The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 31 October 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
Amadscientist ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Gary King ( talk) 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for you comments and the fixes needed. I will work these out and even if it still is opposed after the changes.....at least i know I did what was needed and can reference this conversation as i work on the article. I started this early so i could see what others felt needed to be done....so there is still hope this can be approved by the Halloween weekend. If not...the article will still be improved. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Thank you. as for unreliable sources......I have to agree. While many are perfectly fine sites they don't fit wiki standards and many editors try hard to balance between relialble and wiki acceptable source.
The article has been through peer review but certainly can be resubmitted again. If I am unable to make the changes within the week I will withdraw the nomination and go that route. It worked well when I attempted to get it to GA status.....but I assure you, the act was not simply to improve the article. I do disagree with you about FAC. The Feature Article canditates page is where we improve an article. All the other features of wiki are geard towars improving the articles. I want the article to be good enough for Feature status, but it has to earn that status. I can continue on with other editors towards consensus on direction and get more editors envolved. The fair use problem the page had has been resolved. It was my doing so I undid it. Apologies. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - the article is not ready. There are many problems, particularly with the prose, comprehensiveness and referencing, (reliability and shortages). Graham Colm Talk 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Having an image in the lead crushes the prose between two images. Move it down to the main article for better reading. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this candidacy untill editors can fix all the areas mentioned including prose, references and other problems not mentioned here.
Thank you all for your help!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 16:01, 29 October 2008 [2].
I rewrote this article a couple weeks ago, incorporating a great amount of information, considering the type of storm and the time frame. It passed GA, had a brief review on its talk page, and has had some off-wiki criticism. If promoted, this will be the first featured nor'easter article, and one of only a few non-tropical weather FAs. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Heh. Did NOT mean to put oppose there, the perils of editing from the road. Should have been comments, now corrected. Sorry Julian!
Comments
Lead:
* "It developed from an area of low pressure in the southeast Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys in the southeast Gulf of Mexico, and moved across the state of Florida." I'd suggest removing the second instance of "the southeast Gulf of Mexico".
All:
* All the digit-noun combinations need no-break codes per
WP:NBSP.
Meteorological history:
* "had moved to the north, allowing for" might be better as "had moved to the north, which allowed".
Effects:
Southeast United States and Mid-Atlantic:
*"A waterspout moved ashore on Key Largo, causing only minor damage." I look for ways to put nouns and modifiers together. In this sentence, "causing" seems for a split second to modify "Key Largo". The reader can and does figure out that it modifies "waterspout", but a smoother construction might be: "A waterspout, moving ashore on Key Largo, caused only minor damage."
New England:
Quick-fail—Julian, this is full of loose, ambiguous language, as usual. Please withdraw it, have others assist to improve the writing to the required professional standard, and resubmit in a few weeks. This is not a free-advice fixit room: the reviewers are too scarce and overworked, and it's unfair to other nominators to expect extensive treatment.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 28 October 2008 [3].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I simply feel it is ready. I worked this article through Peer Review and A-Class review. This is obviously the best source of information for the 1989 Batman film found anywhere. I am open to suggestions to improve this article. Wildroot 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
This has been fixed, please ignore the above statement and the small discussion below. The websites and information listed above were simply removed from the article per WP:RS. Cheers. Wildroot ( talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for asking that question. Basically, editors from WikiProjectFilms (such as Alientraveller, Erik, Bignole and others and obviously me) agree that we can only use these sources whenever they have either direct interviews with the person or whenever Hollywood invites them for a set visit. And the above links to have only direct interviews with the person. AMC is a good reliable source, and it is not one of those "rumor blogs", even though it says blog in front of the URL. Thanks. Wildroot 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose per conprehensiveness concerns. I'm surprised nothing is included from Time and The New York Times, which I know have material on the movie (at one point I was going to work on the article and so I went through the archives of the major websites). Make sure you exhaust all available info from major media outlets. This movie was a pretty big deal and received according coverage (Also: totally unnecessary info, but it might be my favorite movie. Jack Nicholson as The Joker and music by Prince!!!). Also, there's this book of academic essays titled The Many Faces of the Batman (I think that's the correct name; I have it at my college library). It was published in 1992 and deals a bit with the film, and if I recall correctly it discusses the film's marketing in-depth at one point. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose This is an excellent start on Batman, a wonderful movie that I just watched the other day. However, I feel that it does not yet meet the FA criteria:
My advice would be to withdraw this nomination, since additional research needs to be done. After that research is completed, I would be happy to help copyedit the article in preparation for its renomination. Awadewit ( talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Matthew edwards 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:17, 28 October 2008 [5].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because not only does it meet the FA criteria it hilites a subject of importance to the LGBT community. The article is stable, well referenced, well written, summary style etc. It does not have a picture but after much (archived on the talk page) debate adding a picture is a non starter. This article is the best article in a complex of articles about a controversial topic. However the "homosexual transsexual" has recieved much less coverage than the other related concept. Last but not least this article is a shining example of what editors who don't all agree on a controversial topic can do here at Wikipedia. Hfarmer ( talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments by Moni3
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [11].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. And I notice Artichoker just nominated Pokémon Red and Blue for FA. Tezkag72 ( talk) 22:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [12].
This article was nominated in March, but it was nowhere close to ready; I was not involved at that time. It has been rewritten from top to bottom over the past month (by me), and is now a completely different article, with far more content. This is the most important Neuroscience-related article on Wikipedia, getting hundreds of hits per day, and it would be very nice to get it to FA status. I believe that it is at least close to being ready. Looie496 ( talk) 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: Going through the whole article
Punctuation: Hoping that an expert will check punctuation throughout. IMO there is much over-use of the colon. -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Comments Promising, but it still needs much work. Note that I used this version of the article when citing notes.
Some other formating issues pointed out above also need to be addressed. Cenarium Talk 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [13].
It has been several months, and alot of improvements, since the previous nomination. I think it is getting pretty good myself, and it should be able to pass. If not then it will benefit from some constructive criticisms. I am one of the primary editors, and the nominator. Charles Edward 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning Oppose Comments Looking at the previous FAC, one of the primary issues was its prose. You have worked diligently by yourself on this article, and it shows. However, you have worked on this article enough that you are too close to the text, as these examples show:
Comments -
Comments Here are two really minor concerns:
I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns, except for the one about finding a copy editor for assistance.. Is there anything else in this article that is not up to FA standards which need improvement? Charles Edward 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Revisit Checking the progress of the copy-editors after nominator request and because of natural curiosity (random sample of the Mississippians section):
I really shouldn't be finding this many problems in three (really 2 and a half) relatively short paragraphs. As of now, I am leaning oppose Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [14].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because
Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
REPLY: Thanks for your comments.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
REPLY to comments on 2 OCT:
Moved my comments dated 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC), 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC), 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC), 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) and reorganized them as below:
http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm is a RS because:
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Dvaita.org is a RS because:
REPLY:
Support in terms of prose. Could do with a little scrutiny, but not bad at all.
REPLY: Thanks for the support.
Support. My earlier lengthy comments are on the article's talk page and were all sufficiently answered/satisfied by the author. The author has picked a difficult topic, that of a regional deity, and brought out nicely its evolution theories without regionalising the subject. The plausible influence of other cults and faiths on the development of this worship and that of this deity on neighbouring socio-religions movements (such as the Haridasa movement) has also been dealt with well. In all, a good job. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
(undent) Still Oppose per 1a. Let me look at one (and only one) section. Please take the entire artice for thorough copy editing. Please do not repair this list and ask for a reconsideration of my !vote:
Reply: Thanks for the comments, will add the topic sentences tomorrow.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:56, 28 October 2008 [29].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It is currently a GA, and has gone through a peer review. After the demotion of Bulbasaur and Torchic more than a year ago, this would become the Pokémon Wikiproject's only featured article. I will try to respond to all concerns as quickly as possible. Artichoker talk 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [31].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. Please leave comments and list ways for improvement shall you desire, thanks!
iMatthew (
talk)
16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - The recent output from the wrestling project has been more and more refined as lessons are applied from each new FAC. Does that make these pay-per-view articles flawless? Here's a hint: if they were, I wouldn't be doing this.
I haven't gotten to the matches themselves yet. That will have to wait until another time. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak support - Keeping in mind the heavy reliance on primary and uncertain sources, which I'm paying more attention to now. It's difficult because wrestling isn't widely covered in the mainstream media. As for the name, WWE Armageddon 2006 could be an option, but that's up to the main contributors. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [32].
The concept acid dissociation constant is of major importance in chemistry, physics, earth sciences (including environmental sciences) and biology (including human biology) and is also important in other areas such as the development of new pharmaceuticals and all sorts of industrial processes where acidity has to be controlled. The article presents a comprehensive coverage of the topic and indicates the main areas of application. It should therefore be of interest to a wide range of the readership.
The topic is covered, at an elementary level, in all text-books on general chemistry, though the treatment is usually simplified. The simplifications are explained in this article.
I have been active in research in this subject area since 1972. Our programs Hyperquad are the world market leaders for the determination of acid dissociation constants and stability constants of metal complexes with ligand acids. Correspondence with users of this software has given me an appreciation of the range of applications of interest in research today. This is reflected in the structure of the article.
I am confident that if this article is accepted for featured status that it will enhance the reputation of Wikipedia among scientists and science students.
Petergans ( talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The first line of the lead reads "An acid dissociation constant (aka acidity constant, acid-ionization constant) is an equilibrium constant for the dissociation of an acid". If the reader does not already have some grasp of the linked concepts, then I suspect the article will be completely unintelligible to him/her. The links put these concepts on a more rigorous basis. The need to address a more elementary-level reader is a recurrent theme for technical articles like this one and it is difficult to resolve. We have pitched the intro level towards a school student studying chemistry and coming across this idea for the first time.
I take the point about risk assessment and will insert something about it in the importance section. Petergans ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There is a problem here: in common usage the terms "pKa" and "acid dissociation constant" are used (wrongly!) almost interchangably. I think that we would have to say something along the lines of - the stronger the acid the larger the values of Ka and the smaller the value of pKa - but to me this sounds a bit confusing. In practice pKa values are used much more often than Ka values, but I don't see how this can be reflected in the article title. Petergans ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
These are very helpful comments, thank you very much. I shall be away for the next two weeks so I will get round to dealing with them and others that will come in when I return. Petergans ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
As a Chemistry Education major, though not an expert by any means (precipitates is one of my weaker areas), all the major problems I see can be summarized into three arguments:
This user does not appear to have read the article properly; there is a complete section entitled Experimental determination of pKa values with a link to a more detailed article Determination of equilibrium constants. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The details are in Avdeef's book, reference 42. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't understand this comment. There are many examples showing how the concept of pKa can be applied to derive useful information. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've modified it in the light of comments. Does it need further work? Petergans ( talk) 11:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Added the reference and an example at acid dissociation constant #Importance of pKa values
The title "Acid dissociation constant" accurately describes the content of the article, whereas "Acidity constant" is meaningful only in a specific context which identifies it as a dissociation constant. Petergans ( talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."
As I see it, the difference between a textbook and an encyclopedia article is that while the encyclopedia hopes to "tell the whole truth" about one topic, the textbook has much more space, can start from the basics, teach concepts in a sequence that is useful for learning, can include plenty of examples and even exercises, and can hide some of the ugly facts that are not essential for an introduction. Some may complain that this article is just useful if the reader already knows about the topic. That may be true, but this is acceptable IMHO because an encyclopedia is a reference work. Those who really know nothing about chemistry will be much better served by reading a general chemistry textbook. -- Itub ( talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments. I have little knowledge of chemistry so please excuse any misreadings based on ignorance. I am assuming that a reader of this article would be expected to have some prior knowledge of modern chemistry, since this is not the first article a novice would look at. With that in mind, here are some thoughts.
I will post notes section by section, since it will probably take me a day or three to get through the article. These first notes are all from the definitions section.
I'm on holiday in Crete, but here are some quick answers.
Petergans (
talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) A general point: "reference to equation (1) above" would be fine if all the equations were numbered as they would be in a paper published in a chemical journal. Unfortunately, it is not normal practice to number equations in WP, where a more discursive style is preferred. Some guidance on numbering of equations would be welcome.
Petergans (
talk)
08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
In Lowry-Bronsted theory every acid has a conjugate base and every base has a conjugate acid. It is therefore to some extent arbitrary which partner is denoted as conjugate. But you are right, some clarification is needed. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The definitions section has been modified in the light of these comments. Petergans ( talk) 09:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Hydration means the addition of water; it is the concentration of water which is constant. Will attempt a clarification next week. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
It is common practice to use the term "fully dissociated" when in fact the the difference from 100% dissociation is finite, but very small. See hydrochloric acid below. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a subtle point that needs attention. The phenomenon is that in a given solvent all acids with pK less than a certain value are classed as strong acids, hence they are brought to the same level of strength. In another solvent a particular acid may be weak or vice versa. Likewise all bases with a pK value greater than a certain value are classed as strong bases. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The "Equilibrium constant" section has now been revised. I have re-instated the struck o notation as I believe that the IUPAC recommendation for the sign for standard is the
plimsol line and this o is the nearest I could get to it. I am basing this on
Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, page 5. We are currently looking into this to see if the recommendation still stands.
Petergans (
talk)
16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
More comments:
I agree. The table was introduced by another editor (eaglefalconn) who, though a major stimulus to bringing the article to FAC status, has disappeared into thin air. I didn't want to offend him, but I did think that the table is superfluous. I will start to make corrections after I return to Leeds on Friday. Petergans ( talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've reviewed everything but the last two subsections and should return to those tomorrow. -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
More comments:
It is standard practice in chemistry to give hazard warnings in appropriate places. Is this not appropriate? I didn't want some adventurous schoolboy to think that it is safe to play with cyanide. Please advise. Petergans ( talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
We saw the bullet/list comment coming (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_dissociation_constant#Another_round_of_editing) and I sandboxed various other ways of presenting the material. The problem with running the text together, which I tried, is that most of the applications are so disparate, the area of applications is so broad, that the resulting text will not make sense; in effect most of the applications only have pK in common. Would separate paragraphs be acceptable?
Regarding the use of the {{ main}} template, this is an error of inex-Wiki-sperience. The point we were trying to make is that applications linked in that way are substantial topics in their own right. Petergans ( talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [33].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article about Sarah Geronimo was very comprehensive and informative. The details were validated, and furthermore the whole article was not only helpful but also fun, because of the way it was presented, it seems that the reader will be very interested.
Geniusdream (
talk)
09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia (02:32, October 25, 2008) [34].
Self-nomination This article has been improved a lot since the previous nomination ( User:Bignole helped out a lot) and I believe that it now fits the Featured Article criteria. In addition to a summary of the character in all his media (books, comics, film), there is also concept and creation, literary discussion and impact.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments Found additional refs which might help.
-- Stone ( talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. A quick look at the lead shows that redundant wording is a problem.
