The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:33, 29 October 2013 [1].
I am nominating this for featured article because this article has all of the elements to be on the main page. The article is long, but doesn't stay off of track on talking about the movie the article is based on. This article was very well written and is very interesting. The article is also very accurate about the movie itself in every way. It needs to be a featured article and i'm surprised that it has not been a featured article in the past. Ug5151 ( talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- the nominator has not made a single edit to the article, or has consulted any of the article's major contributors about this FAC. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 05:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Wikipedia is not about winning prizes (at least, I don't think so). 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is undoubtedly a good article in its current form, and if anyone wants to nominate it for FA or suggest further improvements, they are free to do so.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I endorse what Sp33dyphil says. Before any FAC nomination the nominator is required to ensure that the featured article criteria have been observed. There is no evidence that this article has undergone any preparation before its nomination; its "good article" review, against less demanding criteria, was 18 months ago. From a quick glance the article doesn't look nearly ready for FAC at present. Specific issues:
Beyond these criticisms, there looks to be some excellent and well researched stuff within this important article, and it would be a very good thing if a group of determined and knowledgeable editors were to spend the necessary time to develop it into featured standard. However, this will require a concerted effort over a period of time; it cannot be achieved by means of an obviously premature nomination. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [2]. reply
My first FAC; after working on this over on my namespace, I believe that after tightening the references, improving the prose and considerably reducing the bloat of the article, it is worthy of featured article status. A lot of the source material of the article was good, however, I felt that at one stage it had unnecessary sections and too much detail. I would appreciate any comments! Thanks! — JennKR | ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Just returning the favor with a prose review.
Lede
Development
Composition and recording
Music and lyrics
Release and artwork
Commercial performance
Critical reception
Support—on prose and media. I haven't looked at sources, but the formatting seems good at a quick glance. BTW, you might want to have refs 105 and 108 looked at. Great work. —
WP:PENGUIN · [
TALK ]
18:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Media check - all OK fair-use needs some work (all issues addressed)
Oppose—a good article, but not one of Wikipedia's best in my opinion.
@ Journalist: I've rewrote that section with the intention of giving it a lot more structure than it previously had. One thing I noticed the Aaliyah article does well is discussing the making of songs, although I don't think that's achievable here. Firstly because I don't think the sources exist, but also because this is an international project. Looking over the credits, almost all songs are recorded in two or three studios, and so I don't think we can write about songs coherently without veering into repeating the credits. With Aaliyah and The Way I See It—both using 3 studios—there is a sense that the recording/production had an atmosphere that people wanted to talk about. However, with 4, the production is on a larger, drawn-out scale; with some tracks, the vocals are recorded in one studio, its produced in another and mastered in another. Saying that, how the instruments, vocals and songwriting were carried out should help the reader build a picture of the recording process. Thoughts? — JennKR | ☎ 20:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply
If I may, I think part of where the prose fell short was that it seemed a little too robotic and stiff. I'm doing edits in varying places, but here are some examples of what I mean:
I hope these help. This is very close to being FA material since it's much more comprehensive and interesting. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Some more:
Support—happy to reinstate my support now that the article has been updated and further polished. Great work. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done (all, except where noted) — JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
—This is just two sections. I don't mean to nitpick. But the article is not ready. Orane (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking the time to make to take note of those prose errors, I know they're important to the FAC. Although this is just two sections, it is likely to be where most of the errors are as I wrote them completely from scratch and they haven't been reviewed by anyone. I think the previous music and lyrics section could be provide some more specific information about the music/lyrics of some songs, but as it stands, I don't want to expand this section much greater than it is currently. Looking at some other album FAs such as Kala (album) or Love. Angel. Music. Baby., their music/lyrics sections are equally weighted (or thereabouts) with other sections of the article, and although I agree that this section is undoubtedly one of the most important, the level of detail that this section previously held or may hold if expanded, I think is too much. It is also the case that some songs are discussed more than others: "Countdown", "End of Time" are afforded a section, whereas "I Miss You" is described within a sentence. I think this is because they were seen as some of the more provocative songs on the album, and the five/six sources I used for the section referred to them more (which is different to the previous version that used a lot of sources based around each song). In short, I'll see if I can pull out some more specific and interesting description of certain songs, but I don't think this section needs any serious tailoring. — JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is one of The X-Files more unusual episodes, featuring an baseball-loving alien. It, however, is also one of the series' more poignant episodes. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the late part of 2011, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. It has been edited multiple times since then, and has been copy-edited twice, once by Baffle_gab1978 and once by JudyCS, both within the last year or so. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comment: Being a contributor with an article at FAC just now, it was suggested to me that I consider reviewing another article or two. This seems like a fun one, so here I am. I have a few separate comments, so I'll use bullet points to make them easier to read.
Overall, though, very solid article. The details in Filming and post-production were especially interesting. I hope these comments are helpful, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meeta all of the FA criteria and the peer review for it it's closed and archived. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
You should crop that one photograph and add that to the infobox.— indopug ( talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here's how I would re-cast the first few paragraphs: "Alison "Ali" Hewson (née Stewart; born 23 March 1961) is an Irish activist and businesswoman. She is particularly prominent in anti-nuclear activism and the development of "ethical" businesses.
Raised in Raheny, and educated at University College Dublin, Hewson became involved in anti-nuclear activism in the 1990s. She narrated Black Wind, White Land, a 1993 Irish documentary about the lasting effects of the Chernobyl disaster, and has worked closely with activist Adi Roche. She has been a patron of Chernobyl Children's Project International since 1994 and has participated in a number of aid missions to the high-radiation exclusion zones of Belarus. She has also campaigned against Sellafield, the northern English nuclear facility. In 2002 she helped lead an effort which sent more than a million postcards, urging the site be closed, to Prime Minister Tony Blair and others. Hewson has repeatedly been discussed by tabloid newspapers as a possible candidate for political offices, including President of Ireland. None of these suggestions have come to fruition.
Hewson is the co-founder of two ethical businesses, the Edun fashion line and Nude Skincare products. The former, intended to promote fair trade with Africa, has struggled to become a viable business. French conglomerate LVMH has made substantial investments into both companies.
She is the wife of singer and musician Paul Hewson, known as Bono, from the rock group U2. The couple met whilst still at secondary school, and married in 1982."
I would put the rest of the information - the particular school, her university career, the couple's children and homes, etc. - into the main body of the article. I don't think the lead is the appropriate place to list people's homes and children, unless this is a vital part of "who they are". I tend to feel that the "above the fold" part of an article should tell our readers exactly what they need to know to be well-informed about something or someone, and this is generally stuff related to what it is that makes them notable.
Hope this is of some use. RomanSpa ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
''Jordan and Ali get up to go shopping. "We fight sometimes, don't we?" Ali says to her daughter. "But it's the age-old story: parents are stupid. And we weren't prepared for what has happened to us," says the woman who deliberately lists her occupation on her passport as "mother."
Oppose on sourcing. Talking of BLP, what makes the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror (five references each) good sources for a BLP? WP:BLPSOURCES instructs to avoid using such sources on BLPs, let alone featured articles. -- John ( talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because, first, it appears to have a chance to grade out against standards of FAs. Second, the elements and reasons which comprise the subject's notability separate him from many of his peers, and thus, grading the quality of the article against the standards of FA help highlight that the magnitude of these achievements from an oratory and informational standpoint which is otherwise not as fully explainable through the countless and ubiquitous statistics kept in the sport of baseball. Third, the subject is a prominent figure within the St. Louis Cardinals organization, and as such, is primed to make an even more significant mark on the franchise and MLB before his playing career is through. Elcid.ruderico ( talk) 08:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review: Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, but licensing is all fine. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Again, this is certainly a nice article, but if I'm finding this much as a baseball guy, I have to imagine the non-baseball guys are going to find a lot more that needs clarification or fine-tuning. Wizardman 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [7]. reply
This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I remember a co-worker telling me about this episode years ago (in particular, the deformed mother under the bed), and it's always been an image that's stuck with me when I think of the series! This article is typical of the high quality work I've seen from Gen.Quon (and Bruce Campbell), and I've only found minor issues here. I see nothing barring my support after these have been addressed.
