the comments from the first nomination have been addressed and is ready to be reviewed. It has gone through copy edits, a peer review and a GA review. As the creator, I've been watching and contributing to the article from the beginning and could answer any question that might come up about the ride. Thanks, Astros4477 ( Talk) 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - I had to stumble by, given I have an FAC of my own, and I've been to Cedar Point before.
All in all, it's a pretty good article! Good read. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- with no activity for some weeks this review has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [3]. reply
This article is about a junior branch of what later became known as the House of Plantagenet, as the most powerful nobles in England bar the monarch they played a significant part in the medieval history of England but apart the Wars of the Roses this is largely forgotten, as is much on the background apart from the three Lancastrian monarchs. Hence it is a bit of a backwater on Wikipedia that perhaps deserves a greater prominence. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support All my points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review (in addition to the issues raised by Hawkeye7)
Oppose at this stage
Examples from the lead and the first section include:
Note -- As far as FAC's concerned, I think it's a bit late in the day for a copyedit to be made to this article, and I'm inclined to archive this and recommend, as Hchc2009 does, that you take it through MilHist ACR or Peer Review before renominating here. However, I'll give Hchc2009 and Ruby2010 a chance to revisit their comments/opposition before going that route. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [4]. reply
Billy Bates was a second baseman best remembered for scoring the winning run for the Reds in Game of the 1990 World Series. After that one memorable moment, he never played in Major League Baseball again. Noted for his speed, Bates also beat an unchained cheetah in a race. It passed as a good article, and I think it's better than my other FA, Mike Capel, just due to the increased notability. Thus, I give you Billy Bates. Seattle ( talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments
Sandbh ( talk) 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Lede
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
'Though defensively he played as a second baseman, the Reds primarily used Bates as a pinch runner.'
'Born in Houston, Bates attended the University of Texas, where he and the Texas Longhorns won the 1983 College World Series.'
'Drafted by Milwaukee in the 4th round of the 1985 MLB Draft, he rose through the Brewers' farm system and won multiple minor league titles.'
Rise to the majors
'El Paso's 85 wins were the most in the managerial career of Duffy Dyer, which lasted eleven years.'
'His 117 runs scored also led a Denver club that won its final 11 games to finish 79–61, one game ahead of the Louisville Redbirds for the best record in the AA.[17][20]'
'In a Brewer's spring training game in early March, Bates committed two errors against the Chicago Cubs in the top of the 11th inning, as the Cubs scored the winning run without recording a hit, but his 4th-inning single scored two runs.[22]'
MLB debut
'Bates began the season with the Zephyrs and in July was named to the Triple-A All-Star Game.[28] On the MLB level, the Brewers suffered multiple injuries to starting players, having 9 athletes on the disabled list (DL) on August 22 and 14 total players on the DL up to that point.[29] In a game against the New York Yankees on August 15, Gantner played at second base as the Brewers tried to hold on to a 1–0 lead. With Marcus Lawton on first base, Yankees batter Wayne Tolleson hit a ground ball to shortstop Bill Spiers for a potential double play. Lawton ran into Gantner, who had trouble fielding a low throw from Spiers; umpire Dave Phillips called both Lawton and Tolleson out due to Lawton's illegal roll-block, but Gantner tore the medial collateral ligament in his left knee and was placed on the DL. Bates was called up as his replacement.[30]'
'After the injury, Milwaukee's general manager Harry Dalton said that Bates…'
'Wade Boggs hit a ground ball to Bates, but he committed an error that allowed Boggs to reach…'
'Facing the Red Sox on April 14, Bates hit his only MLB extra base hit, a double, in the 8th inning but committed two errors on defense.[2][38] He later scored the go-ahead run on a Gary Sheffield double in a 9–5 Milwaukee victory. Previously, he stole second base and home plate in the 2nd.[38]'
Cincinnati Reds
'When he arrived with the Reds organization, Bates was assigned to the Triple-A Nashville Sounds of the AA.'