You may wish to run through these exercises to cultivate the redundancy radar beam. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to run through and fix? It's 30 to 60 minutes' work for a skilled editor. Tony (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Steve 21:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [35]. reply
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have put a lot of work into this article and think that it is ready for promotion to FA status. This is an important film not only in Oliver Stone's career but cinema in general, generating a lot of controversy and discussion. J.D. ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
}}
"And I had an erroneous impression of its structure. Somehow I had the impression that in Z you had the showing of the crime and then the re-showing of the crime throughout the picture until it was seen another way. That was the idea of JFK – that was the essence of it: basically, that's why I called it JFK. Not J dot F dot K dot. JFK. It was a code, like Z was a code, for he lives, American-style. As it was written it became more fascinating: it evolved into four DNA threads.
There are four structures there: The Garrison story from the centre was very good up through the New Orleans section, but essentially was a smaller story about a man following a local lead to its natural conclusion – he couldn't get any further than that.
And the second story that evolved from the research was the fascination of the Oswald legend: who he was and how to try to inculcate that.
Then the third idea was to go to Dealy Plaza and recreate the murder, and then see it again and again through the movie. Because Jim never went to Dealy Plaza: he goes once in the book. That was never his domain. His domain was the New Orleans territory. How do you get the New Orleans story combined with the Texas story? That was a very tricky thing. So that was the idea to go parallel.
And during this research the fourth thing happened to me which was that I was contacted and approached Colonel Fletcher Prouty. That became the fourth story. It became the means by which we were able to move between New Orleans, local, into the wider story of Dealy Plaza."
He irritated some of the more traditional editors – I remember the conflict. Hank's concepts are very commercial – sixty-seconds-get-your-attention-fragment-your-mind-make-you-rethink-it. But he had not developed the long form yet. And so a lot of his cuts were very chaotic.
The article looks great so far! As usual, J.D., you structure film articles very well with the right content, and I'm sure that Steve above has given a few good tips. Since this is a Featured Article candidate, and the film is pretty famous, I'd like to list possible resources to ensure that the article is as comprehensive as possible. Some academic sources may have the critical commentary to tie with non-free images. Here are some that I found:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)The above resources were what I was able to acquire after a small search, but there may be a few more floating out there. I don't want to make the FAC process seem impossible, but I just hope that we can have some truly impressive articles that go beyond the usual sections. Yours is well on the way, so let me know if you are interested in utilizing these resources. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There's only one image in the entire article, the article requires more images.-- Music 26/ 11 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 20:57, 21 October 2008 [37].
This article was a featured article candidate about a month ago. It received a fair amount of support, and also a fair amount of criticism. In the end, it was closed as unsuccessfull, and User:SandyGeorgia outlined the major concerns in her closing statement. It is copied verbatim, except my responses to pre-empt your concerns.
- Sources. The original sources initially weren't consulted, most of them were in French, and Editorofthewiki stated that he doesn't read French. Text wasn't always supported by the sources, and additional sources surfaced that hadn't yet been consulted. Considering that editors now have access to the new and original sources, proper research to write a comprehensive article of featured caliber can now be conducted. Of greater concern is that a number of supporters didn't understand that Wikis aren't reliable sources, and an article translated from another Wiki without consulting the original sources does not meet WP:V.
- Oh the original sources have been consulted now, by User:Nishkid64 (another large author of this) and myself. Disclaimer: I do read a bit of French, but I am not that great of a speaker to engage in an actual conversation. The information not supported by the sources was mostly me adding a ref tag in between something that was reffed to something else, and I consider this problem resolved.
- Translation. Several translation issues were raised; writing a featured article without being able to read most of the original source material is a greater challenge. The article was initially translated from the French wiki, using Google translator. I speak fluent Spanish, and ran several samples through Google translator and found that the results weren't usable for a quality article; they might provide an adequate start to fill in a redlinked stub or perhaps to raise a stub to a start-class article if I (as a fluent speaker) also consulted the sources to correct the errors introduced by Google translator, which are substantial.
- One can write sentences in French in different ways, especially in quotations. Since there were no English sources to verify this, we had to rely on ourselves. The French part of this was mostly taken from Leon M'ba as a content fork, and Nishkid (who wrote most of that article relied firstly on Google translater and then native French speakers.
- POV. Some of the discrepancies identified by Ling.Nut in his userspace analysis of the sources indicate the possibility that some POV may have crept in, either from the original article, from the translation or from the incomplete sources. It will take some time to analyze all of these issues, re-consulting the original and new sources.
- I believe the POV issues were fixed at the FAC, but I will be happy to fix anything specific.
- Comprehensive. Questions about the comprehensiveness of the article were raised early on; they continued to emerge as new and original sources were examined. Having access to all of the sources should be helpful in doing the level of research required in a featured article.
- The "new and original souces" that Sandy mentioned were Darlington 1968 and Matthews 1966. I have incorporated anything of value into the article. Ling mentioned that the Gabonese oil industry became dominant over the timber profession. Interesting fact, but that had nothing to do with the actual coup.
That said, I honestly believe this is the most comprehensive and best written article on the coup. There may be some nitpicks, sure, but I do not anticipate anything major. I am looking forward to your comments! ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be harsh, but help by more and different editors is required before resubmission. Tony (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: Withdrawn by nominator [38]. Maralia ( talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [39].
This page has undergone significant improvement over the last month by
User:Jclemens and I. It has undergone a peer review, and I think it is almost at FA status. All comments are welcome, although supporting ones would be great. ;)
Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion
04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments -
Yes, thanks for bringing those up there, as well. Upshot of my response there was that these all seemed to fall under and be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. My followup question, which didn't get answered on that page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [40].
I, as well as lots of others, including
User:Sn0wflake and
User:SoothingR, has worked really hard on this article and I can't come up with more things to edit or add. I definitely think it deserves to be a featured article.
- Aki (
talk)
13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [41].
I'm nominating this article for featured because I have read it over, and was quite impressed. Also, since it's already A-class, this nomination might be the article's only step away from being featured. Kudos to Hurricanehink, the article's main contributor.
Dy
la
n
6
20
Life story 22:57 UTC
October 16,
2008
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I have made an effort to contact Hurricanehink, but due to his long wikibreak he will not be back until December. Dy la n 6 20 Life story 23:18 UTC October 16, 2008
As I recall It dit did not passed do to article length not how not notable off a storm it is. Shortly thereafter, ACE went in there. now it is a mess. Dylan, if you one to nominte FA or FT articles.
Hurricane Hernan (2008) could be a FA. I can make it a FAC because I created it. Cyclonebskit can also do it too. A good featured topic would be
Hurricane Ioke,
Tropical Storm Zeta (2005),
Hurricane Fausto (2002),
Hurricane Ekeka,
Hurricane Faith (1966),
1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane,
Hurricane Vince (2005), or
Hurricane Maria (2005).
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment I note that the nominator isn't a significant contributor, and that one of the main contributors seems to not wish this nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [42].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because, as most do, I feel it meets
FA criteria. It has went under three different
GA reviews under one nomination, two different peer reviews (one before GA and one after GA), and under multiple copyedits and smaller reviews.
Will
C
07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - Sorry, but I don't believe this meets the standards set by recent wrestling PPV articles. Here's a rundown of some issues with the article.
Overall, this is not yet ready to become featured, at least in my view. More copy-editing would be beneficial, and some trimming of unnecessary details would help too. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [43].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because since it has been voted a Good Article (GA), it has been widely increased in scope and size (
diff) and certainly is now as complete as can be on this subject.
RCS (
talk)
18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Support Very complete and well done article. Two comments; the first is the font below the map needs to be fixed as there not enough space between the items. The second is do we really need the image of Sarkozy? It's a great image but not really necessary. Plus the opposition from French has gone back decades and Sarkozy just continued the tradition. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment about the map: I would prefer to have a dot by each number. Nergaal ( talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [44].
This is one of the better articles at
WP:CHIFTD, which is about to be promoted to
WP:GT. I have addressed most of the issues at
WP:PR.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Giggy's comments based on this version
Giggy ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning towards oppose at the moment, mainly but not entirely on prose concerns.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 19 October 2008 [45].
I've spent a couple months working on this. As far as I can tell, a recent bout of copyediting by myself has brought the article up to featured standards. I was surprised at how much information I found on this, considering that the storm never even made landfall in the United States! Cheers, –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments -
Question - Considering the discussion about small articles that is currently ongoing, I think it is worth asking why this article has been branched off Hurricane Noel at all. Awadewit ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Eliminate redundancies and merge back. Marskell ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I am beginning to discuss with the nominator about improving the article. I don't want to say here how the article isn't an FA so officially I am not presenting any objections. Chergles ( talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:20, 18 October 2008 [46].
It was very simlar to
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) but much longer and a little more notable and a little longer lived storm and article was around a little longer (the first EPAC fishspinner to receive an article)
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
* Support Although you aren't the main contributor,
User:Cyclonebiskit is, but this article covers the storm well and there are many references. I will tell cyclonebiskit now and see what will happen. --
Kirk76
1854 Atlantic
Hurricane Season
15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
* Oppose this article may be good, but this is not comprehensive or long enough for my taste. --
Kirk76
1854 Atlantic
Hurricane Season
15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
I am not sure what you mean. Leave Message or Yellow Evan home 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
*Oppose even though I've done basically all of the work for this article, it is definitely not ready for FAC....For one, I don't have "Professional writing" and nor do you. Another is that I haven't updated it with the TCR information. That should quick fail it because it's not up to date...
Cyclonebiskit (
talk)
17:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
First, update before anything else.
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
1. we use fishspinner a lot although it is not a real word. 2. i think it worth a try. 3. Eilda will probably be featured soon.
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
My decision: a tiny bit more sources, if there are any, and we'll have the first deserving FA of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season series. -- Dylan620 ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 15:00, 16 October 2008 [47].
Bringing this back a few months after the last FAC. I've done a fair bit of work on it since then I think it now meets criteria. Giggy ( talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: withdrawn by nominator. Maralia ( talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [48].
Nominating because I feel it finally not only meets all the FA criteria, but all the criteria raised by other reviewers in previous attempts. Having recently passed GA status with a very positive review, this article has been heavily worked on by myself and other editors, leading it to really meet all the requirements from the criteria. As per normal, any last-minute changes or suggestions are welcome and will be addressed.
Domiy (
talk)
07:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - based on criteria 1a. I suggest enlisting the help of a copyeditor go through the article and iron out the prose. Here are some examples of things that need to be fixed.
All of this is just from the lead. This article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone not close to it (i.e., not Domiy or Malez).
Yohhans talk 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
It is easy to see where your opposing prose comments come from, however it should once again be noted that some strong aspects of it are not applicable and are rather misunderstood. Hopefully I have addressed such in this reply. Domiy ( talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Image comment - For the Bilic photo, don't just post a link to the Flickr home page. Include a link to the photo itself. The images should be checked anyway, because that was a major reason the last FAC was archived. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment
Oppose also on criteria 1a. You have put a hell of a lot of work into it, but I still maintain a peer review may help to iron out the problems with the prose. The article certainly looks thorough, and is largely neutral, but there are several places where the prose could be improved. Including but not confined to:
I echo Yohhans concerns about the prose quality and suggest at the very least a copy-edit. Peanut4 ( talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I'm in agreement with the other reviewers. Here are a few more examples of questionable prose.
Please keep in mind that these are merely examples of problems that are most likely in the whole article. I merely skimmed through a couple of sections, meaning there are probably more issues than have been raised so far. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - some low points:
It is necessary. Every other national team page has them, including the Scotland page which is already a Featured Article. Domiy ( talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) These are enough to convince me this needs much more work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [49].
I am again nominating this for featured status because it is the most comprehensive account of this man's life, online and offline. The article failed FAC before mostly due to prose concerns. Now that
User:Ceoil copyedited it I think the problem is resolved. ~one of many
editorofthewikis (
talk/
contribs/
editor review)~
23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Giggy's
comments
Giggy ( talk) 11:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [50].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. It is already at GA and is stable.
Dalejenkins |
19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose for the moment. The article is interesting and informative, but it is not at present set up like a featured article.
Dumped, which was filmed in June 2006, was initially scheduled for Channel 4's Spring 2007 line-up. [1] [2] However, this did not occur and the programme was then postponed until the start the channel's period of "creative renewal", which was established due to the racism controversy that occurred during the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother. [3]
Apart from its dubious construction and a missing word, I reckon that anyone unfamiliar with recent British reality TV history wouldn't understand what this paragraph was about. I suggest at the very least you delete the unnecessary words "this did not occur", and attempt a brief explanation of "creative renewal" (which doesn't need to be italicised).
The article does not appear to have had a peer review. I would strongly recommend this before it is returned to FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note No response after 10 days does not suggest much commitment on the part of the nominator - who has been contacted. Should this still be here? Brianboulton ( talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [51].
This article is a
GA, and I'm nominating it for FA as a result of a
conversation on FAC about very short FAs. This article is 412 words long, which would make it by some way the shortest article ever to become featured. (The shortest I know of is
2005 Azores subtropical storm, which is 722 words of prose.) However, I believe it meets the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, and includes every scrap of information that I know of that relates to the magazine. I will start a thread on FAC talk titled
Very short FAs for any discussion that does not belong in this FAC, such as the general question of whether there is a minimum length for a featured article.
Mike Christie
(talk)
19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The science fiction genre was flourishing by the end of the 1930s,[1] but World War II and its attendant paper shortages led to the demise of several magazines. By the late 1940s the market began to recover again.[2] From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950.[3] Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954.[4]
Image comment - I am very impressed with the research that went into obtaining a free image for this article! Head and shoulders above the usual slapdash approach to images usage on most of WP Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs): If this article is to become featured at this length and comprehensiveness, everything else should be almost perfect.
Oppose Far far too short. I am all for articles being concise but this really fails 2b. It just isn't a sound article in terms of information given. If I'd seen this listed under FA articles and wanted to read it I'd be rather disappointed in the least by an article which hasn't been developed to the top level. The last section is barely beyond a stub and is basically a one paragraph article/ WHat happened to covering the various aspects of magazines such as background detail, production, critical reception etc which would normally have fleshed out paragraphs of their own on literature?? I've seen B class articles on magazines which are far more informative than this. The Bald One White cat 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Tentative Support once The Rambling Man's issues are addressed. I think the length is acceptible given the short run for the magazine. (How could it compare in length to
Electrician and Mechanic when the latter ran for 26 years?)—
RJH (
talk)
18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment—To me it seems all but FA worthy, despite the brevity. It is as long as it needs to be without delving into excessive detail. However:
reply
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I'm not impressed by the content to be honest. Okay, it's very, very short and doesn't, in my opinion, reflect "the very best work" of Wikipedia, as we should expect from FAs. But specifically:
Having said all that, I sincerely applaud the nominator for a considered approach to these shorter FACs, indeed initiating discussion in parallel with this nomination is a good thing. A better thing may have been to have launched said discussion beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning toward oppose. Mike is trying to make some case law here, and I support that intention. I don't have a problem with the length issue (pending FA talk page outcomes) but I am with Johnbod: Republic Features Syndicate has no article nor is it even redlinked. If the publication is notable enough for an article why not the publisher? And if the publisher had an article would this page be merge material? Until satisfied on these questions, I cannot support. As noted elsewhere, I believe small articles should be featurable but the merge issue needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis. Marskell ( talk) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:59, 13 October 2008 [52].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. I spent months re-writing the article in my userspace more or less from scratch, doing tons of referencing and bringing it to what I felt was a fine state of readiness before moving it back into the mainspace. Other editors then contributed tweaks and revisions, and the article passed GA very easily with only 1 or 2 minor corrections needed. At this time I can think of no further improvements that could be made, and so I believe it is ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status.