Comments –
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [8]. reply
"Shahbag" is a demoted featured article, and can easily be tweaked to become one again. With community review and feedback (and, of course, affirmative action based on them) this looks promising to become an FA.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)
20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [9]. reply
Arthur's death had a major impact on English history, and his article was a mess. I've edited it throughout the last week and now I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. Alex ( talk) 21:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Drive by comment The final section on "popular culture" needs to be referenced, and would work better as prose. While I've got no idea what the availability of references is like here, it's generally preferred for such sections to provide a thematic discussion of how the person is portrayed in popular culture at FA level, rather than simply listing works in which they've appeared. Nick-D ( talk) 06:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Great topic, worthy of FA, and I commend your efforts on the article. I think this would do better going through the good article process before FAC, as there are a few issues that could do with being ironed out.
Always happy to see topics like this at FAC. J Milburn ( talk) 08:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comment The text needs some work. A few Americanisms struck a jarring note at first read-through, and there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINK. I'll look at the page again tomorrow and make such emendations or suggestions as I can. Tim riley ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply
- Alex ( talk) 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [10]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure that although this is currently listed a good article, the article deserves a better nomination. I feel that it is at FA standards, as it is comprehensive and well cited. Epicgenius( give him tirade • check out damage) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal.
I do not think the article is sufficiently prepared for FA status. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 08:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [11]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has improved substantially since the last FA. Issues have been added, and the reviews seem to be concrete now. The only thing that will be added in the future will be sales numbers. There's probably some minor grammatical and referencing issues that I've missed, although I've looked over them. Zach Vega ( talk to me) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest closure The consensus in the previous review (closed less than two weeks ago) seemed to be that a few months should pass before this topic is capable of meeting the FA criteria. Disappointing, the article still doesn't seem to have been fully updated since the last nomination as the "commercial reception" section is still focused on the first few weeks of sales and there's no mention of the news reports this week which have compared what seem to be disappointing sales of the 5C (though it's really too early to judge this) with strong sales of the 5S. Nick-D ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [12]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a solid, well-referenced, comprehensive article. It passed GA some time ago, and I believe that it has only improved since. As I am fairly inexperienced with the FA process, please don't come down too hard on me. Thanks, -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Jakob, I hope you'll take the above as constructive criticism and not be discouraged. This nomination does seem premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I realise it's frustrating to put the article up for Peer Review and come away with relatively few comments, but hopefully the above will give you some pointers for improvements, after which I'd recommend another attempt at Peer Review before renominating at FAC (pls note the instructions require nominators of archived FACs to refrain from nominating any article here for at least two weeks). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [13]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria or, if not, want to bring it up to that standard. Terfili ( talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This nomination does indeed seem premature and I hope, Terfili, that you'll take on board the comments above as a starting point for improvements. In the meantime I'll be archiving it so further work can be done away from the FAC process. I can see that the article had a peer review in 2012, but I'd recommend another being undertaken once improvements have been made. After that (and a minimum of two weeks following the archiving, per FAC instructions) it can be renominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [14]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article. — Ed! (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comments
Otherwise leaning support. Very good work. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The lead is just right. The infobox and categories are fine. The prose is generally lively and engaging, and effectively draws upon multiple sources while producing a coherant narrative. Quite impressive. The article seems both complete and balanced. There are a few deficiencies, as detailed below.
Closing comment -- Not sure where Ed is as far as this nom goes but without responses it's certainly not moving forward, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [15]. reply
A-class article, comprehensive, after several rounds of copyediting. Let's hear some comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Procedural note -- Per FAC instructions, a nominator shouldn't be putting up any article for FAC for two weeks after they've had a nom archived without seeking leave to do so; did I miss one of my colleagues agreeing to this one? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [16]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria--well-written, properly sourced, reasonably illustrated (with appropriate rationale), and as comprehensive as possible of the article's topic. Dan56 ( talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Media check - all OK (fair-use, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.
Source review - spotchecks not done. Which Long Beach for FN40? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Dan56 ( talk) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. All of my comments have been dealt with.
EddieHugh (
talk)
15:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. It pains me to oppose, since this article is complete, well organized, and admirably balanced. But it has systemic issues with close paraphrasing. Here are some examples that I was able to find.
I believe there are probably many other such instances, but I don't have access to any of the print sources so I can't be 100% sure. I want to stress that I don't think anyone was acting maliciously or in bad faith. I am sympathetic to the difficulties of accurately providing information from a source while still changing the wording enough, especially when it comes to discussions of musical styles... but I still think some of the examples I found are too close to be acceptable in a featured article. I'm more concerned about the examples I didn't find, due to my lack of access to written sources. Someone with access to all the written sources (the nominator, presumably) should go through each statement and ensure that the wording in the article borrows as little wording from the sources as possible, while still accurately providing the source's information. If that's done, I'd be glad to reassess. – Quadell ( talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [17]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fairly important topic to be covered correctly, and is at the very least close to FA standard. It is of course a complicated and politically charged topic, so it is more difficult to cover comprehensively than some topics, but I think it does a good job now. It has been through a couple of peer reviews, and a thorough copy editing thanks to the guild of copy editors. There are a few dead links, but they are not retrievable so far as I know (they are protected by bots). Otherwise, it is technically in fine condition. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Looking mostly at references / reference formatting at the moment. Reference numbers and such based off this version.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
note - this is a result of the template
Done
Done
removed
...and I'm stopping here. I've probably overlooked problems along the way, but the referencing problems are so pervasive at this point that I'm actually going to have to oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Moving to look at the article content:
Done
Done
Likewise, I think the sourcing critically under-represents scholarly analysis of the situation. I haven't taken the time to go through the journal articles in detail to determine what they can each specifically offer, but a few (and there are many more) of the scholarly sources considering this topic, but not cited, are:
Going to have to continue to oppose at this time (1b/1c/2b). Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment This a long article. I've only got some points for now.