'…hit a double that scored Bates.[47]'
'Doran– a second baseman the Reds acquired from the Houston Astros in a "last-minute" deal before the trade deadline– was hospitalized with back pain and spasms on September 29.[52][53] Doctors performed an operation on October 3, which would hold him out of postseason play as Cincinnati won the National League West; the Reds were the first team in National League history to lead a division for an entire 162-game season.[53][54]'
'In Game 1, the Reds defeated the Athletics 7–0 in what Associated Press writer Jim Donaghy called "a stunning combination of power and pitching": Cincinnati scored four runs off of Dave Stewart, who had a six-game winning streak in the playoffs, while pitchers José Rijo, Rob Dibble, and Randy Myers combined for a nine-hit shutout.[15][16] The game ended the Athletics' ten-game postseason win streak.[15] Bates did not play.[16]'
'Like Game 1, Cincinnati was the home team for Game 2, where Danny Jackson of the Reds faced Bob Welch of the Athletics.[17] Oakland opened the scoring with a run in the top of the first inning, a ground ball by Jose Canseco that scored Rickey Henderson. The Reds responded for two runs in the bottom of the first. Oakland scored three more runs in the third, and Piniella removed Jackson from the game as the Athletics led the Reds 4–2. Cincinnati added a run in the bottom of the fourth and managed to tie the game in the eighth as Billy Hatcher hit a triple and scored on a groundout. After nine innings, the game remained tied, 4–4.[18] Rob Dibble came into pitch in the ninth and held the Athletics scoreless for the two innings he pitched; Oakland countered with future Hall of Fame inductee Dennis Eckersley for the bottom of the tenth.[18][19] Leading off for the Reds was Davis, who grounded out to shortstop.'
'The Reds won Game 3 after scoring seven runs in the top of the third inning off of Mike Moore. Pitcher Tom Browning earned the win for Cincinnati, as the game ended at a score of 8–3.[23] The Athletics took a lead in Game 4, as Carney Lansford hit a single that scored Willie McGee from second base. In the eighth inning, however, the Reds loaded the bases after singles by Barry Larkin and Herm Winningham, and an error that allowed Paul O'Neill to reach base. Larkin scored on a groundout and Winningham scored on a sacrifice fly to give Cincinnati the lead, 2–1. The lead held, as Myers came in for Rijo after one out in the bottom of the ninth inning, and the Reds became World Series champions.[24] Bates did not play in either game.[23][24]'
This concludes my review comments, for now. Sandbh ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I think that after remaining open a month with no activity for a couple of weeks, even allowing for the holiday period, that this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [5]. reply
Coming right off of the recent promotion of Sega Genesis, here's a related video game topic. The Sega CD was one of two major add-ons for the aforementioned console that had its own independent game library and very much its own place in the history of video games, though unfortunately more as a warning to other manufacturers than anything else. This article went through a GA review a few months ago, though not one without controversy, as the Sega Genesis WP:LAME naming debates spilled over into this article, but since then it's been nice and stable, and I managed to take some significant time today with some more new sources to really flesh out the article and make it thorough, deep, well presented, and reliably sourced, and I believe it meets the FA criteria at this point. As always, I'll be more than glad to handle any issues that come up during this FAC, and will do what it takes to make this happen. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- this review has well and truly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic. This is the second nomination for this article - the other failed, in part due to lack of discussion.
For those who aren't familiar with the game, this was a college football game between the Michigan Wolverines (members of the upper-tier Division I-FBS) and Appalachian State Mountaineers (members of the second-tier Division I-FCS). Michigan, ranked the fifth-best team in the country, was projected to win big because FCS teams almost always lose to FBS teams, even a team like Appalachian State, who had won two consecutive FCS championships and were favored to win a third. However, Appalachian State stunned everyone by pulling out a 34-32 win, sealed by a last-second blocked field goal; analysts immediately called the game one of the biggest upsets in college football history. A rematch of the game is scheduled to open the 2014 season for both teams
Toa
Nidhiki05
18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Source spot-checks – In response to plagarism concerns at the first FAC, I checked the wording of the article against sources 14, 17, 20, 26, 56, and 57. Mostly, I see a tendency to use keywords from the sources in the articles, with or without quotes. That isn't optimal, but the good news is such instances are not hard to resolve.