IllaZilla (
talk)
02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:19, 13 October 2008 [59].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is ready for a bronze star. This material was spun out from the
Iowa class battleship article during the latters FAR a month or so back at the suggestion of
MBK004 (
talk ·
contribs) as a way to reduce the size of the article. Since Iowa class battleship is already featured the material was already well sourced. It cleared A-class a few weeks back, but before I could get the article here school started and my priorities shifted, but we have lull week here so I am taking advantage of the downtime to go forward with the FAC. I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patiences, it is likely that school work has temporarily tied me up.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The article needs somebody to go through the prose; it's rough in places.
These are just examples, get somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Comments
Comment While the situation is confusing, it now looks like two or three Zumwalt class destroyers will be built, so it's not correct to say that the program has been 'canceled' as the article does. Nick Dowling ( talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:57, 12 October 2008 [60].
I nominate this article because I consider it one of the best on Wikipedia. I worked a lot to improve it and I hope You'll agree. Thank You! — Hadrianos1990 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - An interesting article that I enjoyed reading, but further copy-editing is needed. Here are some examples:
These are just a few example of many problems. A fresh pair of eyes is needed; the whole article needs attention. Graham Colm Talk 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - too many little problems - GrahamColm has pointed out half a dozen - other things stood out to me...
As Graham said, this whole article needs a copyedit, preferably by an independent native English speaker. Right now, not close to FA I'm afraid. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail - Writing is not close to FA standard. With the nominator blocked for using another editor's name to blatantly stack the vote, he/she can't respond to the opposes. With that being the case, I see no reason to keep this here. And that bullying was disgraceful too. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:49, 12 October 2008 [62].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've done my best to expand this article on a truly beautiful and dangerous volcano in Colombia. This stratovolcano caused the deadliest lahar in recorded history and killed some 28,000 people. Therefore, I'm donating this work to them. I've worked long and hard over this article, harder than I have on any other, and I think it's ready to be featured. —
Ceran (
Strike!)
00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 02:25, 12 October 2008 [63].
This is another short article about a small battle in the Texas Revolution. The more I research and write about these battles, the more I understand the saying "God protects children and idiots". It amazes me that the Texians won anything. I look forward to any constructive criticism.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image comments - This seems more like a peer revies request, rather than a FAC, but ... I would prefer a map giving the location, possibly add the {{coord)) template, FOP pictures of the various comerative plaques, gravestones should be included. Any pictures of the protagonists are likely to be free due to expired copyright (assuming there are any). Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Can something that only had 150-160 persons involved be called a battle ? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments: It's not that short (2,200+ words). It looks comprehensive. But I always worry slightly when articles come to FAC without GA or PR; there tend to be niggly things that could have been sorted out there. In the lead alone:-
I'm reading on and will deliver further comments later. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I've read it through carefully. Here are some further comments on the text:-
That's it. A simple, even slight, story, effectively told. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments on
this version —
Jappalang
Lead
Background
Prelude
Battle
Aftermath
General
The prose is very good. So far, I have only those little thoughts above. Jappalang ( talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I really appreciate all of the reviewer comments, and I will definitely be working on the article to incorporate the suggestions I've been given. Unfortunately, real-life pressures mean I won't be able to complete this task in a timely manner, and it is best that the nomination be withdrawn for now.
Karanacs (
talk)
02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [64].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've overhauled it during September in order to promote it as much as possible, give that it is of top-importance. It
passed an A-class review on 22 September 2008. There might be some copyediting issues which i'm willing to resolve within this nomination. --
Eurocopter (
talk)
11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Weak/Borderline Oppose - Going through it now, I'm finding some problems, especially in terms if prose. I'm still going through it, but examples include:
strong oppose - There are serious licencing issues regarding the first few images, which have depreciated Russian licence tag Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment because of the overwhelming forces that the Red Army deployed it makes sense in most of the article to mention Soviet Units sizes considerbaly larger than the opposing German force, Eg a German division defending against a army of Red Army. For the initial part of the battle and the Battle in Berlin, I think this is done reasonably well. But in the section the Battle outside Berlin, there are problems. I originally knocked up the text intending it to be expanded until the detail could be moved into a subsiduary article similar to that of Battle in Berlin. Because it is only an outline many of the sentences are not complete and carry a potential POV. For example take the sentence:
Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army made a fighting retreat back towards the Elbe and American lines after providing the IX Army survivors with surplus transport.
It could have equally have been written:
Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army was forced back away from Berlin along its communications lines by the 4th(?) Guards Tank Army where rather than capitulate to the Soviets many including Wenck crossed the Elbe and surrendered to the Americans. (I got the 4th from a sentence someone added the the Battle of Halbe article "Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10km away from the German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe." but unfortunately they did did not source it.)
But at the time I wrote it I was using references that tend to look at things from a German perspective, and there was not a lot of detail on whether which Soviet units (at Army level) were involved and if the Soviets were intentionally just trying to drive the German XII army away from Berlin or were trying to envelop them before most could reach American lines. It is the same for the Battle North of Berlin. For example were the Soviets trying to reach Denmark before the British did and were they trying to envelop the German III Panzer Army and the German XXI Army or did they plan to drive them West towards the British? A sentence on the fate of Nazi Felix Steiner would be nice to have (so much for joining the Nazi Götterdämmerung in Berlin) as would a couple of sentences on the Soviets capture of the physical headquarters of OKH and OKW which were at Zossen, did most of the staff get away to new headquarters and continue to operate up until the end of the war, (if so where?), or did the staff organisation disintegrate with every man for himself or was it a bit of both? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [65].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel very little can be done to expand it, and it is at its best potential right now, which I feel is FA potential. It is perhaps not as lengthy as other FA articles, but it covers all significant points, its prose is perhaps professional or near professional, it is well-referenced, and neutral. In summary, I feel this article is ready to be a featured article and I welcome any constructive criticism. Please note that I'm also, in part, opening this nomination to see if there's anything that can be done to significantly improve the quality of the article. If there is not, then I feel this article should be passed. --
The Guy
complain
edits
02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Giggy ( talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
indopug ( talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Tony (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Efe ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [66].
Kaunas Fortress is already a
good article, it also got an A-class rating from military department. Article is topical, as it covers the history of the largest and best preserved originally
Russian Empire's fortress. Article is written using newest academic research on the subject, richly illustrated with pictures, both contemporary and present, article is stable and comprehensive. I think article meets all FA criteria.
M.K. (
talk)
12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The writing needs ironing out throughout: here are examples of why, just from the top.
(talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Spot-check—the lead doesn't fill me with confidence, and after all this time ...
Further down, at random:
I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. The article needs a solid and careful copy-edit by someone who is well positioned to make it a smooth, enjoyable read. It's a good topic and it's a promising article, but I think it deserves a bit of air and resubmission after a few weeks. It will probably go through more quickly on second ride. Tony (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose This article seems to be well-structured and comprehensive, but it does not yet meet all of the FA criteria.
Prose - I agree that the article could use a copyedit. While reading I saw a few infelicities. For example:
Sources:
Images:
While I am opposing at this time, I hope to be able to support once these issues are resolved. Awadewit ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
These are just random samples. Doesn't augur well. Tony (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 8 October 2008 [69].
This article is much better, having been FA'd once to great improvement and then worked on in peer review. All issues should be addressed now, so lets' do this again! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Giggy (ec)
More to come... tomorrow, hopefully. Giggy ( talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. Surprised there's still this much to do. Here are random examples just from the top.
Images (all non-free) check out ok; I'd like to see appropriate copyright ownership on the Samus and original Metroid pictures to round them out, but that's not going to fail their use here. -- MASEM 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [70].
I have been working on this article for a while, and following a short peer review, I now believe it meets all the FA criteria. One thing that does bother me about this article though, that I can't really fix, is there's no free picture of Mark available. It would certainly improve the article. If anyone knows where a free pic of him could be obtained, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent article. Thanks for any comments. --
how do you turn this on
16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Images - There are excessive non free images, one should be removed ( WP:NFCC#3). What efforts were made to obtain freely licenced pictures? Fasach Nua ( talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Support and comments—I can't comment on the prose, but it seems as if you have solved all the issues raised currently. This is quite an interesting article, and I admit that I didn't know who Mark Speight was before reading this—a sad story. In any case, I believe that this meets the FA class requirements, especially since the image issue seems to be largely resolved and everything to do with the references has been fixed, as well. Good luck! JonCatalán (Talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Undistinguished prose: Oppose. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's saveable, but needs attention from a new collaborator. Here are examples of what I mean, at random. reply
Oppose a few issues for me...
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I've fixed all these issues. -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've asked a few people to copy-edit through. However, I've fixed everything Jbmurray has brought up (to the best of my ability), so I don't think anything in this oppose is actionable now. It's far too vague currently for me personally to fix. "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a because... blah" is so much more helpful that "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't". -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
More later. Giggy ( talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please make sure all the references are formatted properly? I wouldn't want this to fail over something as small as that. Thank you! -- how do you turn this on 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please tell me what the issue with the prose is so I can fix it? Jbmurray thinks this article is still "seriously deficient" (and unsurprisingly, hasn't bothered to say why). What exactly does need fixing now? -- how do you turn this on 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I'm just finding too many niggly problems for this to be considered Featured quality or "fixable" at FAC. Suggest third party copyedit or return to PR. Issues I uncovered during speedy review of first portion of article:
Sorry again. It's not that far off and should be fairly stable, so I look forward to seeing this pass soon. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I have been asked for, and I haven't been able to read the above in detail; here's a start:
HDYTTO, you have a great start here and a lot of good info to help towards the final tweaks of the article. Four opposes this far in to a FAC can be hard to overcome, and opposers have opined that the work is too much to accomplish in the tenure of a FAC. Working on the issues raised and re-approaching FAC in a few weeks will give this article the best shot at a successful FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [72].
Over the past week or so, I have completely re-written this article. Before, it didn't make too much coherent sense and was quite covered in redundancy. I believe the article now meets the criterion. I think the text is comprehensive and provides an all-round view of the topic. The article is sourced to forty-three (43) reliable references, consisting of a healthy meld of web and book sources. It is well formatted and of a good length (36KB), and the text is brightened up by six (6) illustrative images. It has a strong lead section that I believe introduces the article concisely but informatively. I hope reviewers will provide me constructive criticism and express their thoughts on the article. — Anonymous Dissident <span <style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose 1a - I don't know much about physics (imagine; a mathematics aficionado not know much about physics!) and so I can't comment on much of the technical side of this article, but the prose isn't up to par.
I'm out of time for now; I've read a fair portion of the article though have only taken points from the very beginning. I intend to finish the reading and point out more examples tomorrow. Nousernamesleft ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
comment - Looks pretty good after a quick read. In places the text is a bit thick, and leans jargony (especially towards the end sections). There may not be a good way to reduce that without very long explainitory sections, which can be equally awful to read. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments, mainly on the proseSupport I meant to come back earlier, and say that this looks good, has been worked on meticulously and is ready for FA.
Brianboulton (
talk)
23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Look, I’m only half way through the History section and I’m finding prose problems just about every sentence. This article should have had a proper copyedit before coming to FAC, but if you like, I’ll do one now. It might take a while, but it’ll be worth it, as no way is this prose going to make FA as it stands. By the way, I’m a non-scientist but I find the subject interesting, even if I don’t understand all the detail. Leave me a note on my talkpage if you want me to do a copyedit. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Giggy
From the lead. Sorry about the ramblings. Giggy ( talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the article and the featured article criteria more carefully, to decide whether to vote for support. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Continuing my (Giggy's) comments, there's a few more up above.
I'll finish it off... soon. :-) Giggy ( talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Ruslik ( talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) You're rewording my statement. Not opposition, not a hunch. Leaning opposition, based on (possibly incorrect) perception that it omits facts )omitted unintentially because they are obvious ones... and for the reality that I read the article and still didn't have any idea what a quark was until I read other articles, which to my mind is unacceptable for an FA. But I have to close now, 'til tomorrow. Striking mention of Oppose to avoid miscommunication; will talk more tomorrow... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to User:Ling.Nut/page2 and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) My point is that it's too condensed, to the point of opacity; no one can understand it without clicking through a number of other articles. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Oppose for now - the article has not reached the required standard yet. At this late stage I should not be finding mistakes, (see article history), but, my major concern is that possibilities to make the article more accessible have not been fully explored.
Graham Colm
Talk
10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Take just one example —hadronisation; the word appears without explanation three times. The most important section of all articles, particularly specialist ones, is the Lead, (let's face it, many readers will not progress further), and I think more can be done here. For example There are six different types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom, respectively denoted by u, d, c, s, t, and b. - do we need the notation in the Lead? And, do we need to use "flavor" here; does it help? I would like to see every sentence scrutinised and simplified where possible. I am not suggesting the article should be turned into baby food, but I would like to see more of an effort made with regard to accessibility.
(undent) I half don't appreciate the fact that my remarks/concerns are being painted as "silly". This borderline ad hominem is far from constructive, to say the least—and is taking the easy way out. I won't say more than the least, however. :-) As for Graham, if you think it is fixable, then {{ sofixit}}. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support: With the inclusion of the aces and strange quark discovery, I'm happy with the content of this article and with the way it's written.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose: You have to think about who your audience is. I believe that it is possible to say things about quarks that are understandable by a high-school student who knows about the structure of an atom. It is okay for parts of the article to be more technical, but that high school student ought to be able to read at least the beginning of the article with benefit. As it stands, there's no chance of that -- right from the start it's leptons and hadrons and other advanced physics cruft. Looie496 ( talk) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I think it's an important article, and I'm glad someone has re-worked it, but in the present state, I don't think it's FA standard (yet). My main objection is that the article doesn't meet 1b - there are too many crucial aspects that aren't even mentioned. Also, it looks to me like there are some problems with what is there.
Some other issues:
Markus Poessel ( talk) 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 06:56, 6 October 2008 [74].
Hello, I'd like to nominate
Beecher's Handmade Cheese for it's first FAC attempt. It's had a formal peer review
here, and an
informal one on the article's talk page, with all the changes now in place, along with some extra copyediting and clean up beyond that. There likely is some grammatical horror or MOS trouble, because my copyediting work isn't my strong suit, and as I'm still learning MOS. Please let me know what needs improving! Thanks!
rootology (
C)(
T)
02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail—sorry, this nomination is premature and should be worked over by fresh eyes. Do you know how to find good word-nerd collaborators? Withdrawal and resubmission in a few weeks would be proper.