Done
Done, although I left a shorter reference to the occasional complaints of foreign governments. I think they are relevant to mention at least. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done
Comment: Islamist/islamism seem to be quite widely used in the relevant articles cited. Major news publications, such as the NYT do use the term. As such, I don't really see a problem with using the term in this article, to mean essentially people who believe that Islam should be the most important guiding principle in politics, as per the wikipedia article on the subject - Islamism. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done
Image review
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [18]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think after passing MILHIST A-class review it is ready for the final stage. Two notes: 1) I am a WP:CUP participant 2) my responses may be a bit delayed over the next week or so due to Wikimania. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided (cleaned up a few image summaries and one placement). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Per my review at A-class level in Milhist; I am fine with the edits made since that time. Cdtew ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Article is well researched, lots of details and in depth coverage, has more than enough citations and is well written. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support looks excellent. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support I've sorted the "Other sources" and "Further reading" into alphabetic order for you. I can read the Cyrillic. Disclaimer: I reviewed the article at GA. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support....Ran some automated tools including citation bot and all looks pretty good. Would like a couple days to read through article a few times before I post further comments.-- MONGO 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment -- Based on a very quick scan, the article needs someone to go through the prose. In the lead alone, for instance, Thomas Jefferson is three times referred to as the subject's friend; once should be enough. Further on I noticed "In late 1775, considered joining the Saxon army"; easily fixed but this sort of error should not show up in an article with five supports for promotion to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Last will
Caution We presently have about five editors actively making numerous changes to this Good Article, so we need to proceed carefully. Already I have had to restore a number of items, and while sometimes it's good to scale down some of the text, it is not 'automatically' a good thing, especially when the truncated text starts to read like a police report or an entry in a dictionary. If there is concern that the overall page is too long (currently only at 75 k) please be reminded that there are many FA rated articles that are much longer ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... ) and are so because they are well written, ofter plenty of details and depth of coverage -- all FA requirements. -- Gwillhickers 10:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
(od) It seems that every time I return here there's something new in the lead that catches my eye. This time it's "After he attempted to elope with his employer's daughter and was mercilessly thrashed by the magnate's retainers, he returned to France. (Kościuszko never married.)". First of all, "mercilessly thrashed" is highly emotive for an encyclopedic article, especially in the lead. "Thrashed" alone would surely suffice to get the point across. Secondly, the bald statement "(Kościuszko never married.)" seems out of place here and for me raises more questions than it answers, e.g. did he never marry because of the thrashing? Suggest just dropping it from the lead entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 17:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Links in lede :
There seems to be quite a few links in the lede which I think would be better if they occurred in the body of the text, esp common knowledge links, such as
Poland,
Belarus,
Lithuania, and the
United States. If there is a consensus to reduce this number a bit we should, as it would be less distracting as the lede goes for any reader coming to the page to learn about Kosciuszko. It would seem that topics should only be linked here if they are key topics to the article's subject, and only when they are not common knowledge topics. The lede is not the place to invite the reader to tens of other subjects. Interest or curiosity for a topic/link usually occurs when that topic is used in context in the body of the text, imo. Currently there are some 33 links in the lede. I removed a few. i.e. Poland was linked twice. --
Gwillhickers
19:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Image proposal: Replace the Mount Kosciuszko, Australia image in the Memorials and tributes section with this double image of Polish and American postage stamps honoring Kosciuszko. The Mount Kosciuszko image is okay but it looks like it could be a photo of any of a thousand other hills. -- Gwillhickers 10:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adding image :
Outside opinion regarding closure: While I have not fully reviewed this article, I can say that it seems to have stabilized in the last few days, and the "Last will" section doesn't seem problematic to me in any way. I don't think it needs another image, though I don't think an additional stamp image would hurt the article either. With lots of "support" comments, I personally don't see any outstanding issues. – Quadell ( talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments Support from Hamiltonstone. Excellent article. Some points:
I hope [19] this is an acceptable fix; linking to the person in the lead seems simpler and more helpful than using a title (plus I dislike "province governor", where voivode is a recognized, if technical, English word...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Despite the various points above, very close to supporting. The line about "betraying" the army is the biggest clanger. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I have added (in the Memorials and tributes section) what I hope are the last few citations needed in the Kosciuszko article. For the last two months we have covered, fixed, reworded and tweaked this article in more detail than most as FA nominations go -- and it had major support before the latest round of 'adjustments' a few days ago. Are there any last items standing in the way of moving forward with the nomination? -- Gwillhickers 19:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I have copied the will to Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko. Can we please agree to move any controversial information to that article? It's an important subject, but it can safely be covered in the article with two - three sentences. I am not opposed to a dedicated section is a compromise version can be worked out, but if not, I will remove most of the content of this section from the article; as interesting as it is it is not a topic of core importance to the article beyond a brief mention. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Since no one bothered to say so in edit history or discuss this with anyone, I didn't realize that the first paragraph in the 'Last will' section had been moved to 'Later life'. Please discuss major changes with fellow editors. If the article keeps changing at the whim of any given editor without a discussion the article is not going to pass. The paragraph in question is much better placed in the 'Last will' section as it directly lead into the text covering Kosciuszko writing out his will. This was discussed with others several times, so that's where it will be returned shortly. If there is a consensus to move the paragraph to 'Later life' section then we can move it there then. Please cooperate with fellow editors here. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a lot of issues with the Last will section. The rest of the article is great, but it might be best to withdraw, fix the problems, and resubmit. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 21:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I think the article is relatively stable. I think the last will is fine with just one paragraph; NN's edit seems reasonable. The will is now mentioned chronologically, and has a short, dedicated session summarizing the topic - an elegant solution, methinks. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Why were all the image sizes recently forced so small? I've seen larger images in a dictionary. I returned the lede image to its default size. The other images should be fixed as well. The reader should not have to be forced to break away from the text to adequately view an image as he/she reads along. Images should not be forced small unless there is a good reason to do so. e.g.Image is very large in default size, etc. All the forced sizes may cause FA issues. Perhaps Coemgenus is right and the article be withdrawn from nomination until we can sort all these (new) issues out and a couple contributing editors learn how to cooperate with others editors. When several editors are actively working on a page, the normal, logical and considerate thing to do is discuss major changes. The images should be returned to their default and/or practical sizes. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note - as already mentioned several times, please do not use level 3 headers or higher. See the guidelines on top of WP:FAC for all nominators and reviewers. Higher level headers split the main FA-listing at WP:FAC and are disruptive for others (the nomination itself is only a level 3 section). If you have any question on such conventions, please feel free to ask one of the coordinators or on FAC-talk. Thank you. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Removing info about the names (Andrzej and Tadeusz) given to Kosciuszko at baptism is a mistake. This is basic biographical information and it was sourced with more than a reference to the ambassador's speech, but also by Gardner, 1942 (for Kosciuszko being a Catholic). US Ambassador Krol's speech is now a matter of public record, so it would seem this is more than a reliable source for simple information like baptism. Krol has a Bachelor's degree in History from Harvard University and a Master's degrees in Philosophy and Politics if there is any doubt about his academic capacity. There is also another source for the baptism, Kajencki, 1998, p.54, so we should return this important item using any or all of the three sources mentioned. -- Gwillhickers 12:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment — This nomination has been running for an exceptionally long time but issues are still ongoing, which are giving rise to stability problems. I know edits to FACs are common and are expected but we have gone beyond prose tweaking. I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please wait until two weeks after the bot has run before renominating, during which time I hope the remaining issues can be resolved. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [28]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it to be passing all the FA criteria. RRD13 ( talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose. You're nominating an article that is currently rated at start class, and that you have only made three edits to, for FA status. This is a naive and premature nomination. I think you need to familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and pick up more experience at article writing before even considering nominating an article for FA status. Mattythewhite ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal, unless the nominator asks one of the top editors to be co-nom. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. As someone who watched Joe Cole play with the West Ham youth team I feel his Wiki article should be better for a player who was once one of England's young starlets and who has won several major trophies. It fails almost immediately with the lack of referencing and then degenerates into the match-day reporting style seen so often in footballers' articles. I don't feel inclined to provide any changes at the moment as I did with the West Ham United article as I feel it would be best for the nominator to pick this up and go with it if they wish to.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [29]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets and exceeds the FA criteria: it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. While edits of a copy-editing nature are made occasionally, there has been no substantial disagreement about the article's content for a very long time, and vandalism is likewise very low. I believe readers will find that it follows Wikipedia's style guidelines very closely, including a well-considered structure and extremely careful sourcing throughout. It includes numerous freely-licensed images, and its length reflects the breadth and depth of information about C-SPAN available in third-party sources over its thirty-plus years in existence.
It is also important to mention here that, as the primary contributor to this article, I am also a consultant to C-SPAN. I have been involved with this article for a couple of years, however I have made no direct edits since late 2011; these days I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI, following Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. I realize that this may introduce added complexity to this process; when editors ask that changes be made, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this reason, I would like to suggest that reviewing editors be willing to make changes that are agreed upon. However, I also can find additional assistance to implement changes if necessary. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the process. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Between 1979 and May 2011, the network televised more than 24,246 hours of floor action. [4]
C-SPAN has occasionally produced spinoff programs from Booknotes focusing on specific topics. In 1994, Booknotes collaborated with Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer to produce a re-creation of the seven Lincoln–Douglas debates.[72]
Image review - images themselves are fine, but captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments - I'll be looking at sources, mainly where they are needed, how they are used, and if they are reliable. (Note: I am not doing spotchecks)
That's all I can do tonight. More later, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Ruhrfisch comments I have reviewed parts of this article and made some edits to it on WWB's behalf. As requested, I will review it here.