Source comments - Just looking at sources:
These are the only concerns I had in my first look at the sources. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- With no further reviews during January, this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [7]. reply
This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. Any issues can be easily addressed. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review: Only two images used here, and both are fair use.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 02:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll work on the rationales. As to the suggestion, I personally find no use for those types of images on any article (except for bios or a cast where an image is of that person[s]). They don't add any significance to the article in my opinion. When I see those in other articles, I ask myself "why is this here? It does not tell or show me anything about the game, which is what I want to know about." I own the collector's edition, so I can take a pic of the contents of it and upload it (been meaning to for awhile). -- JDC808 ♫ 08:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review: - spot-checks not done.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'll be working on these very soon. Been busy past few days. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - Image and source reviews are good, although I haven't done any spot-checks. I've reviewed the prose and formatting, and I don't see anything major that serves as a deal breaker for me—minor issues I can just do some WP:BOLD copyediting if anything glares at me. Sections and content are good, the subject is covered in-depth and appropriately. Well done. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Great work. — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note There is not enough discussion here to establish whether the FA criteria have been met. With one exception, the reviews are shallow and unhelpful. Without more substantive reviews the prospects for this candidate's promotion are not good, despite the three "supports". Graham Colm ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support: I can't see anything wrong with this article. Refs, phrasing and structure all alright. I'd pass this. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 13:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support: I agree with all above. Great job, and hope it gets passed! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I'm unconvinced this article meets the FA criteria, and in places I found it to be almost incomprehensible, depending as it does on knowledge of the previous games. A few more specific points:
Eric Corbett 21:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Generally avoid computer game articles, but this one seems to be in a bit of a hole... Bit of a random scan of issues here, as I'm short on time... Oppose at present:
That's all I have time for now. hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment This candidate has been here for a long time but I am not convinced that a consensus for promotion has been reached and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please note that superficial reviews such as "I can't see anything wrong with this article", "Great work", "I'd pass this" and "I agree with all above" and not helpful and indeed make it more difficult for the closing delegates to decide. We prefer to see critical comments, either here or at a former peer review, and opposes that are resolved by discussion between the nominators and reviewers. Graham Colm ( talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [8]. reply
I'm sure everyone recognizes the article title. :)
I’m nominating this article for FA because, after spending a couple hundred hours researching this compound with the research tools at my university, and six months editing the article, I’m fairly certain it’s the most comprehensive source of information currently available on amphetamine in humans. Moreover, the article received an
extremely rigorous GA review by
Sasata to help prepare the article for this FA review, along with constant input from
WP-MED and
WP-PHARM. Consequently, I feel the article is now prepared to go through this process. I really enjoyed (re-)writing it, so I hope you enjoy reading it.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - although it is clear that a great deal of effort has been put into this article, it currently doesn't meet the FA criteria.
Aa77zz ( talk) 12:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
A comment on the lead
The first paragraph contains a factual incorrect sentence: "Amphetamine refers to equal parts of the enantiomers, i.e., 50% levoamphetamine and 50% dextroamphetamine." This is not correct. Amphetamine is a general term that can refer to either enantiomer, the racemate, or any mixture of the enantiomers. For example David Nutt's article (Heal et al 2013) contains the sentence "As a molecule with a single chiral centre, amphetamine exists in two optically active forms, i.e. the dextro- (or d-) and levo- (or l-) isomers or enantiomers." Aa77zz ( talk) 11:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
References
Annotation: a specific chem: do not confuse with AMPHETAMINES; d-amphetamine = DEXTROAMPHETAMINE; N-methylamphetamine = METHAMPHETAMINE
This looks like an excellent, if rather technical, article. Couple of things.
Looks extremely well researched and generally written with great precision. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Really great work, Seppi, thanks!
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note to self: Pharmacology section not reviewed yet.
Sorry for the delay! -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
References
Closing comment This candidate has been here a long time but there is no indication that a consensus for promotion will be achieved on this occasion and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. I urge the nominator to resolve remaining issues on the article's talk page and return this to FAC later. This can be done after two weeks from when the closing bot runs. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [9]. reply
This article is about the song made by Psy. This song has hit very high population numbers in Youtube. This is the first time this article has been nominated for a featured article. It already is a good article. Order of the sword ( talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose In a way, this article does very well to reflect its subject—I got the same sense of "WTF!" reading it that I did when I first saw the music video. More seriously, the version that was awarded GA in Nov 2012 is much tighter and more concise. Since then, going by the top of the article talk page, several daughter articles have been merged wholesale into this parent article as the result of several AfDs. Subsequently, the current clusterfuck has risen.