These are random examples from the opening two paras. Tony (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [75].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. And looks really good.
Lord of Moria
Talk
Contribs
17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sorry to be negative right at the start, but the nomination statement is extremely feeble. There's nothing wrong with omitting it where there's nothing particularly useful to say. It won't have a bearing on the outcome, I assure you. It's mostly very well written. I spotted a few glitches, though. Passes 1a.
I think the article fails comprehensiveness and more research is required before the article gets to FA. Some specific problems:
There's a long, long way to go yet! Davémon ( talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose I don't often oppose on sourcing, but this one clearly fails the comprehensive guideline, because there is no evidence that several sources have been consulted. Specifically, there is no information from the Book of Lost Tales works, which would be important for the development of the location. Note that there are 805 books listed at Amazon when you search for Middle-Earth and Tolkien, have any of those works been consulted?
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [76].
I feel confident that the article is now ready for featured article status. A lot of work has been done on it, including updates since the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for any comments and contributions.--
Patrick
«»
00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs). Needs more work on the prose. I see that since the last FAC, the article hasn't been submitted to Peer Review. That should have been done first; especially for a large article over an important topic. Here are examples from the lead and the first section:
Note that these are just examples; please find someone to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Why is the motto not given in English? this is en.wikipedia? Fasach Nua ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I dont like the Religious affiliation table unless you know Baptist is a subset of Protestantism, which in itself is a subset of chritianity, then it doesnt make a lot of sence, there must be a better layout. Fasach Nua ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose by karanacs on sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns. Where are the books? As one of the original colonies, Virginia should have been the subject of dozens of books on its history, yet the article instead primarily cites self-published sources by various universities? That is not acceptable for a Featured article.
Karanacs ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
On references: As Virginia is one of the oldest states, the center of American republic democracy, the home state of 7 presidents, and a major center of slavery and its defense, I expect to see stellar sources about these issues. Instead, the citations list is full of multiple general sources that picked a phrase from here and a sentence from there. It's as if the citations list was padded to add more sources with the least amount of substance possible. I understand that this is an overview of Virginia, but this is to be a featured article on the main page one day. Sources at the local library should be plentiful and accessible. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
'Comment' "Unlike her nation-leading education system, Virginia has a mixed health record..." since when was a state considered female? Is there some official designation or is this just a floral term? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some time out problems with several links, and also some disambiguation probs too: Battle_of_Bull_Run, Chub, Consulting, Dace and even Virginia. -- Tufacave ( talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Kudos on the work done so far, but this needs significant improvement, beyond what can be accomplished at FAC. Historical facts should not be cited to sources such as websites for Prince William County Schools or a student project at Lehigh University. There are some really strange citation sources - the Freedom Forum's goal/mission is cited to an article about journalist deaths in Iraq, published in the New Zealand Herald? Referencing is the biggest issue, but other work is needed, too. Examples:
I would love to see this article brought up to FA status (and would be glad to help to an extent), but it's not there yet. Maralia ( talk) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support. There may be a few things to nitpick about, but overall this is an excellent article. Comprehensive, well-illustrated, and a credit to the project. I would have no problem with seeing this article display the FA star. -- El on ka 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [78].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process --
ThinkBlue
(Hit
BLUE)
19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm not entirely sure what's expected of an article of this type, so I'm not gonna support or oppose it. In my opinion it's a bit weak on biography, and ends up being a long summary of his various roles. Anyway, here's some copy-editing I did:
That's the main things I could find. Lampman ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—The writing needs scrutiny throughout, preferably by someone new to the article.
Down from lead: the "nee Lawrence"—place after Eckhart.
Tony (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: As with above, I think there are many prose issues, as well as other confusions, of which these are examples:-
I could go on, but there are rather too many problems. I'm sorry to say that the article is not ready for FA yet, and needs rather a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [79].
I hope it fulfills the criteria and becomes "my" first FA
TheFEARgod (
Ч)
13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
oppose - Image:Anjouan invasion.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8, and FA criteria 3 Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - It's good to see an Africa-related topic here at FAC, though there are some issues to address before I can support:
-- Aude ( talk) 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [80].
Hi there, I would like to nominate this
good article for FA. I have worked on the article for quite a while now, and through Peer Reviews, I think that the article is ready for FAC. The other major contributor is
Serendipodous who is currently unable to co-nom because of another FAC. I will be ready to make any changes, if required - thank you for your time! :)
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments—The prose is generally good, but I shouldn't be able to find these issues easily in the lead. This means that another run-through by someone fresh is required throughout: not a big job, though.
Tony (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Can you provide a link here when buzzing my talk page? "English-language versions" (not British language- rather than picture-book versions). Can you persuade someone else to go through the rest of the article, please? Tony (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Further Comments
Comments from Giggy
That's just from the lead. Agree with Tony; prose needs some love. Giggy ( talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Karanacs ( talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [81].
I'm nominating this article because I believe that it has reached featured article quality. Back in July, the article was given good article status and the reviewer felt that the article
close to FA quality then. Since then, a peer review has been conducted as well as two copyedits. The article has 117 citations, a good bunch of images and an informative terminal diagram. As there's only one airport featured article, it's hard to gauge against, but I feel it meets, if not exceeds
its quality. The two copyedits have ensured the article is well written and comprehensive whilst the 117 citations ensure the article is factually accurate. The article is very much stable and the good article nomination has made the article well and truly neutral. The article has a concise lead, and is appropriately structured to
the appropriate WikiProject's guidelines and all citations use the appropriate template. There are several images, all with captions and the appropriate licences. All comments and suggestions will be taken on board. Thanks in advance.
Mvjs (
talk)
23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Giggy
*
http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Strathmore/EssendonAirport/15807 (ref 14) doesn't work
Giggy ( talk) 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Giggy ( talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Oppose until the prose is improved significantly. One of the most obvious problems is close repetition. Here are examples:
Please get someone else to work on it too. Tony (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Re-visit: spot check of "Route developments".
I find no reason to change my "oppose". Tony (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It doesn't have to excite, but it helps is it's a smooth read. Let's do another spot-check: "Awards and accolades":
I have to declare Quick-fail. The article has been here for some time, has sucked in reviewer resources, and still requires major work. It would be fairer and more practical to withdraw it and resubmit after two or three weeks, having revamped it in your own time. More collaborators required. Tony (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Everywhere I notice glitches.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [86].
I am nominating this article again as I feel it meets the featured article criteria. I feel the last nomination was closed a little early, and since then, I have kept the article updated (for instance, with news of the video game) and worked with the suggestions from the original FAC- minor fixes. The last discussion was a little clouded by some discussions about the article which are now resolved, and I can't see there being any further major objections. I am more than happy to work with people's suggestions, but I am finding that my time on Wikipedia is, at the moment, pretty limited, so I may take a little while to reply.
J Milburn (
talk)
21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Giggy ( talk) 10:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose for now by karanacs. I don't think the prose is quite there yet and the article is too detailed.
Karanacs ( talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [87].
The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines.
Taprobanus (
talk)
12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Spot-check of a subsection at random:
Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008
Oppose:
Comments on images
Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus ( talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:59, 2 October 2008 [88].
With current talk on short FAs (
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Very short FAs), I'm testing my luck. The article is as long as reliable and verifiable references permit me. I have gone through over 500 press reports, but nothing much on the person can be gleaned other than what's listed in the article that I had saved from an AFD.
=Nichalp
«Talk»=
18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
PS I've only now noticed that my good friend Nichalp is the nominator ... Sorry, but it doesn't change my assessment. Tony (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [89].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an article about an important Gabonese politician for which little information is present. In my own biased eyes, it is short but comprehensive and well-written, though I want to see if you think it meets the criteria. Your friend the
editorofthewiki (
talk/
contribs/
editor review)
02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Oppose This is a biographical article and is missing detail on nearly 30 years of his later life. Isn't this partly a representation of the content in the general 1964 and other articles translated from French wiki? Isn't the 1964 Gabon topic covered enough now? I find it very odd that given the very reason why the 1964 article was not promoted, you have now nominated this for an FA. I think there is a big difference between a GA and an FA. Why do you think this would pass FA with sources such as Echec aux militaires au Gabon en 1964 and Biteghe 1990 which you admitted haven't been verified in the way they hadn't in the 1964 article? I'm not questioning that the sources aren't reliable, I;m just wondering why you think this has a chance of passing FA when the 1964 coup article didn't which partly uses the same sources? The Bald One White cat 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [90].
I nominated this article several weeks ago because I believe it meets all of the standards for FA status. I did most of the writing, so forgive me if I sound immodest, but I believe the writing is strong, the coverage is comprehensive, it's verifiable, neutral and stable, well- and consistently-referenced and includes appropriately licensed images.
At the last FAC, one person supported promotion whole-heartedly. Another initially opposed and then supported conditionally and the condition was addressed. Others opposed on the basis of the length and detail of the lead. One person (who is apparently something of a problem child when it comes to the FA process) said it was missing citations and "not brilliant enough." SandyGeorgia expressed some concern about citations, finding it odd that a woman would go from being a member of the upper class in her home country to working as a maid in the US.
Following the close of the FAC, I left messages on the talk pages of each person who opposed the promotion, in hopes of getting additional feedback. With the exception of Sandy's, I got none. As I said in the first FAC, it's rather difficult to know what the reviewer is looking for in the way of additional sourcing or prose that isn't "brilliant enough" with no guidance as to what that reviewer believes needs to be sourced or where the prose needs to be brilliant-er. I believe I addressed the issue of the lead in the course of the first FAC and I believe I've addressed Sandy's concerns regarding attribution. I hope that if those same reviewers choose to participate again and still have concerns, they will try to help me improve the article by articulating them a little more clearly.
Apologies for this long-winded opening. Looking forward to going through this again and hope to see a different result! Otto4711 ( talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Image request - Please link the licence for Image:JOSE1.jpg Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: On reading over the image issues again, I think that the images should be acceptable under fair use at the very least, and I see Otto is working to get further documentation that they are free. I don't believe these should hold up the nomination, so I have changed my !vote to support. Karanacs ( talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Karanacs ( talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments I noticed that the lead begins with unlinked dates in month day year format, so I started changing your (previously linked, ISO format) accessdates to the same format - only to discover later in the article that there are quite of few instances of linked dates in the text itself, too. The cite templates are wonky—it seems most people don't know how to make them output unlinked accessdates—and I thought I was just tweaking things to follow your preference. Now I'm not sure what your preference is for date formats. If you could clarify whether your intent is linked dates (technically deprecated per MOS) or unlinked dates, I would be happy to finish 'fixing' things in either direction. Sorry for the confusion. Maralia ( talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
additional image comments
:::*Are you really going to hang this on my choice of the word "demonstrate" instead of "document"?
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this was ill-considered and borderline uncivil.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [91].
The article passed through GA and PR, and I decided to nominate it for FA status, and see what improvements it could use.
Diego_pmc
Talk
09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment - With the exception of Image:Concerned logo.png, I can't see any of the images passing WP:NFCC Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The statements made in the Themes section are not WP:OR. The author mentioned in his notes to what aspect of the game he made reference to in his comic - I should have included refs to the notes as well. Also about the prose from Plot section, it was already written when I started working on the article, and all i did was to remove some redundant details - I did not pay attention to repetitions.
I will try to address these issues in a couple of days. I don't understand what you meant when you said that the plot section is "unintelligible to someone who has never played the game", though. That it is a spoiler, or that it is confusing for someone unfamiliar with the game? In either case, I tend to disagree with you. WP is not censored, as I'm sure you know, so spoilers are accepted, and it doesn't seem confusing either - you only need to understand what's happening, not to actually be able to make the connection between the events in the comic, and those from the game. Diego_pmc Talk 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [95].
I've slowly been chipping away at this page for about two years and I started doing serious FA driven improvements 3 weeks ago and I believe this is the hardest I have ever worked on a page. You will notice that the article does not have an appearances section like other character articles, and the reason for this is simple. While a show like Lost has continuous storylines, The Simpsons has little or no continuity whatsoever, plus Homer has appeared in 420 episodes, so such a section would be a huge mess. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by myself. -- Scorpion 0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
oppose - The four non-free images Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg seem to fail WP:NFCC, the fourth image conveys no more information than Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png, failing minimal usage. The variation on the last three non-free images is not significant enough to meet criteria 8, indeed the change in appearence could be put down to expression, rather than character evolution. Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Reluctantly Oppose for now. I opposed this rather strongly last time it came up, so I felt I should give a thorough review again to assess the changes. First of all, let me say well done, this article in infinitely better than it was when I last read it. I do however have some reservations, particularly about the prose and one of the sections, which I have laid out below.
On the whole, this is a very nice article, an I would be neutral but for the problems in the cultural influence section. I think the text needs a closer look, as described, to help it flow better and on occasion I was left wondering why information had been included when it didn't seem to connect with anything around it but on the whole this is a very fine effort and is not far from FA quality. Any questions, just ask. Regards, -- Jackyd101 ( talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I second the comments by Jackyd101. Pretty much hit the nail right on the head from my point of view. As much as we all love Homer (well I do at least) and as great as this article is, it may have some work to do. I have some of my own input that may help as well:
Comments Support by Moni3
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [97].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I need a break from the usual hurricanes. :) Seriously, though, I helped promote the article to GA a few months back, and after a recent massive expansion, this is clearly the most comprehensive account of this small road in the Hudson Valley of New York. –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Comments from Giggy
Giggy ( talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [98].
I'm renominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the
WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent
WP:PR,
WP:GAR,
WP:FAC and talk page concerns.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image comments - Three images are labeled both non-free and creative commons. The images should be arranged, alternating left and right per
Wikipedia:MOS#Images
Fasach Nua (
talk)
15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - source concerns resolved at last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment on images - I looked at the fair use rationales for the three views of the sculpture again. I am satisfied that they meet the NFCC criteria. The two exterior shots of the sculpture show the distinctive shape of the sculpture and how it reflects the buildings around it (I agree that this could be better described in the caption). The one interior shot doubles as an interior shot and as an "in process" shot, that is, it shows the sculpture being constructed - it shows the seams before the polishing of the sculpture. In my estimation, this is an acceptable use of fair use images. Awadewit ( talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [99].
I'm giving this another go after a copyedit.
Gary King (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Sort of support, but your prose needs polishing: the thing is, it's within reach of being very good, but I'm seeing the same old patterns; shouldn't be hard to fix.