In the same section, I looked at all the refs cited and none mention the Supreme Court, so a ref is needed for that part of C-SPAN continues to expand its coverage of government proceedings, with a history of requests to government officials for greater access, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
More to come. I am glad to make edits based on these comments, as needed (just say so) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I am doing some copyediting as I read on, usually to tighten the text somewhat. If this is a problem, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I need to re-read the lead and the whole article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [30]. reply
This article was raised to GA a while ago, I've made some improvements to attempt to meet the FA guidelines. I raised it for peer review but received no response. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback. 87Fan ( talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose, 1a.
It's maybe GA quality, but the writing needs a lot of work to be FA quality. -- Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Leaning towards oppose unfortunately, owing to failure to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:
I don't have much time these days to do exhaustive reviews, but as you can see, there are problems throughout. I highly recommend another look from top to bottom for issues such as repetition, strange phrasing, lack of cohesion and redundancy. The prose does not flow as well as I would like (from a reader's perspective) and would benefit from a copy edit. PS: per MOS, do not list number of weeks in chart tables. Good luck! The Wikipedian Penguin 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose lacks a narrative and not all major sources have been used—specifically, the Buckley book (which forms the backbone of the David Bowie FA). I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero to get an idea of how FA-quality album articles are structured and written.— indopug ( talk) 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [31]. reply
I believe the article on Joseph Smith meets the nomination criteria. A recent peer review failed to generate even a single comment; I'm not sure if that meant that no one reviewed it, or that no one could find any problems with it. Regardless, this article is very well-written, stable (disputes have died down to a basically consensus level, despite his being a very controversial figure), and is about a very important figure in Western U.S. religious history. - Trevdna ( talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
It's certainly well-referenced! But I have concerns about the prose, ranging from extreme nitpicking to big-view misgivings about neutrality and comprehensiveness.
Much of this will be quick to cleanup, but I'm nevertheless going to have to oppose primarily on prose and neutrality grounds, at least for the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Please do not strike my (or other editors' comments). It is my prerogative to determine whether my objections have been satisfied. Also, as I read through this another time, there are pervasive formatting issues in the Notes. This list should not be considered comprehensive:
Finally, while it would clearly be a Herculian task, spot-checking of references is probably required before this can be considered for promotion. In looking at whether the reference in Note 311 was properly cited and/or reliable, I discovered a different problem: it makes a claim not directly supported by the source. The Note claims that Smith's 1842 son was stillborn, but the source merely states he died before receiving a name; these are not necessarily the same thing. I do not have the time to determine if similar issues exist with any other sources. I continue to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments, leaning oppose.
*Use of the contraction "didn't" outside of quotation
*Use of the contraction "wasn't" outside of quotation
*FN 168 is a dead link
*Ref "Quest for Refuge" is a dead link
There's more, but that will do to start. GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments I'm still in the process of reviewing this article, but I wanted to start by asking about your research process. I've noticed that there are lots of references to one or two biographies. There are obviously many biographies of Smith. Why did you choose to use these? Wadewitz ( talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [32]. reply
I am nominating this for feature d article because the article has been through extensive work in a short amount of time. I'm not entirely sure what FA completely entails, so I want to see what standard the article has to be held up to in order to obtain this status. Zach Vega ( talk to me) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose—giving this article some time to stabilize would bring more information such as commercial performance, long term reception and perhaps information on iOS 7 updates. Right now, the article only covers a "recentist" post-release analysis of the smartphone. Indeed as it is, it is a very strong article but only covers details on the phone's performance just shortly after release. With time, it will flourish into a more complete contribution with an overall conclusion/afterthought, which it lacks at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Since you've asked whether it is suitable for FA status apart from its stability:
This looks worth including: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/the-iphone-5s-motion-sensors-are-totally-screwed-up/ There are also lots of stories floating around about some people being unhappy with various aspects of IOS7, and especially its messaging software though this may not be a worthwhile topic to cover in this particular article. Nick-D ( talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [33]. reply
Since last time I have expanded the History section, which allowed me to spin it off as a separate article, which makes the main article shorter and more palatable. All the issues were addressed by myself in the last nomination, but sadly the article received neither any Opposes or Supports. Farrtj ( talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose Although I can see there is a motivation to get all the reference issues fixed, I am not satisfied with the details at all. Despite the fact you mentioned a few points of criticism, there are a lot more considerarble topics. Many things are not as they seem! There are a lot of contributions which are focusing on this issues. Especially I would like to focus the topics: * animal protection * healty attitdes *working condition. If you consider these in your articel I would support you.
Oppose at this time. I see this article has been a frequent guest of the FAC process, but there's still a surprisingly large amount of obvious issues here, including a nontrivial amount of problems with reference formatting. Reference numbers [in the original comments, anyway] are based on this version, in case they get moved about in editing:
In general, you have a lot of primary sources (including, I believe, BUCKET), press releases (none of which appear to be labeled as such as they should be: consider Template:cite press release), and a lot of references to marketing magazines, some of which (but not all, admittedly) are pay-to-play for big business clients or even just silent republishers of press releases with a shiny coat of paint. I'm not familiar enough with the industry's editorial standards to single any of those out, but someone else here may. Quite a few of them lack Wikipedia articles, which isn't damning in and of itself, but is at least a little cause for concern. Regardless, much of this material seems to be the sort that could be sourced to higher-quality third-party publications. While a cultural/business topic, there's more than a few scholarly journal articles on aspects of this operation, too, and more reliable books that aren't considered.
As far as non-reference issues go, there are also concerns:
Oppose at this time: 1a/1c/1d (due to the primary source and undeclared press release reliance)/2a/2c.
I am going to oppose on the grounds that the prose needs a bit of work, and some claims cannot be verified. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [34]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because the content seems similar in quality and documentation to that of many current FAs. Peer review was conducted a while back, and the changes made as a result are documented, along with rationales for any changes that were declined. The page is immensely stable, having never attracted any edit wars. Given the difficulty of finding any free-use images of the subject — from his youth he was member of a prominent retailing family and thus every photo of him I have yet found, even those of SM as a child, are protected by copyright, and his participation in government doesn't seem to have yielded usable images — the images used have had to be confined to those of places associated with him and one book-jacket, placed in the section of the article that discusses the book. The article's content seems to be that of an FA, although there might ways of dividing it that might yield a more substantive TOC for navigating the text. Lawikitejana ( talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Addendum: After looking through other nominations, I see they generally also discuss the notability of the subject. Stanley Marcus was a major figure in fashion retailing and a major contributor to the world-recognized brand of Neiman-Marcus. He appears in Harvard Business School's list of "20th Century Great American Business Leaders" and in the Houston Chronicle list of 100 influential Texans, as well as the Advertising Hall of Fame and the Retailing Hall of Fame. Lawikitejana ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment it is perfectly valid per WP:NFCC to have a non-free (copyrighted) infobox image of a deceased person, given no free alternatives. On the other hand, the book cover will have to go, as the cover itself isn't being discussed.— indopug ( talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose for the moment. This article has not been formally reviewed since it was made a GA five years ago, and the edit history doesn't indicate that there has been a concentrated effort to prepare it for this FAC, which suggests that the nomination may be premature. I have not had time to read more than the lead at present, plus a quick scan through the rest and some reference spotchecking:
I think your best course of action might be to withdraw this nomination to give yourself time for some serious updating of content and refs. Although the article obviously has merits – it looks comprehensive and well-researched – it looks in need of modernisation and is not, at this time, ready for FA promotion. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
(Added note): the external link checker indicates that several links are dead and that in several other cases the source content has changed. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Note for delegates: I rather think this editor has lost interest in the nomination and the article. Maybe consider closing the nom? Brianboulton ( talk) 00:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
TWP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 15:33, 29 October 2013 [1].
I am nominating this for featured article because this article has all of the elements to be on the main page. The article is long, but doesn't stay off of track on talking about the movie the article is based on. This article was very well written and is very interesting. The article is also very accurate about the movie itself in every way. It needs to be a featured article and i'm surprised that it has not been a featured article in the past. Ug5151 ( talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- the nominator has not made a single edit to the article, or has consulted any of the article's major contributors about this FAC. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 05:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Wikipedia is not about winning prizes (at least, I don't think so). 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is undoubtedly a good article in its current form, and if anyone wants to nominate it for FA or suggest further improvements, they are free to do so.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I endorse what Sp33dyphil says. Before any FAC nomination the nominator is required to ensure that the featured article criteria have been observed. There is no evidence that this article has undergone any preparation before its nomination; its "good article" review, against less demanding criteria, was 18 months ago. From a quick glance the article doesn't look nearly ready for FAC at present. Specific issues:
Beyond these criticisms, there looks to be some excellent and well researched stuff within this important article, and it would be a very good thing if a group of determined and knowledgeable editors were to spend the necessary time to develop it into featured standard. However, this will require a concerted effort over a period of time; it cannot be achieved by means of an obviously premature nomination. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [2]. reply
My first FAC; after working on this over on my namespace, I believe that after tightening the references, improving the prose and considerably reducing the bloat of the article, it is worthy of featured article status. A lot of the source material of the article was good, however, I felt that at one stage it had unnecessary sections and too much detail. I would appreciate any comments! Thanks! — JennKR | ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Just returning the favor with a prose review.
Lede
Development
Composition and recording
Music and lyrics
Release and artwork
Commercial performance
Critical reception
Support—on prose and media. I haven't looked at sources, but the formatting seems good at a quick glance. BTW, you might want to have refs 105 and 108 looked at. Great work. —
WP:PENGUIN · [
TALK ]
18:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Media check - all OK fair-use needs some work (all issues addressed)
Oppose—a good article, but not one of Wikipedia's best in my opinion.
@ Journalist: I've rewrote that section with the intention of giving it a lot more structure than it previously had. One thing I noticed the Aaliyah article does well is discussing the making of songs, although I don't think that's achievable here. Firstly because I don't think the sources exist, but also because this is an international project. Looking over the credits, almost all songs are recorded in two or three studios, and so I don't think we can write about songs coherently without veering into repeating the credits. With Aaliyah and The Way I See It—both using 3 studios—there is a sense that the recording/production had an atmosphere that people wanted to talk about. However, with 4, the production is on a larger, drawn-out scale; with some tracks, the vocals are recorded in one studio, its produced in another and mastered in another. Saying that, how the instruments, vocals and songwriting were carried out should help the reader build a picture of the recording process. Thoughts? — JennKR | ☎ 20:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply
If I may, I think part of where the prose fell short was that it seemed a little too robotic and stiff. I'm doing edits in varying places, but here are some examples of what I mean:
I hope these help. This is very close to being FA material since it's much more comprehensive and interesting. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Some more:
Support—happy to reinstate my support now that the article has been updated and further polished. Great work. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done (all, except where noted) — JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
—This is just two sections. I don't mean to nitpick. But the article is not ready. Orane (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking the time to make to take note of those prose errors, I know they're important to the FAC. Although this is just two sections, it is likely to be where most of the errors are as I wrote them completely from scratch and they haven't been reviewed by anyone. I think the previous music and lyrics section could be provide some more specific information about the music/lyrics of some songs, but as it stands, I don't want to expand this section much greater than it is currently. Looking at some other album FAs such as Kala (album) or Love. Angel. Music. Baby., their music/lyrics sections are equally weighted (or thereabouts) with other sections of the article, and although I agree that this section is undoubtedly one of the most important, the level of detail that this section previously held or may hold if expanded, I think is too much. It is also the case that some songs are discussed more than others: "Countdown", "End of Time" are afforded a section, whereas "I Miss You" is described within a sentence. I think this is because they were seen as some of the more provocative songs on the album, and the five/six sources I used for the section referred to them more (which is different to the previous version that used a lot of sources based around each song). In short, I'll see if I can pull out some more specific and interesting description of certain songs, but I don't think this section needs any serious tailoring. — JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is one of The X-Files more unusual episodes, featuring an baseball-loving alien. It, however, is also one of the series' more poignant episodes. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the late part of 2011, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. It has been edited multiple times since then, and has been copy-edited twice, once by Baffle_gab1978 and once by JudyCS, both within the last year or so. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comment: Being a contributor with an article at FAC just now, it was suggested to me that I consider reviewing another article or two. This seems like a fun one, so here I am. I have a few separate comments, so I'll use bullet points to make them easier to read.
Overall, though, very solid article. The details in Filming and post-production were especially interesting. I hope these comments are helpful, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meeta all of the FA criteria and the peer review for it it's closed and archived. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
You should crop that one photograph and add that to the infobox.— indopug ( talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here's how I would re-cast the first few paragraphs: "Alison "Ali" Hewson (née Stewart; born 23 March 1961) is an Irish activist and businesswoman. She is particularly prominent in anti-nuclear activism and the development of "ethical" businesses.
Raised in Raheny, and educated at University College Dublin, Hewson became involved in anti-nuclear activism in the 1990s. She narrated Black Wind, White Land, a 1993 Irish documentary about the lasting effects of the Chernobyl disaster, and has worked closely with activist Adi Roche. She has been a patron of Chernobyl Children's Project International since 1994 and has participated in a number of aid missions to the high-radiation exclusion zones of Belarus. She has also campaigned against Sellafield, the northern English nuclear facility. In 2002 she helped lead an effort which sent more than a million postcards, urging the site be closed, to Prime Minister Tony Blair and others. Hewson has repeatedly been discussed by tabloid newspapers as a possible candidate for political offices, including President of Ireland. None of these suggestions have come to fruition.
Hewson is the co-founder of two ethical businesses, the Edun fashion line and Nude Skincare products. The former, intended to promote fair trade with Africa, has struggled to become a viable business. French conglomerate LVMH has made substantial investments into both companies.
She is the wife of singer and musician Paul Hewson, known as Bono, from the rock group U2. The couple met whilst still at secondary school, and married in 1982."
I would put the rest of the information - the particular school, her university career, the couple's children and homes, etc. - into the main body of the article. I don't think the lead is the appropriate place to list people's homes and children, unless this is a vital part of "who they are". I tend to feel that the "above the fold" part of an article should tell our readers exactly what they need to know to be well-informed about something or someone, and this is generally stuff related to what it is that makes them notable.
Hope this is of some use. RomanSpa ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
''Jordan and Ali get up to go shopping. "We fight sometimes, don't we?" Ali says to her daughter. "But it's the age-old story: parents are stupid. And we weren't prepared for what has happened to us," says the woman who deliberately lists her occupation on her passport as "mother."
Oppose on sourcing. Talking of BLP, what makes the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror (five references each) good sources for a BLP? WP:BLPSOURCES instructs to avoid using such sources on BLPs, let alone featured articles. -- John ( talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because, first, it appears to have a chance to grade out against standards of FAs. Second, the elements and reasons which comprise the subject's notability separate him from many of his peers, and thus, grading the quality of the article against the standards of FA help highlight that the magnitude of these achievements from an oratory and informational standpoint which is otherwise not as fully explainable through the countless and ubiquitous statistics kept in the sport of baseball. Third, the subject is a prominent figure within the St. Louis Cardinals organization, and as such, is primed to make an even more significant mark on the franchise and MLB before his playing career is through. Elcid.ruderico ( talk) 08:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review: Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, but licensing is all fine. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Again, this is certainly a nice article, but if I'm finding this much as a baseball guy, I have to imagine the non-baseball guys are going to find a lot more that needs clarification or fine-tuning. Wizardman 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [7]. reply
This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I remember a co-worker telling me about this episode years ago (in particular, the deformed mother under the bed), and it's always been an image that's stuck with me when I think of the series! This article is typical of the high quality work I've seen from Gen.Quon (and Bruce Campbell), and I've only found minor issues here. I see nothing barring my support after these have been addressed.
Comments –
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [8]. reply
"Shahbag" is a demoted featured article, and can easily be tweaked to become one again. With community review and feedback (and, of course, affirmative action based on them) this looks promising to become an FA.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs)
20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [9]. reply
Arthur's death had a major impact on English history, and his article was a mess. I've edited it throughout the last week and now I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. Alex ( talk) 21:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Drive by comment The final section on "popular culture" needs to be referenced, and would work better as prose. While I've got no idea what the availability of references is like here, it's generally preferred for such sections to provide a thematic discussion of how the person is portrayed in popular culture at FA level, rather than simply listing works in which they've appeared. Nick-D ( talk) 06:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Great topic, worthy of FA, and I commend your efforts on the article. I think this would do better going through the good article process before FAC, as there are a few issues that could do with being ironed out.
Always happy to see topics like this at FAC. J Milburn ( talk) 08:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comment The text needs some work. A few Americanisms struck a jarring note at first read-through, and there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINK. I'll look at the page again tomorrow and make such emendations or suggestions as I can. Tim riley ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply
- Alex ( talk) 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [10]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure that although this is currently listed a good article, the article deserves a better nomination. I feel that it is at FA standards, as it is comprehensive and well cited. Epicgenius( give him tirade • check out damage) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal.
I do not think the article is sufficiently prepared for FA status. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 08:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [11]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has improved substantially since the last FA. Issues have been added, and the reviews seem to be concrete now. The only thing that will be added in the future will be sales numbers. There's probably some minor grammatical and referencing issues that I've missed, although I've looked over them. Zach Vega ( talk to me) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest closure The consensus in the previous review (closed less than two weeks ago) seemed to be that a few months should pass before this topic is capable of meeting the FA criteria. Disappointing, the article still doesn't seem to have been fully updated since the last nomination as the "commercial reception" section is still focused on the first few weeks of sales and there's no mention of the news reports this week which have compared what seem to be disappointing sales of the 5C (though it's really too early to judge this) with strong sales of the 5S. Nick-D ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [12]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a solid, well-referenced, comprehensive article. It passed GA some time ago, and I believe that it has only improved since. As I am fairly inexperienced with the FA process, please don't come down too hard on me. Thanks, -- Jakob ( Scream about the things I've broken) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- Jakob, I hope you'll take the above as constructive criticism and not be discouraged. This nomination does seem premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I realise it's frustrating to put the article up for Peer Review and come away with relatively few comments, but hopefully the above will give you some pointers for improvements, after which I'd recommend another attempt at Peer Review before renominating at FAC (pls note the instructions require nominators of archived FACs to refrain from nominating any article here for at least two weeks). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [13]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria or, if not, want to bring it up to that standard. Terfili ( talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This nomination does indeed seem premature and I hope, Terfili, that you'll take on board the comments above as a starting point for improvements. In the meantime I'll be archiving it so further work can be done away from the FAC process. I can see that the article had a peer review in 2012, but I'd recommend another being undertaken once improvements have been made. After that (and a minimum of two weeks following the archiving, per FAC instructions) it can be renominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [14]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article. — Ed! (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comments
Otherwise leaning support. Very good work. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The lead is just right. The infobox and categories are fine. The prose is generally lively and engaging, and effectively draws upon multiple sources while producing a coherant narrative. Quite impressive. The article seems both complete and balanced. There are a few deficiencies, as detailed below.
Closing comment -- Not sure where Ed is as far as this nom goes but without responses it's certainly not moving forward, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [15]. reply
A-class article, comprehensive, after several rounds of copyediting. Let's hear some comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Procedural note -- Per FAC instructions, a nominator shouldn't be putting up any article for FAC for two weeks after they've had a nom archived without seeking leave to do so; did I miss one of my colleagues agreeing to this one? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [16]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria--well-written, properly sourced, reasonably illustrated (with appropriate rationale), and as comprehensive as possible of the article's topic. Dan56 ( talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Media check - all OK (fair-use, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.
Source review - spotchecks not done. Which Long Beach for FN40? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Dan56 ( talk) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. All of my comments have been dealt with.
EddieHugh (
talk)
15:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. It pains me to oppose, since this article is complete, well organized, and admirably balanced. But it has systemic issues with close paraphrasing. Here are some examples that I was able to find.
I believe there are probably many other such instances, but I don't have access to any of the print sources so I can't be 100% sure. I want to stress that I don't think anyone was acting maliciously or in bad faith. I am sympathetic to the difficulties of accurately providing information from a source while still changing the wording enough, especially when it comes to discussions of musical styles... but I still think some of the examples I found are too close to be acceptable in a featured article. I'm more concerned about the examples I didn't find, due to my lack of access to written sources. Someone with access to all the written sources (the nominator, presumably) should go through each statement and ensure that the wording in the article borrows as little wording from the sources as possible, while still accurately providing the source's information. If that's done, I'd be glad to reassess. – Quadell ( talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [17]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fairly important topic to be covered correctly, and is at the very least close to FA standard. It is of course a complicated and politically charged topic, so it is more difficult to cover comprehensively than some topics, but I think it does a good job now. It has been through a couple of peer reviews, and a thorough copy editing thanks to the guild of copy editors. There are a few dead links, but they are not retrievable so far as I know (they are protected by bots). Otherwise, it is technically in fine condition. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Looking mostly at references / reference formatting at the moment. Reference numbers and such based off this version.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
note - this is a result of the template
Done
Done
removed
...and I'm stopping here. I've probably overlooked problems along the way, but the referencing problems are so pervasive at this point that I'm actually going to have to oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Moving to look at the article content:
Done
Done
Likewise, I think the sourcing critically under-represents scholarly analysis of the situation. I haven't taken the time to go through the journal articles in detail to determine what they can each specifically offer, but a few (and there are many more) of the scholarly sources considering this topic, but not cited, are:
Going to have to continue to oppose at this time (1b/1c/2b). Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment This a long article. I've only got some points for now.
Done
Done, although I left a shorter reference to the occasional complaints of foreign governments. I think they are relevant to mention at least. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done
Comment: Islamist/islamism seem to be quite widely used in the relevant articles cited. Major news publications, such as the NYT do use the term. As such, I don't really see a problem with using the term in this article, to mean essentially people who believe that Islam should be the most important guiding principle in politics, as per the wikipedia article on the subject - Islamism. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Done
Image review
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [18]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I think after passing MILHIST A-class review it is ready for the final stage. Two notes: 1) I am a WP:CUP participant 2) my responses may be a bit delayed over the next week or so due to Wikimania. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided (cleaned up a few image summaries and one placement). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Per my review at A-class level in Milhist; I am fine with the edits made since that time. Cdtew ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Article is well researched, lots of details and in depth coverage, has more than enough citations and is well written. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support looks excellent. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support I've sorted the "Other sources" and "Further reading" into alphabetic order for you. I can read the Cyrillic. Disclaimer: I reviewed the article at GA. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support....Ran some automated tools including citation bot and all looks pretty good. Would like a couple days to read through article a few times before I post further comments.-- MONGO 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment -- Based on a very quick scan, the article needs someone to go through the prose. In the lead alone, for instance, Thomas Jefferson is three times referred to as the subject's friend; once should be enough. Further on I noticed "In late 1775, considered joining the Saxon army"; easily fixed but this sort of error should not show up in an article with five supports for promotion to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Last will
Caution We presently have about five editors actively making numerous changes to this Good Article, so we need to proceed carefully. Already I have had to restore a number of items, and while sometimes it's good to scale down some of the text, it is not 'automatically' a good thing, especially when the truncated text starts to read like a police report or an entry in a dictionary. If there is concern that the overall page is too long (currently only at 75 k) please be reminded that there are many FA rated articles that are much longer ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... ) and are so because they are well written, ofter plenty of details and depth of coverage -- all FA requirements. -- Gwillhickers 10:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
(od) It seems that every time I return here there's something new in the lead that catches my eye. This time it's "After he attempted to elope with his employer's daughter and was mercilessly thrashed by the magnate's retainers, he returned to France. (Kościuszko never married.)". First of all, "mercilessly thrashed" is highly emotive for an encyclopedic article, especially in the lead. "Thrashed" alone would surely suffice to get the point across. Secondly, the bald statement "(Kościuszko never married.)" seems out of place here and for me raises more questions than it answers, e.g. did he never marry because of the thrashing? Suggest just dropping it from the lead entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 17:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Links in lede :
There seems to be quite a few links in the lede which I think would be better if they occurred in the body of the text, esp common knowledge links, such as
Poland,
Belarus,
Lithuania, and the
United States. If there is a consensus to reduce this number a bit we should, as it would be less distracting as the lede goes for any reader coming to the page to learn about Kosciuszko. It would seem that topics should only be linked here if they are key topics to the article's subject, and only when they are not common knowledge topics. The lede is not the place to invite the reader to tens of other subjects. Interest or curiosity for a topic/link usually occurs when that topic is used in context in the body of the text, imo. Currently there are some 33 links in the lede. I removed a few. i.e. Poland was linked twice. --
Gwillhickers
19:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Image proposal: Replace the Mount Kosciuszko, Australia image in the Memorials and tributes section with this double image of Polish and American postage stamps honoring Kosciuszko. The Mount Kosciuszko image is okay but it looks like it could be a photo of any of a thousand other hills. -- Gwillhickers 10:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adding image :
Outside opinion regarding closure: While I have not fully reviewed this article, I can say that it seems to have stabilized in the last few days, and the "Last will" section doesn't seem problematic to me in any way. I don't think it needs another image, though I don't think an additional stamp image would hurt the article either. With lots of "support" comments, I personally don't see any outstanding issues. – Quadell ( talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments Support from Hamiltonstone. Excellent article. Some points:
I hope [19] this is an acceptable fix; linking to the person in the lead seems simpler and more helpful than using a title (plus I dislike "province governor", where voivode is a recognized, if technical, English word...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Despite the various points above, very close to supporting. The line about "betraying" the army is the biggest clanger. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I have added (in the Memorials and tributes section) what I hope are the last few citations needed in the Kosciuszko article. For the last two months we have covered, fixed, reworded and tweaked this article in more detail than most as FA nominations go -- and it had major support before the latest round of 'adjustments' a few days ago. Are there any last items standing in the way of moving forward with the nomination? -- Gwillhickers 19:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I have copied the will to Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko. Can we please agree to move any controversial information to that article? It's an important subject, but it can safely be covered in the article with two - three sentences. I am not opposed to a dedicated section is a compromise version can be worked out, but if not, I will remove most of the content of this section from the article; as interesting as it is it is not a topic of core importance to the article beyond a brief mention. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Since no one bothered to say so in edit history or discuss this with anyone, I didn't realize that the first paragraph in the 'Last will' section had been moved to 'Later life'. Please discuss major changes with fellow editors. If the article keeps changing at the whim of any given editor without a discussion the article is not going to pass. The paragraph in question is much better placed in the 'Last will' section as it directly lead into the text covering Kosciuszko writing out his will. This was discussed with others several times, so that's where it will be returned shortly. If there is a consensus to move the paragraph to 'Later life' section then we can move it there then. Please cooperate with fellow editors here. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a lot of issues with the Last will section. The rest of the article is great, but it might be best to withdraw, fix the problems, and resubmit. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 21:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I think the article is relatively stable. I think the last will is fine with just one paragraph; NN's edit seems reasonable. The will is now mentioned chronologically, and has a short, dedicated session summarizing the topic - an elegant solution, methinks. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Why were all the image sizes recently forced so small? I've seen larger images in a dictionary. I returned the lede image to its default size. The other images should be fixed as well. The reader should not have to be forced to break away from the text to adequately view an image as he/she reads along. Images should not be forced small unless there is a good reason to do so. e.g.Image is very large in default size, etc. All the forced sizes may cause FA issues. Perhaps Coemgenus is right and the article be withdrawn from nomination until we can sort all these (new) issues out and a couple contributing editors learn how to cooperate with others editors. When several editors are actively working on a page, the normal, logical and considerate thing to do is discuss major changes. The images should be returned to their default and/or practical sizes. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note - as already mentioned several times, please do not use level 3 headers or higher. See the guidelines on top of WP:FAC for all nominators and reviewers. Higher level headers split the main FA-listing at WP:FAC and are disruptive for others (the nomination itself is only a level 3 section). If you have any question on such conventions, please feel free to ask one of the coordinators or on FAC-talk. Thank you. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Removing info about the names (Andrzej and Tadeusz) given to Kosciuszko at baptism is a mistake. This is basic biographical information and it was sourced with more than a reference to the ambassador's speech, but also by Gardner, 1942 (for Kosciuszko being a Catholic). US Ambassador Krol's speech is now a matter of public record, so it would seem this is more than a reliable source for simple information like baptism. Krol has a Bachelor's degree in History from Harvard University and a Master's degrees in Philosophy and Politics if there is any doubt about his academic capacity. There is also another source for the baptism, Kajencki, 1998, p.54, so we should return this important item using any or all of the three sources mentioned. -- Gwillhickers 12:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Closing comment — This nomination has been running for an exceptionally long time but issues are still ongoing, which are giving rise to stability problems. I know edits to FACs are common and are expected but we have gone beyond prose tweaking. I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please wait until two weeks after the bot has run before renominating, during which time I hope the remaining issues can be resolved. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [28]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it to be passing all the FA criteria. RRD13 ( talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose. You're nominating an article that is currently rated at start class, and that you have only made three edits to, for FA status. This is a naive and premature nomination. I think you need to familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and pick up more experience at article writing before even considering nominating an article for FA status. Mattythewhite ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal, unless the nominator asks one of the top editors to be co-nom. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. As someone who watched Joe Cole play with the West Ham youth team I feel his Wiki article should be better for a player who was once one of England's young starlets and who has won several major trophies. It fails almost immediately with the lack of referencing and then degenerates into the match-day reporting style seen so often in footballers' articles. I don't feel inclined to provide any changes at the moment as I did with the West Ham United article as I feel it would be best for the nominator to pick this up and go with it if they wish to.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [29]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets and exceeds the FA criteria: it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. While edits of a copy-editing nature are made occasionally, there has been no substantial disagreement about the article's content for a very long time, and vandalism is likewise very low. I believe readers will find that it follows Wikipedia's style guidelines very closely, including a well-considered structure and extremely careful sourcing throughout. It includes numerous freely-licensed images, and its length reflects the breadth and depth of information about C-SPAN available in third-party sources over its thirty-plus years in existence.
It is also important to mention here that, as the primary contributor to this article, I am also a consultant to C-SPAN. I have been involved with this article for a couple of years, however I have made no direct edits since late 2011; these days I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI, following Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. I realize that this may introduce added complexity to this process; when editors ask that changes be made, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this reason, I would like to suggest that reviewing editors be willing to make changes that are agreed upon. However, I also can find additional assistance to implement changes if necessary. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the process. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Between 1979 and May 2011, the network televised more than 24,246 hours of floor action. [4]
C-SPAN has occasionally produced spinoff programs from Booknotes focusing on specific topics. In 1994, Booknotes collaborated with Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer to produce a re-creation of the seven Lincoln–Douglas debates.[72]
Image review - images themselves are fine, but captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments - I'll be looking at sources, mainly where they are needed, how they are used, and if they are reliable. (Note: I am not doing spotchecks)
That's all I can do tonight. More later, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Ruhrfisch comments I have reviewed parts of this article and made some edits to it on WWB's behalf. As requested, I will review it here.
In the same section, I looked at all the refs cited and none mention the Supreme Court, so a ref is needed for that part of C-SPAN continues to expand its coverage of government proceedings, with a history of requests to government officials for greater access, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
More to come. I am glad to make edits based on these comments, as needed (just say so) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I am doing some copyediting as I read on, usually to tighten the text somewhat. If this is a problem, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I need to re-read the lead and the whole article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [30]. reply
This article was raised to GA a while ago, I've made some improvements to attempt to meet the FA guidelines. I raised it for peer review but received no response. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback. 87Fan ( talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose, 1a.
It's maybe GA quality, but the writing needs a lot of work to be FA quality. -- Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Leaning towards oppose unfortunately, owing to failure to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:
I don't have much time these days to do exhaustive reviews, but as you can see, there are problems throughout. I highly recommend another look from top to bottom for issues such as repetition, strange phrasing, lack of cohesion and redundancy. The prose does not flow as well as I would like (from a reader's perspective) and would benefit from a copy edit. PS: per MOS, do not list number of weeks in chart tables. Good luck! The Wikipedian Penguin 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose lacks a narrative and not all major sources have been used—specifically, the Buckley book (which forms the backbone of the David Bowie FA). I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero to get an idea of how FA-quality album articles are structured and written.— indopug ( talk) 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [31]. reply
I believe the article on Joseph Smith meets the nomination criteria. A recent peer review failed to generate even a single comment; I'm not sure if that meant that no one reviewed it, or that no one could find any problems with it. Regardless, this article is very well-written, stable (disputes have died down to a basically consensus level, despite his being a very controversial figure), and is about a very important figure in Western U.S. religious history. - Trevdna ( talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
It's certainly well-referenced! But I have concerns about the prose, ranging from extreme nitpicking to big-view misgivings about neutrality and comprehensiveness.
Much of this will be quick to cleanup, but I'm nevertheless going to have to oppose primarily on prose and neutrality grounds, at least for the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Please do not strike my (or other editors' comments). It is my prerogative to determine whether my objections have been satisfied. Also, as I read through this another time, there are pervasive formatting issues in the Notes. This list should not be considered comprehensive:
Finally, while it would clearly be a Herculian task, spot-checking of references is probably required before this can be considered for promotion. In looking at whether the reference in Note 311 was properly cited and/or reliable, I discovered a different problem: it makes a claim not directly supported by the source. The Note claims that Smith's 1842 son was stillborn, but the source merely states he died before receiving a name; these are not necessarily the same thing. I do not have the time to determine if similar issues exist with any other sources. I continue to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments, leaning oppose.
*Use of the contraction "didn't" outside of quotation
*Use of the contraction "wasn't" outside of quotation
*FN 168 is a dead link
*Ref "Quest for Refuge" is a dead link
There's more, but that will do to start. GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments I'm still in the process of reviewing this article, but I wanted to start by asking about your research process. I've noticed that there are lots of references to one or two biographies. There are obviously many biographies of Smith. Why did you choose to use these? Wadewitz ( talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [32]. reply
I am nominating this for feature d article because the article has been through extensive work in a short amount of time. I'm not entirely sure what FA completely entails, so I want to see what standard the article has to be held up to in order to obtain this status. Zach Vega ( talk to me) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose—giving this article some time to stabilize would bring more information such as commercial performance, long term reception and perhaps information on iOS 7 updates. Right now, the article only covers a "recentist" post-release analysis of the smartphone. Indeed as it is, it is a very strong article but only covers details on the phone's performance just shortly after release. With time, it will flourish into a more complete contribution with an overall conclusion/afterthought, which it lacks at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Since you've asked whether it is suitable for FA status apart from its stability:
This looks worth including: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/the-iphone-5s-motion-sensors-are-totally-screwed-up/ There are also lots of stories floating around about some people being unhappy with various aspects of IOS7, and especially its messaging software though this may not be a worthwhile topic to cover in this particular article. Nick-D ( talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [33]. reply
Since last time I have expanded the History section, which allowed me to spin it off as a separate article, which makes the main article shorter and more palatable. All the issues were addressed by myself in the last nomination, but sadly the article received neither any Opposes or Supports. Farrtj ( talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose Although I can see there is a motivation to get all the reference issues fixed, I am not satisfied with the details at all. Despite the fact you mentioned a few points of criticism, there are a lot more considerarble topics. Many things are not as they seem! There are a lot of contributions which are focusing on this issues. Especially I would like to focus the topics: * animal protection * healty attitdes *working condition. If you consider these in your articel I would support you.
Oppose at this time. I see this article has been a frequent guest of the FAC process, but there's still a surprisingly large amount of obvious issues here, including a nontrivial amount of problems with reference formatting. Reference numbers [in the original comments, anyway] are based on this version, in case they get moved about in editing:
In general, you have a lot of primary sources (including, I believe, BUCKET), press releases (none of which appear to be labeled as such as they should be: consider Template:cite press release), and a lot of references to marketing magazines, some of which (but not all, admittedly) are pay-to-play for big business clients or even just silent republishers of press releases with a shiny coat of paint. I'm not familiar enough with the industry's editorial standards to single any of those out, but someone else here may. Quite a few of them lack Wikipedia articles, which isn't damning in and of itself, but is at least a little cause for concern. Regardless, much of this material seems to be the sort that could be sourced to higher-quality third-party publications. While a cultural/business topic, there's more than a few scholarly journal articles on aspects of this operation, too, and more reliable books that aren't considered.
As far as non-reference issues go, there are also concerns:
Oppose at this time: 1a/1c/1d (due to the primary source and undeclared press release reliance)/2a/2c.
I am going to oppose on the grounds that the prose needs a bit of work, and some claims cannot be verified. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [34]. reply
I am nominating this for featured article because the content seems similar in quality and documentation to that of many current FAs. Peer review was conducted a while back, and the changes made as a result are documented, along with rationales for any changes that were declined. The page is immensely stable, having never attracted any edit wars. Given the difficulty of finding any free-use images of the subject — from his youth he was member of a prominent retailing family and thus every photo of him I have yet found, even those of SM as a child, are protected by copyright, and his participation in government doesn't seem to have yielded usable images — the images used have had to be confined to those of places associated with him and one book-jacket, placed in the section of the article that discusses the book. The article's content seems to be that of an FA, although there might ways of dividing it that might yield a more substantive TOC for navigating the text. Lawikitejana ( talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Addendum: After looking through other nominations, I see they generally also discuss the notability of the subject. Stanley Marcus was a major figure in fashion retailing and a major contributor to the world-recognized brand of Neiman-Marcus. He appears in Harvard Business School's list of "20th Century Great American Business Leaders" and in the Houston Chronicle list of 100 influential Texans, as well as the Advertising Hall of Fame and the Retailing Hall of Fame. Lawikitejana ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment it is perfectly valid per WP:NFCC to have a non-free (copyrighted) infobox image of a deceased person, given no free alternatives. On the other hand, the book cover will have to go, as the cover itself isn't being discussed.— indopug ( talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose for the moment. This article has not been formally reviewed since it was made a GA five years ago, and the edit history doesn't indicate that there has been a concentrated effort to prepare it for this FAC, which suggests that the nomination may be premature. I have not had time to read more than the lead at present, plus a quick scan through the rest and some reference spotchecking:
I think your best course of action might be to withdraw this nomination to give yourself time for some serious updating of content and refs. Although the article obviously has merits – it looks comprehensive and well-researched – it looks in need of modernisation and is not, at this time, ready for FA promotion. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
(Added note): the external link checker indicates that several links are dead and that in several other cases the source content has changed. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Note for delegates: I rather think this editor has lost interest in the nomination and the article. Maybe consider closing the nom? Brianboulton ( talk) 00:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
TWP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).