To fix this article, I reckon the the GA-approved version would be a good starting point. Unless that is done, this doesn't even deserve to be a GA.— indopug ( talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note Yes, i'm aware this is a very long article. However, note that the korean pop songs have been going on for a long time. This allows this for a GA nomination, along with many citations. Plus, Open Gangnam Style IS a popular song, after all, and many people that like it likely had a lot to say about this. Order of the sword ( talk) 06:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [12]. reply
This article has gone through two FACs, both of which were archived because of not enough feedback. Trying again, as an FAC coordinator said this may be exempt from the two-week wait ( [13]). Dan56 ( talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources and images: I checked these out at the previous FAC, at which a few issues were resolved. All is well. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Here I'm concentrating mostly on the prose (criterion 1a) of the article. I think some sentences in the article need some minor adjustments because they don't flow well, or I had to pause and think about what the sentence meant, or perhaps the wrong choice of word is used. Below are some of the sentences I think need improving:
These sentences just need to be a bit clearer as to what they mean. It is by no means an exhaustive list, a few other sentences could also be improved with additions of words or punctuation, or the elimination of unnecessary words. Hzh ( talk)
Oppose: Structure, NPOV (including treatment of sources), and a handful of minor issues. Hzh's prose concerns are also applicable; I tried to avoid duplication. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: The recently archived FAC is still open on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Strong support: shame that "Sleep Talk" audio clip is only 21 seconds. (If it was me, of course, I'd probably have linked to the full album on YT tut tut.) Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support a great balance of information on all aspects of the album. The sourcing is immaculate. Great work! — JennKR | ☎ 13:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - Statements of support without explicitly saying why the article satisfies the FA criteria are of little value in judging whether a consensus for promotion has been achieved. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Having read through the article a few times, I say it clearly fulfills the FAC criteria. It's well written, concentrated with information yet concise, focused, neutral and really well sourced. Always enjoy reading through your articles Dan. Et 3 rnal 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Article is well written and sourced. A good read as well. TheOnlyOne12 ( talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am concerned that canvassing might become a problem here. This has posted on at least three user pages by the nominator: "Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? I've gotten supports, but an FAC delegate noted that comments should include mentions as to how the article fits FAC criteria. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore this message and happy holidays!" Graham Colm ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply
GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Further sources comment: When I did the sources review at the previous FAC, because close paraphrasing had been a major issue at the article's first FAC I paid specific attention to this aspect and carried out various spotchecks. I didn't find anything I considered untoward – but of course spotchecking is by its nature not exhaustive, and opinions differ as to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if this remains a major issue with the article, and I do believe that the nominator has done his best to deal with this problem. On another point raised by GabeMc, I got the impression when source-reviewing other music articles that Christgau websites were accepted as reliable sources – is this not the case? Brianboulton ( talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment
Comment on source & moving on
On the "discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony" possibly being plagiarized, the original has "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." I don't see how "keys" or "polyphony" could be changed, or any need to do so.
What seems to be needed (this is the third time this article has been listed here in a short period of time, and the only real objectors appear to have dropped out of the process), is for someone to go through all of the comments – vague and specific – and list those that have not yet been addressed. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I must oppose the promotion of this article due to concerns about plagiarism. Reading through the previous comments and Dan56's responses, I get the impression that he simply lacks a suitable understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. It's a common problem, the solution to which is not simple word substitution and reordering items. The very first two sources I checked have problems:
I must presume the whole article is rife with such problems since even ones as simple as these escaped the previous sweeps. I do accept that opinions on what constitutes close paraphrasing differ, but I don't believe these would pass muster even in a high school composition class. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
This has been open six weeks and I don't see the possibility of consensus to promote being reached anytime soon in light of the concerns about close paraphrasing raised by both Laserbrain and GabeMc. Each FAC should be treated on its own merits, and the issues raised by Gabe re. other articles do not have a direct bearing here, though I realise he's trying to illustrate a pattern in the face of what he sees as Dan's resistance, and these examples may well indicate FAR needs to be considered for the pages in question (I note that several of Dan's earlier FACs were spotchecked with reasonably clean bills of health, but by its nature such checks may not find evidence of an underlying problem). I can understand the frustration Dan expresses when it comes to finding new ways to convey the essence of a source without losing meaning, but that's the challenge we all face as editors, and I can only echo Laserbrain's advice on one way to attempt it; the alternative is to simply quote and attribute what you can't satisfactorily paraphrase, which as Hzh pointed out may well be a better way of presenting opinions anyway, but it needs to be done judiciously. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [28]. reply
This one is close to heart for me, Marie is truly the queen of the people here in Romania. I've spent nearly a month on this article and I believe it is now ready for FAC. I'm looking forward to suggestions for improvement. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Minor Note: I see a few citation errors coming up (as of this version) -- refs 16, 50, & 51 currently are not pointing anywhere. Ruby 2010/ 2013 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment – The main text of the article is a mixture of British and American spellings. For instance we have both "honour" and "honor" and inconsistent –ise/ize endings. I imagine the intention is to use British English, and I will be happy to go through and make it consistent if that would be of help. – Tim riley ( talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Aside from this attracting little in the way of commentary, it doesn't look like Alex has been around since mid-December, which even allowing for the silly season is too long a break for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [29]. reply
Another boring article about long-out-of-print comics by the ever-boring Curly Turkey, destined to spend two months worming its way to the bottom of the list before somebody finally feels guilted into giving it a peek. Luckily, you won't find its contents in the least enticing, otherwise it would tantalize you to learn that it has been 29 years since this material was last in print—and in incomplete form, at that.