Gary, you might consider going back to some of your earliest FLs/FAs and scrunitising your prose in them. That would provide strategic distance, which I usually find instructive in my own writing. Tony (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
indi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 31 October 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
Amadscientist ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Gary King ( talk) 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for you comments and the fixes needed. I will work these out and even if it still is opposed after the changes.....at least i know I did what was needed and can reference this conversation as i work on the article. I started this early so i could see what others felt needed to be done....so there is still hope this can be approved by the Halloween weekend. If not...the article will still be improved. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Thank you. as for unreliable sources......I have to agree. While many are perfectly fine sites they don't fit wiki standards and many editors try hard to balance between relialble and wiki acceptable source.
The article has been through peer review but certainly can be resubmitted again. If I am unable to make the changes within the week I will withdraw the nomination and go that route. It worked well when I attempted to get it to GA status.....but I assure you, the act was not simply to improve the article. I do disagree with you about FAC. The Feature Article canditates page is where we improve an article. All the other features of wiki are geard towars improving the articles. I want the article to be good enough for Feature status, but it has to earn that status. I can continue on with other editors towards consensus on direction and get more editors envolved. The fair use problem the page had has been resolved. It was my doing so I undid it. Apologies. -- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - the article is not ready. There are many problems, particularly with the prose, comprehensiveness and referencing, (reliability and shortages). Graham Colm Talk 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Having an image in the lead crushes the prose between two images. Move it down to the main article for better reading. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this candidacy untill editors can fix all the areas mentioned including prose, references and other problems not mentioned here.
Thank you all for your help!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 16:01, 29 October 2008 [2].
I rewrote this article a couple weeks ago, incorporating a great amount of information, considering the type of storm and the time frame. It passed GA, had a brief review on its talk page, and has had some off-wiki criticism. If promoted, this will be the first featured nor'easter article, and one of only a few non-tropical weather FAs. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Heh. Did NOT mean to put oppose there, the perils of editing from the road. Should have been comments, now corrected. Sorry Julian!
Comments
Lead:
* "It developed from an area of low pressure in the southeast Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys in the southeast Gulf of Mexico, and moved across the state of Florida." I'd suggest removing the second instance of "the southeast Gulf of Mexico".
All:
* All the digit-noun combinations need no-break codes per
WP:NBSP.
Meteorological history:
* "had moved to the north, allowing for" might be better as "had moved to the north, which allowed".
Effects:
Southeast United States and Mid-Atlantic:
*"A waterspout moved ashore on Key Largo, causing only minor damage." I look for ways to put nouns and modifiers together. In this sentence, "causing" seems for a split second to modify "Key Largo". The reader can and does figure out that it modifies "waterspout", but a smoother construction might be: "A waterspout, moving ashore on Key Largo, caused only minor damage."
New England:
Quick-fail—Julian, this is full of loose, ambiguous language, as usual. Please withdraw it, have others assist to improve the writing to the required professional standard, and resubmit in a few weeks. This is not a free-advice fixit room: the reviewers are too scarce and overworked, and it's unfair to other nominators to expect extensive treatment.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 28 October 2008 [3].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I simply feel it is ready. I worked this article through Peer Review and A-Class review. This is obviously the best source of information for the 1989 Batman film found anywhere. I am open to suggestions to improve this article. Wildroot 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
This has been fixed, please ignore the above statement and the small discussion below. The websites and information listed above were simply removed from the article per WP:RS. Cheers. Wildroot ( talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for asking that question. Basically, editors from WikiProjectFilms (such as Alientraveller, Erik, Bignole and others and obviously me) agree that we can only use these sources whenever they have either direct interviews with the person or whenever Hollywood invites them for a set visit. And the above links to have only direct interviews with the person. AMC is a good reliable source, and it is not one of those "rumor blogs", even though it says blog in front of the URL. Thanks. Wildroot 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose per conprehensiveness concerns. I'm surprised nothing is included from Time and The New York Times, which I know have material on the movie (at one point I was going to work on the article and so I went through the archives of the major websites). Make sure you exhaust all available info from major media outlets. This movie was a pretty big deal and received according coverage (Also: totally unnecessary info, but it might be my favorite movie. Jack Nicholson as The Joker and music by Prince!!!). Also, there's this book of academic essays titled The Many Faces of the Batman (I think that's the correct name; I have it at my college library). It was published in 1992 and deals a bit with the film, and if I recall correctly it discusses the film's marketing in-depth at one point. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose This is an excellent start on Batman, a wonderful movie that I just watched the other day. However, I feel that it does not yet meet the FA criteria:
My advice would be to withdraw this nomination, since additional research needs to be done. After that research is completed, I would be happy to help copyedit the article in preparation for its renomination. Awadewit ( talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Matthew edwards 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:17, 28 October 2008 [5].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because not only does it meet the FA criteria it hilites a subject of importance to the LGBT community. The article is stable, well referenced, well written, summary style etc. It does not have a picture but after much (archived on the talk page) debate adding a picture is a non starter. This article is the best article in a complex of articles about a controversial topic. However the "homosexual transsexual" has recieved much less coverage than the other related concept. Last but not least this article is a shining example of what editors who don't all agree on a controversial topic can do here at Wikipedia. Hfarmer ( talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments by Moni3
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [11].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. And I notice Artichoker just nominated Pokémon Red and Blue for FA. Tezkag72 ( talk) 22:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [12].
This article was nominated in March, but it was nowhere close to ready; I was not involved at that time. It has been rewritten from top to bottom over the past month (by me), and is now a completely different article, with far more content. This is the most important Neuroscience-related article on Wikipedia, getting hundreds of hits per day, and it would be very nice to get it to FA status. I believe that it is at least close to being ready. Looie496 ( talk) 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: Going through the whole article
Punctuation: Hoping that an expert will check punctuation throughout. IMO there is much over-use of the colon. -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Comments Promising, but it still needs much work. Note that I used this version of the article when citing notes.
Some other formating issues pointed out above also need to be addressed. Cenarium Talk 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [13].
It has been several months, and alot of improvements, since the previous nomination. I think it is getting pretty good myself, and it should be able to pass. If not then it will benefit from some constructive criticisms. I am one of the primary editors, and the nominator. Charles Edward 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning Oppose Comments Looking at the previous FAC, one of the primary issues was its prose. You have worked diligently by yourself on this article, and it shows. However, you have worked on this article enough that you are too close to the text, as these examples show:
Comments -
Comments Here are two really minor concerns:
I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns, except for the one about finding a copy editor for assistance.. Is there anything else in this article that is not up to FA standards which need improvement? Charles Edward 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Revisit Checking the progress of the copy-editors after nominator request and because of natural curiosity (random sample of the Mississippians section):
I really shouldn't be finding this many problems in three (really 2 and a half) relatively short paragraphs. As of now, I am leaning oppose Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [14].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because
Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
REPLY: Thanks for your comments.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
REPLY to comments on 2 OCT:
Moved my comments dated 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC), 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC), 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC), 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) and reorganized them as below:
http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm is a RS because:
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Dvaita.org is a RS because:
REPLY:
Support in terms of prose. Could do with a little scrutiny, but not bad at all.
REPLY: Thanks for the support.
Support. My earlier lengthy comments are on the article's talk page and were all sufficiently answered/satisfied by the author. The author has picked a difficult topic, that of a regional deity, and brought out nicely its evolution theories without regionalising the subject. The plausible influence of other cults and faiths on the development of this worship and that of this deity on neighbouring socio-religions movements (such as the Haridasa movement) has also been dealt with well. In all, a good job. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
(undent) Still Oppose per 1a. Let me look at one (and only one) section. Please take the entire artice for thorough copy editing. Please do not repair this list and ask for a reconsideration of my !vote:
Reply: Thanks for the comments, will add the topic sentences tomorrow.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:56, 28 October 2008 [29].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It is currently a GA, and has gone through a peer review. After the demotion of Bulbasaur and Torchic more than a year ago, this would become the Pokémon Wikiproject's only featured article. I will try to respond to all concerns as quickly as possible. Artichoker talk 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [31].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. Please leave comments and list ways for improvement shall you desire, thanks!
iMatthew (
talk)
16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - The recent output from the wrestling project has been more and more refined as lessons are applied from each new FAC. Does that make these pay-per-view articles flawless? Here's a hint: if they were, I wouldn't be doing this.
I haven't gotten to the matches themselves yet. That will have to wait until another time. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak support - Keeping in mind the heavy reliance on primary and uncertain sources, which I'm paying more attention to now. It's difficult because wrestling isn't widely covered in the mainstream media. As for the name, WWE Armageddon 2006 could be an option, but that's up to the main contributors. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [32].
The concept acid dissociation constant is of major importance in chemistry, physics, earth sciences (including environmental sciences) and biology (including human biology) and is also important in other areas such as the development of new pharmaceuticals and all sorts of industrial processes where acidity has to be controlled. The article presents a comprehensive coverage of the topic and indicates the main areas of application. It should therefore be of interest to a wide range of the readership.
The topic is covered, at an elementary level, in all text-books on general chemistry, though the treatment is usually simplified. The simplifications are explained in this article.
I have been active in research in this subject area since 1972. Our programs Hyperquad are the world market leaders for the determination of acid dissociation constants and stability constants of metal complexes with ligand acids. Correspondence with users of this software has given me an appreciation of the range of applications of interest in research today. This is reflected in the structure of the article.
I am confident that if this article is accepted for featured status that it will enhance the reputation of Wikipedia among scientists and science students.
Petergans ( talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The first line of the lead reads "An acid dissociation constant (aka acidity constant, acid-ionization constant) is an equilibrium constant for the dissociation of an acid". If the reader does not already have some grasp of the linked concepts, then I suspect the article will be completely unintelligible to him/her. The links put these concepts on a more rigorous basis. The need to address a more elementary-level reader is a recurrent theme for technical articles like this one and it is difficult to resolve. We have pitched the intro level towards a school student studying chemistry and coming across this idea for the first time.
I take the point about risk assessment and will insert something about it in the importance section. Petergans ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There is a problem here: in common usage the terms "pKa" and "acid dissociation constant" are used (wrongly!) almost interchangably. I think that we would have to say something along the lines of - the stronger the acid the larger the values of Ka and the smaller the value of pKa - but to me this sounds a bit confusing. In practice pKa values are used much more often than Ka values, but I don't see how this can be reflected in the article title. Petergans ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
These are very helpful comments, thank you very much. I shall be away for the next two weeks so I will get round to dealing with them and others that will come in when I return. Petergans ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
As a Chemistry Education major, though not an expert by any means (precipitates is one of my weaker areas), all the major problems I see can be summarized into three arguments:
This user does not appear to have read the article properly; there is a complete section entitled Experimental determination of pKa values with a link to a more detailed article Determination of equilibrium constants. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The details are in Avdeef's book, reference 42. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't understand this comment. There are many examples showing how the concept of pKa can be applied to derive useful information. Petergans ( talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've modified it in the light of comments. Does it need further work? Petergans ( talk) 11:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Added the reference and an example at acid dissociation constant #Importance of pKa values
The title "Acid dissociation constant" accurately describes the content of the article, whereas "Acidity constant" is meaningful only in a specific context which identifies it as a dissociation constant. Petergans ( talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article."
As I see it, the difference between a textbook and an encyclopedia article is that while the encyclopedia hopes to "tell the whole truth" about one topic, the textbook has much more space, can start from the basics, teach concepts in a sequence that is useful for learning, can include plenty of examples and even exercises, and can hide some of the ugly facts that are not essential for an introduction. Some may complain that this article is just useful if the reader already knows about the topic. That may be true, but this is acceptable IMHO because an encyclopedia is a reference work. Those who really know nothing about chemistry will be much better served by reading a general chemistry textbook. -- Itub ( talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments. I have little knowledge of chemistry so please excuse any misreadings based on ignorance. I am assuming that a reader of this article would be expected to have some prior knowledge of modern chemistry, since this is not the first article a novice would look at. With that in mind, here are some thoughts.
I will post notes section by section, since it will probably take me a day or three to get through the article. These first notes are all from the definitions section.
I'm on holiday in Crete, but here are some quick answers.
Petergans (
talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) A general point: "reference to equation (1) above" would be fine if all the equations were numbered as they would be in a paper published in a chemical journal. Unfortunately, it is not normal practice to number equations in WP, where a more discursive style is preferred. Some guidance on numbering of equations would be welcome.
Petergans (
talk)
08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
In Lowry-Bronsted theory every acid has a conjugate base and every base has a conjugate acid. It is therefore to some extent arbitrary which partner is denoted as conjugate. But you are right, some clarification is needed. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The definitions section has been modified in the light of these comments. Petergans ( talk) 09:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Hydration means the addition of water; it is the concentration of water which is constant. Will attempt a clarification next week. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
It is common practice to use the term "fully dissociated" when in fact the the difference from 100% dissociation is finite, but very small. See hydrochloric acid below. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a subtle point that needs attention. The phenomenon is that in a given solvent all acids with pK less than a certain value are classed as strong acids, hence they are brought to the same level of strength. In another solvent a particular acid may be weak or vice versa. Likewise all bases with a pK value greater than a certain value are classed as strong bases. Petergans ( talk) 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The "Equilibrium constant" section has now been revised. I have re-instated the struck o notation as I believe that the IUPAC recommendation for the sign for standard is the
plimsol line and this o is the nearest I could get to it. I am basing this on
Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, page 5. We are currently looking into this to see if the recommendation still stands.
Petergans (
talk)
16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
More comments:
I agree. The table was introduced by another editor (eaglefalconn) who, though a major stimulus to bringing the article to FAC status, has disappeared into thin air. I didn't want to offend him, but I did think that the table is superfluous. I will start to make corrections after I return to Leeds on Friday. Petergans ( talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've reviewed everything but the last two subsections and should return to those tomorrow. -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
More comments:
It is standard practice in chemistry to give hazard warnings in appropriate places. Is this not appropriate? I didn't want some adventurous schoolboy to think that it is safe to play with cyanide. Please advise. Petergans ( talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
We saw the bullet/list comment coming (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_dissociation_constant#Another_round_of_editing) and I sandboxed various other ways of presenting the material. The problem with running the text together, which I tried, is that most of the applications are so disparate, the area of applications is so broad, that the resulting text will not make sense; in effect most of the applications only have pK in common. Would separate paragraphs be acceptable?
Regarding the use of the {{ main}} template, this is an error of inex-Wiki-sperience. The point we were trying to make is that applications linked in that way are substantial topics in their own right. Petergans ( talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [33].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article about Sarah Geronimo was very comprehensive and informative. The details were validated, and furthermore the whole article was not only helpful but also fun, because of the way it was presented, it seems that the reader will be very interested.
Geniusdream (
talk)
09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia (02:32, October 25, 2008) [34].
Self-nomination This article has been improved a lot since the previous nomination ( User:Bignole helped out a lot) and I believe that it now fits the Featured Article criteria. In addition to a summary of the character in all his media (books, comics, film), there is also concept and creation, literary discussion and impact.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments Found additional refs which might help.
-- Stone ( talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. A quick look at the lead shows that redundant wording is a problem.