Maybe you'd find it a little more interesting to learn this character had a cartoon sex change in 1962—and became the buxom, always-naked Little Annie Fanny for Playboy magazine, which Harvey Kurtzman wasted the last quarter-century of his life writing. But at least we have this out-of-print Goodman Beaver material to remind us how good he actually was! Or at least I do ... Curly Turkey ( gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I've likely missed some wording and structure concerns, because prose editing is not my strong suit. Reference formatting seems okay. A quick review suggests the cited literature is a comprehensive survey of modern material; is there anything worth going back to 1960s sources for, or do the recent works summarize period reactions sufficiently? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I know nothing about comics, and my comments about prose are from a BE perspective, so may not be applicable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
SUPPORT Regarding the FA criteria--Curly Turkey has presented an informative and interesting article that is sufficiently neutral, well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well researched. The article's history appears stable. The lede is comprehensive, the structure is logical and covers the relevant scope of the subject, and the article employs an acceptable and consistent method of citations.
Just a few comments to be addressed:-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Sorry Curly but with no activity for three weeks, despite some notices at WT:FAC that might've generated further interest, this review isn't progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. As you've done your best to resolve comments, I don't need you to wait the usual 14 days before renominating but I'd still prefer you leave it at least a week to give more people a chance to return from hols and hopefully review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [30]. reply
This article is about Major League Baseball's current consecutive scoreless innings record streak by Orel Hershiser. This is a new type of article at FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Looks like this nom would be more appropriate for featured list. Beerest 2 talk 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose You can't assume everyone is a baseball expert. The lead didn't help me at all, so I didn't read further. I'm baffled by unexplained jargon like 7-time All-Star... baseball Hall of Famer... relievers... born an asterisk...— I can't even visualise how you can give birth to an asterisk, irrespective of any jargon meaning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- As the reviewer of the GA nominee. It just became a GA: take some time to expand, reference, and clarify. Jimfbleak is right. Although I do happen to know about baseball, nor everyone does. Sportsguy17 ( T • C) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [31]. reply
This article is about the character Tintin, the eponymous hero of the series The Adventures of Tintin. I have been editing the Tintin articles since 2007 and recently rewrote this article. My respectful plan is to work with other editors to raise the quality of all Tintin articles. Thank-you for your time. Prhartcom ( talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments. Here are some suggestions to help improve this article:
I hope these suggestions were helpful. Best of luck, -- 1ST7 ( talk) 06:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments. (Thank you for asking)
Years before Tintin first appeared on the pages of the children's newspaper Le Petit Vingtième on 10 January 1929, [1] Hergé was drawing pictures in the margins of his school workbooks of an unnamed young man battling les Boches (slang for the Germans) whilst German armies marched through the streets of Belgium during World War I. [2] Later Herge drew a Boy Scout character for the national magazine Le Boy Scout Belge. This young man, whom he named Totor, travelled the globe and righted wrongs. [3] Tintin appeared after Hergé got his first job working at the Catholic newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, where his director challenged him to create a new serialised comic for its Thursday supplement for young readers. [4] Totor had been very much in Hergé’s mind; its new comics character would be, Hergé himself later said, "the little brother of Totor ... keeping the spirit of a Boy Scout." [5] As inspiration for Tintin Herge also mentions his younger brother whose physical appearance included a round face and a quiff hairstyle. [6][note] As well, Hergé may have been inspired by the stories of two adventurous individuals printed in the pages of Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter, [7] and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world as a reporter. [8]
Soerfm ( talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments/suggestions for the lead:
More later. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments on the origin section:
As a side note, I think this review would be simpler (and more likely to result in a pass) if the article were submitted to the WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then resubmitted as an FA candidate, as Kailash suggested. The sourcing appears to be well organized with every fact having a reference, but the text has too many phrases that don't sound encyclopedic (ex: "a vibrant testimony to the deep and everlasting importance of Tintin", "If he had perhaps too much of the goody-goody about him, at least he was not priggish", and "both Hergé and his readers feel they know Tintin well"). -- 1ST7 ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose: The article is not even a good article, and one needs great courage to take it to FA status without making it a GA. But I say first get it well edited with help from the GOCE, then continue work here. Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Withdraw: FAC coordinators, please assist me by withdrawing this nomination at this time, for the following reasons:
I will address both of these until their resolution is completely satisfactory, then re-submit in approximately one month. Thank-you. Prhartcom ( talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [32]. reply
I created this article in response to a request at my featured topic nomination of Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899. This article covers the Supreme Court case that settled said election, which was very contentious and resulted in the only assassination of a U.S. governor in history. The article was promoted to GA shortly after its creation, has been peer reviewed, and is part of the aforementioned featured topic. I'm not a legal expert, so a review from someone who is would be great. I'll try to respond to comments promptly, but no promises with a fairly new baby at home. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a fascinating bit of history, and as a native Kentuckian, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before. The article's prose is excellent, as is the sourcing. I have just a few comments and suggestions.