You may wish to run through these exercises to cultivate the redundancy radar beam. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to run through and fix? It's 30 to 60 minutes' work for a skilled editor. Tony (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Steve 21:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [35]. reply
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have put a lot of work into this article and think that it is ready for promotion to FA status. This is an important film not only in Oliver Stone's career but cinema in general, generating a lot of controversy and discussion. J.D. ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
}}
"And I had an erroneous impression of its structure. Somehow I had the impression that in Z you had the showing of the crime and then the re-showing of the crime throughout the picture until it was seen another way. That was the idea of JFK – that was the essence of it: basically, that's why I called it JFK. Not J dot F dot K dot. JFK. It was a code, like Z was a code, for he lives, American-style. As it was written it became more fascinating: it evolved into four DNA threads.
There are four structures there: The Garrison story from the centre was very good up through the New Orleans section, but essentially was a smaller story about a man following a local lead to its natural conclusion – he couldn't get any further than that.
And the second story that evolved from the research was the fascination of the Oswald legend: who he was and how to try to inculcate that.
Then the third idea was to go to Dealy Plaza and recreate the murder, and then see it again and again through the movie. Because Jim never went to Dealy Plaza: he goes once in the book. That was never his domain. His domain was the New Orleans territory. How do you get the New Orleans story combined with the Texas story? That was a very tricky thing. So that was the idea to go parallel.
And during this research the fourth thing happened to me which was that I was contacted and approached Colonel Fletcher Prouty. That became the fourth story. It became the means by which we were able to move between New Orleans, local, into the wider story of Dealy Plaza."
He irritated some of the more traditional editors – I remember the conflict. Hank's concepts are very commercial – sixty-seconds-get-your-attention-fragment-your-mind-make-you-rethink-it. But he had not developed the long form yet. And so a lot of his cuts were very chaotic.
The article looks great so far! As usual, J.D., you structure film articles very well with the right content, and I'm sure that Steve above has given a few good tips. Since this is a Featured Article candidate, and the film is pretty famous, I'd like to list possible resources to ensure that the article is as comprehensive as possible. Some academic sources may have the critical commentary to tie with non-free images. Here are some that I found:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)The above resources were what I was able to acquire after a small search, but there may be a few more floating out there. I don't want to make the FAC process seem impossible, but I just hope that we can have some truly impressive articles that go beyond the usual sections. Yours is well on the way, so let me know if you are interested in utilizing these resources. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There's only one image in the entire article, the article requires more images.-- Music 26/ 11 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 20:57, 21 October 2008 [37].
This article was a featured article candidate about a month ago. It received a fair amount of support, and also a fair amount of criticism. In the end, it was closed as unsuccessfull, and User:SandyGeorgia outlined the major concerns in her closing statement. It is copied verbatim, except my responses to pre-empt your concerns.
- Sources. The original sources initially weren't consulted, most of them were in French, and Editorofthewiki stated that he doesn't read French. Text wasn't always supported by the sources, and additional sources surfaced that hadn't yet been consulted. Considering that editors now have access to the new and original sources, proper research to write a comprehensive article of featured caliber can now be conducted. Of greater concern is that a number of supporters didn't understand that Wikis aren't reliable sources, and an article translated from another Wiki without consulting the original sources does not meet WP:V.
- Oh the original sources have been consulted now, by User:Nishkid64 (another large author of this) and myself. Disclaimer: I do read a bit of French, but I am not that great of a speaker to engage in an actual conversation. The information not supported by the sources was mostly me adding a ref tag in between something that was reffed to something else, and I consider this problem resolved.
- Translation. Several translation issues were raised; writing a featured article without being able to read most of the original source material is a greater challenge. The article was initially translated from the French wiki, using Google translator. I speak fluent Spanish, and ran several samples through Google translator and found that the results weren't usable for a quality article; they might provide an adequate start to fill in a redlinked stub or perhaps to raise a stub to a start-class article if I (as a fluent speaker) also consulted the sources to correct the errors introduced by Google translator, which are substantial.
- One can write sentences in French in different ways, especially in quotations. Since there were no English sources to verify this, we had to rely on ourselves. The French part of this was mostly taken from Leon M'ba as a content fork, and Nishkid (who wrote most of that article relied firstly on Google translater and then native French speakers.
- POV. Some of the discrepancies identified by Ling.Nut in his userspace analysis of the sources indicate the possibility that some POV may have crept in, either from the original article, from the translation or from the incomplete sources. It will take some time to analyze all of these issues, re-consulting the original and new sources.
- I believe the POV issues were fixed at the FAC, but I will be happy to fix anything specific.
- Comprehensive. Questions about the comprehensiveness of the article were raised early on; they continued to emerge as new and original sources were examined. Having access to all of the sources should be helpful in doing the level of research required in a featured article.
- The "new and original souces" that Sandy mentioned were Darlington 1968 and Matthews 1966. I have incorporated anything of value into the article. Ling mentioned that the Gabonese oil industry became dominant over the timber profession. Interesting fact, but that had nothing to do with the actual coup.
That said, I honestly believe this is the most comprehensive and best written article on the coup. There may be some nitpicks, sure, but I do not anticipate anything major. I am looking forward to your comments! ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be harsh, but help by more and different editors is required before resubmission. Tony (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: Withdrawn by nominator [38]. Maralia ( talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [39].
This page has undergone significant improvement over the last month by
User:Jclemens and I. It has undergone a peer review, and I think it is almost at FA status. All comments are welcome, although supporting ones would be great. ;)
Corn.u.co.pia /
Disc.us.sion
04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments -
Yes, thanks for bringing those up there, as well. Upshot of my response there was that these all seemed to fall under and be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. My followup question, which didn't get answered on that page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [40].
I, as well as lots of others, including
User:Sn0wflake and
User:SoothingR, has worked really hard on this article and I can't come up with more things to edit or add. I definitely think it deserves to be a featured article.
- Aki (
talk)
13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [41].
I'm nominating this article for featured because I have read it over, and was quite impressed. Also, since it's already A-class, this nomination might be the article's only step away from being featured. Kudos to Hurricanehink, the article's main contributor.
Dy
la
n
6
20
Life story 22:57 UTC
October 16,
2008
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I have made an effort to contact Hurricanehink, but due to his long wikibreak he will not be back until December. Dy la n 6 20 Life story 23:18 UTC October 16, 2008
As I recall It dit did not passed do to article length not how not notable off a storm it is. Shortly thereafter, ACE went in there. now it is a mess. Dylan, if you one to nominte FA or FT articles.
Hurricane Hernan (2008) could be a FA. I can make it a FAC because I created it. Cyclonebskit can also do it too. A good featured topic would be
Hurricane Ioke,
Tropical Storm Zeta (2005),
Hurricane Fausto (2002),
Hurricane Ekeka,
Hurricane Faith (1966),
1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane,
Hurricane Vince (2005), or
Hurricane Maria (2005).
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment I note that the nominator isn't a significant contributor, and that one of the main contributors seems to not wish this nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [42].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because, as most do, I feel it meets
FA criteria. It has went under three different
GA reviews under one nomination, two different peer reviews (one before GA and one after GA), and under multiple copyedits and smaller reviews.
Will
C
07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - Sorry, but I don't believe this meets the standards set by recent wrestling PPV articles. Here's a rundown of some issues with the article.
Overall, this is not yet ready to become featured, at least in my view. More copy-editing would be beneficial, and some trimming of unnecessary details would help too. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [43].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because since it has been voted a Good Article (GA), it has been widely increased in scope and size (
diff) and certainly is now as complete as can be on this subject.
RCS (
talk)
18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Support Very complete and well done article. Two comments; the first is the font below the map needs to be fixed as there not enough space between the items. The second is do we really need the image of Sarkozy? It's a great image but not really necessary. Plus the opposition from French has gone back decades and Sarkozy just continued the tradition. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment about the map: I would prefer to have a dot by each number. Nergaal ( talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [44].
This is one of the better articles at
WP:CHIFTD, which is about to be promoted to
WP:GT. I have addressed most of the issues at
WP:PR.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Giggy's comments based on this version
Giggy ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning towards oppose at the moment, mainly but not entirely on prose concerns.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 19 October 2008 [45].
I've spent a couple months working on this. As far as I can tell, a recent bout of copyediting by myself has brought the article up to featured standards. I was surprised at how much information I found on this, considering that the storm never even made landfall in the United States! Cheers, –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments -
Question - Considering the discussion about small articles that is currently ongoing, I think it is worth asking why this article has been branched off Hurricane Noel at all. Awadewit ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Eliminate redundancies and merge back. Marskell ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I am beginning to discuss with the nominator about improving the article. I don't want to say here how the article isn't an FA so officially I am not presenting any objections. Chergles ( talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:20, 18 October 2008 [46].
It was very simlar to
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) but much longer and a little more notable and a little longer lived storm and article was around a little longer (the first EPAC fishspinner to receive an article)
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
* Support Although you aren't the main contributor,
User:Cyclonebiskit is, but this article covers the storm well and there are many references. I will tell cyclonebiskit now and see what will happen. --
Kirk76
1854 Atlantic
Hurricane Season
15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
* Oppose this article may be good, but this is not comprehensive or long enough for my taste. --
Kirk76
1854 Atlantic
Hurricane Season
15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
I am not sure what you mean. Leave Message or Yellow Evan home 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
*Oppose even though I've done basically all of the work for this article, it is definitely not ready for FAC....For one, I don't have "Professional writing" and nor do you. Another is that I haven't updated it with the TCR information. That should quick fail it because it's not up to date...
Cyclonebiskit (
talk)
17:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
First, update before anything else.
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
1. we use fishspinner a lot although it is not a real word. 2. i think it worth a try. 3. Eilda will probably be featured soon.
Leave Message or
Yellow Evan home
18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
My decision: a tiny bit more sources, if there are any, and we'll have the first deserving FA of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season series. -- Dylan620 ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 15:00, 16 October 2008 [47].
Bringing this back a few months after the last FAC. I've done a fair bit of work on it since then I think it now meets criteria. Giggy ( talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: withdrawn by nominator. Maralia ( talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [48].
Nominating because I feel it finally not only meets all the FA criteria, but all the criteria raised by other reviewers in previous attempts. Having recently passed GA status with a very positive review, this article has been heavily worked on by myself and other editors, leading it to really meet all the requirements from the criteria. As per normal, any last-minute changes or suggestions are welcome and will be addressed.
Domiy (
talk)
07:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose - based on criteria 1a. I suggest enlisting the help of a copyeditor go through the article and iron out the prose. Here are some examples of things that need to be fixed.
All of this is just from the lead. This article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone not close to it (i.e., not Domiy or Malez).
Yohhans talk 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
It is easy to see where your opposing prose comments come from, however it should once again be noted that some strong aspects of it are not applicable and are rather misunderstood. Hopefully I have addressed such in this reply. Domiy ( talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Image comment - For the Bilic photo, don't just post a link to the Flickr home page. Include a link to the photo itself. The images should be checked anyway, because that was a major reason the last FAC was archived. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment
Oppose also on criteria 1a. You have put a hell of a lot of work into it, but I still maintain a peer review may help to iron out the problems with the prose. The article certainly looks thorough, and is largely neutral, but there are several places where the prose could be improved. Including but not confined to:
I echo Yohhans concerns about the prose quality and suggest at the very least a copy-edit. Peanut4 ( talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I'm in agreement with the other reviewers. Here are a few more examples of questionable prose.
Please keep in mind that these are merely examples of problems that are most likely in the whole article. I merely skimmed through a couple of sections, meaning there are probably more issues than have been raised so far. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - some low points:
It is necessary. Every other national team page has them, including the Scotland page which is already a Featured Article. Domiy ( talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) These are enough to convince me this needs much more work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [49].
I am again nominating this for featured status because it is the most comprehensive account of this man's life, online and offline. The article failed FAC before mostly due to prose concerns. Now that
User:Ceoil copyedited it I think the problem is resolved. ~one of many
editorofthewikis (
talk/
contribs/
editor review)~
23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Giggy's
comments
Giggy ( talk) 11:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [50].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. It is already at GA and is stable.
Dalejenkins |
19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose for the moment. The article is interesting and informative, but it is not at present set up like a featured article.
Dumped, which was filmed in June 2006, was initially scheduled for Channel 4's Spring 2007 line-up. [1] [2] However, this did not occur and the programme was then postponed until the start the channel's period of "creative renewal", which was established due to the racism controversy that occurred during the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother. [3]
Apart from its dubious construction and a missing word, I reckon that anyone unfamiliar with recent British reality TV history wouldn't understand what this paragraph was about. I suggest at the very least you delete the unnecessary words "this did not occur", and attempt a brief explanation of "creative renewal" (which doesn't need to be italicised).
The article does not appear to have had a peer review. I would strongly recommend this before it is returned to FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note No response after 10 days does not suggest much commitment on the part of the nominator - who has been contacted. Should this still be here? Brianboulton ( talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008 [51].
This article is a
GA, and I'm nominating it for FA as a result of a
conversation on FAC about very short FAs. This article is 412 words long, which would make it by some way the shortest article ever to become featured. (The shortest I know of is
2005 Azores subtropical storm, which is 722 words of prose.) However, I believe it meets the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, and includes every scrap of information that I know of that relates to the magazine. I will start a thread on FAC talk titled
Very short FAs for any discussion that does not belong in this FAC, such as the general question of whether there is a minimum length for a featured article.
Mike Christie
(talk)
19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The science fiction genre was flourishing by the end of the 1930s,[1] but World War II and its attendant paper shortages led to the demise of several magazines. By the late 1940s the market began to recover again.[2] From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950.[3] Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954.[4]
Image comment - I am very impressed with the research that went into obtaining a free image for this article! Head and shoulders above the usual slapdash approach to images usage on most of WP Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs): If this article is to become featured at this length and comprehensiveness, everything else should be almost perfect.
Oppose Far far too short. I am all for articles being concise but this really fails 2b. It just isn't a sound article in terms of information given. If I'd seen this listed under FA articles and wanted to read it I'd be rather disappointed in the least by an article which hasn't been developed to the top level. The last section is barely beyond a stub and is basically a one paragraph article/ WHat happened to covering the various aspects of magazines such as background detail, production, critical reception etc which would normally have fleshed out paragraphs of their own on literature?? I've seen B class articles on magazines which are far more informative than this. The Bald One White cat 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Tentative Support once The Rambling Man's issues are addressed. I think the length is acceptible given the short run for the magazine. (How could it compare in length to
Electrician and Mechanic when the latter ran for 26 years?)—
RJH (
talk)
18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment—To me it seems all but FA worthy, despite the brevity. It is as long as it needs to be without delving into excessive detail. However:
reply
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I'm not impressed by the content to be honest. Okay, it's very, very short and doesn't, in my opinion, reflect "the very best work" of Wikipedia, as we should expect from FAs. But specifically:
Having said all that, I sincerely applaud the nominator for a considered approach to these shorter FACs, indeed initiating discussion in parallel with this nomination is a good thing. A better thing may have been to have launched said discussion beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Leaning toward oppose. Mike is trying to make some case law here, and I support that intention. I don't have a problem with the length issue (pending FA talk page outcomes) but I am with Johnbod: Republic Features Syndicate has no article nor is it even redlinked. If the publication is notable enough for an article why not the publisher? And if the publisher had an article would this page be merge material? Until satisfied on these questions, I cannot support. As noted elsewhere, I believe small articles should be featurable but the merge issue needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis. Marskell ( talk) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:59, 13 October 2008 [52].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. I spent months re-writing the article in my userspace more or less from scratch, doing tons of referencing and bringing it to what I felt was a fine state of readiness before moving it back into the mainspace. Other editors then contributed tweaks and revisions, and the article passed GA very easily with only 1 or 2 minor corrections needed. At this time I can think of no further improvements that could be made, and so I believe it is ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status.
IllaZilla (
talk)
02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:19, 13 October 2008 [59].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is ready for a bronze star. This material was spun out from the
Iowa class battleship article during the latters FAR a month or so back at the suggestion of
MBK004 (
talk ·
contribs) as a way to reduce the size of the article. Since Iowa class battleship is already featured the material was already well sourced. It cleared A-class a few weeks back, but before I could get the article here school started and my priorities shifted, but we have lull week here so I am taking advantage of the downtime to go forward with the FAC. I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patiences, it is likely that school work has temporarily tied me up.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The article needs somebody to go through the prose; it's rough in places.
These are just examples, get somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Comments
Comment While the situation is confusing, it now looks like two or three Zumwalt class destroyers will be built, so it's not correct to say that the program has been 'canceled' as the article does. Nick Dowling ( talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:57, 12 October 2008 [60].
I nominate this article because I consider it one of the best on Wikipedia. I worked a lot to improve it and I hope You'll agree. Thank You! — Hadrianos1990 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - An interesting article that I enjoyed reading, but further copy-editing is needed. Here are some examples:
These are just a few example of many problems. A fresh pair of eyes is needed; the whole article needs attention. Graham Colm Talk 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - too many little problems - GrahamColm has pointed out half a dozen - other things stood out to me...
As Graham said, this whole article needs a copyedit, preferably by an independent native English speaker. Right now, not close to FA I'm afraid. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail - Writing is not close to FA standard. With the nominator blocked for using another editor's name to blatantly stack the vote, he/she can't respond to the opposes. With that being the case, I see no reason to keep this here. And that bullying was disgraceful too. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:49, 12 October 2008 [62].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've done my best to expand this article on a truly beautiful and dangerous volcano in Colombia. This stratovolcano caused the deadliest lahar in recorded history and killed some 28,000 people. Therefore, I'm donating this work to them. I've worked long and hard over this article, harder than I have on any other, and I think it's ready to be featured. —
Ceran (
Strike!)
00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 02:25, 12 October 2008 [63].
This is another short article about a small battle in the Texas Revolution. The more I research and write about these battles, the more I understand the saying "God protects children and idiots". It amazes me that the Texians won anything. I look forward to any constructive criticism.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image comments - This seems more like a peer revies request, rather than a FAC, but ... I would prefer a map giving the location, possibly add the {{coord)) template, FOP pictures of the various comerative plaques, gravestones should be included. Any pictures of the protagonists are likely to be free due to expired copyright (assuming there are any). Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Can something that only had 150-160 persons involved be called a battle ? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments: It's not that short (2,200+ words). It looks comprehensive. But I always worry slightly when articles come to FAC without GA or PR; there tend to be niggly things that could have been sorted out there. In the lead alone:-
I'm reading on and will deliver further comments later. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I've read it through carefully. Here are some further comments on the text:-
That's it. A simple, even slight, story, effectively told. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments on
this version —
Jappalang
Lead
Background
Prelude
Battle
Aftermath
General
The prose is very good. So far, I have only those little thoughts above. Jappalang ( talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I really appreciate all of the reviewer comments, and I will definitely be working on the article to incorporate the suggestions I've been given. Unfortunately, real-life pressures mean I won't be able to complete this task in a timely manner, and it is best that the nomination be withdrawn for now.
Karanacs (
talk)
02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [64].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've overhauled it during September in order to promote it as much as possible, give that it is of top-importance. It
passed an A-class review on 22 September 2008. There might be some copyediting issues which i'm willing to resolve within this nomination. --
Eurocopter (
talk)
11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Weak/Borderline Oppose - Going through it now, I'm finding some problems, especially in terms if prose. I'm still going through it, but examples include:
strong oppose - There are serious licencing issues regarding the first few images, which have depreciated Russian licence tag Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment because of the overwhelming forces that the Red Army deployed it makes sense in most of the article to mention Soviet Units sizes considerbaly larger than the opposing German force, Eg a German division defending against a army of Red Army. For the initial part of the battle and the Battle in Berlin, I think this is done reasonably well. But in the section the Battle outside Berlin, there are problems. I originally knocked up the text intending it to be expanded until the detail could be moved into a subsiduary article similar to that of Battle in Berlin. Because it is only an outline many of the sentences are not complete and carry a potential POV. For example take the sentence:
Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army made a fighting retreat back towards the Elbe and American lines after providing the IX Army survivors with surplus transport.
It could have equally have been written:
Having failed to break through to Berlin, Wenck's XII army was forced back away from Berlin along its communications lines by the 4th(?) Guards Tank Army where rather than capitulate to the Soviets many including Wenck crossed the Elbe and surrendered to the Americans. (I got the 4th from a sentence someone added the the Battle of Halbe article "Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10km away from the German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe." but unfortunately they did did not source it.)
But at the time I wrote it I was using references that tend to look at things from a German perspective, and there was not a lot of detail on whether which Soviet units (at Army level) were involved and if the Soviets were intentionally just trying to drive the German XII army away from Berlin or were trying to envelop them before most could reach American lines. It is the same for the Battle North of Berlin. For example were the Soviets trying to reach Denmark before the British did and were they trying to envelop the German III Panzer Army and the German XXI Army or did they plan to drive them West towards the British? A sentence on the fate of Nazi Felix Steiner would be nice to have (so much for joining the Nazi Götterdämmerung in Berlin) as would a couple of sentences on the Soviets capture of the physical headquarters of OKH and OKW which were at Zossen, did most of the staff get away to new headquarters and continue to operate up until the end of the war, (if so where?), or did the staff organisation disintegrate with every man for himself or was it a bit of both? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [65].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel very little can be done to expand it, and it is at its best potential right now, which I feel is FA potential. It is perhaps not as lengthy as other FA articles, but it covers all significant points, its prose is perhaps professional or near professional, it is well-referenced, and neutral. In summary, I feel this article is ready to be a featured article and I welcome any constructive criticism. Please note that I'm also, in part, opening this nomination to see if there's anything that can be done to significantly improve the quality of the article. If there is not, then I feel this article should be passed. --
The Guy
complain
edits
02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Giggy ( talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
indopug ( talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Tony (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Efe ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [66].
Kaunas Fortress is already a
good article, it also got an A-class rating from military department. Article is topical, as it covers the history of the largest and best preserved originally
Russian Empire's fortress. Article is written using newest academic research on the subject, richly illustrated with pictures, both contemporary and present, article is stable and comprehensive. I think article meets all FA criteria.
M.K. (
talk)
12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The writing needs ironing out throughout: here are examples of why, just from the top.
(talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Spot-check—the lead doesn't fill me with confidence, and after all this time ...
Further down, at random:
I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. The article needs a solid and careful copy-edit by someone who is well positioned to make it a smooth, enjoyable read. It's a good topic and it's a promising article, but I think it deserves a bit of air and resubmission after a few weeks. It will probably go through more quickly on second ride. Tony (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose This article seems to be well-structured and comprehensive, but it does not yet meet all of the FA criteria.
Prose - I agree that the article could use a copyedit. While reading I saw a few infelicities. For example:
Sources:
Images:
While I am opposing at this time, I hope to be able to support once these issues are resolved. Awadewit ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
These are just random samples. Doesn't augur well. Tony (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 8 October 2008 [69].
This article is much better, having been FA'd once to great improvement and then worked on in peer review. All issues should be addressed now, so lets' do this again! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Giggy (ec)
More to come... tomorrow, hopefully. Giggy ( talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. Surprised there's still this much to do. Here are random examples just from the top.
Images (all non-free) check out ok; I'd like to see appropriate copyright ownership on the Samus and original Metroid pictures to round them out, but that's not going to fail their use here. -- MASEM 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [70].
I have been working on this article for a while, and following a short peer review, I now believe it meets all the FA criteria. One thing that does bother me about this article though, that I can't really fix, is there's no free picture of Mark available. It would certainly improve the article. If anyone knows where a free pic of him could be obtained, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent article. Thanks for any comments. --
how do you turn this on
16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Images - There are excessive non free images, one should be removed ( WP:NFCC#3). What efforts were made to obtain freely licenced pictures? Fasach Nua ( talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Support and comments—I can't comment on the prose, but it seems as if you have solved all the issues raised currently. This is quite an interesting article, and I admit that I didn't know who Mark Speight was before reading this—a sad story. In any case, I believe that this meets the FA class requirements, especially since the image issue seems to be largely resolved and everything to do with the references has been fixed, as well. Good luck! JonCatalán (Talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Undistinguished prose: Oppose. Tony (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's saveable, but needs attention from a new collaborator. Here are examples of what I mean, at random. reply
Oppose a few issues for me...
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I've fixed all these issues. -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've asked a few people to copy-edit through. However, I've fixed everything Jbmurray has brought up (to the best of my ability), so I don't think anything in this oppose is actionable now. It's far too vague currently for me personally to fix. "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a because... blah" is so much more helpful that "Oppose - doesn't meet 1a. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how it doesn't". -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
More later. Giggy ( talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please make sure all the references are formatted properly? I wouldn't want this to fail over something as small as that. Thank you! -- how do you turn this on 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please tell me what the issue with the prose is so I can fix it? Jbmurray thinks this article is still "seriously deficient" (and unsurprisingly, hasn't bothered to say why). What exactly does need fixing now? -- how do you turn this on 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I'm just finding too many niggly problems for this to be considered Featured quality or "fixable" at FAC. Suggest third party copyedit or return to PR. Issues I uncovered during speedy review of first portion of article:
Sorry again. It's not that far off and should be fairly stable, so I look forward to seeing this pass soon. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I have been asked for, and I haven't been able to read the above in detail; here's a start:
HDYTTO, you have a great start here and a lot of good info to help towards the final tweaks of the article. Four opposes this far in to a FAC can be hard to overcome, and opposers have opined that the work is too much to accomplish in the tenure of a FAC. Working on the issues raised and re-approaching FAC in a few weeks will give this article the best shot at a successful FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 7 October 2008 [72].
Over the past week or so, I have completely re-written this article. Before, it didn't make too much coherent sense and was quite covered in redundancy. I believe the article now meets the criterion. I think the text is comprehensive and provides an all-round view of the topic. The article is sourced to forty-three (43) reliable references, consisting of a healthy meld of web and book sources. It is well formatted and of a good length (36KB), and the text is brightened up by six (6) illustrative images. It has a strong lead section that I believe introduces the article concisely but informatively. I hope reviewers will provide me constructive criticism and express their thoughts on the article. — Anonymous Dissident <span <style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose 1a - I don't know much about physics (imagine; a mathematics aficionado not know much about physics!) and so I can't comment on much of the technical side of this article, but the prose isn't up to par.
I'm out of time for now; I've read a fair portion of the article though have only taken points from the very beginning. I intend to finish the reading and point out more examples tomorrow. Nousernamesleft ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
comment - Looks pretty good after a quick read. In places the text is a bit thick, and leans jargony (especially towards the end sections). There may not be a good way to reduce that without very long explainitory sections, which can be equally awful to read. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments, mainly on the proseSupport I meant to come back earlier, and say that this looks good, has been worked on meticulously and is ready for FA.
Brianboulton (
talk)
23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Look, I’m only half way through the History section and I’m finding prose problems just about every sentence. This article should have had a proper copyedit before coming to FAC, but if you like, I’ll do one now. It might take a while, but it’ll be worth it, as no way is this prose going to make FA as it stands. By the way, I’m a non-scientist but I find the subject interesting, even if I don’t understand all the detail. Leave me a note on my talkpage if you want me to do a copyedit. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Giggy
From the lead. Sorry about the ramblings. Giggy ( talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the article and the featured article criteria more carefully, to decide whether to vote for support. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Continuing my (Giggy's) comments, there's a few more up above.
I'll finish it off... soon. :-) Giggy ( talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Ruslik ( talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) You're rewording my statement. Not opposition, not a hunch. Leaning opposition, based on (possibly incorrect) perception that it omits facts )omitted unintentially because they are obvious ones... and for the reality that I read the article and still didn't have any idea what a quark was until I read other articles, which to my mind is unacceptable for an FA. But I have to close now, 'til tomorrow. Striking mention of Oppose to avoid miscommunication; will talk more tomorrow... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to User:Ling.Nut/page2 and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) My point is that it's too condensed, to the point of opacity; no one can understand it without clicking through a number of other articles. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Oppose for now - the article has not reached the required standard yet. At this late stage I should not be finding mistakes, (see article history), but, my major concern is that possibilities to make the article more accessible have not been fully explored.
Graham Colm
Talk
10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Take just one example —hadronisation; the word appears without explanation three times. The most important section of all articles, particularly specialist ones, is the Lead, (let's face it, many readers will not progress further), and I think more can be done here. For example There are six different types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom, respectively denoted by u, d, c, s, t, and b. - do we need the notation in the Lead? And, do we need to use "flavor" here; does it help? I would like to see every sentence scrutinised and simplified where possible. I am not suggesting the article should be turned into baby food, but I would like to see more of an effort made with regard to accessibility.
(undent) I half don't appreciate the fact that my remarks/concerns are being painted as "silly". This borderline ad hominem is far from constructive, to say the least—and is taking the easy way out. I won't say more than the least, however. :-) As for Graham, if you think it is fixable, then {{ sofixit}}. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support: With the inclusion of the aces and strange quark discovery, I'm happy with the content of this article and with the way it's written.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose: You have to think about who your audience is. I believe that it is possible to say things about quarks that are understandable by a high-school student who knows about the structure of an atom. It is okay for parts of the article to be more technical, but that high school student ought to be able to read at least the beginning of the article with benefit. As it stands, there's no chance of that -- right from the start it's leptons and hadrons and other advanced physics cruft. Looie496 ( talk) 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I think it's an important article, and I'm glad someone has re-worked it, but in the present state, I don't think it's FA standard (yet). My main objection is that the article doesn't meet 1b - there are too many crucial aspects that aren't even mentioned. Also, it looks to me like there are some problems with what is there.
Some other issues:
Markus Poessel ( talk) 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 06:56, 6 October 2008 [74].
Hello, I'd like to nominate
Beecher's Handmade Cheese for it's first FAC attempt. It's had a formal peer review
here, and an
informal one on the article's talk page, with all the changes now in place, along with some extra copyediting and clean up beyond that. There likely is some grammatical horror or MOS trouble, because my copyediting work isn't my strong suit, and as I'm still learning MOS. Please let me know what needs improving! Thanks!
rootology (
C)(
T)
02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail—sorry, this nomination is premature and should be worked over by fresh eyes. Do you know how to find good word-nerd collaborators? Withdrawal and resubmission in a few weeks would be proper.
These are random examples from the opening two paras. Tony (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [75].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. And looks really good.
Lord of Moria
Talk
Contribs
17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sorry to be negative right at the start, but the nomination statement is extremely feeble. There's nothing wrong with omitting it where there's nothing particularly useful to say. It won't have a bearing on the outcome, I assure you. It's mostly very well written. I spotted a few glitches, though. Passes 1a.
I think the article fails comprehensiveness and more research is required before the article gets to FA. Some specific problems:
There's a long, long way to go yet! Davémon ( talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose I don't often oppose on sourcing, but this one clearly fails the comprehensive guideline, because there is no evidence that several sources have been consulted. Specifically, there is no information from the Book of Lost Tales works, which would be important for the development of the location. Note that there are 805 books listed at Amazon when you search for Middle-Earth and Tolkien, have any of those works been consulted?
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [76].
I feel confident that the article is now ready for featured article status. A lot of work has been done on it, including updates since the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for any comments and contributions.--
Patrick
«»
00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs). Needs more work on the prose. I see that since the last FAC, the article hasn't been submitted to Peer Review. That should have been done first; especially for a large article over an important topic. Here are examples from the lead and the first section:
Note that these are just examples; please find someone to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Why is the motto not given in English? this is en.wikipedia? Fasach Nua ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I dont like the Religious affiliation table unless you know Baptist is a subset of Protestantism, which in itself is a subset of chritianity, then it doesnt make a lot of sence, there must be a better layout. Fasach Nua ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose by karanacs on sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns. Where are the books? As one of the original colonies, Virginia should have been the subject of dozens of books on its history, yet the article instead primarily cites self-published sources by various universities? That is not acceptable for a Featured article.
Karanacs ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
On references: As Virginia is one of the oldest states, the center of American republic democracy, the home state of 7 presidents, and a major center of slavery and its defense, I expect to see stellar sources about these issues. Instead, the citations list is full of multiple general sources that picked a phrase from here and a sentence from there. It's as if the citations list was padded to add more sources with the least amount of substance possible. I understand that this is an overview of Virginia, but this is to be a featured article on the main page one day. Sources at the local library should be plentiful and accessible. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
'Comment' "Unlike her nation-leading education system, Virginia has a mixed health record..." since when was a state considered female? Is there some official designation or is this just a floral term? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some time out problems with several links, and also some disambiguation probs too: Battle_of_Bull_Run, Chub, Consulting, Dace and even Virginia. -- Tufacave ( talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Kudos on the work done so far, but this needs significant improvement, beyond what can be accomplished at FAC. Historical facts should not be cited to sources such as websites for Prince William County Schools or a student project at Lehigh University. There are some really strange citation sources - the Freedom Forum's goal/mission is cited to an article about journalist deaths in Iraq, published in the New Zealand Herald? Referencing is the biggest issue, but other work is needed, too. Examples:
I would love to see this article brought up to FA status (and would be glad to help to an extent), but it's not there yet. Maralia ( talk) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support. There may be a few things to nitpick about, but overall this is an excellent article. Comprehensive, well-illustrated, and a credit to the project. I would have no problem with seeing this article display the FA star. -- El on ka 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [78].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process --
ThinkBlue
(Hit
BLUE)
19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm not entirely sure what's expected of an article of this type, so I'm not gonna support or oppose it. In my opinion it's a bit weak on biography, and ends up being a long summary of his various roles. Anyway, here's some copy-editing I did:
That's the main things I could find. Lampman ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—The writing needs scrutiny throughout, preferably by someone new to the article.
Down from lead: the "nee Lawrence"—place after Eckhart.
Tony (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose: As with above, I think there are many prose issues, as well as other confusions, of which these are examples:-
I could go on, but there are rather too many problems. I'm sorry to say that the article is not ready for FA yet, and needs rather a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [79].
I hope it fulfills the criteria and becomes "my" first FA
TheFEARgod (
Ч)
13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
oppose - Image:Anjouan invasion.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8, and FA criteria 3 Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - It's good to see an Africa-related topic here at FAC, though there are some issues to address before I can support:
-- Aude ( talk) 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [80].
Hi there, I would like to nominate this
good article for FA. I have worked on the article for quite a while now, and through Peer Reviews, I think that the article is ready for FAC. The other major contributor is
Serendipodous who is currently unable to co-nom because of another FAC. I will be ready to make any changes, if required - thank you for your time! :)
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments—The prose is generally good, but I shouldn't be able to find these issues easily in the lead. This means that another run-through by someone fresh is required throughout: not a big job, though.
Tony (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Can you provide a link here when buzzing my talk page? "English-language versions" (not British language- rather than picture-book versions). Can you persuade someone else to go through the rest of the article, please? Tony (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Further Comments
Comments from Giggy
That's just from the lead. Agree with Tony; prose needs some love. Giggy ( talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Karanacs ( talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [81].
I'm nominating this article because I believe that it has reached featured article quality. Back in July, the article was given good article status and the reviewer felt that the article
close to FA quality then. Since then, a peer review has been conducted as well as two copyedits. The article has 117 citations, a good bunch of images and an informative terminal diagram. As there's only one airport featured article, it's hard to gauge against, but I feel it meets, if not exceeds
its quality. The two copyedits have ensured the article is well written and comprehensive whilst the 117 citations ensure the article is factually accurate. The article is very much stable and the good article nomination has made the article well and truly neutral. The article has a concise lead, and is appropriately structured to
the appropriate WikiProject's guidelines and all citations use the appropriate template. There are several images, all with captions and the appropriate licences. All comments and suggestions will be taken on board. Thanks in advance.
Mvjs (
talk)
23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Giggy
*
http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Strathmore/EssendonAirport/15807 (ref 14) doesn't work
Giggy ( talk) 09:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Giggy ( talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Oppose until the prose is improved significantly. One of the most obvious problems is close repetition. Here are examples:
Please get someone else to work on it too. Tony (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Re-visit: spot check of "Route developments".
I find no reason to change my "oppose". Tony (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It doesn't have to excite, but it helps is it's a smooth read. Let's do another spot-check: "Awards and accolades":
I have to declare Quick-fail. The article has been here for some time, has sucked in reviewer resources, and still requires major work. It would be fairer and more practical to withdraw it and resubmit after two or three weeks, having revamped it in your own time. More collaborators required. Tony (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Everywhere I notice glitches.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [86].
I am nominating this article again as I feel it meets the featured article criteria. I feel the last nomination was closed a little early, and since then, I have kept the article updated (for instance, with news of the video game) and worked with the suggestions from the original FAC- minor fixes. The last discussion was a little clouded by some discussions about the article which are now resolved, and I can't see there being any further major objections. I am more than happy to work with people's suggestions, but I am finding that my time on Wikipedia is, at the moment, pretty limited, so I may take a little while to reply.
J Milburn (
talk)
21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Giggy ( talk) 10:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose for now by karanacs. I don't think the prose is quite there yet and the article is too detailed.
Karanacs ( talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [87].
The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines.
Taprobanus (
talk)
12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Spot-check of a subsection at random:
Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008
Oppose:
Comments on images
Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus ( talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:59, 2 October 2008 [88].
With current talk on short FAs (
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Very short FAs), I'm testing my luck. The article is as long as reliable and verifiable references permit me. I have gone through over 500 press reports, but nothing much on the person can be gleaned other than what's listed in the article that I had saved from an AFD.
=Nichalp
«Talk»=
18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
PS I've only now noticed that my good friend Nichalp is the nominator ... Sorry, but it doesn't change my assessment. Tony (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [89].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an article about an important Gabonese politician for which little information is present. In my own biased eyes, it is short but comprehensive and well-written, though I want to see if you think it meets the criteria. Your friend the
editorofthewiki (
talk/
contribs/
editor review)
02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Oppose This is a biographical article and is missing detail on nearly 30 years of his later life. Isn't this partly a representation of the content in the general 1964 and other articles translated from French wiki? Isn't the 1964 Gabon topic covered enough now? I find it very odd that given the very reason why the 1964 article was not promoted, you have now nominated this for an FA. I think there is a big difference between a GA and an FA. Why do you think this would pass FA with sources such as Echec aux militaires au Gabon en 1964 and Biteghe 1990 which you admitted haven't been verified in the way they hadn't in the 1964 article? I'm not questioning that the sources aren't reliable, I;m just wondering why you think this has a chance of passing FA when the 1964 coup article didn't which partly uses the same sources? The Bald One White cat 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [90].
I nominated this article several weeks ago because I believe it meets all of the standards for FA status. I did most of the writing, so forgive me if I sound immodest, but I believe the writing is strong, the coverage is comprehensive, it's verifiable, neutral and stable, well- and consistently-referenced and includes appropriately licensed images.
At the last FAC, one person supported promotion whole-heartedly. Another initially opposed and then supported conditionally and the condition was addressed. Others opposed on the basis of the length and detail of the lead. One person (who is apparently something of a problem child when it comes to the FA process) said it was missing citations and "not brilliant enough." SandyGeorgia expressed some concern about citations, finding it odd that a woman would go from being a member of the upper class in her home country to working as a maid in the US.
Following the close of the FAC, I left messages on the talk pages of each person who opposed the promotion, in hopes of getting additional feedback. With the exception of Sandy's, I got none. As I said in the first FAC, it's rather difficult to know what the reviewer is looking for in the way of additional sourcing or prose that isn't "brilliant enough" with no guidance as to what that reviewer believes needs to be sourced or where the prose needs to be brilliant-er. I believe I addressed the issue of the lead in the course of the first FAC and I believe I've addressed Sandy's concerns regarding attribution. I hope that if those same reviewers choose to participate again and still have concerns, they will try to help me improve the article by articulating them a little more clearly.
Apologies for this long-winded opening. Looking forward to going through this again and hope to see a different result! Otto4711 ( talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Image request - Please link the licence for Image:JOSE1.jpg Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: On reading over the image issues again, I think that the images should be acceptable under fair use at the very least, and I see Otto is working to get further documentation that they are free. I don't believe these should hold up the nomination, so I have changed my !vote to support. Karanacs ( talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Karanacs ( talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments I noticed that the lead begins with unlinked dates in month day year format, so I started changing your (previously linked, ISO format) accessdates to the same format - only to discover later in the article that there are quite of few instances of linked dates in the text itself, too. The cite templates are wonky—it seems most people don't know how to make them output unlinked accessdates—and I thought I was just tweaking things to follow your preference. Now I'm not sure what your preference is for date formats. If you could clarify whether your intent is linked dates (technically deprecated per MOS) or unlinked dates, I would be happy to finish 'fixing' things in either direction. Sorry for the confusion. Maralia ( talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
additional image comments
:::*Are you really going to hang this on my choice of the word "demonstrate" instead of "document"?
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this was ill-considered and borderline uncivil.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [91].
The article passed through GA and PR, and I decided to nominate it for FA status, and see what improvements it could use.
Diego_pmc
Talk
09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment - With the exception of Image:Concerned logo.png, I can't see any of the images passing WP:NFCC Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
The statements made in the Themes section are not WP:OR. The author mentioned in his notes to what aspect of the game he made reference to in his comic - I should have included refs to the notes as well. Also about the prose from Plot section, it was already written when I started working on the article, and all i did was to remove some redundant details - I did not pay attention to repetitions.
I will try to address these issues in a couple of days. I don't understand what you meant when you said that the plot section is "unintelligible to someone who has never played the game", though. That it is a spoiler, or that it is confusing for someone unfamiliar with the game? In either case, I tend to disagree with you. WP is not censored, as I'm sure you know, so spoilers are accepted, and it doesn't seem confusing either - you only need to understand what's happening, not to actually be able to make the connection between the events in the comic, and those from the game. Diego_pmc Talk 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [95].
I've slowly been chipping away at this page for about two years and I started doing serious FA driven improvements 3 weeks ago and I believe this is the hardest I have ever worked on a page. You will notice that the article does not have an appearances section like other character articles, and the reason for this is simple. While a show like Lost has continuous storylines, The Simpsons has little or no continuity whatsoever, plus Homer has appeared in 420 episodes, so such a section would be a huge mess. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by myself. -- Scorpion 0422 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
oppose - The four non-free images Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg seem to fail WP:NFCC, the fourth image conveys no more information than Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png, failing minimal usage. The variation on the last three non-free images is not significant enough to meet criteria 8, indeed the change in appearence could be put down to expression, rather than character evolution. Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Reluctantly Oppose for now. I opposed this rather strongly last time it came up, so I felt I should give a thorough review again to assess the changes. First of all, let me say well done, this article in infinitely better than it was when I last read it. I do however have some reservations, particularly about the prose and one of the sections, which I have laid out below.
On the whole, this is a very nice article, an I would be neutral but for the problems in the cultural influence section. I think the text needs a closer look, as described, to help it flow better and on occasion I was left wondering why information had been included when it didn't seem to connect with anything around it but on the whole this is a very fine effort and is not far from FA quality. Any questions, just ask. Regards, -- Jackyd101 ( talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I second the comments by Jackyd101. Pretty much hit the nail right on the head from my point of view. As much as we all love Homer (well I do at least) and as great as this article is, it may have some work to do. I have some of my own input that may help as well:
Comments Support by Moni3
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [97].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I need a break from the usual hurricanes. :) Seriously, though, I helped promote the article to GA a few months back, and after a recent massive expansion, this is clearly the most comprehensive account of this small road in the Hudson Valley of New York. –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Comments from Giggy
Giggy ( talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [98].
I'm renominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the
WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent
WP:PR,
WP:GAR,
WP:FAC and talk page concerns.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image comments - Three images are labeled both non-free and creative commons. The images should be arranged, alternating left and right per
Wikipedia:MOS#Images
Fasach Nua (
talk)
15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments - source concerns resolved at last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment on images - I looked at the fair use rationales for the three views of the sculpture again. I am satisfied that they meet the NFCC criteria. The two exterior shots of the sculpture show the distinctive shape of the sculpture and how it reflects the buildings around it (I agree that this could be better described in the caption). The one interior shot doubles as an interior shot and as an "in process" shot, that is, it shows the sculpture being constructed - it shows the seams before the polishing of the sculpture. In my estimation, this is an acceptable use of fair use images. Awadewit ( talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [99].
I'm giving this another go after a copyedit.
Gary King (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Sort of support, but your prose needs polishing: the thing is, it's within reach of being very good, but I'm seeing the same old patterns; shouldn't be hard to fix.
Gary, you might consider going back to some of your earliest FLs/FAs and scrunitising your prose in them. That would provide strategic distance, which I usually find instructive in my own writing. Tony (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
indi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).