I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ( talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose.
Note -- The nominator hasn't been editing for some days. Given it's the silly season I'll leave this open a few more days to give him a chance to respond to Greg's concerns, otherwise we may have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Based on AC's response I think we'd best archive the nom at this point so that he, perhaps with assistance from Greg, can improve it at leisure and then renominate. Thanks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [33]. reply
I completed a near-total rewrite of this article on November 20th. It then passed GA review on November 24th, and I have spent considerable time after the successful GA pass to address additional comments from the GA reviewer. Some of these changes were to the substance of the article, but the majority addressed formatting concerns – I have tried to consistently apply the Chicago Manual of Style.
The number of featured articles related to philosophy is depressingly small, so it is difficult for me to assess the worthiness of the current entry for the FA distinction, but it seems to me to meet all the criteria.
I must make one note on my availability. In case this nomination lasts longer than twelve days, reviewers should know that I will be away for the holiday break from the night of December 21st to the 27th. I may still be able to address some concerns during this period, but I will be away from my books, and so will likely be unable to check most citation-related problems. However, I will certainly respond quickly and thoroughly to all concerns upon my return.
Joseph Petek (
talk)
23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Stopping that part of the check there: please look for other places where sources may be needed. Also, I find myself rather uncomfortable with the way in which "we" is used in some places - do go through to make sure the tone remains encyclopedic throughout, before another reviewer takes a look
Stopping this part of the check here. Oppose for now pending nominator response and edits to the article. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no new comments for three weeks, even allowing for the distractions of the festive season, this review appears to have stalled. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly, and it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions. Looking briefly over the prose, however, I'd suggest that it be copyedited and go through Peer Review before returning here, as some of the phrasing seems more appropriate to an essay than an encyclopedic article, e.g. "This is not to say that", "Indeed, it may not be inappropriate", "To put it another way", "It must be emphasized, however", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [34]. reply
This article is about the pre-dreadnought battleship Iowa. I believe it should be featured because of the concise nature of the article, its comformity to established writing style, and the extensive but not overwhelming detail about the ship's history. Magus732 ( talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Oppose and recommend early closure I agree with Parsecboy's comments about the article being under-developed at present. It is currently probably not of GA standard, and falls well short of FA quality. In addition to Parsecboy's comments, I'd add the following:
Closing comments -- I'll be archiving this nomination shortly so that improvements can be made outside the pressure of the FAC process. Pls take onboard the valuable comments above, particularly to discuss with the article's main editor(s) and to progress through GAN and MilHist ACR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [35]. reply
The Brazil article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and United States, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the Brazil article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you. VitorAzBine ( talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose The nominator's statement is not very encouraging. There are a lot of tags indicating the article has issues, such as missing citations, dead links, etc. -- Rs chen 7754 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Even at first glance, there are basic issues, such as the unresolved tags and dead links mentioned above, and an incorrectly capitalised heading. These may well be fixable, but the defensive tone of the nomination is likely to deter editors from engaging with this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose One should fix tags, and double check the sources (i.e. dead links) before coming to FAC. The article has some merits, but have to agree with other comments that the nominations tone is combative. FAC aims at improving articles with that last-stage polishing of already great material, it is not an arena for mortal combat. Check the tags, check the attitude, then come back. Not now.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Agree with comments above. A few specifics:
Not ready for FAC I would have thought. hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comments -- Per above, I'll be archiving this nomination shortly. Pls take the comments on board and note that, per FAC instructions, there's a two-week minimum waiting period between an article being archived and the nominator bringing another (or the same one) here. Remember also that a little humility at FAC never goes astray. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply