Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and meet the FA criteria. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review or the League of Copyeditors. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and peer review or Good article candidates at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings). For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether there is consensus. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Toolbox Dead links (summary) (Updates daily) List of FACs (Updated by bot)

Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria. If there are no previous FA nominations for the article, or if those nominations have been archived, skip to the next step. If a previous FA nomination for the article has not already been archived, use the Move button to archive the previous FA candidate discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. If you move an old nomination, please update old {{facfailed}} templates on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}, the {{ArticleHistory}} template if present, and archives of the old nomination found by checking "What links here". Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). Below the preloaded title, write Nominator (or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article). A reason for nominating, and a declaration of "Support" are not necessary. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination. Sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Blue's Clues 1.2 Peyton Manning 1.3 Neilston 1.4 Written Chinese 1.5 Portal (video game) 1.6 Liviu Librescu 1.7 Coenwulf of Mercia 1.8 Tenacious D 1.9 Seton Hall University 1.10 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident 1.11 The Last Temptation of Krust 1.12 NoitulovE 1.13 Mana (series) 1.14 Atom 1.15 History of Ipswich Town F.C. 1.16 Geneva drive 1.17 2008 Orange Bowl 1.18 Just like Heaven (song) 1.19 William Hillcourt 1.20 Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll 1.21 Terra Nova Expedition 1.22 Edward VII of the United Kingdom 1.23 Reactive attachment disorder 1.24 Tropical Storm Alberto (2006) 1.25 Reasonable Doubt 1.26 Angolan Civil War 1.27 Le Paradis massacre 1.28 Uncyclopedia 1.29 Dwarf planet 1.30 Tyrone Wheatley 1.31 Wii Sports 1.32 Her Majesty's Theatre 1.33 Moncton 1.34 Oliver Typewriter Company 1.35 History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) 1.36 The Wiggles 1.37 Halo Graphic Novel 1.38 Randall Flagg 1.39 Hockey Hall of Fame

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Blue's Clues

Nominator: I am nominating this article because after passing its GA nomination, I felt it was a well-written article and that it was ready to move on. There are only a few flaws but they could be fixed easily and would not affect the process that much. I really hope that this article has hope for FA status. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peyton Manning

Self-nomination. I feel that the article is accurate, stable, and well-written. The article is already listed as a Good Article. I requested a peer review as well, but nothing came of it other than an automated review. Dlong (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neilston

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have some experience in taking settlements to FA status, and believe this article meets the criteria. Neilston, which conforms to the WP:UKCITIES standard, has recently gained GA. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Written Chinese

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is factually accurate, stable, and well written. It is currently a Good Article. BrianTung (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal (video game)

Self-nomination The article has passed GA, and has had a peer review, and feel that those that have helped edited it have made it a high-quality article. MASEM 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Article has good content, plenty of supporting facts and references, and seems to be on track thoughout. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The opening sentence of the third paragraph is horribly clumsy and confusing. Please do not let this terrible writing into a featured article. (This is probably not the proper place to post this comment). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liviu Librescu

Appears to meet the criteria. An excellent companion article to Virginia Tech massacre. Per the discussion at Talk: Virginia Tech massacre#TFA_Proposed_Blurb, some editors feel strongly that promoting this article to featured article status would be a fitting way to feature the incident on its upcoming anniversary. Sfmammamia (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • External links only belong in the extrenal links section.
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
  • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. Epbr123 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NFCC concern:
  • NFCC#3A: Why are two fair-use images of Librescu being used? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support — Complete, insightful, and easy to understand, there's only a few minor stylistic things to clean up, and this article will definitely be worthy of featured status. I have no problem giving my support right now, since the comments above have no bearing on the content itself, and I'm sure they'll be fixed with due haste. Fantastic work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Librescu's fields of research are listed, but nothing about his work in these fields is detailed. As this is an article about an academic, his research and published work should be thoroughly covered. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coenwulf of Mercia

A ninth-century king of Mercia. FAs for comparison: Offa of Mercia and Wiglaf of Mercia; contemporary kings include Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• weak oppose: there aren't imgs about this coenwulf. --jskellj - the nice devil 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no surviving images of Coenwulf, and no significant later depictions of him, as far as I'm aware. The only images that might be of him are on his coins, and the Wikipedia Foundation lawyer has said that reproductions of coins do not qualify under the exemption used for two-dimensional art. I can't use fair use either, because I would not be discussing the image itself, but Coenwulf, so fair use would not apply. Hence I don't believe there is a way to add an image to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Coenwulf mancus were inaccessible in a private collection somewhere, "critical commentary" would be no bother. The trouble is that it's in the British Museum and (so far as I know) quite easily photographed. Fair use is only permissible if the image couldn't be replaced by a free one, and everything suggests that getting a picture of it is relatively simple (if you happen to be anywhere nearby). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenacious D

previous FAC

Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. Assertions are cited, and descriptions do not verge on the waffley (brevity is... wit).

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "or "The D" as they are also known by fans", in the first sentence of the lead, seems out of place. Try not to get into specifics too early (we technically don't know what Tenacious D is yet, so it seems strange to talk about fans). CloudNine (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Changed it around. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Initially Gass felt threatened by Black". Why?

Oppose at the moment.

• Check the external links - several are dead (see this page).
  • Fixed - very nice tool by the way Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Present should be present in the heading, per WP:HEAD. Probably doesn't need the capitalisation in the infobox either.
  • Fixed.Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• "at the time" repeated in consecutive sentences, also some punctuation seems to have gone missing!
  • Removed one instance of "at the time". Will check through punctuation. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• "While Gass initially felt threatened by Black, they eventually worked out their differences," the second statement isn't a logical run-on from the first.
• Too many short paragraphs in the opening sections, consider a merge and improvement in flow.
• "In an interview on BBC Radio 1 aired on January 18, 2006, with Colin Murray," - with Colin Murray should come after interview.
  • Fixed Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Gass described " and "Black posits" about the same interview, tense change.
  • Changed it a bit, standardized tense. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Isn't there a more visually elegant way of crowbarring in the audio clip?
• Again, throughout the 2004 to present section, far too many mini-paragraphs. Almost list-like set of statements.
• Appearances have no references.
• "shrivs"? relevance?
• "Black said the Iraq War "felt so wrong", since, in his words, it had "nothing to do with Osama bin Laden".[63] Gass said of the state of the U.S. administration: "It’s a bad time for the U.S. government", and had expressed surprise that Tony Blair was still the Prime Minister of the UK.[16]" - these are personal opinions and don't appear to relate to Tenacious D - they could be placed in Black and Gass' articles, but not here.

Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: quoting rambling man + only 2 imgs? --jskellj - the nice devil 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, there are some problems to kink out before this is ready. The thing that stands out the most it the [citation needed] template that has been there since August of last year. That is not all though. With citation templates, articles shouldn't really be GA, that informs me that there is inacurate info. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seton Hall University

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008) Id love to know where the errors are so i can fix Rankun (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Self nomination. This is a mostly-stable(see below) WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. Wikiproject Seton hall is proud to bring The current good article Seton Hall University There was a recent shooting on campus and we ask that you ignore that while we fix it up. but that should only take a day or two, and wed love for you to look at the rest of it in the meantime. If you see something, by all means fix it if its no big thing, there are only 5 of us and we each work on 10 pages at a time. feel free to join wikiproject seton hall aswell sencirely Rankun (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked.
    • fixed149.150.236.26 (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some refs are missing the publisher or access date.
    • Refs 35 and 62. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed Rankun (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. They should also start with a capital.
    • The images in the Main campus, Notable alumni, and Notable faculty sections. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you explain, im having problems understanding?Rankun (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I've fixed them now. They should have begun with a capital letter and not ended with a fullstop. Epbr123 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. Epbr123 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Text is squashed between two images in the Early history and Sesquicentennial sections. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • doneRankun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) goodnight

I will be getting to it tommrow (above was me)(homework time is now)Rankun (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - there are (very) short sections. --jskellj - the nice devil 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Id just like to point out how horribly formed your opposition was, say which sections, and why you think by adding to them i wouldnt be violating wp:lengthI also would have appreciated CONSTRUCTIVE criticismRankun (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are various referencing issues: "citation needed" tags in "Modernization period" and "Athletics" sections, a few too many entire paragraphs without even one reference, and a couple of the refs are not formatted properly or are missing information (#12 and #13). I have not read the article in depth as of yet, but taking a look at the previous FAC, it seems to have improved greatly since then. It may require more time than a month between FAC nominations to improve this article to FA status, however. I'm not sure if the article is comprehensive enough for an institution that has been around for more than 150 years; the "Academics" section seems especially skimpy. Compared to Featured University articles like Texas A&M University and Cornell University, Seton Hall seems unfinished and lacking in comprehension. María (habla conmigo) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several citation needed templates on the page, which is an automatic oppose from me. Overall, the article needs more citations for statements (there are several paragraphs with none whatsoever), and several of the sections are on the small side, especially academics. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As an editor of the article, there are a lot of areas of coverage that need to be expanded and, as far as we've come in citations, more needs to be sourced. Mystache (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When did you get back?Rankun (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC),

[edit] 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

Respectfully nominate this article about an nuclear weapons incident in the United States for featured article consideration. The article has been through a peer review and passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This article has a good topic to show on the homepage of Wikipedia because it has a significance with the Iraq War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbus A350 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example,
  • "the DoD Bent Spear incident report reportedly contained" - repetition
  • "Richard Newton, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements" - capitals needed if this is a title
  • "...a limited number of airmen at both locations failed to follow procedures." - nbsp needed after ellipses, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses
  • "He didn't provide a timeline for " - contractions shouldn't be used
  • "issued a new policy directive regarding the handling of nuclear weapons and delivery systems which prohibits the storing of " - comma needed before which
  • "all nonnuclear munitions and missiles must be labled" - typo
  • Too many sentences begin with "Also", "Furthermore", "In addition", or "Additionally". Epbr123 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the constructive feedback and believe I've made all the corrections you suggested except for one. According to the grammar guides I've looked at, such as this one [1], if a job title comes after a person's name, then it isn't supposed to be capitalized. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
  • The en dash in the info box shouldn't be spaced
  • Full dates in the footnotes need linking
  • The wikicommons links belong in an external links section
  • In ref numbers 1 and 23, "GENERAL RONALD E. KEYS" should be contain the external link and the caps should be removed. Epbr123 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I've gotten them all but, I'm not sure what you mean by "wikicommons links belong in an external links section". Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons links belong in an external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, the Wikinews box was moved to the bottom. Cla68 (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Temptation of Krust

Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. The article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9). I believe it meets the criteria, and will do my best to address comments as they crop up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. I'd like if the writing was looked over again, as so it is more professionally written.
  • Bart and Jay Leno get Krusty cleaned up - Get is such a weak word that it should be avoided. Additionally, it's not clear what cleaning up means, as it could mean either literally bathing him, cleaning up his act, etc.
  • He later sells out - sell out is vernacular; perhaps an alternative could be used, rather than using the exact phrase three times
  • Although less marketable and financially successful - quick question. Does this mean he is less marketable, but at the same time financially successful, or does it mean he is neither marketable nor financially successful?
• Also, regarding the plot, is this sentence terribly important to the plot? When Homer asks Marge for all of their money, she gives some cash to Lisa and asks her to bury it in the backyard. I hate to ask, but is there a source for the plot itself? Is the fact that he is now credible and trendy very explicit in the episode? After all, Krusty goes back to his old ways pretty easily at the end of the episode.
• Regarding the referencing, how come the commentaries are from the episode "Lisa the Skeptic"?

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Okay, will work on addressing these above points, must have just goofed with the citation for the commentaries, sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NoitulovE

Alrighty, let me preface this by saying that this is my first time through FAC, though I've commented once or twice on other entries. Our article on noitulovE is currently a Good Article, and has been through Peer Review (albeit without much comment, but I suppose that could be taken as a good thing). It is—bar none—the most comprehensive resource on the topic, online or offline, and is by far the best article on a television advertisement on Wikipedia (though I plan to work on that!) There're no WikiProjects or even guidelines on how to create an article on such a topic, so I've cribbed heavily from guides on writing about television episodes and films. That said, I can probably guess a few of the objections that may crop up, so I may as well address them here:

1. WP:ADVERT!: While I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't contain advertisements, I believe that critical commentary on a highly notable advertising campaign (provided it remains fairly neutral) should be more than welcome here. If you prefer, think of this as a 60-second studio film which coincidentally happens to promote a particular brand of stout. The budget certainly falls within the Hollywood range.
2. "plot" section is blow-by-blow, contrary to both sets of guidelines mentioned: While I've done my best to comply with current standards, the fact remains that there is a substantial difference between 60 seconds and 60 minutes. The brevity of the commercial allows the "plot" section to go into pretty good detail in two paragraphs, impossible with longer broadcasts. If the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television thought they could get away with blow-by-blow descriptions, they would :)
3. No free images: Sadly, there isn't much cultural overlap between the marketing and free culture communities, for obvious reasons. I sent an e-mail to AMV BBDO a while back requesting some relevant images (cast, crew, locations, awards ceremonies, trophies, anything really), but they haven't got back in touch. The issue was brought up during the GAN process, and I did manage to find an image of a London International Award received by AMV BBDO - just not for this project.
4. No references for the first two sections: They did have references, but I removed them. Everything in the lede is referenced in the main body, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines leads me to believe that the Sequence section doesn't really need any, provided there's no interpretation going on. I can add 'em back if needs be.
5. No negative criticism: I honestly can't find anyone badmouthing the piece outside of unsourceable blog postings. It does seem to be universally well-liked in marketing circles. The best I've managed is to find criticism on Guinness advertising in general, stating that it's gotten too big and flashy. But the comment was in 2007, responding to Tipping Point rather than noitulovE. I can add it in if requested, but to be honest, I don't know how relevant it is.

Ok, so on with the show. Let me know if there's anything that needs changing, particularly in regards to copy editing (I know I have a tendency towards verbosity, as this nomination kinda shows), and I'll do what I can to fix it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments, to get the ball rolling. All-in-all, this looks a great article; the Guinness ads have been pretty good for a few years now, but I've never seen this one (I should click the links to see it, I think). The points are:

• "24-35-year-old", I think, should be "24–35-year-old", but I'm not sure (the age range being a range)...when I hit "preview" here, I'll see if it looks odd that way or not. (Yes, a little odd)
• I'm not sure the "Dreamer" link in Production->Background buys you anything. It points to a disambiguation page, which doesn't include any Guinness adverts. Is there an article on the Dreamer ad that should be linked & piped instead?
• What's the policy/guideline on scrolling boxes? I'm thinking of the awards box; a nice way of preventing the article being overwhelmed with a huge list, but just as scrolling ref lists are frowned on (something to do with printing the page out, if memory serves), perhaps this box will have to be unscrolled.
• Consistency with quotation marks around "Good things": cf "Good things..." concept in Production->Background and Good Things... campaign in Legacy.
• There are much better prose reviewers around than me, so I'll leave that side to them, other than to note there were a couple of places where I reached for the "edit" button, and then decided I wasn't sure.

That's it. Well done. Carré (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a couple of points on the refs too, that I just noticed: #17 is a dead link at the moment, and is there a way you can add some text to the external links in ref#27 and #35? Carré (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for the comments!

• I'd started to knock up an article on Dreamer way back in October, but got distracted by a series of other projects and never got past the lede. Made a quick stub of it for now, with an aim to expanding somewhere down the line.
• Bah, I thought I'd found a good "pseudo-image" with the scrolling box, but hadn't considered printer-friendliness. Switched it to a collapsible table, though they don't play nice with references when collapsed. Shame, I liked my scrollbox. :)
• I'd aimed to use quotation marks when referring to the strapline itself, and none when referring to the campaign as a whole. Looks like I missed one though, fixed!
• Switched to dead-tree reference for #17; I verified that the article exists back in November using the University library, so no problem there. Expanded the external links on #27 and #35 to include the source.

I'll wait for an MoS guru to weigh in before doing anything on the 24-35/24–35 issue. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The en-dash is actually correct, but it does look awkward. I've reworded the sentence to remove it! Bluap (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mana (series)

previous FAC

User:Kariteh brought this article up to standard but it didn't pass for some reason. Regardless, it meets all the criteria, is well written, comprehensive, and deserving of the FA star. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - User:Krator (t c) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Critical reception" is not comprehensive at all. Also, the lead mentions "The series is mostly known for its musical score", but the section on music doesn't mention this.-Wafulz (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Will fill up the reception section soon, and rephrased the music statement and added some opinions on the music to the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, reception section much fuller, has some sales figures, and added a lot more music reception. Let me know if this satisfies, or what else you think it needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work.-Wafulz (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• According to the external link checker, the link named "Sword of Mana – in shops tomorrow" is broken.
• "The action-based battle system is notable, since most other console role-playing games instead use the traditional turn-based style." Needs rewording to flow better and to convey the info more clearly. Deviating from the trend doesn't necessarily warrant the term "notable". Also, do you mean that other games didn't use this system at the release of the first game, or is this related to the current gaming traditions? If it's the current time, then I'm sure many other games besides this series use the system, which questions the use of the term "notable".
• "The Mana games are linked with a common mythology centered". Doesn't sound right to me. What is meant by "common mythology"?
• No mention of Music, Development (I think), Story or common elements—which much space has been devoted to—in the lead. Information on gameplay is also sparse; it doesn't make for a comprehensive summary of the article.
• "Occasionally, tears may be created by great powers in the dimensions, allowing powers to enter different realms." Without any further context of the plot in the lead, this is a confusing and illogical sentence. I know it's linked to the timeline statement, but it still just doesn't seem to fit.
• The info in "Classic series" doesn't seem to fit continuous prose well. What we've got is a whole section that lacks cohesion as it details each game by paragraph. It would make more sense to have a table, like in Fire Emblem.
• A question, who has determined what is in the "Classic series", and what isn't? In fact, has the term "classic series" been used by the developers themselves?
• The "World of Mana" seems to add nothing about the overall context of the series, and suffers from the problems of the previous section. The majority of the text seems to be broken up by details and dates that prevents it from being read fluently. Why not mention how each game was notable, and what new features they offered to the series?
• "the one featured in the first Final Fantasy titles". Shouldn't that be the first few titles?
• "people who are not good at action games". "Not good" isn't encyclopaedic.
• "an anthropomorphic peddler allows saving the game outside of towns". Needs rewording for better fluency
• Way too much weight has been given to the Rabites and Flammies. I really think that "Common elements" should be cut down to half its current size, with all of the sections merged together.
• "The music for Final Fantasy Adventure was composed by Kenji Ito and was his second original score." Again, awkward phrasing.
• "Legend of Mana's score was composed by Yoko Shimomura and she considers it the one that best expresses herself". Again, awkward phrasing.
• Section on "History" is brief, but I appreciate that such information will be hard to attain.
• The "Reception" section needs to include information related to the series' native country, Japan.
• Suggestion: Merge the section on "Games" with "History", with a table to account for all the games. This should offer a more cohesive and logical direction for the article. This is only a suggestion, though.

A good start, but too many problems currently. I feel that the article needs quite a large change in direction before becoming FA. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Begun working on the prose and trim, fixed the external link, but as for the history section, are you saying it's not comprehensive, and if so what is needed? Also, I have been basing the article off of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, it's more similar in layout than Crazy Taxi, the other series FA. Thanks much Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done all the your corrections, but I have 3 questions; the gameplay section matches the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, which is the only featured article of a video game other than Crazy Taxi, so to format it like Fire Emblem (series), which isn't featured would be strange, no? Also, you wanted context, and explanation in the games section of why the games are individually notable... but I looked at it again, and that's exactly what it does, doesn't it? Second, Why does the common elements section need to be trimmed? A lot of the material is out of universe, like merchandising information, so it's out of universe and shows the series notability. Finally, the question regarding the history section, what information would you like to see added? Other than that, all corrections have been done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer each question individually:

• 1) It was just a suggestion of what I feel is better, but that may amount to just that—personal preference. While using Kingdom Hearts as a guideline, please remember that the same circumstances aren't exactly the same; this game has more titles than Kingdom Hearts and thus may warrant a table. But again, this is a matter of preference. If you look at it now, there are seven paragraphs, with each one focusing on a different game, which means that the Japanese translation, the release date, the format, and the developers all have to be repeated in the prose seven times in total.
• 2)My mistake; I guess that it does that mention this. As for Common Elements, I feel that far too much space is devoted to it, especially in comparison to other sections. While it does have some out-of-universe content, I feel that some of the detail and nuances could be cut down. Cut stuff like "The Flammies are described as "beautiful yet powerful beasts" created by the Moon Gods". Plus, is it really necessary to detail the the organisms' appearance when the images exist in the article? It's just at the moment, there's quite an imbalance in the article as the primarily in-universe section is about twice the size of the other sections.
• 3)The second paragraph of this section just detail factors that seem quite unrelated to the development process, and seems to be a reiteration of the "games" section. Try some specific development with games and basically a more comprehensive section about how the series developed from one stage into another. Try mentioning how the series gradually gained in popularity, and maybe an emphasis in the changes in representation of the series/graphics, or how the developers took a new approach. Basically, more behind-the-scenes context.

Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I did;

• 1) Having reformatted it like you suggested, it actually does look a lot better, much better than I thought it would! It also showed where there were information gaps, so I filled them in a bit.
• 2) I trimmed the common elements by consolidating the information, aka making thicker sentences and keeping the references, so it's noticeably trimmer. Let me know if you see more to be trimmed. Keep in mind that if you count the Common element, characters and story section of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article as one section, they are about the same size now.
• 3) As I was filling in the games section tables, and began to look for information to fill in the history section, I have found it fits better in the games section description. I would merge the history section into the games section, but it is very general and about the whole series. Is there any broad series-wide info that would go in the history section that you think is needed, or should we just fatten the games section descriptions?

Thanks for your notes! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have filled in the gameplay sections and added a few sentences to the history section. Let me know what else is needed if there is anything else :) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Atom

Self-nomination. This vital article has been through an extensive expansion, editing and review process, so I believe it is ready to become an FA candidate. It is a lengthy article as the subject is broad and some of the concepts needed a careful explanation. (The topics raised during the article reviews also resulted in article expansion, as did the need for comprehensiveness.) Hopefully this article is reasonably accessible to the educated non-expert.

Most of the article treats atoms as individual particles, but there is some material about bulk properties. For the latter, however, it primarily relies on the main article links to fill in the details. (In some cases those articles are in need of more development, but I'll leave that for a later date.)

Please take a look and see if you believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. I'll attempt to address specific concerns, where they make sense. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support I have had this article on my watchlist for some months meaning to improve it. I never got around to it, but observed it being greatly improved. This is also a Core topic. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason to oppose. The writing is good, and it is very well sourced. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, great article, but please take care of a few things:

• "cooled to very low temperatures" in History section--how low? Be more specific than "very".
  • I added an approximate value.
• Same as above with "although this can require very high energies" in section Nucleus. "Very" isn't a useful word; better to be specific.
  • I gave a specific example of the minimum energy needed for fusion at the Sun's core (a couple of lines down). The amount varies by isotope, so I can't give a single value there.
• Confirm that anti-electron has a hyphen but antiproton doesn't.
  • The hyphen was removed.
• Get someone to copyedit the whole article... I found a few significant grammatical errors, but can't keep looking for more.
  • It's been over several times by different people. Thanks for the catches. If anybody else would like to do a copyedit review, that would be appreciated.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall, nice job! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a very few comments; once those are addressed, I'll support - article looks very good and well-referenced, all in all.

• "Meanwhile, physicist Niels Bohr in 1913 revised Rutherford's model by incorporating the principles of quantum mechanics." - sounds a bit misleading, as, at that time, what we now call quantum mechanics hadn't really been formulated.
  • Revised.
• Quite generally, the history section reads as if describing atoms was more or less an application of quantum mechanics. What about the crucial roles that atoms played in the development of quantum theory? How come no mention of spectral lines in the history section?
  • It is a summary style section, so unfortunately I can't include everything. I agree that they are important topics, but perhaps it is satisfactory if they are covered on the linked main article page?
    • No question, summarizing is in order. But you're including so many details about quantum mechanics that it's odd there isn't a, well, summary statement about the overall role of quantum mechanics. And why equally important details (spectral lines) are left out. By all means, summarize at a higher level than you're doing at the moment.
      • Alas, the current bulk is partly the result of the PR process. I'm a little unsatisfied that is has become so lengthy. Perhaps the entire section should just be merged into the main article and only a link left behind?—RJH (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Where's kinetic gas theory? Or the statement that the key element that led to the general acceptance of the reality of atoms was the convergence of all the different ways to derive Avogadro's number?
  • The article has a low focus on bulk properties of atoms as they are covered in detail elsewhere. There is nothing in the Avogadro constant article about your statement, but it sounds like it may be worth mentioning.
    • I came across this during the Einstein year, in discussions of Einstein's contributions to the acceptance of the reality of atoms. Sounds to me like an important aspect, but at least brief googling hasn't brought forth any ready references. Sorry.
• "The component particles of an atom consist of" - awkward, when talking about composition. How about "The constituent particles of an atom are"?
  • Done.
• Binding energy and mass-energy: This paragraph looks a little disorganized - first the mass deficite, then the binding energy, and only later the mass-energy-equivalence needed to understand why the first two are related in the first place.
  • Re-org'd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be picky, but wouldn't it make more sense the other way around? Binding energy first (that's where this comes from - interaction), then the fact that it's equivalent to a mass difference.
      • So you essentially want to say... once the nucleus has fused, it would require energy to pull it apart—the binding energy. This energy was emitted during the fusion process and it was converted from a change in mass, per Einstein. The is because the combined mass of the individual components is greater than the mass of the nucleus. Sorry but the direction of this explanation seems awkward to me.—RJH (talk)
• "Each atomic orbital corresponds to a particular energy level of the electron." - well, yes and no. As far as I can see, given the length of the article, something like the difference between quantum-number energy levels and fine structure should at least be mentioned, even if they are not explained in detail. Otherwise, someone looking at the image showing the different orbitals might just come to the false conclusion that each corresponds to a different energy quantum number.
  • I added a couple of sentences about fine structure.
    • I think it would also be good to address this (at least implicitly) in the "Electron cloud" section.
      • What would that add, besides redundancy?—RJH (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• "The number of electrons in an atom can easily change. This is because the amount of energy needed to add or remove an electron (the electron binding energy) is far less than the binding energy of nucleons." - does this make sense? Couldn't there be a world in which chemical binding energies are much less than nuclear binding energies, but still higher than your typical photon energy or, equivalently, typical energy scales (temperature), so that nobody would ever get the idea of describing ionization as "easy"? The comparison shows why it's easier, not why it's easy.
  • I replaced the first sentence with an example (following the second sentence).—RJH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Any two atoms with an identical number of protons in their nuclei will be the same chemical element. Atoms with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons will be different isotopes of the same element." - I think it should be made clearer that this isn't some physical insight, but a matter of definition: "Any two atoms...represent the same chemical element. Atoms with... are called different isotopes of the same element."
  • I added "by definition", although it seemd clear already. =)
• "mass of an atom at rest" - since a number of readers will wonder why "at rest" is important, please wikify.
  • Done.
    • Oops, my bad - I meant that there should be a wiki-link to rest mass (which, as I see, re-directs to invariant mass). I have no doubt that readers will know what "at rest" means, just not that all of them will know why this is important here.
• "On the periodic table of the elements, atom size tends to increase when moving down columns, but decrease when moving across rows." - even though there's an earlier reference, it would be good to wikify "periodic table" here.
  • Done.
• Energy levels: Why not a single word about emission lines? From reading this, many readers are in danger of jumping to the conclusion that "spectral line" and "absorption line" are synonymous. Also, this would be a good place to at least mention fine structure.
  • I added a sentence about emission lines. Since it's a summary article, I'm not sure how much detail should be added. Perhaps it would be sufficient to expand on fine structure on the Atomic spectral line article?
    • I think it's fine (finely structured?) now!
• "Atoms tend to chemically react with each other in a manner that will fill their outer valence shells." - on reading this, few readers who aren't already in the know will realize that shedding electron, so what was once an inner shell now becomes the new, fully-filled outer shell, also counts.
  • Fixed.
• "The first nuclei of elements one through five" - this sounds as if there weren't any hydrogen nuclei before the 3 minute mark (and, incidentally, will leave some readers wondering why elements one through five is followed by a list of six).
  • Addressed.
• "Some atoms such as lithium-6" -> some atomic nuclei? some isotopes?
  • Fixed.
• Random search of references: ISBN 0-618-34342-3 appears to be wrong (five others were alright; is there a Wikipedia tool which checks for this kind thing?).
  • Are you sure you're looking at the right edition?[2]
    • I wasn't at any particular edition - just following the link and then using the link provided there to find the book in the Library of Congress and COPAC. Coming up dry in both (which is highly unusual for English language books), I thought there might be a problem with the ISBN.

All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. -Markus Poessel (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Article is very well written and pretty informative. I made a few minor copyediting changes, but overall I think the article meets the FA criteria. I would recommend one minor change, though: I noticed that several masses are specified in kilograms, which seems a bit odd when referring to small things such as atoms -- the gram, not the kilogram, is the standard unit of mass in the metric system, and should be used here (a kilogram is simply 1000 grams). Dr. Cash (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I changed all instances of kg to g and scaled the values accordingly.—RJH (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support simply impressive, good to see the chemistry articles are improving. (some of the element ones are still underdeveloped) igordebraga ≠ 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support At a quick look this is an FA article. The only minor concern is that the see also section might be a bit long. Make sure the stuff there is not allready in the article. If it was me, I would move the ionization into the article, maybe close to the valence section. Otherwise this looks good. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ionization is covered briefly by the last section of "Electron cloud". I thought it was important to have at least a tie-in to the chemical properties of atoms, so that's the reason for the brief valence section. (It has been trimmed down quite a bit.) I'll work on trimming the "See also" section. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Just one question: where it says "...atoms forms about 10% of the mass of the galaxy", what's the other 90%? Dark matter? If so, perhaps it would be worth mentioning and linking so that interested readers can learn more. (The reference for that statement is a book, which is not that easily accessible.) --Itub (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I inserted a brief note about this. (I was concerned that mention of dark matter might require an off-topic explanation, but perhaps not.) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a double read-through didn't find any concerns not already mentioned, and those seem quite minor. This certainly meets the featured article criteria. Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I passed this article to GA status last week and felt it was practically at FA then. Kudos to all the editors who've worked on it! --jwanders^Talk 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm not sure all the sources are top-class reliable, there are quite a number of newspapers and online teaching, an e-mail, and some research institute homepages. Narayanese (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where are you seeing the e-mail? I think that for some of the references I chose links that would also provide some "additional reading" for interested viewers. I certainly don't see a problem with using university course material from solid institutions. Where the reference seemed a little soft I usually looked for a second.—RJH (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The e-mail refernce is for the number of atoms in the universe. You're right that the dual book/journal+online lesson references are a nice touch. The muonic atom paragraph could use another ref, as does the 1 fm strong force distance.Narayanese (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Fixed (I realise the strong force cite was higher up) Narayanese (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would be useful if all the printed references were collected & presented in the form of an alphabetical bibliography. This would make it a lot easier to find that interesting quotation from, say, Feynmann. As it stands, the References section is too long & unwieldy: I suggest renaming it Notes, & calling the new bibliography References.

Apart from this quibble, though, I think it's an excellent & clearly written article. The lead is especially good. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There is little or no re-use of references in the list, so I don't believe that presenting it in an alphabetical bibliography would shorten it in the least. In fact I expect it would double the length as you'd have to then reference the bibliography. As for the current length, well it is as long as it needs to be. It's far from the longest on wikipedia. So... all I can say is I'm sorry you don't like it. =)—RJH (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's just a matter of personal preference, so I'm not letting you off the hook that easily! The article would become so much more useful & user-friendly if it had a proper bibliography rather than a large number of references hidden away in the notes. A quick count suggests there are over 30 books in there trying to get out.

Overall, my suggestion might make the article marginally longer; but the Notes section (ie the current References) would be shortened, since several entries would simply be of the form Harrison (2003). But if other editors are as happy with the present format as you seem to be, I'm not going to oppose. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. I mean, the point of current reference is to give sources for all facts given in the article—is what you're looking for is more of a "Further Reading" section that would give direction to readers seeking more information? If so, this sounds like a good idea, but I don't think it needs to include every book the article references. Maybe if 5 or so books were listed? --jwanders^Talk 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The definition of half-life in Atom#Radioactive_decay is of course correct. I wonder, though, whether it might not be useful to spell out the fact that after 2 half-lives a quarter of the original isotope remains. Not every reader will be familiar with exponential decay! Just a suggestion ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done.—RJH (talk)

Thanks: looking good. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ipswich Town F.C.

This shall be the last time I burden your doorsteps with my pleas of your time and energy! The History of ITFC is the final piece of my featured topic jigsaw puzzle and I'll do anything to get the article up to the standard required by the community in order to assure its place as a featured article. As ever, I've had a peer review which has received considerable detailed scrutiny from a few WP:FOOTBALL editors, notably ChrisTheDude, Dweller and, with a half-term magnifying glass, Kevin McE, all three of whom I offer my sincerest thanks on getting the article to where it is.

As an Ipswich fan it's impossible for me to write this article on my own without veering off into bias and desperate POV so I'm hoping the PR and this WP:FAC will iron out any remaining creases. My thanks as always to any editor prepared to contribute to, comment upon, support or oppose this article's candidacy. I will work relentlessly (apart from when I'm asleep) to get onto suggestions as soon as they're offered. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - Everything looks OK and referenced, but this part looks unreferenced:

he led Ipswich to third place in the 1937–38 season.

• Apart from that, looks good. D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed that I think, thanks for the good spot! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on dates – I think the main problem with this article is the dates, and the Easter egg links hidden behind some of the years ([[1907-08 in English football|1907]], for example). At the moment, why should a drive-by user click on that 1907, as opposed to a 1907 linked via [[1 January]] [[1907]]? On top of that, the way you've done it has broken auto-formatting for we few, we happy few, who have our date preferences set – UK format dates don't have the comma between the month and the year – where you have the "normal" date linked, the comma isn't there for me (a UK user), but where you have the "Easter egg" links, the comma is there. I suspect the best way to sort this out would be to just ditch the auto-formatted dates completely, and leave the linked years for the relevant [[<year> in <whatever>]] high-value links. More reason to sort out that horrible date-auto-formatting-and-linking-blue-splodge-nastiness. Carré (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, well this kind of linking is typical in football history articles, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I thought I was in compliance with WP:DATE with these piped links out to seasons. Is this a problem that transcends this article alone (i.e. is it something the WP:MOS should cover), or do you believe this article should lead the way, with dates per your suggestions? I don't think the linkage of seasons is really Easter egg-esque, it's really a very common device. I don't want to lose the links to the relevant seasons. How can we solve this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The "problem" (if it is one) is certainly not limited to this article - there's loads of [[<year> in <whatever>|<year>]] links out there. To be honest, I don't know what the solution is :) There was a long and convoluted discussion about it at one of the MOS talk pages recently, but I wasn't interested enough to follow it to its conclusion (ahh, here it is). The links to the seasons are what I'd call high-value links, while those to just the year (as caused by autoformatting) are, more often than not, no-value-at-all links, hence the suggestion of removing normal date autoformatting (I think that's supported these days, in MOS). I certainly agree you shouldn't lose the links to the season articles - that would just be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Sandy and Raul are both sensible enough to know this isn't an oppose that would prevent the article's promotion (and scupper your FT!), and as such maybe this isn't the best place to discuss it.

In short, the problem isn't with the article, nor in the "Year in Topic" links, but in the autoformatting. (edit conflict there, but I think this answers the message on my talk too) Carré (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was involved those MOS discussions and specifically requested that the football seasons be taken into account. The ambiguous nature of the guideline is that these links are allowed. I agree that the issue needs sorting out as users will not really click on links such as [[1907-08 in English football|1907]]. I try to write it as [[1907-08 in English football|1907 season]] where possible which is a better compromise in my opinion. Woody (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some minor points:

• Support Well-written and comprehensive. Epbr123 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have already suggested that the Cobbold family's history of involvement with the club might be worth including. To make this truly a history of ITFC, rather than a playing history of the team, info about changes in ownership and major backroom figures (Sheepshanks?)might be beneficial. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I sympathise with this sentiment. It'll have to wait for TRM's return for now. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added some details on the Cobbolds throughout the article having chanced upon a delightful article from the Cobbold Family Trust. Please let me know if you think it's sufficient. I'm also after some decent meat on Sheepshanks as well, since he's probably the only other high profile director, as you have identified. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Just noticed one more "iffy" sentence: "Matteo Sereni and Finidi George arrived before the 2001–02 season saw to boost the squad for its foray into Europe"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I feel too involved with the article to support it (it's in the top 10 on my edit count, not that I edit count. Well, not that I edit count very often. Ahem.) TRM's out of touch for a bit, and I'll be babysitting for him. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written, seems complete to this Ipswich fan as I read it this evening. Fixed a typo or two though. - JVG (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support All my concerns have been addressed, happy to support now ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: external link checker is indicating one dead link. Please review WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD regarding bolding of alternate names in the lead and bolding elsewhere in the text. Please see WP:MOSNUM regarding spelling out vs. use of digits ( ... margin of just 2 votes, ... ). Please see WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation or not of complete sentences vs. sentence fragments in image captions. Pls see WP:MOSDATE regarding consistent linking of dates ( ... On 7 July 2006, Robson was named ...). Perhaps ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through one more time to make sure these MOS issues are cleared up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Sandy. The date linking is still a bigger issue than this article alone. I'm not sure it can be solved here. But hopefully we can address your concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes ... but if you link some, you've got to link them all, and you did link some :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now there's no bolded title in the lead? (WP:MOSBOLD, WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed - I would wikilink all dates until advised otherwise, some of my more diligent copyeditors have removed some of them. As for the boldness, ask Epbr123! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, thanks for your links out to the various MOS policies. One day I'll know them off by heart...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states, "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive ... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface". Epbr123 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thing you reviewed :-) And glad that is sorted out now at WP:LEAD, because it's been a source of confusion on many articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I went with "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." from MOSDATE. No dates in this article would therefore need to be linked, only seasons/cup campaigns etc. I'm not sure what additional understanding is gained from 7 July or 2006. Frankly, I don't really care, so long as it's consistent. I think MOSDATE is a mess though. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: My only remaining wish ould be an aestheteic one: the last section has such long paragraphs, with so much blue text and reference numbers, that it is uncomfortable to look at. Not sure how one gets around that. But content seems highly worthy of promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Kevin, thanks so much for all your efforts, here and at the PR, I very much appreciate it. As for the blue text in the final section, perhaps I'm guilty of overlinking or over-referencing, but I suspect that obvious links if left unlinked will soon be linked and claims without reference will find a {{cn}} template whacked on... damned if you do, damned if you don't! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written and referenced, adequately illustrated, no obvious omissions, style remarkably neutral for a fan writing about their club. Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva drive

Nominator 83.176.135.191 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This has no references, for a start, and it is too short. Nowhere near the standard to be featured. PeterSymonds | talk 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose too, I'm afraid. The animations are lovely, and explain the principles of the drive wonderfully, but the lack of references/citations is an instant problem, and the comprehensiveness is lacking too (who invented it, when, where?). Carré (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note to nominator: In case you're new to this, you should read the featured article criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a very good start, but I too recommend reading the featured article criteria. You need inline citations for a number of the statements in the article, starting at the very first paragraph. Another criteria is that external links are only in the external links section, not in the body of the text. If you are using them as sources, they need to be in footnotes/inline citations. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: there aren't references. jskellj (msg)
• Strong object: no refs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Orange Bowl

previous FAC (00:08, 31 January 2008)

I must be a glutton for punishment, because here's yet another American college football FAC, this time about this year's Orange Bowl game, held in Miami, Florida at the beginning of last month. It's my personal opinion that this article is of an even higher quality than the one that just passed (2007 ACC Championship Game), and I hope the passage of this article will go a bit smoother. It does need at least one person unfamiliar with college football to review it and point out the places where things aren't so clear, but other than that, I feel that the article is ready for featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Does the succession box need "2009 Orange Bowl" linked? It would be better to state that the next one is scheduled for 2009, as it implies that the 2009 one has already occurred. PeterSymonds | talk 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see your point... but it's linked on other FA-class single-game articles that I've done (2007 ACC Championship Game, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl), and we'd have to insert a link eventually anyway. I don't really care either way. It's a minor change that doesn't affect the content. Whichever way you think is best.
• Comment
  • Em dashes should be unspaced.
    • Done.
  • This isn't a reliable source.
    • Added another citation.
  • The references section should come before the external links section.
    • Done.
  • The Wikimedia Commons link belongs in the external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. If there's anything else I can do, let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work. --Savethemooses (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another Great article - PGPirate 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just like Heaven (song)

Self-nomination. My fellow editor Ceoil (who's been to FAC quite a bit, sometimes in tandem with myself) has in the best sense of the word demanded I bring this article to FAC. It's short, but it fits the FA criteria, and has had input from other members of WikiProject Alternative music. So let's have at it, shall we? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: And about time too Dodds. You can go back to sleep now. Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support: What a FA on a single should be. congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see anywhere where it isn't used. All punctuation placed inside the quotation marks belongs there. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was mistaken. Also, the dates and authors in the refs need to be consistently formatted. Epbr123 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as a contributor, albeit a minor one. NSR77 ^T_C 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support -- Overall, a great article about one of my favorite songs. I do, however, have a reservation:

1. The "Reception" section cites three reviews, but two are from AMG. The Melody Maker review is contemporary with the release of the song, but I believe the AMG reviews date at least five years and probably upwards of a decade later. Could you find at least one more review dating from the release of the song/album?

Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually searching through the respective Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone reviews of the album, but they only mention the song briefly or not at all. I have a couple more places to look and I'm hoping to find at least one more. NSR77 ^T_C 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil already searched back issues of NME and Sounds for reviews; they didn't review the single like Melody Maker did. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added as much as I could find. Hope it's enough. NSR77 ^T_C 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, some minor details:

• Is it The Cure or the Cure; both are used in the article.

It's quite possible I missed one or two (you may want to check it again) but most everything was fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Include image of music video? (the dancing)

Added the best one I could find. NSR77 ^T_C 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Include Dinosaur cover sample? (since it seems more important/better than the others)

I'm not particularly supportive of the idea, but Wesley may feel otherwise. NSR77 ^T_C 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• link Mascis and Dinosaur again. (quite a distance away)

Linked. NSR77 ^T_C 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Its lyric was written by the band's... The song's music was written by Smith" Some variation needed.

Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's a paragraph where it is twice explained how Smith saw the "obvious potential" of the single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indopug (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't the key/chords/A Major thing OR? indopug (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you can hear the chords quite clearly (they are simple barre chords, so it's obvious what he's playing and what the key it is). If you really want I can cite the Cure Greatest Hits songbook I own, but I don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably should. It couldn't hurt. NSR77 ^T_C 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean tone-deaf/musically untrained folk (like me) couldn't make out them out. Shouldn't chord progressions/keys always need to be cited; considering you need a particular skill to be able to figure them out (much like, say, analysing a book)? indopug (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the Greg Kot Chicago Tribune cite have an article name? indopug (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The fan website that relayed the quotes only included the source, author and date. NSR77 ^T_C 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Robert Smith forced himself to write music 15 days" - is a rather abrupt start. Maybe include the info about the alcohlism put the regime into context and also put "While recording for KM KM KM" before the forced regime in the sentence. And OMG, the word "goth" isn't used even once in the article! Surely the infobox's genre should be goth rock rather than the too-general alternative rock? indopug (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, gothic rock isn't used once in the article, but ""Just Like Heaven" isn't one of their out-and-out goth songs (unlike say, "If Only Tonight We Could Sleep" from the same album). About the most gothic thing about it is the chorused guitar line and Robert Smith talking about how the ocean stole his lady-friend (which, I imagine, didn't actually happen in the incident that Smith drew inspiration from). Alt-rock is as about as specific we can get with this song. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's essentially a pop song. Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me does consist of many songs that can be classified as gothic rock, but "Just like Heaven" is not one of them. NSR77 ^T_C 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that even the correct/original single cover? Google images "just like heaven cure" gives a bunch of album covers without Smith's face. indopug (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object for copyediting concerns
  • Is "its lyric was written" normal British? I'd say "The lyrics were written".

• Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The song's was composed by the band while recording in Southern France - get rid of the passive voice

• The song is the subject, so it works here. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree ("The band composed the song" is better IMO) but since the article's about the song, I can live with it being the subject here if you have strong objections. Tuf-Kat (talk)

• • has since been praised by - passive voice
  • Robert Smith devised a regime of forcing himself to write music - is there a reason not say "Robert Smith forced himself"? If his regime was noteworthy (e.g. he wrote music for fifteen hours a day or something), explain why, otherwise, just cut the extra words.

• In the article cited he said he had to force himself to write, otherwise he would have just spent all day sleeping and drinking. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The track was further developed when Smith overheard Cure drummer Boris Williams play along to the track - repetition of track
  • Smith was inspired - passive voice

• Nothing wrong with using passive voice here. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree on this one too. There are three uses of the passive voice in one sentence, one of which arguably can't be removed, but actually entire clause can be removed without losing anything - we know the track was developed because the article's about to tell us, and both of the instances of passive voice later in the sentence can be profitably removed. Nevermind, I've just done this one. It really is a major problem throughout the article though. Tuf-Kat (talk)

• • instruments were introduced in sequence, one by one - passive voice
  • Smith offered the instrumental. Smith later admitted he "it meant that the music - possibly a NPOV problem, definitely awkward wording. Is the point that he was being too commercially-oriented (i.e. selling out)? If so either, cite who accused him of selling out (or whatever), or state that he later regretted it for that reason (which is what I think it's getting at, but that needs to be implicit).

• Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The song was completed quickly passsive voice

• Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • is built around an A-E-Bm-D chord progression that is used - passive voice twice

• Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to go any farther right now, but please give it a thorough copyedit, especially looking for passive voice (which should be nonexistent in most articles, but is occasionally necessary) and over-wordiness (e.g. "devised a regime of forcing himself"). Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this feels like talking down - if you already know what passive voice is, ignore it Passive voice is when you reverse the normal order of a sentence - instead of "The song was composed by the band" make it "The band composed the song". You can also just ignore the passive/active thing entirely and just look at every instance of the verb to be (i.e. was, am, were, is, are, weren't, aren't, isn't, should be, would be, could be) - obviously, many uses are fine ("The band is British"), but many of them will be passive voice, and many of them that aren't will also be unnecessarily wordy constructions for other reasons, so just look for each use and see if you can find a better, more direct and almost always shorter, way of saying the same thing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I didn't write ninety five percent of the prose, so I gave it fresh-eyes reworking. I think I've fixed everything you outlined above; if there's more, by all means. NSR77 ^T_C 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • It really does need more work. There's lots of excessive wordiness ("Just like Heaven" is written in the key - can just lose written, throughout most of the song, except for a change during the chorus when - you're about to tell us what the change is, so you don't need to tell us that there is a change), and I think the "Reception" section (and "music and lyrics") has too much repetition of the word "song", especially at the beginning of sentences. There's also still quite a bit of passive voice that can be removed (" was directed", "was also covered", "was released" several times, "was filmed"). Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the latter situation a passive voice is necessary to show when the record was released, the video filmed, etc. How else would you like things to be worded? We can't eliminate the passive voice throughout Wikipedia entirely, though I completely agree it is used excessively in this article.NSR77 ^T_C 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Hillcourt

Self-nominator, a major contributor. William Hillcourt was a Danish-American who was a major influence on Scouting in America and the world. He was known as "Scoutmaster to the World". We've worked on this article a lot lately and feel it's ready for a FAC review. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is well-referenced and reasonably well-written, but I feel is lacking information. As it stands now, the article only describes Hillcourt's life. In the lead (which should be expanded to include a fewe more important details about his life and influences), it says that he was influential, but the article doesn't explain why. All that is does is offer a laundry list of his achievements. Why is he so important to the scouting movement? Is his influence still felt today? The article is also choppy with many short paragraphs. It would read better if the paragraphs are consolidated. I think you should look at the featured Robert Baden-Powell article for inspiration. Instead of being arranged sequentially like the Hillcourt article, it is divided up thematically. Consider splitting thee article into a 'personal life' section and 'scouting' section like in the Bade-Powell article. This would make it easier to separate Hillcourt's personal life from his achievements, and much improve the article.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Worked on this. Pulse check? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up the scare quotes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I got the logical quotes too – there were only two, right? Carré (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're all fine now. Epbr123 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been reviewed extensively against the FA criteria by DrKiernan, Karanacs and The Rambling Man and I believe it now meets the criteria. All comments will be addressed as swiftly as possible. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not time to read it through right now, but it looks good. However, from the lead:

• "She was also a supporter of the women's movement" - can we be a little more specific? That links to feminism, are we talking about the suffragettes?
  • Feminism. Though she later regretted it when she became a Reactionist. It's now more specific.
• "and was known to Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Garrett" - royalty tends to be known to everyone at the time. Can we find a more precise verb? "associated" "admired"??
  • Indeed. She visited one and corresponded with the other, so I thought I'd sum up with "known to". I've now made it more specific. PeterSymonds | talk 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Doc^g 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good. Juliancolton (Talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support There's a few places where it would benefit from slight reordering of material, but in the round a good, thorough and well researched piece.--Doc^g 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support glad to be of help at the extensive peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very good :-) jskellj (msg) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I removed {{British princesses}} from this as a)Drop-down templates are ugly and apparently don't work in certain browsers/skins. b)The template is quite incoherent - it refers to princesses by numbered generations (1-11) without any hint as to what it is numbering from. I've been reverted, with the explanation as to the meaning of the generation in the edit summary? As this template seems to depreciate this otherwise excellent candidate, I'd like some views here.--Doc^g 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who generally dislikes too many infoboxes/templates in an article, I completely agree. Does the British princesses template really add anything to the article anyway? There is a category for (see Category:English and British princesses) so why the extra need for a template? PeterSymonds | talk 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses

• Support with some comments Excellent article:
  • It says Louise was Victoria's "seventh pregnancy". I wasn't aware Victoria had lost any children. Indeed her DNB entry says "The queen suffered no miscarriage or stillbirth, and all her children survived to adulthood, a situation unusual even among the Victorian upper classes." Could you check please?
    • Addressed. For some reason someone changed all the "sixths" to "sevenths" earlier on, and I changed them all back, but missed that one. I've made it clear.
  • The sentence "Louise was bored by the court, and by fulfilling her duties...she had more responsibility than she had before." is a little unwieldy.
    • Addressed.
  • "When Queen Victoria had visited the house before her husband became the Duke...By the time of her brother's accession" Confusing pronouns: Queen Victoria's husband wasn't the Duke and her brother wasn't King! DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ooh, what a mess. Addressed. Thanks for spotting these problems. PeterSymonds | talk 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Nova Expedition

Self-Nominator Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been developed significantly during peer review, following its successful GA nomination, and I think now warrants FA status Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at peer review. Another well structured, balanced, and thoroughly researched article. Yomangani^talk 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment
  • Single years shouldn't be linked.
    • I have delinked these, I think Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's incorrent date formatting in an image caption
    • Corrected Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • En dashes are needed in page ranges
    • I believe I have attended to these Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Page numbers should be consistently formatted
    • Sorry, forgot to do this when going through the article. I'll attend to it now Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done it Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's some incorrect dash usage within the prose and headings eg. Jan–March 1911 (and the months shouldn't be abbreviated)
    • I believe I've sorted this out Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Units in bracketed conversions should be abbreviated
    • I've done this, I think Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some dates within the prose need linking
    • I think they're all linked now Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The external link in the "see also" section should be removed
    • I've moved it to the External link section Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Logical quotation should be used. Epbr123 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have sorted these out I think Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • These issues seem fine now. Epbr123 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I reviewed this article for GA, and think it is very well written and thoroughly researched. But I have to also echo Epbr123's concerns regarding the manual of style and copyediting concerns. In reviewing for GA, I had done some minor copyedits to fix much of this (like removing month/day and single year wikilinks), as well as some external links. Although I see now that, in the recent editing to bring it up to FA status, that much of these wikilinks have made it back into the article. From the completeness and prose perspectives, I think can support this article; but until the article is in compliance with WP:MOS, I cannot support. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to deal with all the above points, I hope to your satisfaction Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• A few sample edits might be helpful here; Brian is a somewhat new editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning slowly Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good trawl through WP:MOS and am a bit embarrassed about the amount I had not absorbed before. I have been through the article again, and apart from one or two instances where I'm not sure, and possible oversights, I think it now complies with the style required.

My apologies for not doing this before Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Want to give us the couple of instances you're not sure about Brian? See if we can help out? Carré (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. First, in the Cape Evans section, is the format of the hut measurements correct? I'm not sure about the spaces around the multiplication signs, but it looks ugly without them. Secondly, I've referred to "tons" as weights without specifying long tons or short tons in the text. I'm not familiar with this concept - imperial or metric, yes, but I've never come across long or short. What should I show? Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hokey dokey, let's see. Tons first: a long ton is an imperial ton. A short ton is the US standard ton (kinda the same as why an imperial pint is bigger than a US pint, I guess). Both are different from a metric tonne. In this context, I would imagine the "ton" in question is a long ton. For the multiplication sign, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Multiplication sign – use a spaced &times; There :) Hope that helps. Carré (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping hand, Carré ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Carré. The term "long ton" is unfamiliar in britain so I've specified by footnote which ton I mean. From what you say about the hut dimensions, these appear to be OK in the text. Thank you for your help Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article with impressive narrative structure. Very balanced and unbiased view of Scott's ill-fated expedition. I appreciate the way in which the article deals with criticism and support of Scott's decisions. Very well done. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question – can you explain the difference between geographic mile and statute mile (here, I mean, not in the article)? Looking at statute mile (a redirect to mile), it seems statute mile was defined in the late 16th century as 5,280 ft, while the international mile was standardised also at 5,280 ft in 1959, but there's no mention of a geographic mile. Do you really mean nautical mile? Or something else? Ta. Carré (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I found geographical mile. Might be worth a wikilink there though, if you feel it necessary to keep that little used unit in. Carré (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"geographic" was a typo - should have been geographical. I have corrected and, as you suggest, linked Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward VII of the United Kingdom

• Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the bolding in the Titles and Styles section is necessary. Epbr123 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have raised this point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In the sentence, Edward was born at 10:48 a.m. on 9 November 1841 in Buckingham Palace., what time zone was 10:48 a.m.? Juliancolton (Talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know, but the difference between local time and GMT would have been slight. According to my notes, this comes from Bentley-Cranch, but I think I should re-check it as, now that you've pointed it out, the precision of the time seems odd. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't think of that in particular, but it does indeed seem odd how percise the timeing is. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Queen Victoria wrote in her journal: "at last, at 12 m[inutes] to 11, I gave birth to a fine large Boy". (Magnus, 1) The precise timing came from Victoria herself. PeterSymonds | talk 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah. That seems like a reliable source. Support now I see nothing else wrong. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Not a timezone in 1841; presumably a standing clock (supposedly) keeping local time. I doubt we will ever know how accurate it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Article is in a much better state now thanks to DrKiernan's efforts. PeterSymonds | talk 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support For now, after a quick glance, these issues with the sources:
  • footnote 3 is "Magnus p. 1" . No Magnus in the References section
    • Done by somebody else. Philip Magnus wrote a standard life of Edward VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of sources are in the footnotes, but not in the References section
    • So what? If they're cited for incidental points, they should not be in the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Ashley's got four footnotes to him, and the Duke of Windsor's got five. I can see the one offs not needing to be in the References (although I'd put them there myself) but something that gets four or five footnotes is getting to more important matters. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned that you're using a synopsis of a work from Amazon.com as a source.
• I also have concerns about the short paragraphs in the lede, they give the prose a choppy feel. I didn't read the article itself closely, so haven't addressed any prose/MOS issues in the body of the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)issues.
  • I've redrafted [3]. The lead is deliberately split into four paragraphs: 1. why he's notable 2. life as Prince of Wales 3. life as King 4. what happened after his death. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks better. I'd prefer it if it was a bit longer in the lede, but it feels a bit less choppy now. Thanks! Changing to support now.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Very interesting, fairly well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. There are some unreferenced areas that need to be addressed. The prose is fairly good, and it was a very interesting article.
  • Need a citation for " The war marked the end of the Edwardian way of life."
    • Why? That is a not a tautology, like 2 + 2 = 4; but it is almost as well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Legacy section is completely unreferenced, and there are statements in this section that need references.
    • "foremost teaching and medical care providing institutions in India"
    • "the largest maternity hospital in the Perth metropolitan area. "
    • That the schools are named for him, not for another of the Edwards
    • " latter a rare example of an Edwardian Theatre"
    • "The only medical school in the former British colony of Singapore"
    • ". The series was actually based on the story of Rosa Lewis, an Edwardian society cook who had risen from the ranks of a scullery maid to own the famous Cavendish Hotel"
    • " However, there is no evidence that Edward had an affair with Rosa."
  • Probably the best thing to do here is to move the list of institutions named after Edward VII to a list of its own. Rosa Lewis contains a source on Rosa Lewis and Edward VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've redrafted [4]. Can the quote from Tuchman's Guns of August be taken as a reference to the end of the Edwardian way of life? The schools are called "King Edward VII School". DrKiernan (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would think so; other standard references include her The Proud Tower, chapter 1, and The Strange Death of Liberal England by Dangerfield, passim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see why Duchess of Duke Street need go out entirely. Edward does appear, and the semi-fictional aspects are rightly explained in its own article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments. Leaning to support. A thorough, well-organised and balanced article.

• I agree with the comment above about the "named after" section (for me, "Legacy" is rather too weighty a title for a section about statues and so forth). "Portrayals" also seems to me lightweight and unnecessary. "Titles, styles, honours and arms" contains jargon, such as "differenced": why we have all been mesmerised into accepting unexplained jargon in this category of section and no other, I don't know (I am a reasonably educated person, but "differenced by a label argent, of three blank points" means nothing to me). It's a shame that such a good article picks up bits and pieces of fluff at the end; I don't blame DrKiernan, but the tradition by which bitty sections have become tolerated over time at the end of articles.

• The article says that he was denied a career in the army and that his military ranks were honorary, but later we hear about him and his fellow officers on manoeuvres in Ireland. OK, with a girl in his tent, perhaps he wasn't taking them seriously, but is it possible to smooth over the apparent disjunction?

• She wrote, "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder". / The Prince wrote, complaining of the treatment of the native Indians by the British officials, "Because a man has a black face and a different religion from our own, there is no reason why he should be treated as a brute." Perhaps it's just me, but I like to know where (diary/speech/letter, etc.) people say things—to give context.

• After the couple's marriage, she expressed anxiety about their lifestyle. I felt the need for specifics here: what was there to annoy her about their lifestyle?

• The number VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, in protest at his use of a name carried by English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle" Omitted by whom? He would still be called Edward, even without the number. I felt the need for an explanation here.

• Jewish financier friends. Perhaps the "Jewish" could be dropped. I daresay he had non-Jewish financier friends, and Jewish non-financier friends, so I feel the distinction isn't necessary.

• Picture of family: I can't quite tell if that's a photo or perhaps a lithograph, or something, made from a photo. Might it be indicated what medium we are looking at, as in some of the other images?

• In 1870, republican sentiment in Britain was given a boost when the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and the French Third Republic was declared.[27] However, in the winter of 1871, while staying at Londesborough Lodge, near Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Edward contracted typhoid, the disease that had killed his father. There is no immediate connection between these two sentences. One emerges later in the paragraph, but readers may need their way smoothed here.

• At the end of the tour, his mother was given the title Empress of India, in part as a result of the tour's success. Who by?

• In 1900, Persimmon's brother, Diamond Jubilee, won all five classic races (Derby, St Leger, Two Thousand Guineas, Newmarket Stakes and Eclipse Stakes) Well, the five classics are the One Thousand Guineas, Two Thousand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, and St Leger; and they were the same then. The One Thousand and the Oaks are only open to fillies, so since Diamond Jubilee, as a brother, was a colt, he couldn't have won five classics in a year. I suspect he probably just won the five races named: it would, I think, be neat if they could be written in the order they occur (I am not sure when the Newmarket Stakes was run in those days, but I suspect it would have been first, followed by the Two Thousand, the Derby, the Eclipse, and the St Leger).

• [he]pioneered the pressing of trouser legs from side to side in preference to the now normal front and back creases. Is "pioneered" quite the right word for preferences in ironing trousers? Especially as in this case, it didn't really catch on. Checking the picture of the four kings, it certainly looks as if little George is laterally pressed, but unless my eyes deceive me, our pioneer is wearing frontally pressed trousers. Obviously no Jim Bowie.

Support. Another very impressive article from DrKiernan. qp10qp (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've redrafted: [5]
  • I entirely agree with your assessment of "Legacy" and "Portrayals" and such like sections, but my and your desire to see them expunged is matched by equally vociferous editors insisting that they be included. Only last week I had another discussion over the issue (see User talk:DrKiernan#Charles II of England, Talk:Richard III of England#In popular culture and related edits by me and User:Necrothesp on all the monarch articles).

What do others think? I would be interested to hear the view of other reviewers on these sections. My argument would be that an FA article has to reflect the best scholarship, and works of scholarship do not contain "portrayals" sections or trivialise legacy. These lists should go on other pages, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind "Legacy" sections, where you cover information in a semi-formal way. From my medieval bishops, that's where I put things like "They had an awful reputation for unchastity" or "They were canonized." It's a good catchall place for things like the fashion influences for Edward VII. What I object to is the listing of every time a person's name is used in video games or mentioned in passing in some TV show. Many biographies have a chapter or two on things the subject was known for that carried on past their death. Good luck keeping the trivia lists out though!Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I want to keep Jewish in. The point is that high society was generally anti-Semitic but Edward ignored prejudice and attracted criticism for openly socialising with Jews. I don't want to state this explicitly because his (relative) lack of prejudice is already covered elsewhere in the article but just highlighting it here reinforces that. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But that point is not clear from the article at all and perhaps should be made explicit. As it stands, for me, the passing identification of his financiers as Jewish is not luminous. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It should. He also created several Jewish peers. It was assumed at the time that this was gratitude for handling his debts, and was widely commented on. (The Rothschilds were first, in 1885; I'm not sure how much was his influence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Added a sentence [6] DrKiernan (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has achieved GA status and subsequently undergone peer review. As far as I can ascertain, FAC criteria have been met. It is a somewhat obscure and under-researched area but I believe the article fairly represents the current state of knowledge. Fainites ^barley 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. What is the relevance of the image in the article's infobox? It does not seem to have any particular medical meaning, seeming to be more of an artistic interpretation of the disorder. Kakofonous (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Its only relevance is that featured articles require images. It would not be appropriate to show an image of a child with a serious psychological disorder, even it you could get one, so I used this artistic representation instead. Any other suggestions gratefully received. I'd be happy with no image myself. Fainites ^barley 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good picture, and appropriate for the subject. It is the sort of image I'd expect alongside an article in the New Scientist magazine, or some similar serious but not dry journal. Such artistic images tend not to be free, so we are unfamiliar with them on WP. It looks professional, and gives you an image of a child to identify with as you read. Colin°^Talk 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The page numbers aren't consistently formatted eg. "p. 219" "p. 228.", and some have the wrong dashes
  • Hyphens shouldn't be used after -ly words, eg. "poorly-understood"
  • Numbers under ten should be spelled out, eg. "7-year twin study"
  • Quotation marks should be used for quotations rather than apostrophes, eg. the 'late placed' children
  • "orphanages from the mid 1990's" - a hyphen should be after "mid", and the apostrophe isn't needed
  • "described as 'RADs' or 'Radkids' or 'Radishes'" - "or" should only be used once here. Epbr123 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. (Except for ref. no. 30 which just won't work).Fainites ^barley 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the remaining dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just glanced at it so far, but "less than ideal 'attachment styles'" bothers me as sounding almost like a satirical understatement. Maybe "other dysfunctional" or "other pathological" or whatever would be more straight forward. Also, since attachment styles is piped anyway, is there a way to pipe it to avoid 'attachment styles', as that also seems (in my eyes) to lend less weight to it, as if you are coining a term or are using an idiom. Mattisse 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "other problematic" as you use further down? Mattisse 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well they're not really pathological. They may even be adaptive. But I agree 'problematic' is better. What do you mean by 'pipe'? Fainites ^barley 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipe means that attachment styles redirects to attachment theory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence bothers me but I can't think of an obvious solution: "It is thought to grossly disturb the development of a child's internal working model of relationships that lead to ..."

When you say "it", you are referring to "RAD, the broad term used to describe..."? Is it a theory or a hypothesis or just a broad term?

The RAD theory postulates that if a child's development of an internal working model of relationships to others is grossly disturbed, it leads to....? Not trying to make your life hard! Mattisse 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have many problems with this article, so perhaps I should not be involved. So far, the references I have checked that have links are either useless, misleading or refer repeatedly to a study consisting of one set of twins followed up three times in three year (from what the abstract says). I think the passive voice is only rarely justified. And I think the use of 'words' is inappropriate in an article that wants to be taken seriously in psychology/psychiatry. Sorry, I just see a lot of work here. The article is interesting and could be fixed with care taken to be professional in tone and referencing. It is not that now. Mattisse 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mattisse, since most of the article is cited to PMIDs, it would be helpful if you would provide examples of useless or misleading links (we can't rely on the PMID abstracts only, and presumably Fainites has the full-text journal articles) as well as examples of your concerns about passive voice. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access of PMID, only the abstracts that frequently either say nothing ( as some referenced in this article say nothing but ask you to join a subscription) or do not give relevant information like sample size and other pertinent information. The ones that do, in this article, are like the one mentioned above with a sample size of one twin set, no mention of the measures used, who were seen three times in three years. This abstract is quoted three times in the article. Some links just go to Wikipedia articles, which always annoys me.

I would also state that I started out being interested in the article, but after I read the first paragraph in the second section over and over and still could not figure out what was meant by "For a diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder, one or both of the attachment behaviors of seeking proximity to a specified attachment figure must be missing. (See ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR criteria below).". Maybe I am tired or maybe I have lost my brains. But this reminds me of the proliferation of narcissistic rage etc. that shows no signs of stopping. Are there not articles on this already? There are merge proposals for some that sound similar. There is not even a clear definition of what the term means in the article.

A lot of copy editing is needed, which I would not mind doing, but for what purpose? There are already no shortage of similar articles. I feel it is a morass, else I would help. But the article will probably pass anyway. What is this article saying that has not already be said? This is not even my field yet I have heard it all before. Sorry. I am tired. Maybe my temperment will improve. Mattisse 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sense some confusion about what PMID abstract is? Our sources don't have to be available online; with medical articles, the peer-reviewed sources have abstracts that are online, which only serve to lead us to the real article offline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many do not have useful information in their so-called Abstract. That practice I am not familiar with. In my world Abstracts contain some crucial information. In fact, many referenced here have no information. Secondly, PMID articles are akin to original research, maybe one-half a step better. They are one (or a group) of researchers (usually graduate students) who put together an article and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. That by no means "proves" anything. You need articles that synthesize these various individual studies into some meaningful position. The reliance on PMID is ludicrous to me in these articles. Such references might persuade one's major professor to let you duplicate one as a dissertation. But, come on! This is not the way a general science article is written. The love affair with PMID I do not understand, as it would have never passed muster in my off-wiki science writing. An accumulation of them , using the same methodology, subject selection, sampling, measures etc. might support evidence of a particular position, but I see no sign of that is this article. Mattisse 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am puzzled by the comments. Perhaps you haven't explained yourself well. Citing journal articles is standard practice and quite acceptable when writing a review or an academic book, or a Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting the article should only cite books instead? Those are likely to be less up-to-date and may not have had the same level of peer review. As for PMIDs, those are just convenience links to the Pubmed database where one can read the abstract and if you have access, follow onto an online edition of the full text (where available). If the journal isn't online, then the paper needs to be looked up in the old fashioned way. Those links do not imply that the article is sourced from abstracts. To do that would be very wrong and to comment on the accuracy of the article vs sources having only read the abstracts would also be very wrong. I think you are hinting that the article should use secondary sources such as review articles rather than primary sources (the original research). This is indeed a preference, but is only possible if such articles exist. Fainites may have some opinion on whether the sources are written by experts in the field, or a bunch of "graduate students". Anyway, such review articles would also be on PubMed and have a PMID. Colin°^Talk 10:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled by alot of your criticism Matisse. I would like to address percieved problems in the article but I need to understand you concerns.

• The articles that are on PMID are linked to PMID. I understand that is standard on Wiki. Very few have free content so cannot be linked to whole articles. The abstract is not the source of the information - the study is. I would link to whole studies/articles if I could!

I understand this. That is the problem. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is little research on RAD. The article states that, as does just about every one of the few studies there are. I can't conjur up multiple studies to present a synthesis if they don't exist. The article makes considerable use of mainstream texts on the subject such as Prior and Glaser and the Taskforce report, and peer reviewed collaborations like Enhancing Early Attachment and Hand book of Infant Mental Health.

Since this is the case (no mainstream synthesis since they don't exist) , is not the author engaging in OR, since the author is the one presenting the synthesis here on Wikipedia? Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the reliance on mainstream texts/books, APA parameters etc. What there aren't are things like loads of literature reviews and meta-analyses (except for one on treatment)Fainites ^barley 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• The idea that the likes of Boris, Zeanah and Rutter are "a bunch of graduate students" who "put together an article" is entertaining but but I am unclear as to what in particular you are complaining of. (There's one article cited that possibly meets that description). Is it particular studies or particular articles cited?

This was not mean to refer pejoratively to particular individuals engaged in the writing of this article, but merely a jaundiced reference to my own experiences. I apologize to all those named above, as criticizing them was farthest from my mind. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is not an off-Wiki science article. Its a Wiki article. I can put in details of what measures were used but I thought that was too detailed for Wiki. There is a section in the article on measures.

I am NOT saying that you should put these details in the article, but they should be considered in selecting the articles for referencing support. Discretion should be used in choosing articles from PMID, even if they support your view. Look for good methodlogy, comparable samples, etc. Many seem to be comparing apples with oranges. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying that hasn't been done? What 'view'? You say its not your area, you haven't heard of Boris, Zeanah and Rutter and yet you are making assumptions about the choice of articles and NPOV. Given that there were less than a dozen studies involving only 7 samples of children before 2005, the "choice" is limited.Fainites ^barley 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which links do you say are broken or useless.

Hopely someone else will go through and check them. I will do so selectively. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by the 'use of "words"' ?

That comment was made in reference to the author's tendency to surround certain words with single quotes. I do not see this in professional articles. I believe even the MoS discourages this. I have removed the examples I found in the article. Near the top of this comments section, I refer to an example of this and explain why I do not feel it is appropriate. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Fainites ^barley 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which articles are there that you say already cover this and have merge proposals? What do you mean by 'you have heard it all before'? Do you mean RAD or are you suggesting that RAD is a sort of pop psychology diagnosis? Its certainly been used as that on the web and within attachment therapy but it is also in ICD/DSM. The 'official' version is very different to the pop version.

Fainites ^barley 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that RAD is a pop version as, although it is not my primary field, I do keep up with the literature. Plus, seem personal experiences are referred to in this comment section, my daughter had many friends who adopted Russian children in the 1990s, so I also have a personal view of the treatments etc. However I do know a confused set of articles when I see them. Rough list (most poorly referenced, if at all): (I could not find the merge suggestion) There needs to be come kind of plan or organization. There is an Attachment template.

• Attachment theory
• Attachment (psychology)
• Attachment parenting
• Attachment disorder
• Reactive attachment disorder
• Attachment therapy
• Attachment in children
• Attachment in adults
• Affectional bond
• Attachment measures
• Attachment-based psychotherapy
• Template:Attachment theory
• Disinhibited attachment disorder
• Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
• Theraplay
• Rage-reduction , Holding therapy and Evergreen model redirect to Attachment theory
• Holding time (attachment therapy) redirects to Attachment therapy
• List of alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities
• Rebirthing (attachment therapy) redirect
• Cuddle time (attachment therapy) redirect
• Corrective attachment therapy redirect
• Compression therapy (attachment therapy) redirect
• Advocates for Children in Therapy
• Separation anxiety disorder
• Adopted child syndrome
• Maternal deprivation
• Trauma model of mental disorders Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I am trying to improve these articles but I only have one pair of hands! You can't blame all of that lot on me! Many of the attachment related articles were 'owned' and written by an attachment therapist and his 6 sock puppets. The articles all promoted attachment therapy theories, diagnosis and treatment as mainstream and promoted a particular form of attachment therapy (Dyadic developmental psychotherapy) as the cure for everything. This was the case for over a year. It took a lengthy ArbCom in July/August 07 to get rid of them all. It will take even longer to rewrite all the articles although I have tried to remove the most egregious propaganda. (FT2 calculated that in total 50 articles were affected). I don't see what any of this has to do with whether or not this RAD article is good enough. The idea here is to present a sourced, mainstream article. Fainites ^barley 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't realised you thought the articles were written from PMIDs and were expecting to find all the bits of the article in PMID abstracts. No - the studies/articles were nearly all cited long before I was advised on how to standardise citations by linking to PMID's. The PMID's and doi's, if they have them, enable people to access the original material if they wish. Fainites ^barley 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not think as you state that I thought "the articles were written from PMIDs and were expecting to find all the bits of the article in PMID abstracts". I guess I was mislead into thinking that a meaningful abstract would be posted there, or at least something besides a subscription request. Mattisse 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the PMIDs go to a subscription request though some of the doi's might. I have been firmly told by reviewers that the cites have to have a PMID or doi. I did originally link direct to abstracts but got told off for that.Fainites ^barley 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fixes needed - ok, i've just started reading. As DSM IV-TR is our lingua franca, it really needs to be up the top of the lead that it is a DSM (and ICD10) diagnosis. It is not a term used in lay parlance except where picked up from clinicians. Have a look at schizophrenia for a comparison. I work in psychiatry and I do not share Mattisse's views on WP's depth on these topics. The evolution of classification and persons involved is often very helpful to understanding them. I'll add more as I find stuff. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Licensed Psychologist in the field also. The article Schizophrenia was not mentioned by me and I do not know why you seem to feel I need to "pick up tips" from it. I do not understand your comment about '"Mattisse's views on WP's depth on these topics" (whatever you thing those views are) nor what it has to do with the fact that you "work in psychiatry" or my field, for that matter. But feel free to get to work and lengthen the article. Mattisse 17:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is associated with developed, albeit disorganized attachment. - huh? what does this mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK.

• DSM/ICD was in the lead but was taken out as being too esoteric! I'll put it back.
• Re your comment on disorganised attachment - I would welcome your help on this. Dis. att. is the most problematical attachment style and such research as there is shows that abuse is a risk factor for its development and dis, att. is a risk factor for a range of psychopathologies. However, it is not RAD but is often confused with RAD - or in the case of attachment therapy, intermingled with RAD. The point that I was trying to make is that although RAD requires pathogenic care, which may well include abuse, you can't affirm the consequent as it were. The 'link' is between Dis.Att. and abuse, not RAD and abuse. RAD is an actual disorder and dis.att. is not (as yet). Fainites ^barley 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see your problem. Thing is, there are two paradigms being discussed here. One is the whole Bowlby-Ainsworth Attachment paradigm with its 4 attachment (or 'Attachment' types), and strictly speaking the word 'Attachment' refers to the group the observed behaviour falls into in an experimental setting (Strange Situation etc.). The other is DSM IV-TR/ICD 10.

A clinician would not really intermingle the two freely as one is alot more qualitative and drives therapeutics (if you're a clinician who likes attachment theory - I reckon it is very good but I digress...), while the other is more for diagnostics, particularly in legal or research/popualtion based criteria. I don't have me big DSM IV TR handy but I can check tomorrow, but the DSM criteria have little to do with the nuances of Attachment theory as such. I'm not sure if this has come out right, but I'll keep looking at the articlecheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put in a sort of potted version of attachment theory/styles so that a) the reader had some idea of what attachment was and b) attachment styles and RAD aren't mixed up and used interchangeably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs) 10:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• PS: All the 'one study said' etc. is too vague. Need to state who said what and thinks what. It shouldn't be hard to do in this field. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear, in Diagnosis section, we've got problems with mixing RAD per se and Attachment research. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are major headaches in definition, as the DSM IV TR criteria have problems with caregivers as a prerequisite for making the diagnosis, yet the article veers off that at least a couple of times. If there ain't this problem, it ain't RAD according to DSM IV TR. Sorry.

The article does say that a history of pathogenic care is required - its in the clasification section. I agree - no crap care - no diagnosis. Are you saying this isn't made clear enough in the article? Or that more should be said about controversy over this? There is a study in (Zeanah I think) that says you don't need history of path care to diagnose - which is a circular argument I suppose - but then I think he mainly wrote the DSM thing. Fainites ^barley 10:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, one I misread one but this -reactive attachment disorder is almost by definition based on a problematic history of care and social relationships. - should lose the 'almost'. I'll keep looking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is as yet no explanation for why similar abnormal parenting produces two distinct forms of the disorder. - erm, yes and no. If you're following Attachment theory there is plenty of evidence of what type of parenting leads to what type of attachment- there is a very strong trnasgenerational progression. If you follow a more biological or reductionist view then there isn't. The more I think about it the more I think the whole article needs to be majorly reorganized. RAD split to the bare bones of DSM IV with some discussion in a history section to explain the context of the term to Bowlby, and then fuller discussion in Attachment theory and disorganized etc. attachemtns there. I don't think we are going to fix this in this FAC. sorry cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That bit is sourced (from Zeanah again). I took it to mean in relation to why, for example, of the twins - one had the disinhibited form and one had the inhibited form. I agree re parenting and attachment as such. My understanding is that the idea of RAD is a lack of attachment as opposed to a problematical style - hence the need to explain and then distinguish the styles. I'm not sure whether you're saying there should be a fuller description of attachment theory and styles in this article, or less of one and better links to the attachment theory articles. (There's two relevent theory articles, attachment theory and attachment in children). I don't understand your re-org. proposal. This article does have bare bones of RAD, with attachment theory and styles and Bowlby explained and distinguished in the Framework section. The rest is about RAD except for the odd bit of information to distinguish dis. org. from RAD. Should I remove all reference to dis. att. and other styles except for distinguishing them in the framework section? I'm quite happy to reorganise it if its thought to be best but I'd need a clearer idea of where I'm going.Fainites ^barley 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no differential diagnosis section - eg. many have Nonorganic FTT, need to rule out organic cause. Need to distinguish withdrawn kid from Autism etc. Also - who diagnoses disorder, who treats, where treated etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I divide the diagnosis section into two? DSM specifically excludes PDD etc. There are three aspects really - the differential diagnosis from other recognised disorders - diagnosis itself - and pop psychology diagnosis under attachment therapy (of the '80% of adopted/fostered children have RAD and will grow up to be Ted Bundy' variety). Fainites ^barley 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is associated with disorganized attachment. - erm, not always. COuld easily see situations of kids in an emotionally unavailable (i.e. avoidant/dismissive) household being preyed upon by pedophiles etc. as one example. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of a better word that 'associated'? This bit was actually sourced. I was trying to avoid implying that any one outcome is inevitable, but there is a correlation between abuse and dis. att., but not between abuse and DSM RAD - though it is often co-morbid. However, the ICD 10 definition is different and includes abuse in the way DSM doesn't. Fainites ^barley 10:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole Mechanism section better fits under attachment theory as well and doesn't sit well in this article, which is ironic as it is important just a bit square-peg-round-hole.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There was quite alot of discussion as to whether to have a mechanism section at all because it implies that more is known than actually is. WP:MEDMOS requires one so JeanMercer had a shot at it, although she thought it best not to have one, but it is, of necessity, amorphous. It could be removed altogether or put in the theory article.Fainites ^barley 10:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sections on MEDMOS are just suggestions, not requirements. Colin°^Talk 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) true. I know how frustrating it is to get input in certain areas. I was considering working up some of the attachment stuff up to FAC. My suggestion would be to withdraw this and carve up the article, so that RAD refers to the DSM stuff and is kept small, with a few links to trauma etc. Rutters Isle of Wight work. All the attachment theory stuff is so much richer and more interesting, and then work up attachment theory to FAC. The demarkation is just in the wrong place on this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well more power to your elbow on getting Attachment theory up to FAC! Life would be easier on the other attachment articles if the primary one were better. However, on this one, firstly, the article is about RAD rather than attachment theory. I don't see that much of it could go into the attachment article apart from the mechanisms section. Secondly, I don't understand why RAD shouldn't have its own comprehensive article, particularly given how much misinformation there is about it on the Web. If its big enough to have its own section in DSM and ICD, its big enough to have a comprehensive article on Wiki. Fainites ^barley 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) fair point. I just realised the article is 60 kb, so it would be plenty big enough at half the size. I need to sleep now (midnight here in oz), but will help out tomorrow. I think with some judicious pruning and adding a bit it might work. Let me sleep on it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet dreams! I've removed most of 'mechanism' to the attachment theory article and pruned out quite alot of the disorganized attachment stuff except insofar as it is required in order to distinguish it from RAD. (I changed alot of 'RAD's' to 'attachment disorders' before because another editor said it was like being being repeatedly hit on the head.'RAD, RAD, RAD, RAD. RAD'). (On your other point about attachment articles in general - I did start adding lots of stuff to attachment measures and child therapy, aswell as re-writing attachment disorder and attachment therapy - but dealing with the whole swathe of attachment related articles is a huge task and would benefit from joined up thinking). Fainites ^barley 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, divided up diagnosis and lost the 'almost'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize for my bad mood yesterday and hope you will accept it. Many thanks to User:Casliber who was able to verbalize clearly my confused feelings about the whole of the article. (I was just too tired yesterday and should have kept my mouth shut.) I apologize for my abruptness and really do not mean to be discouraging. (Just some if the article and its referencing reminded me of a recent Z so I became grumbly.) I'll let Casliber to the talking. Just as a should of good faith, I copy edited for wording and clarity this morning the first several sections but then my computer crashed and I lost all. I will try again with the copy editing, if that is O,K. with you, as much needs to be tightened and clarified. However, until the topic is clear, perhaps there is no point? Must ask though, what is the point of a link to PMID that has no abstract? Just a subscription request? Many of them do not. Mattisse 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All well. Apology accepted. Thanks for the offer of a copy edit - my skills in that direction are limited. Whats a 'Z' ? As for the PMID's and dois - originally I linked to what content and abstracts I could find but I got told off for that and was told it had to be PMIDs and doi's only. I think its some of the doi's that link to journals you have to pay for. Fainites ^barley 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My reference to graduate students and published articles is OR (personal experience) so disregard the comment. However, a lone research article is a primary reference, one research group obtained the finding by developing a methodology, interpreting and then stating the results as a hypothesis or to support a hypothesis. A few of these are o.k. but an article like this needs some third-party, reliable, unbiased sources that sum up the findings in the field are needed. If you merely search PMID selectively, and then choose only those research articles that support your view you can write a very misleading article that is well sourced by the citation criteria of FAC without a solid evaluation of the relevance of the references or how selective the author has been in only choosing those pushing a selective point of view. I have seen plenty of that in other psychology articles. Using primary research findings is fine in another research article, although even there it is preferable to also cite something that makes an attempt to give the broader views to which specific, individual findings are attempting to add support. Mattisse 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question of searching PMID for articles that support a 'view'. The bulk of this article was written and sourced before I'd heard of PMID. The 'frame' if you like comes from the Taskforce, AACAP (Zeanah and Boris)[7], O'Connor, Cassidy and Shaver, Handbook of Mental Health etc and Prior and Glaser (RCP), not just individual studies. If you look at those sources you will see they all cite alot of the same studies! There are also a number of papers cited which attempt a round up of what is and what isn't known. eg Rutter M (2002). "Nature, nurture, and development: from evangelism through science toward policy and practice", or Hanson RF, Spratt EG (2000). "Reactive Attachment Disorder: what we know about the disorder and implications for treatment". (I have since checked on PMID as to whether I've missed anything though). In general the approach of the peer reviewers was to prefer primary over secondary sources, hence a number of refs to - for example the Taskforce citing Hanson got changed to Hanson direct - and so on. Presumably you would prefer it to be the other way round, and over all - so would I. Alot easier to write for a start off. I could certainly make more reference to the APA parameter supporting document.

The only alternative 'view' I'm aware of is the attachment therapy one or am I missing something here? I'm really not sure Matisse whether you're talking in general terms or whether you are saying you think this article has been written from a selective, slanted viewpoint. If thats what you think then say so - I would be genuinely interested to know what the other slant or mainstream view is. I make no claims to expertise so if there's some whole area of knowledge or controversy I've missed please say so. Thanks.Fainites ^barley 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may put my oar in: someone queried why this topic should have an article, if there doesn't seem to be clarity about among professionals who work in related fields-- why not wait until agreement is reached? The problem is that various quasi-professional practitioners have made strong statements that are quite at odds with views in the professional world, and have used the internet as a way to promulgate their belief systems and encourage trade. (Note the arbitration Fainites referred to.) Readers who seek information from web sites will probably not look at the print information that is available, but may approach Wiki, and an article like this one (however imperfect) may help them come to a more balanced conclusion than would otherwise be possible.

Whether you think this is a good outcome or not depends, I suppose, on whether you think of Wikipedia as part of the wider community of social connections and obligations, or whether you think of it as a freestanding entity with its own rules and standards, to which outside social needs are irrelevant.

But perhaps this leads to my own most difficult question when contributing to Wiki-- and a question that may also be troubling Fainites-- who is the audience? An important first step in nonfiction writing is to figure out who one is talking to. Where I've contributed to this article, I've tried to think in terms of an interested audience of nonspecialist adults, who could stay with a sentence or a paragraph long enough for something to be said, and who, because they are reading rather than listening, can go back several times until they get it. I've also tried to keep in mind that many readers will seek this article because they believe or fear that their child "has RAD", so they may go through the article a number of times.

It seems to me that agreement about these issues would enable us to reorganize the article effectively, and minor concerns about single vs. double quotation marks would fall into place easily after that.

By the way, I don't find it very respectful to imply that people are cherry-picking the literature to support a specific viewpoint. This is called scientific misconduct in the circles where I travel. 71.125.147.64 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that was meJean Mercer (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It should have some form of article as it is a diagnosis in DSM IV TR and ICD 10. As far as dealing with the nuances of attachment theory and relationships, it is a bit like trying to write calligraphy with a crayon, however it does serve a purpose in legal and epidemionogical research circles.

PS: Sorry, I am a bit tied up for the next few days but I'll jot some notes on the talk page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not a clinical psychologist, and this is not my area of expertise. I find this article to be a commendable effort to bring order out of the chaos that surrounds attachment theory and diagnosis. In order to be successful in this, the article absolutely must make a series of careful distinctions (enumerated below). I think the authors did succeed quite well in this critical task, though it resulted in more length and detail than one would ideally see in such an article. To be specific, the article needed to distinguish:

1. attachment disorder from insecure attachment styles,
2. inhibited from disinhibited attachment disorder,
3. problematic child behavior from an actual disorder,
4. so-called "attachment therapy" from mainstream therapies for RAD,
5. the ICD-10 from the DSM-IV-TR definitions, and
6. all the various elements that go into the differential diagnosis.

I think the article did well on all counts. Furthermore, I think it is essential that Wikipedia provide this level of clarity to a field that is notable for its lack of clarity. I for one was glad of the extra length, though I can see how some would prefer a shorter article. In short, I support the article for Featured Article status, but even if it is not so recognized I would like to salute the efforts of all those who contributed, especially Fainites. —Aetheling (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aetheling, please clarify your position according to the instructions at WP:FAC on Supporting and Objecting. You lodged a comment, but then indicated Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Aethling. I believe the article needs to contain the relevant information to make it accessible to people who have no or very limited understanding of attachment.Fainites ^barley 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Then change the name. I am a clinical psychologist and I feel very strongly that articles purporting to be about professional clinical diagnoses should be about those diagnoses per professional standards - DSM and ICD-10. Other theories, proponents of other theories etc. should be in a separate article or articles. I would think that if I were a layperson looking at a document giving a diagnosis (that in the United States must be from DSM for insurance purposes, hospital admissions, most legal purposes, etc.) I would want to know what that diagnosis meant. The history of related or semi-related conditions could be referred to in a small section at the end with wikilinks that I could consult if I wanted to read more. A similar problem occurred with the article Psychopathy which is not a DSM diagnosis. However, an editor inisisted it was, mixed material from many viewpoints, pushed a particular researcher and over cited his contributions, indiscriminately used PMID citations, finding primary sources there to push certain points and now has been banned from wikipedia for a year as a consequence. Meanwhile all professional input had been run off from the article. If the article discussed here for FAC purports to be about a clinical diagnosis, it should be about that, in my opinion, as someone suggested above. One of the many other articles on attachment, or a new one, could contain the many other issues discussed above. Since using Google, a reader can get an overload of theories, in my opinion wikipedia is not doing a service by further confusing the DSM and ICD-10 diagnoses with all the rest of the theories and opinions. Rather, it seems in this discussion, that some of those writing the article are not clear about the DSM and ICD-10 diagnoses themselves, so why confuse the issue more? I realize my view is not popular and no one will like me. Mattisse 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't understand why you keep using this FAC to air your grievances about dozens of other attachment articles, narcissistic rage, policy on the citing of PMID's and now Psychopathy. You're cluttering up the page. If you think the attachment articles in general are all such a mess - rewrite them. I rewrote this article because professional and mainstream input had been run off the page by a sock army, now all banned. If you have any particular criticisms of this particular article please say so. At the moment I have no idea what you are complaining about.

b) In what way do you say this article confuses ICD and DSM? In what way is ICD and DSM confused with other theories and opinions? Which other theories and opinions? Are you talking about attachment theory or are you talking about the efforts to distinguish attachment therapy type diagnosis from ICD and DSM or are you talking about something else entirely? Are you saying there should be no mention of attachment theory in the article at all? Are you saying there should be no attempt to distinguish RAD from insecure attachment - given the common confusion of these two on the Web? Fainites ^barley 18:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not "airing my grievances" about attachment articles. I do not care whether the other articles on attachment exist or not. I do care that DSM and ICD-10 diagnoses be correctly described, as I said above. An I do care that these two diagnostic systems not be confused with all the other theories/positions (or whatever you want to call them) discussed in this article. To repeat myself, I think you should stick to describing the DSM and ICD-10 diagnoses with perhaps a section at the bottom mentioning that there are theories, hypotheses etc. about attachment and include links so individuals who wish to read further can do so. DSM has done it's best to remain atheoretical. This should be respected in an article about one of its diagnostic categories. Or else, change the name of the article so as not to mislead readers that the article is about the DSM diagnostic category. This is my opinion. Mattisse 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I do not see why you can't state your position without accusing other editors of what in my profession would be considered professional misconduct. Your parsimonious view of what the article should contain is a view. It does not mean that those who disagree with you are crooks. I do not agree that an article on RAD should consist of nothing but a copy of DSM. That does not put me or other editors in the category of the person you describe on Psychopathy. Don't bother to apologise for your second allegation of professional misconduct as the first one didn't last long. Secondly, RAD is in ICD, not just DSM. It is also a much used term by attachment therapists. The article does not puport to be solely about the DSM version - and nor should it. Its not called "Reactive attachment disorder (DSM)". Thirdly I still do not see in what way you say 'other theories' and 'hypotheses' are being confused with RAD. The point of both the references to styles within attachment theory, and attachment therapy is to distinguish them from RAD as in DSM and ICD. If you think this has been done insufficiently well that is one thing. If you say no effort should be made at all to distinguish these points then I disagree with you. These articles are not written just for clinicians or academics who already understand, or think they understand it all. Fainites ^barley 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Comment -Fainites, please read my remarks above your statement and then review your statement. Mattisse 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment to User:SandyGeorgia - and you wonder why professionals do not want to get involved in these articles? I cannot find another medical person willing to weigh in on this article. Mattisse 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody from the psych project has ever wanted to help on these articles despite requests. It seems to be an unloved topic. One of the reasons for coming to FAC was to try and get some knowledgable input. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What if A)nothing were said about attachment theory other than the need to differentiate styles from RAD, much along the lines of Caslibers suggestions on expanding the differential diagnosis section, and B) all the stuff about the attachment therapy definition, diagnosis and treatments for RAD were in a separate paragraph. That effectively gets rid of the theoretical framework whilst still enabling non-professionals to understand what isn't RAD, and also keeps the AT stuff out of the paragraphs on RAD.Fainites ^barley 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf's position: Objecting

• "It is a somewhat controversial and still poorly-researched area." seems a very strong statement as well as true. However, while in the lead, it does not seem to be in the body or referenced. While criticism seems to be easily found on the attachment therapies/treatments, not so on criticism on the definition?
• Not ensured to be FA quality: A section is tagged as needing expansion, a citation is in red "cannot display because [...], and so on.

--Kiyarrllston 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes you're right. It ought to be more specific as it is meant to refer to the attachment therapy bit. Its from the Taskforce and relates to controversial diagnosis, theories and treatments. Fainites ^barley 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Fainites ^barley 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't see any tags or red cites. Were they there earlier and have now been removed? Fainites ^barley 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the most amateur of Wiki editors, but I think i can make some relevant comments on the basis of a long career in teaching and print publication. The extent to which one needs to add many discriminative details about a topic depends on the extent of possible confusion, and especially on the number of sources providing misinformation.

Reactive Attachment Disorder is a term that has been misapplied and re-defined by CAM practitioners and by the popular press [pace Casliber]. For those who have not read much about this, I'd suggest a glance at web sites like www.attachment.org/pages_what_is_rad.php, which presents characteristics attributed to RAD that are virtually non-overlapping with the DSM criteria. Searching for newspaper stories about adoption will also show the extent to which journalists have declared to the public that the CAM definition is the correct one.

As a result of these problems, the Wiki article under discussion must be exceptionally detailed about the disorder termed RAD. But how to do this? Do we provide equal information about the "alternative" view? I'd rather not do this-- why repeat misinformation, and allow careless readers to interpret everything in the article as being equally supported by evidence? An approach that has seemed preferable is to put an effort into contrasting RAD with other typical and atypical attachment patterns. To remove that information might make the article seem simpler and more straightforward, but it would not solve the problems that are somewhat peculiar to this article.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To touch for a moment on the mechanism section, as the one who put it together, I acknowledge that it's highly speculative. I didn't really want it to begin with, and believe it could be deleted without any harm being done.

One last point: someone called for an objective third-party statement on this topic. I don't think that's currently possible. Understanding all the issues here calls for training in child development, in parent-child psychotherapy, in popular culture, in research methods, and in child abuse law. People who have worked on this topic (and I include myself, in full expectation that shouts of OR will result) have done so collegially, seeking the help of members of different disciplines. This is why we have a number of task force statements, based on pragmatic concerns, rather than an objective conclusion.

Any article can be re-written again and again. It will be different each time-- will it be better? If not, perhaps the re-writing work should go to other articles instead.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

it is looking better already (though maybe that's because I had a good nights sleep for a change). Just to put it in perspective for Sandy, the potential disputes about definition and research etc would make wading through the morass of the Aspergers article FAR look like a walk in the park. I'll post more on the talk page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Cas; hopefully ya'll can keep the discussion here focused on WP:WIAFA, with the decorum hoped for (not always achieved) at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! Fainites ^barley 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC),

[edit] Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)

previous FAC (16:18, 9 February 2008)

After getting the OK from SandyGeorgia, I'm re-nominating this. The prose has been refined, and I've asked for another copyedit to make sure the prose is top-notch. FYI, This was a tropical storm that hit Florida from two years ago. Self-nom. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, leaving some comments here, because people are complaining of lack of reviewing. ;) Feel free to strike out when you think they're done:
  • On the Storm history section:
    • "...and an upper-level low to its west increased outflow over the system.[3] It moved slowly north-northwestward, and development was initially inhibited ..." - I can't figure out what the antecedent for "it" and "its" is there. Is it the precursor low, the upper-level low, or the tropical wave?
    • "The system gradually organized,[5] and by June 10 a circulation formed with sufficiently organized convection for the National Hurricane Center to classify it Tropical Depression One." - Add relevant links to "organization" there. I'm trying to think of which link would be the best in this case.
    • "The winds were not considered indicative of its intensity, which delayed the upgrade in classification for several hours" - What does that even mean? The NHC delayed upgrading the depression to a tropical storm operationally? It's not very clear here.
    • "However, deep convection developed and built westward against the wind shear as the overall organization improved, and at the same time Alberto turned northeastward under the influence of an approaching trough.[9]" - split sentence, or God kills a kitten. You have two different subjects and predicates here, so there's no need to mash them into one sentence.
    • "The storm maintained a well-organized structure[14] and persistent banding features over land,[15]..." - most people don't know what persistent banding features are. A link would be awesome here.
    • "...about six hours after weakening to a tropical depression it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone.[1]" - Where did this occur? Where was it heading?
  • On the Preparations section:
    • "The Cuban government evacuated over 27,000 people in the western portion of the country due to the threat of flooding.[20]" - When was this?
    • "In northwestern Florida, officials issued a mandatory evacuation order..." - Again, when?
    • "Due to the threat for precipitation, the Atlantic Storm Prediction Center posted rainfall warnings for all Atlantic coastal regions of Nova Scotia.[28]" - Two things here: Is there a relevant wikilink for the ASPC? And also, do you mean the threat of *heavy* precipitation? Because rainfall doesn't sound too threatening...
  • On the Caribbean impact section:
    • "Early in its duration, the tropical depression which later became Alberto produced heavy rainfall across the western Caribbean Sea." - Something is wrong with "its duration" there. It is not readily apparent what it means, nor it sounds like the proper way to phrase it. I'd write "early in Alberto's lifespan" or the actual date when Alberto caused the rainfall.
  • On the Florida impact section:
    • "At Egmont Key State Park, a woman fell overboard when a band of showers and surging currents made navigation difficult; her husband and a friend drowned after jumping in to save her without life jackets, though the woman returned safely to the boat.[24]" - You may want to mention that the woman was on a boat before saying she went overboard; I had to re-read that sentence to understand what was going on.
    • "The rainfall caused some temporary road flooding, though it was mostly beneficial in alleviating drought conditions." - Wait... road flooding is beneficial in alleviating drought? There's an unclear antecedent here.
    • "... the United States Coast Guard began searching off of Boynton Beach for a missing boat ..." - Um, off of?
    • "After searching for about 24 hours[35] at a cost of $278,000,[36] officials determined it to be a hoax, and imprisoned the man responsible for 30 months.[37]" - What was he charged with?
  • On the Southeastern U.S. section:
    • "Alberto produced tropical storm force winds along the South Carolina coastline;" - Do you need a hyphen in "tropical storm force winds"? I'm not 100% sure.
    • "While in the process of becoming extratropical, the rainbands of Alberto spawned seven confirmed tornadoes in the state, all of which but one rated F0;[1]" - So the other one was an F1? Be more explicit about this.
    • "Near the coast, the storm produced several waterspouts, some of which moved ashore in Dare and Carteret counties;[43] an F0 tornado struck Morehead City.[44]" - So, was the Morehead City tornado originally a waterspout? It is unclear due to the way the sentence is rearranged.
  • On the Canada impact section:
    • "According to a press report, the passage of the storm left four sailors missing about 230 miles (370 km) south of Nova Scotia.[1]" - Do you know what happened with them? Are they still missing? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overall, I also have a few questions. I saw a lot of times where there was a unit of measurement spelled out, with the corresponding converted unit abbreviated; I thought that both of them need to be either abbreviated or spelled out? I think this is more a question for Sandy and her plethora of MOS knowledge, but that rather stood out to me. What also stood out was that there were a lot of "reached", "peak" and "officially" in the article; more variety would be nice. You know, spice it up a little bit. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:MOSNUM – "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; for example, a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." – there ya go :) Carre (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carre! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, I got everything, except for a few things. You commented about the Coast Guard searching off of Boyton Beach, but I don't see the problem with that sentence. Also, regarding the missing sailors, I can only find the press reports that the NHC mentions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, if you can't find it, then you can't find it. But about the Boyton Beach sentence: "off of" sounds awkward somehow. There's two very-similar-sounding words right next to each other, and the combination could be easily replaced with something like "The United States Coast Guard began search operations off the coast of Boynton Beach for a missing boat..." or something like that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok - got it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Nice. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Accurate, complete, and easy to understand, this article definitely deserves to be an FA. It's easily comparable to the other hurricane and tropical storm Featured Articles, and there's no real reason to deny it that status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support After being copyeditd and tweaked, I think it now meets all criteria for a featured article. Juliancolton (Talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable Doubt

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate, non-biased, well-sourced and structured. Not to mention, the album is significant to its artist (Jay-Z) and genres (Hip hop music and Mafioso rap). Noahdabomb3 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/weak oppose - the prose is professional enough. cut ties, Despite these humble beginnings, the glitz of Manhattan, are just a few examples I noticed in the first section. I suggest you get it copyedited. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just requested a copyedit to tighten up the prose. Thanks for the recommendation. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I copyedited the article to make the prose smoother. Any wording issues can probably be fixed easily. Other than that, it's reliably sourced, well-structured, and comprehensive. Spellcast (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Just skimming the lead right now, and its too POV:

• "It is considered a masterpiece of Mafioso rap and one of Jay-Z's best albums." - remove this sentence; that it is a good album is evident from the critics above.
• Are so many reviews required? Those 5 star rating mentions can both go, and probably two of the publications' "best albums ever" can go as well. (Rolling Stone is enough). This will also reduce the seeming clutter of numbers in the lead ("500 albums", "five stars", the chart positions, sales figures)
• Too much referencing in the lead: [4][5][6][7] hampers readability.

• The lead uses the word "it" nine times; replace it with "the album" or Reasonable Doubt.

indopug (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment - I replaced about half of the "its" as was requested. I removed that sentence about mafioso rap and replaced it with a different sentence about significance. I am currently leaving all of the reviews and "best album" lists in the second paragraph because the album is best known for its critical success: I feel that the second paragraph best communicates this point. I'm not sure if the "clutter of numbers" is such a bad thing as it adds legitimacy to the claims made. Also, the abundance of references bolsters highly opinionated claims about the album. I am still debating whether to delete one of two of the references though. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angolan Civil War

previous FAC

I'm nominating ACW again. It was pretty good last time. Since then I've expanded the 1970s and 1990s sections and added a chunk, as requested, on the origins of the conflict. Jose João (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Publishers and ISBNs should be added to the book sources. Dead web refs need to be replaced. Epbr123 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's one dead reference. Jose João (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I personally would order it as "notes" then "references/further reading" rather than "further reading" and then "references" I think the footnotes ought to come before the list of books, at least that is how it is done in any other FA that comes to mind, but it's a suggestion only. SGGH ^speak! 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • The lead loses me toward the end. You state that several other "factions" were engaged in the conflict and then mention one other faction (FNLA) and several foreign states that I would not readily describe as "factions". I think I was expecting a prose overview of all the factions involved. The infobox serves as a distraction at this point - you mention Cuba and Mozambique there but they are not mentioned in the lead. In fact, Mozambique is never mentioned in the article...
  • In the Roots heading, I am unclear how the MPLA came to control Cabinda after you said FLEC was operating there. The reader can go off to the main article, but it should at least be summarized properly here.
  • In the second paragraph, you mention "Robert" but the reader has not been introduced to this figure. Mention by full name the first time and provide some context.
  • "Ford told William Colby, the Director of Central Intelligence, to 'go ahead and do it' with an initial US$6 million in funding." Since that's not exactly a compelling or memorable quote, I suggest it is not needed.
  • The manner in which you've chosen to summarize facts from the two main articles in the Clark Amendment heading is rather confusing. For example, you mention Zaire but not why it's relevant. Why was it important that Mobutu Sese Seko would not approve of UNITA support? I was left with questions about why Ford would sign the Clark Amendment after he approved aid. Also, I don't understand what Angola's UN membership has to do with the Clark Amendment. These items might be covered in their respective articles, but they need to be summarized properly here so readers don't have to go elsewhere to understand the basic concepts.
  • On a related note, if you have copied and pasted text from main articles into this one, you need to adjust the context and wikilinking to be appropriate to this article. An example is if a person is mentioned in the copied excerpt and not wikilinked because they were linked elsewhere in the source article, you might need to link them here.
  • In the Vietnam heading, you seem to be implying that the Soviet Union and the US did not want to repeat mistakes that led to the Vietnam War, but it's not stated clearly. I checked the Time Magazine source given and it supports the concept - just needs clarity.
  • "The napalm killed cattle to feed government troops..." Do you mean the troops that were killing 10 year olds were also killing cattle with napalm and then eating the cattle?
  • "The FNLC retreated to Zambia and back to Angola, vowing to return." Which one? Or both?
  • "The Zairian army then forcibly evicted civilians along Shaba's 65-mile (105 km) long border with Angola and Mobutu ordered them to shoot on sight." Ordered whom? To shoot whom? The way this is written is sounds like Mobutu ordered the civilians to shoot.
  • "...he gave Alves the task of once again clamping down on dissension" Use "dissent" instead.
  • In the Nitistas heading, what are the Cabral and Henda Committees?
  • You jump pretty quickly from Neto supporting Alves to being threatened by him. Maybe add a sentence that explains how Alves' actions/successes created a threat to Neto.
  • "After twelve hours of debate, the party voted 26 to 6 to kick Alves and Van-Dunem out of power." The term "kick out" is too informal.
  • "Neto allies like Defense Minister Iko Carreira and MPLA General Secretary Lúcio Lara also irked the Soviet leadership through both for their policies and personalities." Grammar.
  • "With Alves out of the picture, the USSR promoted Prime Minister Lopo do Nascimento, another 'internationalist', against Neto, a 'careerist,' for the MPLA's leadership." I think this is the first time you use "USSR" instead of "Soviet Union". Some readers may not know this is the same thing. Also, avoid using single quotes unless they are inside another quote.
  • General comment: The article is very informative and the prose is good in most places. However, it treads on being too succinct in some places and I get the impression that information was cut out for length's sake. The article is already quite long so it seems logical to identify, as a near-term project, additional material that could be broken off into different articles. A good example would be the Nitistas heading. It could easily be its own article as it begs for more detail and narrative throughout.

I'm out of time but I'm not all the way through this epic narrative - will return with more comments later today or tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• More:
  • When Neto dies you mention Lara and Pascual Luvualo. Who are they and why is it important that they flew to Moscow?
  • The second paragraph of the 1980's heading gives quite a bit of narrative but only has one citation at the end. Does that citation cover everything in the paragraph? There are items there that might be disputed, such as South African plots to set off explosives in Luanda. It is very dicey to make such statements without being individually sourced.
  • "Cuba increased its 35,000-strong troop force in Angola from 35,000 in 1982 to 40,000 in 1985." You don't need to state 35,000 twice.
  • "The government tried unsuccessfully to take UNITA's supply depot in Mavinga from Menongue." Who is Menongue? First time we have heard of him in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • 1. Lara and Pascual's occupations are established above, in the Nitistas section. They are significant in how they shaped Angola-Russia relations. 2. The citation covers the entire paragraph. 3. Good point, modified to: "Cuba increased its troop force in Angola..." 4. Menongue is a place, not a person. Jose João (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see Lara now. I still don't see Pascual. In any case, it needs rewriting because it reads like a couple named Lara Luvualo and Pascual Luvualo, if you follow. The Menongue sentence also needs rewriting because you say "in Mavinga from Menonque" - sounds like the depot was in a city named Mavinga and they tried to take it from a person named Menongue. Will you be responding to the rest of my comments above? --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Paradis massacre

This article is current a GA, and an A-Class Military History Article. It has also had a regular Peer Review, and Military History Peer Review, and I feel that it now is up to FA standard. I am a new editor, this being my first article, so if I ask you to clarify seemingly obvious Wikipedian things then please do not judge. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

Suggestions and comments

• References. For an example, see "were ordered to try to slow the German advance in northern France to buy time to evacuate troops at Dunkirk.[3][4][5][6]" (last sentence, first para). This is merely stylistic, and I don't think there's any policy or guideline on it, but those chained refs are really ugly. Since only ref#3 is used more than once, it could be a good idea combining them – <ref>note 3, note 4, note 5 and note 6.</ref> Do the same with the "crossing it that evening.[1][2][3]" earlier in the paragraph, and where you can elsewhere in the article. Makes it look a lot nicer, and don't worry about complaints of lack of refs - 3 or 4 sources in a single ref is fine.
• Bit of prose: "German forces pushed the French Army and the BEF to the Meuse river on 12 May, crossing it that evening.[1][2][3] From there, they rapidly advanced to the English Channel over the course of the next week." – while I think it's obvious that the "they" in sentence 2 is the German forces, it may be an idea to clarify it to avoid any possible confusion (the "they" could, just about, at a stretch, refer to the French & BEF).
• "The Battle of France was SS Division Totenkopf's first major engagement of World War II. They were part" – this is just a question really, but should that be "they", or "it" in 2nd sentence? SS Division Totenkopt – division, singular? That's how I would have written it, anyway. Especially as you follow it with "The unit was engaged", unit singular.
• "but the British counter-attacked under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel just west of Arras, on 21 May" – I think this would be better written "but the British, under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel, counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May." – make the commander a parenthetical, in other words. A few prose problems already, perhaps indicating a copy-edit needed?
• In main body, link BEF on first occurrence, not the 3rd or 4th. Can't decide whether it's worth spelling it out in full again (I see it's already spelt out in the lede).
• Linking in general, it seems there's potential for some high-value links that are currently missing (places, for example).
• MOSDATE - check for "on the <date>" – the "the" is proscribed by MOS. Also, look for standalone years linked for no reason (1943, for example). I did this, I think Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• In Massacre, "An account by Private Albert Pooley; one of only two survivors:" – don't think that semi-colon use is right.
• I'm a little confused: in the last sentence of Battle of Le Paradis, it mentions recent evidence suggesting that 20-odd prisoners from the Royal Scots were murdered – is this in addition to the 97 mentioned in Massacre?
• Massacre again: "Even many SS officers were appalled by the massacre, some reportedly even challenged Knöchlein to a duel, although none was ever fought.[29]" – "even ... even"; copy-edit again.
• In Trial of Knöchlein, you've wikilinked "misused a flag of truce" to White flag – two issues here: first, the wikilink is to a DAB page (needs pointing to the right place), and second it's a bit of an "Easter egg link". Link "flag of truce", by all means, but not "misused a". The semi-colon use there is also a bit dubious.
• References and Notes. I think that, since you have separated the full publication details into References, the Notes sections only need to include author surname, year of publication (optional, probably), and page number(s). A hybrid between Harvard and "normal" in-line refs, in other words. You currently have full publication details in Notes, which makes the References section a touch redundant.
• References could do with sorting into alphabetic order, by author surname. I did this myself, but it leads to a question on the two editions of Jackson's work. Different ISBNs, but is the pagination the same? Can the two be combined?
• Is stephen-stratford.co.uk a reliable source? Some of the other Web sources beg the same question: www.kuro5hin.org, www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk (taking from mackillers.8m.com), the others? (Hint, the MOD has some pretty damned good on-line sites for regimental histories, so could be a good place to look for replacing things like norfolkbc).

That's it for now. A pretty short article, but that can't always be helped. Carre (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, more on Notes, for consistency. Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp.", just the page numbers (ref#9, 10, 29). Consistency. Carre (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried to combine and tidy up the in-line citations, but the lack of author details on a few of the web links makes it awkward. Can authors be found? Also, two of the three news references are no longer available at the specified URL. Alternatives? Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for the very thorough nature of your review, and the edits you made. I have done all the little grammatical changes you proposed, however I am not sure whether the article requires a copyedit due to the fact that it has had quite a lot of work done by different editors already. However, if you strongly feel that it needs one, or other editors agree, I will attempt to have one done.

I tried to combine the references, but only succeeded in messing them up. I will try again in a day or two, but I don't seem to be having much luck.

Personally, I quite like the notes and references style. I think it is quite clear to the reader, and looks neater and is more helpful to a new user of Wikipedia. However, again if you strongly feel I should change it, or other editors agree I will. But, I had seen it done on some others (I think) so I thought it would be acceptable in this case.

As for the references, I have removed one that I wasn't sure about. But for the others, all I can say is that their sources match what I have read in other books that I have cited, and they match up to one another. References are also listed on stephen-stratford, and from I have read elsewhere on the site and compared to historical facts, they seem reliable.

Could you explain further what you mean by " Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp."", apologies again, this is all new to me.

I will work through the last of the points raised, thanks once again for your help, and I would appreciate any other help from other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

OK, the p. and pp. thing. See these two references:

^ Mann, SS-Totenkopf, p. 85.

^ Charles W. Sydnor (1977). Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death's Head Division, 1933-1945 93. Princeton University Press. Retrieved on 12 December 2007.

(my bold added). The first has p. 85, while the second has just 93. Suspect it's some inconsistency within the {{cite}} templates, but could be wrong.

On the separation of Notes and References, what I mean is something like

== Notes ==

Mann, p. 85.

== References ==

• Mann, Dr. Chris (2001). SS-Totenkopf. MBI Publishing Company. ISBN 0760310157.

so you only have the full details of the source in one place. However, if you don't like that way, then that's fine too.

I tried to combine the refs too, and also made a mess of it! That makes two of us :) Carré (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Struck off the stuff done, and I fixed the p. and pp. thing - was a misused parameter in {{cite web}} - need to specify "pages=p. x", apparantly. Carré (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued edits. I have clarified the Royal Scots massacre bit. As for the wikilinks, none of the place names are big enough to have their own articles. Again, I would appreciate other reviews by other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

• Leaning toward support. This is a very well-written article. I fixed some ref errors that were causing part of the Battle of Le Paradis section not to show up and fixed some WP:NBSP isses. Can you address these comments please?
  • I'm a little confused by this: Due to the boundary between the two British regiments being the road, Ryder's men surrendered to SS Hauptsturmführer Fritz Knöchlein and his company, who had been fighting the Royal Scots
  • "Recent evidence " -how recent?
  • Per wP:MOSQUOTE, only quotations of 4 lines or more should be offset. There is a smaller length one that should be returned inline.

Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments:
• counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May following on from the counter attack of the day before (Battle of Arras).A bit confusing with two counter-attacks in two days. IMO not clear that both counter attacks where done by the British.
• A map would be nice in the Background section.
• Rue du Paradis road - Rue is road in French - isn't it wrong to have both Rue and Road then? --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your reviews. I have made all the changes suggested by Karanacs, however can you clarify the quote issue? I am not sure what you mean by inline. Peter Andersen, I cannot find a map, and I looked but I couldn't find the suggested confusion over the counter-attacks, but I did make the other change. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Uncyclopedia

I'm nominating Uncyclopedia for featured article status because I feel that it meets all neccesary featured criteria. Teh Rote (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: As the person who reviewed it for GA, I believe that this article of FA standard also. ISD (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional Neutrality for the promotion of this article. It's FA quality in parts. The "Other Versions Sections" has overlink, - I believe it is much better to link to "list of uncyclopedias" than to link to Arabic, Latin, [...] in quick succession. It is also not as well organized as the rest of the article, nor does it note that "des" is as to "un", even though the meaning of "un" is prominently shown in the lead. I also don't like the usage of parenthesis. organization problems - does the lead properly summarize the article? it seems to talk more about the versions than about uncyclopedia itself, and fails the requirement of "stand alone". Is the information provided in the lead also provided in the body? No. - There is no note of the symbol of Uncyclopedia anywhere outside of the lead...--Kiyarrllston 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've been watching and contributing to this page off and on for a little while, (mostly vandalism reversions and the like) and I feel like it has really grown a lot, and I'd love to see it featured. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This page is the very model of modern Major-General. It has information vegetable, animal, and mineral. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think a little bit of humour would be nice, but no humor. That would be wrong. --Sevvvy (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 19; 5 in the last six months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have like 3000 Edits at Uncyclopedia...doesn't that translate to about more than like 1000 here?--Sevvvy (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As per Zombiebaron. The quality of this article has grown considerably in the past year due to strong support from the Uncyclopedia community to make it so. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose External links only belong in the External links section. Epbr123 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As long as they do it on April Fool's Day. Oh, and somebody tells the ED community. Kip the Dip (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sure, its a great article. 96.233.98.175 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• First and only edit from this IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zombiebaron, I mean Support. Is that allowed over here? I'm not gonna get in trouble, am I? Gustavo Chapman 3rd of Normandy (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 14; 1 other edit in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, 1c and 2.
• I wonder whether the gushing reviews above have been written with reference to the FA criteria. I see a MOS breach in the very first sentence (no hyphen after "-ly"). "English language" as a double adjective should probably have a hyphen, although I could cope without if you insist. And a MOS breach in the italics used at the opening for a quotation, solely because it's that. "Its logo is a hollowed potato, named Sophia after the Gnostic deity, that serves as a spoof of Wikipedia's globe logo."—why not keep it plain: "Its logo is a hollowed potato—named Sophia after the Gnostic deity—a spoof of Wikipedia's globe logo." I see lots of prose and MOS glitches throughout. Tony (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) PS I see references without authors' names; they appear to need auditing on several counts. Tony (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problems you pointed out in the first paragraph. Most of the "gushing reviews" are Uncyclopedians that got here from the Uncyclopedia forums. --Jedravent (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, that would explain some of the accounts Supporting.[8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Is this where I vote? Is that the hole I punch? Did I just vote for Pat Buchanan? Awwww crap. --Savethemooses (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great start but there is a lot more work to do:
  • The article does not meet 1a - it needs a neutral copyedit for flow, voice, and tone.
  • There are significant verifiability issues. The article should not being using Uncyclopedia or even Wikia related sites for sources in most cases. Neutral, reliable sources need to be found for most items, especially those that might be disputed. The vast majority of sources for this entire article are primary.
  • Pursuant to criterion 1a, there is not really a good narrative flow through the entire article. We talk about hosting, article content, and policies all over the place.
  • The listing of other language versions is larger than most others but contains mostly trivial content that might be better suited for a table. Prose is not a good choice when the same data is repeated for each entry.
  • There are minor issues as well - check for hyphens where em dashes or en dashes should be used. The "See also" section should not contain links to articles that are already linked in the main article.
  • The fair use rationale for the image in the lead is incorrect.
    • It looks correct to me. --Jedravent (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The "Portion used" field is not correct. The image is not of the "entire web site", it is of one page of the web site. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair use rationale and copyright templates for Image:398px-WP VS Eincyc.png are incorrect. Addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This has been fixed. --Jedravent (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support 1 Vote For Ron Paul (wait... just a miscount)--218.215.57.95 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • First and only edit from this IP. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Second and... not only edit now. Plus once I stopped one of your articles being vandalized once. --218.215.63.125 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This is probably the only subject on which I know something. As such, the Wikipedia page clearly reflects the history, history and history of Uncyclopedia. It should be pointed out, however, that Wikipedia's Uncyclopedia page is not nearly as funny as Uncyclopedia's Wikipedia page. As a not-really-Wikipedian, also however, I probably shouldn't vote. Modusoperandi (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm proud that such an awkward article made it up to GA. Though I am not an FAC regular, and am not familiar with the norms an customs, I have read over the criteria and believe that the Uncyclopedia article meets it. The prose is great, the references include third party ones, the MOS is adhered to. I think this is an FA. DISCLAIMER: I admit that I'm not completely neutral as I am an Uncyclopedia reader and fan. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The article is verifiable, as it is using multiple print media as sources. Certainly text depending solely on Wikia-related sources would have already been disputed, replaced or fixed long ago, as their info tends to be too incomplete to be usable. (Japan and Brazil, the largest non-English Uncyclopedias, are both non-Wikia, for instance.) --carlb (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose till the issues addressed by Laser brain are fixed. By the way, I'm Dexter111344 over there and here. I'm not logged on here because I forgot my password, and, since I neglected to register my e-mail, I can't have a new password sent... It really sucks. Oh well. It's my own fault. --75.137.152.243 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I finally remembered! Guess I hadn't been trying hard enough before... --Dexter111344 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Some of the issues have been addressed since I made my first vote. It's good enough now. After all, nothing is perfect. --Dexter111344 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment There are no edits on this username for the past 6 months prior to this vote. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Due to the fact that I had forgotten my password and had been making small edits from different IP's during that timespan. Most of those were, of course, slight grammatical and spelling corrections, nothing really big. Oh, I'm sorry, did I break Wikipedia's number one policy? Please note this fact was most likely never going to be pointed out if it had remained an oppose vote, even though I did state this fact, just in another manner. --Dexter111344 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Kip the Dip -- •Spillin Dylan•TALK• 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 9; no other edits this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok, so setting aside the canvassing - where are we with actionable objections? Which ones have been fixed, and which ones are still outstanding? Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got quite a list; if you want to handle this FAC, I'll put up a list of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the primary concerns are the reliability of references, quality of prose and random MoS issues. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And external links in the text, trivia prevailing over comprehensive coverage, unformatted citations, non-reliable sources. Lots of MOS issues. As well as the prose concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Strong oppose, and leaving this FAC to Raul654:

Comparison of content sections

Wikipedia	Paras	Uncyclopedia	Paras
1 History	6	1 History	1
2 Content and internal structure	4	2 Content (see Related projects)	5
3 Software and hardware	3
4 Language editions	5	5 In other languages	9 (choppy prose, two-sentence paras)
5 Reliability and bias	4
6 Criticism	6	4 Criticism	3
7 Cultural significance	10	3 Press coverage	3 (One-sentence paras)
8 Wikia and Wikimedia	1
9 Related projects	5	Under 2. Content	1

1a, prose: See Tony1 and Laser brain opposes for examples. They are better prose analyzers than I am, but even I can easily pick out a textual redundancy: As well as housing many articles designed to satirize Wikipedia-style content, Uncyclopedia also contains several secondary projects (known as 'UnProjects'). One- and two-sentence paragraphs (In other languages and Press coverage). Redundancies easily spotted: One of the biggest challenges that the administrators of Uncyclopedia face is the constant steady flow of articles that do not meet Uncyclopedia's standards. In other languages is particularly choppy and poorly presented, and comprises most of the content.

1b, comprehensive A comparison of Wikipedia to Uncyclopedia illustrates areas of missing and undeveloped content. Examples, nothing about software/hardware, finances, structure. History and development are scanty. Most of the other issues with this article could probably be overcome, but the article doesn't appear comprehensive, and some of the sources do touch on these areas.

1c, sources Numerous primary sources, often referenced to Uncylopedia itself (Wikis aren't reliable sources), and some contradictions in sourced material (this says founded by Huang and unnamed counterpart, stillwaters isn't independently sourced).

1d, neutral Sources should be checked for POV: "Uncyclopedia's growing popularity allowed it to ... ",

2, MOS Problems with incorrect bolding, dash and hyphen consistency, external links in the text, WP:GTL See also repeats links already in text, WP:MOSNUM numbers spelled out that should be digits, missing non-breaking hard spaces, WP:OVERLINKing of common terms known to most English speakers,

2a, lead Underdeveloped WP:LEAD.

2c, citation formatting Needs lots of work. Inconsistent date linking and formatting, missing publishers, authors, etc.

3, images Someone else should check.

Response below my sig, please; I'll strike items as they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Strong oppose. Obviously and totally. A good portion of this is sourced to an unreliable source—Uncyclopedia itself. The site is less reliable than we are, and I certainly wouldn't support Wikipedia sourced to itself. I like Uncyclopedia (I've contributed!) but this is a joke.

• Swat this down, Raul. We aren't a meme site. We're not recycling unreliable net chatter. This article doesn't even come close to meeting our citation standards. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is linking to Uncyclopedia pages a problem when the point of linking to them is to literally show the reader what the text of the article is explaining, and to show that certain aspects of Uncyclopedia exist as described within the text? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's tough, I know. Policy does allow for dubious sources in articles about themselves—but they remain dubious. What you get, ultimately, is unreliable circularity: Uncyclopedia to describe Uncyclopedia. And, of course, because it's a wiki, any page linked to could be changed at any moment. Marskell (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL about external links, and WP:OR; you should provide independent, secondary reliable sources discussing those items, and then link to the sourced article. Also, see WP:NOT; Wiki is not myspace or an indiscriminate collection of links. Links belong in citations or in External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But the external links to Uncyclopedia are "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article," from what I can tell, and there are numerous links to secondary resources as well--the links to the site itself are a complement, not a supplement. I don't understand why hyperlinking to Uncyclopedia pages that lack complementary Wikipedia pages is a problem, but if it's some kind of prose or style issue I can remove them very easily. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, one quick question, what do you think should be done with the external links in the "In other languages" section, in the paragraph about the portugese Uncyclopedia? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead needs to serve as a standalone summary/outline of the entire article. It currently fails to do this. There are other issues with WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, prose and article depth/size. If Uncyclopedia is as popular as the article claims, then why does the article only have 11KB of prose? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From the revision history, it would appear that the article is 30Kb long ("11KB of text"? Hyperbole!) specifically because it had been heavily copy-edited to shrink a much larger article; a lengthy table listing editions in other languages was one of the elements removed at some point on the long journey to GA status. I'm also unsure whether some of the items in the Wikipedia article are relevant or publicly-known for Uncyclopedia. We know about Wikimedia's finances because, as a registered not-for-profit, it must account for every penny. The same is not true of Uncyclopedia if various portions are privately-controlled. The section on the questions surrounding Wikipedian factual reliability inevitably is going to be longer (due to a greater number of differing opinions) than that for Uncyclopedia. The difference in the mission of the two communities makes that much inevitable. --carlb (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the "software and hardware" section would not need to have an equivalent, as that is all handled by Wikia. --Jedravent (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The made-for-Uncyclopedia software includes mw:Extension:DPLforum, mw:Extension:Simple namespaces, mw:Extension:RandomSelection and a few others, mostly key algorithms needed to modify MediaWiki operation in some way. Certainly it exists, but is it notable? --carlb (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• 'Support Pardon me if I can't find the right place to put it, but this seems about right. Disclaimer: I edit Uncyclopedia. here is my userpage there, if you must know. And I only have 50-something edits here, while logged in. I'm lazy, and I often don't bother, so I have many under the various IPs I use. So, please, don't resort to the "OMG U R NOT A REAL USER U HAZ ONLY 18 EDITS" argument. EugeneKay 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: the edit count of Users and IPs is important. Users can create usernames and vote in their own nomination, for example; or ask a friend to create an account purely to support a FAC. As FACs are based on consensus, unchecked support votes could build a false consensus even if the article doesn't meet the Featured Article Criteria. PeterSymonds | talk 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You've also failed to provide any rationale for your support of this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for supporting this article's featuring lies deep within WP:IGNORE, do you see? --emc ^{(t a l k)} 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

EMC, Uncyclopedia-style rationale isn't going to work here. If we just support without providing reasons that stand up by themselves, they're going to think we're trying to stuff the ballot. And this isn't a ballot, it's a consensus. "For the hell of it" may work on Uncyc, but unfortunately this is a serious site. Follow TLB's lead - fix up the article according to the complaints of the people trying to shoot it down, and make it so it's hard to find an objection. --86.153.28.97 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean, fortunately, ;). Marskell (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong object per Nishkid.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: short history. --jskellj - the nice devil 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose needs a lot of work, there are MOS issues, and too many of the citations are primary sources. Here are a few examples of issues:
  • Try to clean up repetitive text (for example, "the prefix un-, a prefix that negates ")
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, in a single sentence don't mix numbers that are spelled out and numbers as numerals. (for example, "After four month, ...90 megabyes is not correct).
  • Please add nonbreaking spaces between numbers and their units or qualifiers (90 megabytes should have one, for example, as well as 23000 articles)
    • Done. --Jedravent (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose in the history section is very colloquial, and it does not flow well
  • Why compare the two uncyclopedia rules specifically to NPOV? Wikipedia has lots of policies, and it's not necessary to focus on one.
  • Please review WP:MOSDASH, because this article does not appear to follow it.
    • I removed one instance, but kept the other because it was requested by a user above. --Jedravent (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There should not be external links in the body of the article per WP:EL
  • The other languages section has many short paragraphs and does not flow well.
  • The article relies far too heavily on primary sources. It should not contain this many citations to Uncyclyopedia, its derivations, or to Wikia.
  • There is no publisher listed for citation 30

Karanacs (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It seems like a solid article, and it's been notably improved. I also think it would make for an interesting variety among the featured articles, in that internet-related topics are rarely up to scratch. Feebas_factor 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I am worried that so many people rushed into supporting this article. First of all I am not even sure the lead paragraph does what it is supposed to: summarize the article. The lead only gathers several facts not even touched in the article.Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf planet

I have worked on the article for the past month and I think now it is ready to become an FA. It is now GA and recently passed a peer review. Feedback and comments are welcome. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I think the page looks good along with the correct imagerys and the lack of citation needed's is also good. The wording of the article seems informative so for now im going to show my support for it to be featured. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Good job Nergaal Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's a citation needed tag in the References section. Epbr123 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I modified the note such that it won't require a reference. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• And the same sort of citation issues we just covered in the planet FAC, so I won't detail those again here. The citations need cleanup, and I left edit summaries of other issues (for example, contact Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the dashes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I went through all of them. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Object; prose needs work. "The IAU's initial draft proposal included not only Pluto, but its moon Charon, Eris and Ceres in the list of planets." Colloquial words/phrases like "end up", "guestimates", and "good cutoff" ought to be recast. "Very" is almost always a useless word; either eliminate it or be specific in magnitude. Make consistent the use or non-use of the serial comma. Make sure that the proper hyphens and dashes are used: hyphens are used in spelled-out fractions, ndashes go in number ranges, and mdashes mark explanatory notes—like this. Put &nbsp; between all numbers and abbreviated units (400&nbsp;km). There's no need to italicize quotes or abbreviations like et al. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I solved these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, but I'm not confident that all of the style problems have been addressed (just found a missing comma). I'll keep checking. Also, I marked a few citation needed tags for you; overall it looks well referenced. Not far to go! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done with the tags. Anything else left to solve? Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article uses British English, and in the British scientific literature, a spaced en-dash is more common than an unspaced em-dash for what you call "explanatory notes". This is a valid alternative in WP:DASH Bluap (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - The table of comments looks awkward where it is. Is the fourth paragraph of the article supposed to be part of the lede, or not? If not, it should be moved into a section. Imperial units are needed in parenthesis, and non-breaking spaces are needed between all units, like so (see in edit window). 160 km (100 mi). Quick question. Do all of the statements in the lede also appear later in the article? If not, they should be, since the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article. If not, then I don't think the references are needed up there (though keeping them there wouldn't be controversial). I quickly noticed the word guesstimate in TNO candidates, which should be changed. I didn't check the rest of the article, but it should be checked to make sure the writing is up to par. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know that guesstimates was a word. I am pretty sure it was a typo. I dealt with the table and with the lead (as per below). Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose First, the lead is exsessively long. Second, the units need conversions. Finally, per Hurricanhink, The table of comments looks awkward where it is. Juliancolton Talk 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply I feel that the paragraph talking about size limits for dwarf planets could be lost from the lead, and incorporated in the "Size and mass" section Bluap (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved that part. The lead now is 3 paragraphs. Dealt with the TOC. Nergaal (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the FAC requirements again and there is no suggestion for imperial units. Am I wrong? Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNITS. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks to me that all of the issues have been addressed, and I believe it is very good now. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs to be more thoroughly sourced. Seddon69 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really having a hard time understanding what exactly do you mean by this. It would be really helpful if you could be more specific and give a few examples. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are paragraphs which aren't sourced and im having difficulty knowing which paragraphs are being sourced by what, for example. This section is a good example of what i mean. There are sentences which seem to not be sourced and the sources which are there dont cover certain aspects of whats written. I can find 9 instances where the sources cannot be easily identified, shall i list the 9? Seddon69 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and place ^{[citation needed]} where you think it needs it. That yould be the easiest. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would be nice if the sortable table (of planetary discriminants) would be able to take account of scientific notation. If this isn't possible, then I'd prefer the table to be non-sortable. Bluap (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried this page but there, the version of this table works fine [9]. Wiki commons has a more features than en.wiki?Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nergaal, it looks slightly better, but the writing is still not up to professional standards. Also, I would still like conversion units; for example,

Empirical observations suggest that the lower limit may vary according to the composition and history of the object. For example, in the asteroid belt, Ceres, with a diameter of slightly more than 900 km

I am not that familiar with kilometers, so if you could put square miles or something similar in parentheses, it would improve the article. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

done this in the text but I left the tables like before (I think they would become too messy by adding miles too) Nergaal (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give more examples of "not up to professional standards"? Thanks! By the way, is your vote still oppose or comment? Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Potential problems I've found:

• The diameter of Ceres is in the prose as 900 km but in the table as 975 km. These should agree.
• Is "terrestrial planet" a real term? It seems like it would only include earth, but in the prose (section Orbital dominance) it appears to refer to all the planets. Found it.
• The quote by Brown ("it takes less force to make an ice ball round") isn't clear—less force than what?
• Information is repeated inconsistently in "Size and mass" and "TNO candidates". Personally, I'd drop the dwarf planet counts from the section on "Size and mass", and leave them in "TNO candidates".
• Reference 39 is missing a word (slightly larger? slightly smaller?)
• Did Julio Ángel Fernández define "planetesimal" in his definition of dwarf planet? If so, it might be helpful to include that definition rather than just linking to the general article.

Once these are addressed I should be ready to support. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Went through all of them except the last one. I will clarify that part a bit later. Nergaal (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About the last issue: his proposal was not about platesimals but about planetoids. I could not find his official proposal but I added instead two references that are more clear about that proposal. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the unit conversion in the quote, along with the brackets. Also, I cut the quote by Brown (point 3 above), because I don't think it adds much. If the quote were an everyday analogy (like it's easier to make a round snowball than a round rock), then I'd say keep it, but it doesn't seem like it says anything other than ice bodies are less rigid and more easily made spherical by self-gravity. Reasonable? --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. It was also unnecessarly informal. What about the other points? Are there any more unsolved comments? Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ps: I did not know the [] notation is used for the unquoted units.

Switching to support. Nice job with this. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 07:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrone Wheatley

previous FAC (00:07, 6 February 2008)

The prior FAC was closed during my efforts to respond to advice. I think I have been making progress and would appreciate feedback to help take this article to featured status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you address the concerns raised in the previous FAC? It would best if you did, because I'm sure more issues will be brought up in this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to. You can see I responded to each thing, but since the FAC was closed in only 7 days and six hours round-trip communications were not completed on response to several of the issues. For example, one complaint was that this version of the Lead was too long and now it is probably 20-25% shorter. Many such issues have been addressed, but not everyone has had a chance to respond to my attempts from what I could tell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Object Till the family/personal stuff is sorted at least. It seems oblique, tabloidesque and approaching original research at times. So be specific:

• "Leslie is about 13 years younger than Wheatley (based on graduating high school class year)" - either we know his age or we don't. Conjecture from graduation year is not good enough.
  • Leslie is not a notable person so getting his age is not really a very actionable request. It is kind of relevant that a 15 year old would step up and take guardianship of a two year old. It speaks to his character.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Leslie's father suffered a heart attack when Leslie was two years old." relevance?
  • Combined with the above it gives you a perspective of Wheatley's age when he took such responsibility. It is not likely that I am going to find something saying Wheatley took custody at such an age or on such a date, but saying Leslies father died when he was two and Wheatley was 13 years older approximately gives us perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• "In addition to his guardianships, Wheatley is the father of four (three boys and one girl)." IS he still a guardian, and is it relevant?
  • This is a biography where character issues arise. Being a guardian is relevant to those character issues. I can not find a current article on his family life. Last year's articles about him becoming a coach don't speak much about his family and guardianships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• "As of 2001, Wheatley had been married for some time" Em? So what?
  • He is not prominent in the press today. When he was playing for the Giants, he was in the New York Times several times a week. When he was playing for Oakland, he was in the San Francisco Chronicle several times a week. I can not establish his current marital status via the press right now. Basically, this says that the last knonw report of his marital status was 2001. How would you like this phrased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have attempted to rephrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• "He and wife Kimberly had their first child, Tyrone, Jr., in the spring of 1997. They had their second in the late summer of 1998" Do we need this level of detail? Would the year of birth not be sufficient, do we need the season?
  • That is a reasonable suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Leslie was the Bergen County outdoor track championships outstanding freshman athlete while living with Tyrone who was playing for the Giants at the time.[2] In 2004, Leslie signed a letter of intent with the Utah State Aggies football team as a defensive back.[3]" - I had to scroll right up to the top to remember who "Leslie" was. This just seems to hang in a personal section. If relevant at all, then it needs integrated into one or two sentences about the individual.

--Doc^g 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wheatley was born in Inkster, Michigan, which, like Ann Arbor (the home of the University of Michigan), is a part of Metropolitan Detroit. However, unlike serene Ann Arbor, Inkster is a hotbed of urban warfare that has earned the nickname Baby Saigon" This needs major re-writing. To anyone unfamiliar with Michigan, the comparison/contrast with Ann Arbour is quite meaningless. Please write it to give a factual description of the type of area without localised comparisons.--Doc^g 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support—In terms of his athletic career, this article is completely comprehensive and does a wonderful job of addressing the subject. I'd recommend a copyedit for smoothness and readability, and I'd recommend expanding the early life sections as soon as possible, but I can understand the difficulty in doing so. There haven't been any major biographies published of him (perhaps see the Michigan football media guides/game programs from when he was a player?) and I know how difficult that can be. Beyond that, I'd say to keep trying to get a photo, and keep up the great work! This article is similar in many respects to some Wikipedia articles on military officers about whom not much is known. Those gaps in knowledge haven't kept those articles from becoming recognized content, and there's no reason why this can't do the same. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Sports

This article recently passed GA, and has been tweaked and expanded a bit since. I feel that it meets the FA criteria and would appreciate any comments or suggestions that could improve the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Since this article uses only one non-free image in the text some more could be included under fair-use; maybe a screenshot of each of the games? indopug (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit sparse on images, but I think a screen shot of each game would be a bit much and clutter the gameplay section. I'll see what I can find. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

There's already pictures of each sport in the cover art. --Mika1h (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a picture of Iwata at Nintendo's E3 press conference in the "Development" section. Hopefully that spruces up the article some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Comments:

• "Though it is bundled with the Wii system, it has also been commercially successful." Statement is confusing to me. It seems to suggest that the bundle should inhibit sales of the game, while the opposite may be true. I'm not sure whether you're referring to sales of the game itself or the bundle in regards to commercial success. Clarity may be needed
• "It has also become a popular device for social gatherings and competitions among players of varying ages." I'd prefer it if there was a source here. I don't think the lead needs to be referenced, but best to be consistent as the rest is.
• Try cut out some redundant alsos.
• Caption: "Guest B preparing to throw a ball in Bowling". Maybe a pedantic one, but is there any need to refer to the Mii as GuestB? It would be like referring to a character in a caption as player 2 in a multiplayer game.
• I think there's some inconsistency with the usage of capitalisation in Gameplay: some times the sports are capitalised while other times they're not.
• The Reception section could do with some content from Japanese reviewers; this is hard to come by, but at least try to list Famitsu in the table.
• Refs are inconsistent—some give the name in order, while other are *surname*,*forename*.
• I'd cut both of the links to wikis as neither offer anything beyond what this article does.
• Additional info for Development would be helpful—the largest paragraph just details this game's showing at E3
• Just a suggestion this one, but maybe you can mention that many of the Wii Sports-related injuries were reported in newspapers multiple times in a set period.

I've done some minor copyediting—mainly grammar and punctuation. It's hard to find fault with this article. Anyway, I hope that this helps. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy editing, and for the helpful comments. I've done some copy editing in addition to some done by some other editors. I hope it solves everything.

• In regard to your first one, Wii Sports was included free with the Wii in all territories except for Japan. I was trying to convey that even though it was a free game, it has seen commercial success. I've reworded the phrase to hopefully better convey this.
• Statement in the lead has been cited.
• That was a lot of extra alsos. I've removed a good chunk of them. Thanks for pointing that out.
• Caption has been changed.
• Capitalization has been addressed, please let me know if I missed any.
• I couldn't find much in the way of reviews, I was hoping the Japanese sales info would apply to that. I found the famitsu score, but am looking for a suitable source.
• I don't know when the names got switched up, but they should all be Surname, Forename now. Let me know otherwise.
• I removed the gaming wiki link, but kept the strategy wiki link. Mainly because the strategy offers info on how to play. The article use to read like this and I suspect there are still people that will come to the article looking such info. If it's a real problem, I'll remove it. But I believe it is within WP:EL, though only barely.
• The last development paragraph has been tweaked.
• The injuries issue was worded the way it was because of the source material. If I had several newspaper articles about the issue, I probably would have done it that way. So I figured the current wording with ABC News and 1UP.com sources were sufficient. If I come across some more, I'll edit accordingly.

I hope that addresses most of your concerns. I'll post back later about the famitsu score. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I couldn't find a reliable source for the famitsu score. But I did find an award from them. I hope that along with the Japan Media Arts Festival award and the Japanese sales info will adequately cover the Japanese reception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Support: All my concerns seem to have been addressed. I guess we can live with Startegy Wiki. Well done. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Some games do not calculate points during multiplayer games. This sentence is a bit vague. May you elaborate on it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That section has been copy edited some. I hope it is less vague. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC))
• Comment The writing seems good, but there not enough images, and there seems to be too many references in the lede, which is supposed to be a overview of what the article already says. Juliancolton Talk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you approve of the writing, it's not my strong point. As far as images, I agree that an extra picture would help, but I haven't found any extra suitable image to add. Since the FA criteria doesn't stipulate an exact number of images for an article, I figured 4 would be enough. I sourced the content in the lead simply because I try to source as much as possible. I think the more something is sourced with reliable sources, the better the overall quality of the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Comment

• "and was released in other territories the following month." by "other territories" do you mean worldwide? If so say that, otherwise specify exactly where.
• "that monitor player progress" not sure I quite understand this, player progress in what?
• "Wii Sports has been well received by critics" what, every single one?
• "1,911,520 units sold...Wii Sports sold 17.85 million copies worldwide" I thought it came free with the Wii?
• "The sports included are" try "The game includes in the sports"
• There doesn't seem to be much detail in the Gameplay about what you do in each individual sport, only a brief mention of the training mode and no mention at all of the fitness mode.
• "controlled by the game" "controlled by the computer" which is it?
• "Wii's message board" "Wii Message Board" again which is it?
• "Wii Sports has been well-received by reviewers" first of all this needs a ref, but then you talk about it's sale numbers and deal with it's reviews in the next section so why is it here?
• "Wii Sports was produced by Katsuya Eguchi, who managed Software Development Group 2 at Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development." try "Katsuya Eguchi, who managed Software Development Group 2 at Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development, produced Wii Sports."
• "Wii Sports received positive reviews overall. Reviews complained about the game's graphics, but praised the ease of use." needs ref.
• "baseball, golf and boxing were lacking" is that all they said? just that they were "lacking".
• "IGN commented on an exploit in the bowling game that removed the challenge and replay value. After the release, they stated that the exploit was not fixed." What was this exploit?
• I think "Continuity" is a better section title for "Impact and legacy".

There might be more issues but that's it for now. Buc (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty's Theatre

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through a tough GA process; and I believe the article meets the criteria and is ready to go through this process. Kbthompson (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support Kbthompson (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "patent theatre acts" be capitalised?--Doc^g 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply It's not capitalised in the linked wiki article, and a quick check shows that it is not capitalised by either Britannica online, or the UK theatre museum. Glamorgan university, do ... my personal opinion is that Acts of parliament should be capitalised, but it's not - it involves the issue of Letters' Patent by the monarch. In order to avoid the issue, I've rephrased the expression. I hope you find the current form acceptable. Kbthompson (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. I wasn't objecting, just questioning.--Doc^g 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment These don't seem to be a reliable sources: [10] [11].Epbr123 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced with more acceptable sources. Kbthompson (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. This is a decent article. I don't think the prose is great, but it is better than a lot of articles I've seen at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The prose needs work, and I am concerned that many of the sources are not reliable sources, and much information is not cited. I have listed a few examples of the prose issues below, but that list is not comprehensive. Basically, there is a lot of passive voice, a lot of repetition and a lot of very long unwieldy sentences.
  • Lead prose is not very compelling. A good copyedit might help it to reel you in a little more
    • The LEAD has now been reorganized and copy edited. Please take a new look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Prose issue examples:
    • unnecessary repetition - "theatre has been home to a number of record-setting runs in theatre history, "
    • "The history of the theatre involves a series of struggles for control of its management and ownership, because several parcels of land had to be leased to build and expand it, and these separate leases, with varying mortgages and lease terms, caused ongoing disagreements among the owners and lessees." - very very long sentence. This could be reworded to be clearer
    • "has principally specialised "??? shouldn't this just be "specialised"
    • " The company had performed productions combining spoken dialogue with incidental music, but a taste was growing amongst the nobility for Italian opera, which was completely sung, and the theatre began to present these" - too unwieldy. Could be simpliefied to something along the lines of "Although previous ed productions combined spoken dialogue with incidental music, as the nobility began to clamor for Italian opera, the company began singing all of their dialogue." (my version isn't perfect either)
    • "described as showing " -> why not just "showing"
    • "Following his personal success with Rinaldo, Handel presented a series of over 25 of his operas, performed under his personal direction, by a Royal Academy of Music (known from 1734 as the Opera of the Nobility)[10] formed by subscription from wealthy sponsors, including the Prince Regent, to support Handel's productions at the theatre until 1739" --- ack, what a long, ungainly sentence!! I'm not entirely sure what it is saying.
    • "The two fell out, each planning to wrest control of the venture from the other" clauses don't work well together - did they fall out because they each planned to wrest control or did they each plan to wrest control because they were upset with each other (and fell out may be too colloquial)
    • "Meetings were attempted to reconcile the parties at Carlton House and Bedford House. " - did they attempt to have meetings or attempt to reconcile the parties?
    • More passive voice! "The stage was stormed by the audience" - "The audience stormed the stage" I like this sentence much better now :) Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Phantom of the Opera had its world première on 9 October 1986 at the theatre,[50] in which Michael Crawford earned an Olivier Award for his performance in the title role. " - Michael Crawford did not win his Olivier at the Theatre
    • "The setting of the fire, in the roof, had been deliberate" - why such passive voice? "The fire had been deliberately set on the roof"
• All of the above have now been resolved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need non-breaking spaces between numbers and their qualifiers (such as 4 levels, 1216 seats)
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, the callout quotes (with the quotation marks) are generally not encouraged in wikipedia articles. Instead, for the long quotation use block quotes.
  • Need citation for "The theatre provided the first alternative to the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and the Lincoln's Inn theatre (forerunner of the Theatre Royal, Covent Garden). "
  • Need citation for "The theatre's site is the second oldest such site in London that remains in use."
    • Is this covered by the citation for the next sentence? Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • All covered by the theatre's entry in Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950 Kbthompson (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need citation for "These three post-interregnum theatres defined the shape and use of modern theatres."
  • Need citation for "At this time only a handful of patent theatres were permitted to perform serious drama in London, and lacking such a permit, the theatre remained associated with opera. "
  • Don't bold "The Queen's Theatre" in the article body. It can be bolded in the lead, but shouldn't be bolded here. (same for The Haymarket Ioera House)
  • See WP:MOSDASH; year ranges should be separated by an unspaced ndash;
    • Doesn't this indicate, rather, that year ranges should be separated by a spaced ndash?
      • It should be spaced if there is a space in the date (for example, January 1, 2008 – January 8, 2008), but if it is separating single years, no space (2005–2008). Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, done, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In section "Vanbrugh's theatre: 1705", several of the paragraphs start with From/In and a date. Please try to vary this a bit.
    • Done, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would remove the years from the history subheadings. They make it appear that the section only covers that year, which is incorrect.
    • Fixed by adding date ranges, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for: "At this time only a handful of patent theatres were permitted to perform serious drama in London, and lacking such a permit, the theatre remained associated with opera"
  • "He finally escaped his own creditors upon his election as member of Parliament " - did being a member of Parliament mean you didn't have to pay your debts?
    • Done, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need citation for "The Italian composer Cesare Pugni, was appointed Her Majesty's Official Composer of Ballet Music from 1843 until 1850, and he composed the bulk of the ballets presented at the theatre"
    • Done, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need citation for " Pugni remains the most prolific composer of the genre"
  • Quotations of less than 4 lines should be inline rather than offset
  • References are not formatted properly. Many are missing publishers or dates (even books need publisher information!!)
  • Books need page numbers
  • These do not appear to be reliable sources:
    • victorianweb.org
    • www.arthurlloyd.co.uk
    • culturevulture.net
    • karadar.com

***www.peopleplayuk.org.uk Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into the article and the sources. As ever the intention is to improve the article, nothing else and I thank you for your suggestions.

I might say that victorianweb is an acknowledged source on matters of the Victorian era, using mostly primary sources - ie contemporary newspapers; the Arthurlloyd site, again drawers on contemporary sources to provide information on theatre history. In my experience, it is reliable. PeoplePlayUK is the website of the London Theatre museum, maintained by the the Victoria and Albert Museum. If the last is not a reliable source, what is? The majority of cites are covered by paragraph cites of the excellent Survey of London article on the theatre. That has been an extensive source used in paraphrase.

Thank you for a useful critique and I'll try to address your issues tomorrow. Kbthompson (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand that it is more difficult to gain information about past eras, but I wonder if it would be possible to source the Arthurlloyd information from somewhere else? Can that information also be found in newspaper articles or books? The largest problem with websites is that there is no editorial control, which makes them less reliable than sources that do have editors or fact-checkers involved. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Arthurlloyd site is extremely informative and one of the most comprehensive sites on the internet about London theatres, containing numerous original images, quotes from contemporaneous materials and references to both the author's extensive collection of theatre programs and other materials, as well as lots of research. Why do you question its reliability? BTW, thanks for your excellent review and comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the ArthurLloyd references, but certainly feel as ssilvers that this is a reliable source. It's certainly the best theatre history site I've ever come across. Much of the information comes from contemporary theatre programmes and reviews that are reproduced on the site. Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are currently only two Arthurlloyd refs left in the article. Please let us know if you doubt their reliability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood your description of "contemporary" as meaning NOW rather than "at the same time the play was performed". In that vein, then, I withdraw my objection to that site. Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support As far as I can tell, the prose is good. The only problem is that some paragraphs do not end with references. Juliancolton Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I went through and there were a couple where text had been shifted around, I've fixed it now. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on 1a. Needs a run-through by someone new. Much of it is well-written, though. Examples at random:
  • "large scale"—hyphenate. Done.
  • "... Tree. Tree ..." Done.
  • "Tree and the theatre were instrumental"—odd duo. Done.
  • "premières"—does MOS really say to use the diacritic?
    • Typically, in English, where it's a borrowed word from another language, the diacriticals are used. In fact, if it's missing my British-Irish spell checker marks it as an error. Your local mileage may vary ... depending on the size of your gallon? Kbthompson (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The name of the theatre changes with the gender of the monarch, becoming the King's Theatre in 1714"—Clash of tenses (the present leaks into the second clause). Done.
  • "Most recently, the theatre was known as His Majesty's Theatre from 1901 to 1952"—Since the years are given, why the first two words as well?
    • If you cut the first two words, it would imply that these are the only two times when this happened - We don't want to name all the different periods when this happened in the LEAD. I would leave this one alone, unless you have another suggestion, Tony. I suppose the sentence could be cut....
  • "current capacity is 1,216 seats, and since 2000 ..."—Can you move the year away from the "1,216"? Done.
  • "over 25" (twice): it really would be nicer to say "more than 25". Tony (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Done.
    • I took care of the ones above marked Done. Thanks for the comments, Tony! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ... and a thank you for taking the time to read it through, from me. Kbthompson (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moncton

I'm nominating this article for featured article as I feel it meets all FA standards. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this article has potential but it still needs quite a bit of work. I haven't read the entire article thoroughly but it seems that it is comprehensive and generally well-referenced. However, it is in dire need of much copyediting and formatting. The writing has too many very short paragraphs and some lists may be better as prose. There are grammar issues and the prose often reads more like a travel guide than a neutral encyclopedia article. I've been working on this a bit and will probably continue to do more, but others' input will also be needed. A fair number of references are not properly formatted. Other charts and lists should perhaps be re-thought. Finally, religion information (assuming it exists) should be added to the demographics section. Also not sure why the best image for the culture section is a church when the culture section talks exclusively about the arts (I liked the photo of the theater better). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the picture back to the theater, as for the religion stuff the only data available at this moment is from the 2001 census, I was waiting for the new data from the 2006 census to be released (should be fairly soon) before updating that. As for the references, they arent really my strong suit, I made most of them, but Im not positive on proper formatting, so any help in that department would be appriciated. As for the table which are you talking about? The demographical ones, the sports team one, or the government one? Thanks for your help so far! Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment These don't seem to be reliable sources: [12] [13]. Epbr123 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The first reference is the only reference available on the net for that info, and I admit I was wary of using a geocite, but this guy is in the army and he has sources to back up his information, so I believe its credible. I fixed the second one, I dont know who added that as that info is available on lots of credible sites.Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Also:
  • Web references need to include the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
    • R Could somebody perhaps post what the exact proper formatting is so I can just use that in the article for all refs to correct them?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The current formatting is fine, but for ref 64, for example, the publisher would be Magnetichill.com, and ref 76 is missing the access date. Epbr123 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton, two belong to the Liberal party and one belongs to the Conservative party." - which party do the other five belong to? Can any info be added on the voting history of the town, eg. is it traditionally Liberal or Conservative?
    • R Fixed the numbering mistake, as far as voting history I have no idea where that info would be found.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Notable Monctonians section is too short. Could a couple more Monctonians be added?
    • R Done.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid it will need to be made into prose. Epbr123 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you check that all compound adjectives have hyphens, eg. "nine story building", "service based economy"?
    • R Perhaps sombody with any grammatical knowledge at all could do this haha, not my strong-suitStu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes regarding dash usage.
    • R Are you saying the dashes used in the article are improperly formatted? Or that we need more or something?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the dashes, they should all be correct now. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could the Railways section be expanded?
    • R I dont think there is much more to say in this section. The History section talks a lot about it already...Railways are not a huge thing in moncton currently, but they were in the past, I guess thats why its like that.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could the geography section include info on nearby cities, and the layout of the city such as where the main industrial and commercial areas are?
    • R I have a feeling the Geo section is large enough already, perhaps in the future I will make a seperate article on the geography of Moncton and include this info.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are figures available for the religious and racial makeup of the city?
    • R As I commented above the latest figures available are from 2001, however within the next few months the 2006 info will be coming out, I will add it in then.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • 2006 Census data on this will be available on April 2. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I've lived in Moncton for the past 10 years have have nothing to add to the article. Bravo! Emmanuelm (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose needs a lot of work to be compelling. There are grammatical errors and it could be tightened a good deal. There are also significant issues with statistics or claims not being cited. I think I've identified all the areas that should be cited, but the prose issues here are only a very tiny overview. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Response. Thank you for your help Karanacs, I will be able to fix all these problems shortly, however at the moment I am away for the weekend and unable to do much. I just want to make sure nobody fails this because of inactivity! haha Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Two paragraphs in the lead talk about shipbuilding and railroads. I think these two paragraphs should be combined.
  • "Although Moncton was traumatized twice" - the city was not traumatized; the economy might have been; this needs to be rephrased
  • In the history section, the sentences don't flow well within each paragraph. It is very choppy, and a good copyedit should help it to be more compelling.
  • Need a citation for the fact that the name of the initial settlement was "in reference to the sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River."
  • Need citation for "with him came eight immigrant Pennsylvania Deutsch families who were to re-establish the pre-existing farming community at Le Coude. This settlement was known as "The Bend of the Petitcodiac", or simply The Bend."
  • Need a citation for "Railway employment in Moncton peaked at nearly six thousand workers in the 1950s before starting a long slow decline."
  • Need citations for the paragraph about the Francophone-Anglophone tensions
  • "The sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River at Moncton has strongly influenced the names given to the community by the various succeeding inhabitants living in the area." is mentioned in both history and geography and not cited either place
  • Need citation for: "It is the longest remaining unspoiled barrier dune system on the mainland eastern seaboard of North America"
  • Need citation for: "This popular attraction "
  • Need citation for: "occupies a relatively large footprint for its size"
  • This is out of date: "it is scheduled for major renovation in 2007.["
  • Need citation for: "None of these buildings however are imposing enough to really help define the city"
  • Need a citation for "Irishtown Nature Park (one of the largest urban nature parks in Canada"
  • Need citation for "Since the previous national census in 2001 the metropolitan area has grown by 6.5%"
  • Need citation for "This rate of growth is within the top ten amongst major cities in Canada and Moncton has the fastest growth rate of any city east of Toronto."
  • You ought to also provide an official citation for the 2006 census data, so that people can easily verify the info (you never know what numbers a vandal might change it to)
  • There is a mixed Harvard style and footnote reference for the census 2001 info
  • Need a citation for " The local unemployment rate averages between 4-5%, which is below the national average" (that does not appear to be covered in the next reference)
  • Need citation for "The World Wine and Food Exposition — held every November, this is the largest event of its kind in eastern Canada"
  • There are a lot of lists in the article. Some of these should be converted to prose
  • Need a citation for "The "Magnetic Hill Illusion" remains a popular tourism draw "
  • There are two sentences that begin "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton" They then have different numbers of people belonging to various parties. This information needs to be cleaned up, and a date needs to be added
  • Need a citation for " Moncton Flight College is one of Canada's oldest, largest, and most prestigious flight schools. "
  • Need a citation for "Skydive Moncton operates the province's only nationally certified sports parachute club out of this facility."
  • Need a citation for "such, all flights between the atlantic seaboard of North America and Europe pass through Moncton Centre airspace."
  • "The city is currently working to increase its annual ridership from 1.7 million to 2.8 million. To assist with this, the bus fleet will increase to 54 vehicles within the next two years' - there is no anchor date to let us know when this was added -- 2005, 2007, 2008?
  • Not all references have publishers listed
  • A lot of the information is referenced to self-published sources. I think you should look for more newspaper and magazine articles to cover some of this.

Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article is one of the best articles I have seen. -Flubeca^Talk 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Object due to abundance of self-published sources. There are better sources and I can help identify these. There are also a few extra aspects I'd like to see covered. For example, the demise of the Moncton Police Force and the water system (Canada's first drinking water-related PPP). There are several small things, like some of the language and too many images (Image:JulieDoironHeartAndCrime.jpg is improper fair-use, and Image:Wheeler blvd at night.jpg is just decoration, not educational). This is up there as one of the best city articles, but it needs to address a few more aspects, a stronger reference-backing, and some polishing in the writing. --maclean 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Typewriter Company

Nominator Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nom retarted, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per old nom. Awadewit | talk 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per old nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per old nom. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support based on progress from old nom. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, 1c, reliable sources and recuse; I'll pass this nomination to Raul654 (talk · contribs). Discussion:

There is a precedent of passing a FAC with blogs and self-published sources at Search Engine Optimization. In that case (some of the discussion was off-FAC), it was determined that the blogs and self-published sources did represent the most reliable sources available in that industry/field from the most recognized experts in the field. In other situations (for example, some past MoS discussions), Raul has said that anything that can be fixed should be fixed. In this case, the failure to use sources that meet our WP:V requirements can be fixed. The self-published, personal webpage sources that are used list sources that meet WP:RS, and those sources could be checked and used. We don't need to use non-reliable sources when better sources, that meet WP:V, are available.

Even after several of the non-reliable sources I pointed out earlier were removed, almost one-third one-quarter of the sourced statements in this article are still cited to personal, self-published or commercial sources: (typewritermuseum.org, homepage.mac.com, geocities.com, and a commercial site). The reasoning given for accepting some of the self-published personal pages was that they list their sources. We shouldn't take their word for it that these sources are accurately represented; if they list their sources, we can use those original, reliable sources.

A note to reassure elcobbola: Raul has disagreed with me many times in the past, and I have no problem if he overrides my oppose.[14] He's the FA director. According to some of his talk page posts, he has been very busy lately, so there may be some delay before he can get to this. Please be patient, as he may be busy. And so you won't feel that I'm singling out this article, in the past I've always lodged a strong oppose when I had sourcing concerns; I'm just not comfortable passing the article when I have 1c concerns, but Raul may decide that it's fine. Good luck! (Please thread and indent responses below my sig to make it easier on Raul to catch up here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Struck one, now removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated percentage above to reflect some sourcing changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Partial response to Sandy's concerns Some of this will be redundant to be responses in the old nom, but reassertion seems appropriate. The commercial site is gone, so we’re faced with self published sources.
  • Regarding typewritermuseum.org and geocities sites:

WP:SPS sets forth that such sources “may … be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications” (emphasis in original). The publisher/editor, Paul Robert, has authored published work including, among others, The Typewriter Sketchbook (ISBN 978-1-8479915-2-2), The Five Pound Secretary (ISBN 90-74999-05-0). Other contributors include:

• Rob Blickensderfer (co-author of The Five Pound Secretary)
• Darryl Rehr authored Antique Typewriters & Office Collectibles (ISBN 0891457577) and is former editor for ETCetera.

I think this establishes the source as being written by established experts. The concern, then, is that, if the site lists sources, those sources (and not the site) need to be utilized. I think, however, that I disagree with Awadewits’ determination that sources are here. That page does not explicity identify itself as a source list for Oliver articles and I don’t see this page referenced on the pages utilized by the article. It appears to be largely a “further reading” list. That being the case, it can be reasonably determined that typewritermuseum.org is indeed the “primary” source, not derivative of other published works. Again, as it is written by experts as defined in WP:SPS, I believe it qualifies as reliable per WP:V.

The same applies to the geocities site, the personal site of Will Davis. As a regular contributor to ETCetera, Will Davis is established as an expert. As the site does not indicate reliance on published works, it seems reasonable to treat it as a "primary" source. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, only two of the sources about which Sandy is concerned remain; each supports only one “item”.

• The Geocities site is only supporting the cessation date. As Sandy has said, we need to use the best sources available to us. This is the only place I have ever seen a cessation date. British Oliver is almost entirely unknown to history; it had neither a unique design nor “successful” sales (it’s hard to be recognized by the populace when your product is, in a funny sense, confiscated by the government). People simply haven’t researched it, let alone published information. This is indeed the best, and only, source available to us. Although undoubtedly not optimal, it is not entirely unreasonable to consider it reliable given the context and my previous comments regarding the author and WP:SPS.
• The homepage.mac.com is only supporting production dates and numbers for British models. Again, this information does not exist elsewhere. The cited page lists two published sources, one of which is from 1927 (i.e. before British Oliver) and the other does not contain the British information. The author’s statements on the page and especially this page strongly suggest that the British data are unique to this site (i.e. this, again, is the best and only available source). We need to consider context; these data are the result of what can be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate and sincere attempt to gather data not before collected. On a general level, the site lists sources and provides credit and copyright information, which, in addition to being very rare for a personal site, indicates a level of trustworthiness and reliability. As the only known source of this information, it may be appropriate to IAR, as exclusion of the data would be a detriment. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Very nice work, elcobbola. I've struck my oppose since you've convinced me about the few remaining items. I'll leave a note for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I just wanted to mention that I have finally gotten around to typing up my material from the library (see article talk page) and scanning some other material and emailing it to Elcobbola. Hopefully this well help resolve any remaining issues. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflit)

• Support I looked for the commercial links. O.K. http://homepage.mac.com/sljohnson/typewriter/oliver/oliver-3.html is not the best per FAC standards but I don't think all should be rejected out of hand. There are many extremely interesting references. The article is actually interesting and I wanted to read it. (That is not too common for feature article. My last favourite was Bob Meusel and I was the only one that voted for it.) This article is a breath of fresh air. To my eyes, this article is a clean, concise and unpretentious article. I appreciate that. Plus it is nicely laid out. Mattisse 02:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)

Hi there, I believe this article meets all the FA standards. It is part of the Aston Villa F.C. topic that I am attempting to push towards Featured Topic status. The history of Aston Villa is too long to condense into a single article and as such is split into two: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874-1961) and History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). It is currently a good article after a review by The Rambling Man. It has also been reviewed by a Blues fan so as to ensure its neutrality. I think it now meets the FA criteria. As always, I will endeavour to respond to comments quickly. Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now
  • A few statements need expanding or rewording
    • "The League Cup win of 1961 was to be something of a pinnacle." This really doesn't mean much without any context especially as the opening sentence. Something of seems very vague, either it was a pinnacle or wasn't?
    • "had developed neither" or had neither developed. If it was simply one negative statement, it would had not developed.
    • Instability section, use of the cliche "came to a head" twice in as many sentences.
    • In the Taylor, Venglos, Atkinson section "Their second-place finish". I can't see any other time a dash is used but I realise this may be because it's used here more as a single adjective.
      • The pinnacle has been changed slightly. However, there will always be that jump between the two, it is in the nature of the split between two pages. Changed "had developed" and "Instability". The dash is intended due to the adjective, though I am no grammar buff. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • All look okay now. Though I'm going to change nor to or given your other edit. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I totally appreciate the reason for the pinnacle situation. Is there anyway it can be linked to the previous history section? If not don't worry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Some more references are perhaps needed
    • "After these results, and because of declining health, Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964."
    • "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players, Phil Woosnam and Tony Hateley."
    • "The fans' calls for the board to resign became more and more pronounced when Villa finished sixteenth in the Second Division in 1968."
    • "Ellis left the club in a good position." unless the statement is qualified by the following sentence, then it perhaps ought to be a good position on the field.
    • "Spink went on to make a number of "world class" saves in the game from the highly experienced Bayern strikeforce, which included Karl-Heinz Rummenigge."
    • "At the AGM in October 1982, it was revealed that the club were in £1.6 million of debt, mainly due to escalating wages and building costs, including the construction of the North Stand."
    • "Aston Villa's new manager was Ron Atkinson, who had achieved considerable success with West Bromwich Albion, Manchester United and more recently Sheffield Wednesday."
    • "His transfer policy was successful, with Aston Villa finishing as runners-up to Manchester United in the inaugural Premier League season of 1992–93."
    • "Whilst Gregory remained in his job, the relationship between him and Ellis was strained."
    • "Chairman Doug Ellis made a surprise decision to appoint Graham Taylor in January 2002."
    • "O'Leary transformed the team"
    • "After several years of speculation and failed bids, the 23-year reign of Doug Ellis as chairman came to an end." Though everything that follows could be said to back this up I suppose?
    • "Villa started the 2006–07 Premiership campaign well,"
      • Upto the O'Leary one, they are all covered by existing refs. I have reworded and reffed the O'Leary one. The Doug Ellis one is backed up by the refs after that. His reign ended, that is obvious. I have added in a 2006-07 ref. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd rather the refs be put in more than once, because some of these statements seem very POV. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • As you command. I have now added in refs for those statements, and reworded a couple. Woody (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I missed one statement needing a ref. It's in the lead and was going to check if it was in the article but forgot.
    • "To the surprise of commentators and fans, Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season, after falling out with the chairman, with the club in the quarter-final of the European Cup." Peanut4 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Done, added in ref. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • MOS issues
    • There's a mixture of style between sixties and seventies and 1960s, etc. I prefer the latter but will let you choose and amend them all.
      • I notice you've gone for the former, and as long as it's consistent, that's fine. WP:MOSNUM does suggest the latter see "Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s); the two-digit form is used only where the century is clear (the ’80s or the 80s)." And I do wonder if it might be easier to change to that version, if you need to use 2000s, etc., later on. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I think positions lower than ninth, ought to be 10th, etc. Though there is actually use of 15th and 16th later on.
    • semi final and semi-finals
      • Done the sixties and the semis/quarters etc. Can you clarify your thoughts on the numbers? Do you believe that they should all be numerical? Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I reckon first to ninth should be as is, and 10th onwards be numerals. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Have done. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Some other points
    • I'm not sure of the title and first line particularly "—present" and "present day", I would prefer onwards and to the current season, otherwise it implies it will be updated each day. Slap me with a wet fish, if I'm being a bit picky here.
    • Some of the sentences seem to be on the short side, not allowing the same natural flow which is present elsewhere.
      • I have reworded the first sentence, though I disagree about the naming. I think it is a perfectly acceptable and representative name. With regards to short sentences, I think it now flows though.Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Think that's it for now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have responded to your issues in their groups. Thanks for your comments. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Everything above has now been addressed or I'm satisfied with. However I have a few more queries regarding the references.
  • "To the surprise of commentators and fans," Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season. The reference doesn't say to the surprise of commentators and fans.
  • "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players" Reference says best. Though perhaps this is a subjective opinion on the actual wording.
  • "Spink went on to make several "world class" saves". Again, though I don't really doubt this casting my memory back, the reference again doesn't say "world class".
• I think the article could also do with some more images, though I appreciate how hard it can be to lay hands on some copyright-free images. Maybe even just some of those already there a little bigger. It looks very texty at the moment. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added in some more images. The sizing is by default so that it fits all resolutions so I can't really change that. I have also reworded those sentences to fit more accurately with the refs. Woody (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No major problems but the prose needs work. I have left more detailed comments on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done that lot thanks. Woody (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And your next lot. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on criterion 1a. The main problem is that the article is full of jargon that leaves the non-soccer fan completely perplexed. To get this up to shape, it needs copyediting by someone who is completely unfamiliar with soccer/football. I provided some examples below, but this is not an exhaustive list; please have the entire text copyedited.
  • General prose examples:
    • The first sentence is not in an encyclopedic tone. Don't say, "This article is about..." Just start writing. For example, "The history of Aston Villa F.C. from 1961 to the current season covers the fluctuating fortunes..."
    • Avoid phrases like "The late sixties saw..." Instead just say, "In the late sixties..."
    • Also, avoid starting sentences with "this" to describe the previous sentence, as in "This started with Villa..." We don't know what "this" is referring to.
    • In the beginning of the Instability section, you introduce Joe Mercer by saying he resigned but we don't know who that is. A manager? Same with other names there.
      • The point about those names is that they are already covered in the previous history article and by the wikilinks. That is what they (wikilinks) are designed for. The names are all provided in context. If we take this sentence: "the manager Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964. His replacement, Dick Taylor, managed to avoid relegation... and so on" It would be unneccessary and redundant for me to say, his replacement as manager, it is obvious. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree somewhat. I don't think people should be forced to follow wikilinks to at least get the basic idea of the sentence they are reading - for example, that Mercer was a manager. True, you don't need to state that every guy was a manager because it follows logically. But at least one of them should be identified so readers don't have to click links to find out basic information. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I had written in that Mercer was the manager after I read your comment, I just didn't think it neccessary to wikilink those names that followed logically on. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jargon examples:
    • I have no idea what being "relegated" means although it may be obvious to a soccer fan. Either wikilink it or provide context. I assume they were relegated to a different league, but a lot of people are totally unfamiliar with that concept since it does not occur in many countries.
    • Two sentences later, we find out they were relegated to the Third Division.. are you talking about the same incident? If so, why two different sentences?
    • "Fell down the table"? --Laser brain (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have amended your jargon examples, though personally, I didn't think wikilinking relegated was strictly neccessary, we are not the simple English Wikipedia. We assume some level of intelligence amongst the readers. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I wasn't suggesting linking to a "definition" of the verb relegate. If, however, there was an article about the process of sports teams being relegated to a lower league (which there is), you could link to that so people could read about it. As it stood, you said they "were relegated" but that verb is normally followed by a prepositional phrase in everyday use. For example, "I did a terrible job at investigating crimes, so I was relegated to directing traffic." Hope that's a bit more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • That is what I understood and carried out, I wikilinked the first use of relegated to Promotion and relegation. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Woody's talk page says he's away for the weekend, back on Monday. Have the opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wiggles

previous FAC (04:25, 3 February 2008)

I am renominating this article because all the areas of concern in its previous FAC were addressed. In addition, I did some further copyediting and added an image that was requested. There was some feedback about the placement of the images in the "Characters" section, and I changed them, but I need further feedback about how effective it was. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the cultural reference section necessary, and if yes, could it be prosed-up? Same applies for honours (needs prose). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is, but I will make this change as necessary, since I believe that bringing this to FA is more important than my personal views about trivia sections in WP articles. I will also prose up the Honours section. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! I folded the guys' honours into the rest of the article, and created another article for the "trivia" section. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. You may wish to see WP:BUNCHED re. the links in the characters section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done again! It works great, so thanks for the input, Di. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I would to see an article on the television series separate from the band itself much like Hi-5 (Australian band) and Hi-5 (Australian TV series). I know that there is List of The Wiggles episodes, but there no The Wiggles (TV series) at present. Move the information relating to the TV series to the new article so that this current article doesn't have to be categorised under Category:Australian children's television series, Category:Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV and Category:1991 Australian television series debuts -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to this request is, "No." If you actually bothered to read the article, or if you knew anything about The Wiggles, you'd see that unlike Hi-5, The Wiggles developed organically. They were a band before producing their TV show, unlike Hi-5, a group that was created specifically for a TV show. The Wiggles' TV series are ancilliary to their touring and recording. If an article about their series were created, it wouldn't be encyclopedic, and full of original research (see WP:NOR). I will not create such an article, even if it means that this article never becomes a FA. If you'd like, remove the categories in question.

To be honest, I don't see how this opposition has anything to do with this particular article, and how it would prevent its passage to FA. If someone wants to create the article you suggest, knock yourself out, but it shouldn't affect the status of this article. The quality of this article is substantially higher than Hi-5's articles, because, of course, The Wiggles as a band is by far superior to Hi-5. They've been around longer, their story is more interesting, and they're more significant. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples from the lead, indicating that the whole text needs a good run-through by a copy-editor.

• MOS says you need to specify A$ first time (I presume from the source that they're A$ ...?).
• "Programs", not "programmes", is the usual Australian spelling. This is a rare difference with UK spelling.
• "By 2002, The Wiggles had become the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC) most successful pre-school television programmes." Do you mean "one of the most successful"? Should it be "(ABC's)?
• Remove the redundant "also".
• "America"—is that "the US", or North America? "America" is a loose term.
• "former dancer Sam Moran"—Does that mean that Moran used to dance, or that he was previously a dancer with the group? Tony (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All the above issues have been addressed. Although this article has been previously copy-edited by the LOCE, I will re-submit it for someone else to have a crack at it. If it doesn't pass (and I highly suspect that it won't), I'll give it a break for a little while before re-submitting it. Thanks for all the input. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments left on the talk page. --Efe (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Efe left over 50 comments; all have been addressed. Thanks! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments This isn't too far off, but I did find some copyedit and reference issues:

• The infobox image's caption is not a full sentence and therefore does not warrant a full stop
• Please provide a source to support the alternative rock and post-punk revival genres listed in the infobox; I find those characterizations really questionable. Note the article later states "All their songs, based on pop music".
• "The group have achieved" - subject verb disagreement
• "They have earned seventeen Gold, twelve Platinum, three Double-Platinum, and ten Multi-Platinum awards" - this needs some work. The source is inferior; it's a university's student newspaper. Further, the individual types should not be capitalized, and linking multiple words to the same article is unnecessary.
• Is the language construct "pre-school" common in Australia? I interpret "pre-school" as before-school. If "nursery school" is also common, I would suggest it as an alternative that's less likely to be misread.
• The middle paragraph of the Origins section needs to be cleaned up for overuse of parentheses.
• "The Wiggles made a decision to do not, as Cook has said, "just go down the route of what people think is kids' music"." - this needs a rewrite to fix 'decision to do not'
• "when being photgraphed with children" - typo
• "The group have always had a strict code" - subject verb disagreement
• "The Wiggles have performed 12 sold-out shows at Madison Square Garden in 2003, and have been in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, the first time in 2001. " - wrong tense on both verbs
• "Six Flags opened its first "Wiggles World" section in April 2007" - this needs some context; where?
• A "Leeanne Ashley" is mentioned as the choreographer; a "Leanne Ashley" is mentioned as having acted as Dorothy; a "Leanne Halloran" is mentioned at the end as the choreographer.
• The wiggly dancers are referred to variously as (verbatim): "The Wiggly Dancers", the Wiggly Dancers, and "the "Wiggly dancers".
• Some of the references need parameter work. For example, ABC News is improperly italicized because it was set as a 'work' parameter; the same is true of references including the Australian Film Commission, ABC TV Online, MSNBC, Tv.com, and MTV.com. 'Publisher' or 'author' would be a more appropriate parameter, and would result in the proper display format.
• I'd suggest fleshing out the intro to the Characters section by reinforcing that the main 4 characters are known by their first names; I think this is important since the bulk of the article refers to them by their last names.
• Regarding the first oppose vote above, where an editor wants to see an article for the tv series: yes, that would be lovely, but I do not see that as a valid reason for opposing since this FAC is not overly laden with tv series-specific content. I can't see opposing because you don't like some of the categories on the article. Maralia (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Feedback? Have you re-contacted reviewers for a re-visit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the nom has gotten around to my list of concerns yet. Maralia (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct! Real life has gotten in the way, I'm afraid. I hope to start in on 'em over the weekend. Patience, please! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halo Graphic Novel

Minimal plot, long on background and behind the scenes of the book. Here it is... David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Image:Supremecommander.jpg is missing a fair use rationale. Epbr123 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, noobish mistake. It's fixed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Check Newsarama.com and PublishersWeekly.com for sales/retailer orders information. Publisher's Weekly for instance has a column that analyzes sales of Marvel publications every month. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added in the sales info to the last paragraph of reception. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from James086
  • Is the article written with British or American English? It doesn't matter which is used but it should be consistent throughout. In the section Armor Testing: "...pencils by W. Andrew Robinson and colors by Ed Lee. and in the section Gallery and supplemental: "A full-colour poster featuring the book's cover art was also released... For this article I would recommend American English to be consistent with the section title "Armor Testing" but British English could be used.
  • Perhaps rename the "Background" section to "Background and development" because the second paragraph seem to be more development related than background. Possibly split into 2 sections but I like the way the text flows at the moment so I would prefer that they stay as 1 section.
  • Nice work and support assuming that these will be addressed by the conclusion of the FAC. I'm watching this FAC so I can respond to queries here. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The previous support is very hard for me to see; please follow the standard format given in the instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All concerns above addressed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my concerns were addressed (this separated support is to make it clearer for Raul or Sandy). I will help out with the points raised by Maralia and any others, but I haven't contributed to the article otherwise. I am an active contributer to the Halo Wikiproject however which could be considered a COI but that's not for me to decide. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, from a quick glance it doesn't seem like this article is following the graphic novels MOS. Any particular reason? I presume stories = plot section, but who are the characters? Unless you are familiar with the Halo universe, the article seems a little confusing. Gallery and supplemental seems like it should be a discussion under an overall discussion of the publication of the novel. With it having a main heading, it seems out of place. Has the article been copyedited? There are several sentences with references floating in the middle when they don't seem to need to be. Collectonian (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any format for graphic novels. It doesn't contain a character section because there are not full plot summaries and all the characters are wikilinked to List of Halo characters which contains all series characters. Would you prefer the supplementals section to go under the background? As for copyediting, I plan on running through it once more over this weekend. (�US EST) David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think having a brief character section for the major characters in the novel, with a synopsis of their role in the novel and links to their main section would be good. Without such a section, a person would really have to be familiar with Halo already to get some aspects of the article. A character section would help with that. I think the supplements should be incorporated into a section discussing its publication, or baring that the background section should work. I'd also strongly recommend applying the graphic novel MOS to the article, especially for the headings and organization. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose, as it still presume too much familiarity with Halo, and earlier concerns remain unaddressed except for the moving of the supplemental stuff. Collectonian (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your issues on your talk page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose based on criteria 1a and 1c as follows: Support. --Laser brain (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • General style concern (1a): Pervasive use of passive voice affects readability throughout. An example is: "What was described as a "dream team" roster of writers and artists Bungie admired was created by lead designer Maria Cabardo, and through a period of negotiation Bungie was able to gain contributions from many of those named on the list." Almost every sentence in the article is in the passive voice, which obscures or in some cases eliminates the subject of the sentence.
  • General concern that secondary sources are not offered in the "Stories" plot summaries (1c).
    • This is still a concern but it is not enough for me to oppose. I did a cursory search and it didn't look promising that any secondary academic sources would be available for the plot summaries. However, if there are any magazine articles (maybe a comics journal?) that summarizes the plots, it would be great to add it as a source. --Laser brain (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor issues:
    • The fair use rationale for Image:Halocomicbook.jpg is incorrect (the Portion used field).
    • The first sentence mixes verb tenses (published and was released). --Laser brain (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten some of the sentences where the structure made it unclear, added more to the FUR, and fixed the first sentence. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as per nom. Pretty much everything has been addressed. Shouldn't the article's title be The Halo Graphic Novel according to the image cover? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems comprehensive, and the writing quality has been greatly improved by this FAC. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment copy-edit

• The cover of the book tells me it is The Halo Graphic Novel - why does the article's name not have a "The"?
• the article assumes the reader already knows about Halo; I think a line in the lead and a paragraph in the "Background" section that explain it for noobs is necessary: "Halo is a video-games series created by Bungie... it was very popular..."
• Whats an "art lead"?
• "The original concept of expanding the Halo series into new media beyond that of video games began early in the development of the Halo franchise, as a method of adding new stories to the Halo mythos outside of the main story line of the games; sequential art was to be the main focus." - can this sentence be simplified/shortened - you seem to be saying the same thing twice. Also, who exactly are we talking about in these initial sentences - Bungie?
• A "dream team" - is that right?
• Bungie announced the partnership on March 17, 2006 - is that necessary? A specific date like that really adds nothing.
• created solely for the book - didn't see what this added/meant - removed it myself.
• "A few promotional pieces were created ... preview pages of the material." - Ack, should be rewritten; a lot of stuff is being said twice (the preview for example)
• The novel's material - can you find another word other that "material"? - Wouldn't just "The novel" suffice?
• Can the plot for the first book be shortened? the others seem shorter.
• "citing the wealth of contributions from recognized artists and the strength of the material in fleshing out the Halo fictional world." - rewrite; doesn't seem grammatically correct right now.
• "praised for the diverse range of storytelling" - you might want to attribute that to a reviewer: "Jon Smith praised Halo for its 'diverse range of storytelling...'"
• Does this new monthly series have a name?
• Bookscan and Diamond sales charts - any wikilinks?
• A word other than "guts"? Not done: "moxie"? huh? maybe "daring" or "being brave enough to". Further Succinct though it may be, surely there is a more common word than "moxie". I'm sure most common-folk don't know this word.
• August '06 newsarama has no mention of Halo... one of its links does though; change the cite.

Fix these, and i will have no problem in supporting. indopug (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: USA Today did an article on this that you may be able to use: [15] maclean 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated some of the content into the background. Good find, thanks! David Fuchs ^(talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Concerns have been addressed. Good job indopug (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Bungie Studios is singular. Make sure this is fixed throughout the article; I did a few edits to demonstrate how the company should be referred to. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Contingent support presuming nom is okay with my unusually heavy copyedit-verging-on-rewrite tonight. David: please especially review what I've done with the lead, "Last Voyage", and "Second Sunrise", to make sure I haven't bungled the plot summary or misrepresented your sources. I've hidden all my prior concerns, as they were addressed by either your edits or mine. I was really hesitant to muck with it myself because I'm no Halo expert, but copy/pasting sentences here for fixes was getting tedious (probably for you too). Maralia (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Self-nomination. I have worked hard on this article, and believe it qualifies for FA. I have already successfully nominated it a Good Article. This article, in addition to coverage of all of Flagg's appearances, includes commentary by Stephen King as well as some critical analysis. Unless Flagg is to appear in another work of fiction, I don't see what else could be added to the article in terms of content.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Some sections are too short. Basketballone10 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment...and those would be? Taking a quick look, the short sections are the one where there is not much information available.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Basketball110, please refer to the featured article criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I enjoyed reading it. -note: "In 2007, Marvel Comics released The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger Born," is not referenced--Kiyarrllston 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done I added a Newsarama article which makes reference to the initial series coming out in 2007.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"[When] [a]sked by a TV Guide interviewer if the "darkly humorous" Flagg represented his idea of the Devil, " - is this stuff really necessary? I believe flow is greatly improved by removing it.--Kiyarrllston 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, its gone.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • Only full dates, and dates with a day and a month, should be linked.
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. Epbr123 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there a reason references receive redundant entries for every page? (e.g. Why King, Stephen (1991). The Stand: Complete and Uncut. Signet, 172. ISBN 978-0451169532. and King, Stephen (1991). The Stand: Complete and Uncut. Signet, 175. ISBN 978-0451169532.) Is there a policy against consolidation? (e.g. King, Stephen (1991). The Stand: Complete and Uncut. Signet, 172, 175. ISBN 978-0451169532.) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was told to add book citations for specific details. And for the record, if someone wants to verify a certain fact, they can look up the page number instead of searching through the entire book for one sentence.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A sample of how to add page numbers citations for books without repeating the entire citation is at Reactive attachment disorder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So do I just remove the title and the name and keep the last name and the year?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Alright, I believe the problem is now taken care of.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Comprehensive and engagingly written, I really enjoyed reading this. One thing, I reordered the lead, but I'm not married to the edit. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks!--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Support Great work - but I think it needs some minor fixes and clarifications as follows:
  • First and foremost, in the lead and also the Dark Tower heading, the narrative about Flagg's incarnations gets confusing. I have read all the books mentioned and it is still confusing - it would probably be doubly so for someone who has not read them. You do a great job describing the confusion/controversy among readers about Flagg's identity as Walter, Marten, and John Farson. However, you are not clear about when it was actually revealed that Walter/Marten are actually R.F. You sort of say it is in Wizard and Glass, but I have the Robin Furth book here and the entry on Walter claims that this information was revealed in The Drawing of the Three. You should research this some more and be crystal clear about it in the article prose. If different sources say different things, we should call that out.
  • There are too many fair use images in this article, and none of them have proper fair use rationales. Please use the {{Non-free_use_rationale}} template to ensure you have all the necessary fields. I think you used that template on one of the images but not all the fields are completed. Most or all of the images have no source. For the rationales to be valid, they really need a better explanation of why they are allowed. For example, Image:Martenwaltercomic.jpg states that it is used "for educational purposes" but that is not compelling. As a general guideline, if the images are discussed in the article with sources, they should remain. If they are there only for decoration (or "identification") they should go. As a side note, you might check some of the fan art sites - I'm betting that some of the artists would jump at the chance to be in a Wikipedia FA and would license their art under a compatible Creative Commons license. Leave me a message on my Talk page if you need help navigating all this image use stuff.
  • Check all punctuation with the MoS. There are mixed uses of single and double quotes. In the "Concept and creation" heading there is a poem title in single quotes - should be italics. Those are just a couple of example - the whole article should be reviewed.
  • I don't consider The Stand heading to be comprehensive, considering Flagg's significant role in the novel. It needs more detail. Maybe check The Stand article and merge some information in.
  • Same for the Literary Criticism section. It seems like there must be way more sources of criticism available for a character that appears in so many widely circulated novels. Recommend working with an editor that has access to an academic search such as LexisNexis or just visiting your local library to dig up some more on this.

--Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments (in no particular order.)

Free fan art probably wouldn't count as it is a deriative work. For example, I once uploaded a personal photo of someone's Crazy Frog doll and it was deleted because while the person released it Wikipedia it was of a copyrighted character.

I haven't seen Robin Furth's entry on this, but Walter was definitely not revealed to be Flagg (or Marten) in the second book. Of this I'm 100% certain. Flagg was mentioned in the second book, had a cameo in the third and was only revealed to be Marten in the fourth.

Regarding the fair use: IMO, the only one that's not essential to the article is the Dave McKean one, which I'll remove if I have to.

I'll try to address your other concerns in the article when I get the time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I removed one of the images and expanded The Stand's section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As for literary criticism about Flagg...while I am aware that its not an exhaustive selection, I have read numerous books about King's work and very few actually critique Flagg's character beyond a plot summary. I'll see if I can order some more books, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my issues. I have stricken my opposition and changed to support. I am still definitely of the opinion that there are too many fair use images in this article, but I don't think that issue is enough on its own to merit opposing. I see that you have been working on this article for a long time; I hope your hard work will finally pay off! "Go then... there are other worlds than these." --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've ordered some Stephen King books from the library today so hopefully I can expand on the literary analysis.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes: please review WP:MOS#Ellipses. Pls review endashes on page ranges in citations, or have Brighterorange (talk · contribs) run his script to fix them. Many citations are missing a publisher: all sources should have title, publisher, last accessdate on websources, publication date and author when available. Reliability of sources is hard to evaluate when publishers aren't identified. External jump within the text: ... Flagg's ultimate fate on TheDarkTower.net's forums: "Don't ... Please ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) (or someone who follows logical quotations vis-a-vis WP:MOS) to check your punctuation on quotes. Portals belong in See also (see WP:GTL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article, while full of information, is mostly plot summary combined with might be the editors' interpretation. It is difficult to know. Much of the plot summary is not sourced and while we don't usually require plot summaries to be sourced, when such material dominates the article, I start to become nervous. Also, it is impossible for writers not to introduce their own interpretations into summaries. Usually, any small biases can be smoothed over by the presentation of critics' and scholars' interpretations, which have more validity, but that is not the case here. The amount of material from commentators is slim. Therefore, I am quite concerned that we simply have a group of wikipedia editors' summary of Randall Flagg's appearances in Stephen King's fiction and while that summary might be accurate, we cannot rely on it. Our policy is to rely on published, secondary sources (WP:V). I have outlined my other concerns below:

• The lead is a little disconnected and hard to follow. I would suggest starting with the general statements first (which are currently at the end of the lead) and then proceeding to the more specific statements.

• What has been written on the significance of Flagg's names and appearances? The connection to Lovecraft is interesting and his Americana must have meaning. It is good that you have cited where some of these moments occur in King himself, but what have commentators and scholars made of this symbolism? What does it mean?

• The second paragraph of the "Character backstory" assumes too much knowledge of the character and needs to be explained in more detail.

• He resisted the temptation to slink back home and instead went on to find his destiny and devote his life to darkness. - Sentences like this are too vague, for example - what does it mean to "devote his life to darkness"?

• The article needs to be copy edited by someone unfamiliar with it - someone who hasn't poured their life and soul into it - someone who can bear to part with the words and phrases. :)

• Every once in a while, the language of the article starts to reflect the language of King himself. Be careful to keep the language encyclopedic. For example: In the 1969 issue of Ubris a poem was published by Stephen King called "The Dark Man". The poem tells of a man who wanders the country, riding the rails and observing everything around him. The poem turns sinister - "riding the rails" and "sinister" may not the be the most appropriate diction

• What is the justification for using an online chat as a source (here)?

• The "literary analysis and criticism" section is much too short and should probably not be its own section. Any analysis of Flagg should be integrated into the article itself, where appropriate. I checked at Google Scholar and at the MLA database. There are plenty of scholarly articles and books that discuss Flagg. These should be part of the research that inform the structure and content of the article.

I hope these comments assist the editors in revising the article. I look forward to watching its improvement. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There is no speculation on the article. Everything there happened in the books. There once was a section where editors put in speculation regarding Flagg's appearences in other novels, but I had it removed. As it is now, the only remotely speculative thing is Flagg's appearence in Hearts in Atlantis...but even then, that has a credible source (a published book) that backs it up. When people do add speculation (and there have been quite a few), I always remove it. If there's anything you think should be cited, put a {{fact}} template and I'll find the quote. If its backed up in the book, I don't see why another author needs to verify it. I only like to use other authors' writings when it comes to material exclusive from King...which brings me to....
• I have ordered seven Stephen King books from the library (all of them are in transit) and I will try to expand the "literary analysis" section. Thanks for pointing out Google scholar...I'll look at it later tonight.
• I put it up for "League of Copyeditors" and another editor who hasn't worked on the article prior combed through it and changed the grammatical inconsistencies and whatnot.
• The justification for the online chat is because it backs up a quote from King concerning Eyes of the Dragon.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that online chats are not reliable sources per WP:V. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• If Stephen King himself said something on a chat, how would not it be reliable to use that statement in an article?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at Google Scholar's articles: out of all the articles listed that don't require me to subscribe to a membership, only one is suitable for Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd also like to note that primary sources are perfectly acceptable for plot summaries. If something is disputed anyone can look it up. Awadewit, if there is a particular passage that reads as an interpretation rather than a summary, please call it out. --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I have two responses here - on the point of interpretative plot summaries and on the point of research.

• Let me try to explain why plot summaries are interpretative. When writing a plot summary, editors 1) select events from the novel to discuss; 2) paraphrase the words of the author; and 3) redact the storyline. All of these choices could be made differently and when they are made differently, a different plot summary with slightly different emphases results. That is why plot summary is interpretative. This article does not list every time Randall Flagg appears in Stephen King's novels with a reference to every sentence (that would be absurd). The editors have chosen what they believe to be significant plot points. The problem is that others might interpret the plot differently and select different plot points. (To test this theory, ask a series of people to summarize a movie that you have seen - they will not all relate the same parts of the movie to you.) In paraphrasing Stephen King's words, interpretation enters into the plot summary as well. Let me offer an example from an article I worked on, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman. In this novel, it is possible to say that one of the characters either "was forced to have an abortion", "chose to have an abortion" or "had an abortion". All of these possibilities are supported by passages in the novel. Which one we put in the plot summary is an interpretative act. Because plot summaries are interpretative, we try to keep them short and let commentators' opinions dominate the article. Unfortunately this article consists almost entirely of plot summary. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Awadewit, please consider that what you have said is essentially true of all Wikipedia articles. Editors always select things to write about, paraphrase their sources (ideally), and choose a tone and voice appropriate to their audience. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single article here that does not reflect these facts. That's why we have collaborative editing - editors balance each other's selections and writing style until we have a neutral product. An exhaustive academic search might turn up some serious research on Randall Flagg and not just incidental mentions, but what if it doesn't? I say this because I have tried (although I admit I have not spent days or even hours on the task). Should this article never be an FA if such research does not exist, and we must stick with plot summaries? --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles are built on solid secondary sources - published work by experts in an academic disciplines, for example (see WP:V). This article does not meet that standard (yet). An article that is entirely plot summary is original research because it is based largely on primary sources. FAs require exhaustive research - that is why it takes so much time to write them. We have to know that they are comprehensive. An article that could only be a plot summary could never be a wikipedia article because it could never meet WP:V (much less the FA criteria). However, that is not a problem here. There are numerous sources available, as I have pointed out. The editors must be willing to take the time to research the topic thoroughly. Awadewit | talk 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Just for discussion's sake, would you consider The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance by Robin Furth a reliable source for plot summaries? I could almost certainly work with CyberGhostface to edit and source the plot sections with this book (although the time frame might be prohibitive for the purposes of this FAC). Furth is what I would consider an "associate" of King's, so I'm not sure how that affects her neutrality. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am on the fence about Furth's book (she is apparently Stephen King's "personal research assistant", making the book closer to a primary than a secondary source). I would be curious to hear other editors' opinions about it. However, this is really a minor point. The most important work that needs to be done with regards to this article is research. The article needs more material written by critics and scholars explaining the plot, themes, symbolism, etc. relating to Flagg. That material would ideally be threaded through the article. That is what is missing from the article - that is why it is not comprehensive at the moment. Awadewit | talk 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• What makes you sure that there is lots of "material written by critics and scholars explaining the plot, themes, symbolism, etc. relating to Flagg" readily available? Again, if you look at other fictional character featured articles very few of them go that far. (They do have more behind the scenes material, but keep in mind that most of them are films characters and are thus part of a big collaborative process instead of one guy writing it.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I know that these works exist because I can see them listed on the MLA database and I briefly skimmed through a few of them, as I mentioned before. It really doesn't matter if other FAs didn't do this - they should have. Discussing literary characters requires mentioning crucial elements of character analysis, such as symbolism. It is also irrelevant that those articles had many editors. If this article has only one editor, that editor has to do the work of many editors. Sometimes that is the way the cookie crumbles. It is wonderful when there are many people working together to share the burden of all of the work (that is one of the glories of wiki), but when that doesn't happen, one person (most unfortunately) must take on an enormous amount of work. (That person can always recruit people to help them!) However, we do not lower our standards at FAC for people working alone. Awadewit | talk 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• You missed my point entirely. When I said a collaborative effort, I meant on the film itself, NOT the article. My comparision was with articles on film characters and literature characters. More than one person worked on Jabba the Hutt (a featured article), for example, in terms of design, acting, writing, directing, etc. Thus there is probably more information available on that character than a book character with one person. Featured Articles have to be comprehensive, but at the same time, what counts as comprehensive depends on the amount of information available. Nikki_and_Paulo (another featured article), for example, contains far less information than Flagg.
• And as I said before, it costs money to access the MLA database.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)There's no reason why the number of people who worked to create the subject should not affect the number of scholarly concerning it. Surely you can see Google Scholar for free?--Rmky87 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I surely did use Google Scholar. Wanna know how much I found that was useful? One paragraph. And I never said that the scholarly was equatable with how much people worked on the project...just the amount of behind the scenes material there is on the character.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to the above discussion (it's getting difficult to follow the thread here), I have checked the MLA database as Awadewit suggested with the intention of developing a working bibliography for the plot summaries. Well, turns out, there is ONE article in the MLA database that is about Stephen King and even mentions Randall Flagg. I tried several different types of searches and I kept coming up with just this one article. The full text is not available online but I ordered it from the library. See User:Laser_brain/RF. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that you've started to do some research. However, since "Randall Flagg" is not a subject category in the MLA database and most of the articles on Stephen King are not full text (as you note), you are indeed not going to find much through the MLA search mechanism. I assume this is the article you found:
      • Alissa Stickler, "The Mid(Evil) Nightmare of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Flagg as the Immortal Monster in Stephen King's The Eyes of the Dragon and The Stand"
    • Research is not simple - it is time-consuming. Sometimes it requires looking at articles you might initially think are unrelated to the topic, such as the articles that I saw listed on Stephen King and The Stand (they might mention Flagg, but since they are not available for online searching, there is no way to tell until you actually read them). You might also consider looking at the essay collections listed - those are substantive books on King's works and would more than likely discuss his major characters. I would also suggest looking at the essays on Lovecraft, particularly since the article claims that Randall Flagg is at one time named after a Lovecraft character. Perhaps more could be said about that connection. I hope these are helpful suggestions. Awadewit | talk 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I just received all but two (or so) of my Stephen King books from the library. None of them expand upon Flagg any more than a plot summary. And these were the ones that specifially said "critical analysis" on them. --CyberGhostface (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind listing those books here? Thanks. I'm going to the library today. I'll try to dedicate some time to finding sources for you and I don't want to look through what you have already searched. Awadewit | talk 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The books I ordered were "The Essential Stephen King" by Stephen Spignesi, "Stephen King: A Critical Companion" by Sharon A. Russell and "The Stephen King Companion" by George Beahm. The ones I'm going to pick up later are "Fear Itself: The horror fiction of Stephen" and "Kingdom of Fear", both edited by Tim Underwood and Chuck Miller. I think those two will probably be the more helpful, however, as they are a collection of essays by different authors.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you are discounting sources too quickly. For example, Landscape of Fear and Stephen King: The Second Decade have excellent material in them. However, you just quote a couple of things. The idea of a literature page is not just to give plot summary (that would be original research), but rather to explain what the literary experts say about the topic. Thus, it is the published work of literary critics and commentators on Stephen King that must dominate this page. One way to effect that change is to structure the page topically. So, for example, the "literary analysis" should not be shunted off to its own section as a list of unconnected quotations (as it is now) - it should be the meat of the article. I would therefore suggest writing a brief synopsis of Flagg's appearances in the novels and then focusing on the material you are finding in these books. It is fascinating that King is drawing on Shakespearean traditions. I also see here in this literature that he is drawing on the Gothic traditions of Poe and, to some extent, Hawthorne. This all needs to be clearly and carefully explained to readers. Awadewit | talk 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• (Did you notice the helpful "Stephen King: A Guide to Scholarship, 1980-1987" at the end of Landscape of Fear? Although old, it is a beginning. Most of the books will have a bibliography of some sort that will lead you to even more research. That is the best part about finally finding sources - they will lead you to even better ones.) Awadewit | talk 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Articles on literary topics require extensive research at libraries. The most important database to look through for literature articles is the MLA database, as that is the listing of all articles and books published on literature. There are over 200 listings for Stephen King and as I started to browse through them, I noticed many on The Stand and The Dark Tower that mention Flagg. Because this page is about a character, the research is going to be a bit tedious - the editors are going to have dig deep to find what has been said, but there is obviously quite a bit of good information available. However, most of it is not available freely over google. If the editors do not have access to a good research library (either university or public), they should contact an editor here who is willing to track down the articles for them. There are editors willing to do this. I would volunteer myself, except I am already doing this for two other articles at the moment and cannot take on a third. An article cannot become an FA if it hasn't been thoroughly researched. It must "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". This article does not yet do that. According to WP:V, "[i]n general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." This is why we need to rely on scholarship about Randall Flagg. I might mention that it will also make the article far more interesting, as it will offer deeper explanations for the character, the evolution of his character, the language King used to write him, etc. I hope that this helps explain my position more clearly. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. Taking a look at Palpatine, a featured article, I noticed that whenever a plot summary was sourced the film itself was more than enough. (And yes, I'm aware that Palapatine's article is more extensive than Flagg's.)

The point is that the Flagg article almost entirely plot summary. That is why this is becoming a problem. Awadewit | talk 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2. If you can find a free database for me to access, then tell me. From what I can tell, I need to pay money for MLA. And like I've said multiple times, I have ordered a number of Stephen King books from the library which are now in transit. Once I get the books, assuming that they discuss Flagg, I'll get to work on it. And keep in mind we're not talking about someone like Iago here where there are tons of sources readily available to discuss the character at great length. He's not as iconic as Carrie White or Annie Wilkes either (in which those two are instantly recognizable by most). So far in all the sources I've found I'm lucky to get a paragraph or two that discuss him. Nikki and Paulo is a featured article, and there's far less information about them then there is for Flagg.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that all sources on Wikipedia be freely accessible. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where all information is freely available. You can go to a university library or a public library to access the MLA database or ask a fellow wikipedian to help you. I understand that you will have to do quite a bit of research and dig through lots of sources to find little nuggets of information (I myself have read books for a single line - it is often frustrating). I anticipate that this article will take you many months to complete. It is difficult to write FA articles on topics such as this, on which not much, but some scholarship has been done. You have a good start and obviously you are still working (evidenced by the fact that you are waiting for books). However, the article is clearly still in the development stages. Awadewit | talk 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment More analysis has been added.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has far more nonfree images than it really needs. Image:Randallflagg7.jpg, Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg, and Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg are too big (too high-resolution), and the rationales of all the images are cursory rather than detailed. Image:Randallflaggfangoria.jpg is a magazine cover and thus can only be used in a discussion of the magazine, not the character portrayed on it. The captions use "portrayed by" often to mean "drawn by"; "portrayed by" is usually interpreted to mean who the actor is. In order for WP:NFCC#8 to be fulfilled, the relationship between the text and each nonfree image needs to be so tight that removing the image would be significantly detrimental to understanding the article. That does not seem to be the case for most, perhaps all, of these images. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Halloween III, another featured article, has a magazine cover from Fangoria that is used to display the poster's artwork. I'll expand upon the fair use rationales and modify the fair use rationales, but all of them are significant to the article as they either display Flagg in his different personas and appearences, his appearence in different mediums or in one particular case a significant moment in the character's history.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose or neutral; can't decide—1a. Here are random samples; needs a copy-edit in places by someone new.
  • "In addition to King's novels, Flagg also appears in Marvel's Dark Tower comics and"—Why "also"?
  • "King an image he had of "this guy in cowboy boots who moved around on the roads, mostly hitchhiking at night, always wore jeans and a denim jacket". Um ...
  • Inconsistent placement of final punctuation after closing quote marks (should come after them if the quote opens within a WP sentence).

Tiresome topic. Tony (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. COuld you explain your point of view a little more? Are you saying the topic of the article itself is tiresome?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article has now been proofread and copyedited.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Hall of Fame

Oh boy, my first FAC that doesn't relate to The Simpsons. Anyway, I've been working on this page for about a month, and rewrote it from a form that contained a lot of POV and propaganda. I feel it meets the MOS, and is fully sourced. Special thanks to Maxim for copyediting it. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited it a bit as well (thanks, Scorpion, for the thanks! :-p), and I've just checked the external links. I got a bunch of 111 Connection refused problems with any site from the Hall of Fame (ie all primary sources have "errors"). The websites, actually, are perfectly fine. It's the relation between the script that analyses the links and how the site is built. A similar issue happened in the Calgary Flames FAC, for reference. Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some measurements are missing conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are conversions really needed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added the two conversion that Epbr123 asked for; it's not a big deal, IMHO, and I understand stuff better in metric than imperial. :-) Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. GREAT WORK! But, some additional work is needed: Support, my concerns have been fixed or addressed - thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I realize that the article has undergone some copyediting, but it needs more fit and finish. There are several awkward sentences, at least one spelling error (I corrected), and misc grammar issues. I called out many of them below, but please have a fresh pair of eyes look this over again.
    • Done
  • "New honourees are selected annually by a committee of 18 people that meets in June, which mainly consists of former players and coaches." Reads like it is June that consists of former players and coaches. Maybe say, "A committee of 18 people, mostly players and coaches, meets annually in June to select new honourees."
    • Done
  • "Honourees are inducted in..." I don't think you are "inducted in"; you are just "inducted".
    • Done
  • Why is the Gil Stein incident mentioned so prominently in the lead? Are there sources stating that it is the most significant controversy in HHOF history? If not, it does not belong in the lead - it would suffice to say that there has been controversy and criticism.
    • That is a remnant of when the contoversy had its own section. It has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate to permanently put the Hall there." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "In 1966, the induction ceremony was a 'stag affair'..." Colloquial, reword for general audience.
    • Done
  • "By 1986, the Hall of Fame was quickly expanding and running out of room in its building, and it was decided that a new home was needed." Who decided? Reword using active voice to identify subject.
    • Done
  • I'm not sure why the "haunting" of Brookfield Place is mentioned here.. it seems out of place. How does it relate to the HHOF? I'm reading the history of the HHOF and suddenly I'm reading about ghosts.
    • Removed
  • There is no discussion of why various exhibits seemingly have corporate sponsorship attached to them.. MCI, Panasonic, Lay's, etc. How were these sold and established? How are the proceeds used, considering the Hall's current non-profit status?
    • I'm assuming that they need the sponsorship funds to help maintain the exhibits, but there is no source for it.
  • How else does the Hall earn revenue aside from admissions? Do they solicit donations in other ways?
    • I couldn't find anything that says this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The "TSN/RDS Broadcast Zone" provides a look at how hockey broadcasting works and allows users to record messages which can be displayed..." Use "that" instead of "which".
    • Done
  • "Six member's terms expire every year..." Check apostrophe use.
    • Done
  • At the beginning of the "Criticism" section, you mention that there were controversies over the retirement period, but you have not written about those controversies. You wrote that the period was waived and then brought back, but not that is was a controversy.
    • The portion has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Hall of Fame has alternatively been criticised for inducting several lacklustre candidates in the early 2000s due to "a shortage of true greatness," but has since been claimed that the Hall of Fame is too exclusive." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "The Hall of Fame has also been criticised for its lack of international players and has been far too focused on the National Hockey League with a common statement being that it is not the "NHL Hall of Fame"." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "One of the most debated possibilities is Paul Henderson, who scored one of the most famous goals in hockey and Canadian sports history when he scored the winning goal in the final moments of the deciding eighth game of the 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the Soviet Union." Grammar. Also, consider using "potential honouree" or similar instead of "possibility".
    • Done
  • "However, Stein would also admit that to becoming obsessed with his own election to the Hall of Fame..." Grammar.
    • Done
  • Did Eagleson's crimes involve the hockey business? You don't really say why the other players wanted him expelled. Was it just because he was a criminal?
    • Done
  • The "See also" heading should not contain wikilinks to articles that are already linked in the main text.
    • Removed
  • The book Honoured members: the Hockey Hall of Fame needs to have an author listed to be a proper Reference. Amazon lists the author as "Hockey Hall of Fame" but this may need some research. --Laser brain (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've searched the book back to front and I can't find anyone that even comes close to being an author. It is an official poblication of the Hall of Fame and unfortunately, that book is the only source for several of the things mentioned in the articl, so I really don't want to remove all of the uses of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. I think the prose still needs a bit of work. While it isn't awful, there are a lot of instances where it could be tightened, which would make it more readable. I've listed a few of those here, but this is not comprehensive.
  • Need nonbreaking spaces between numerals and their units or qualifiers (ex, 238 players, 18 people, etc)
    • Done
  • Prose issues:
    • "The first eleven inductees were inducted on April 30, 1945, despite not having a permanent home" -> the inductees didn't have a permanent home? where was it located at the time if it didn't have a permanent home?
      • Done
        • That sentence actually reads the same. It makes it sound like the inductees did not have a home, and I think the article means that the Museum did not have a permanent home. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate" Perhaps, "When Sutherland died ten years later, Kingston lost its most influential advocate"
      • Done
    • "would visit it " - shouldn't that just be "visited it"
      • Done
    • "The Hall would be visited by 750,000 people in its inaugural year" -> again, this should be "was visited by" instead of "would be visited" (or, even, better, "Over 75,000 people visited the Hall in its inaugural year"
      • Done
    • "since renamed to " -> since renamed
      • Done
    • "designed by the partnership of"-> why not just "designed by"
      • Done
  • This sentence is too long and should probably be split "Partially in response to these claims, the Hall of Fame recently opened an International Hockey exhibit and has said it will start looking at more international players for induction and inducted Valeri Kharlamov in 2005, who is one of the few modern-day inductees to never play in the NHL"
    • Done
  • "agreement that a new Hall of Fame" - does this mean that there would be a new building or that a new organization would be created? I'm wondering what happened to those who had been inducted
    • Done
  • What does it mean by "builders"? People who built hockey rinks?
    • I added a small definition of the types of people that are inducted into the category. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I saw the addition in the lead, but it should also be noted in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done
  • "The induction ceremony would be made open to all members of an honouree's family the next year." -> does this mean it wasn't open to all members before or that they made changes so that it was more appropriate to visit your kids?
    • I've had a hard time with that sentence, so I just removed it. It really isn't that important anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be wise to explain very very briefly what the Original Six era is, since I think most of us who don't follow hockey have never heard the term.
    • Well, it is linked, but Done
  • Was Henderson not inducted? It doesn't really say.
    • It does describe him as a "potential honouree" and it also says "If Henderson was inducted". Saying "Henderson has not been inducted" kind of interrupts the flow of the paragraph. -- 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further note, I like the article. I don't think the prose is bad enough to object, but it isn't quite tight enough for me to support yet. Karanacs (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support But try moving some of the refs in the middle of a sentence to the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please check all of the links per the link checker at the top of this page; it indicates three 404s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done... Strange, they all worked a week ago. This isn't good, because I use Canoe a lot to find good columns to use as sources... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, but has potential if fixed throughout by a copy-editor. Can you find someone strange to the text to do this?

• The opening is "... Hall of Fame is a hall of fame ...". Not a good start. Can you remove "located"?
  • You have to explain exactly what it is and while it seems a little awkward, it is a Hall of Fame and museum. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, why not "The Hockey Hall of Fame is in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. As a hall of fame and museum, it is dedicated to the ..."? Tony (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• POV creeping into the grammar: "The Hockey Hall of Fame was established in large part thanks to the efforts of James T. Sutherland"—No, "through the efforts of".
  • Done
• " it contains exhibits that feature interactive displays, players, teams, NHL records, memorabilia and NHL trophies, including the Stanley Cup"—First, "it features interactive ...". Second, are the players and teams housed behind glass? Is there a feeding time? Or do you mean "images" of them?
• Done
• MOS breach: "The new location has 51,000 sq ft (4,700 m²)"—nope; Canada-related articles must use metrics as main units. Tony (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done
• "outside of North America"—pick the redundant word.
  • Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi Tony, I'll try to search for a copyeditor how has no clue what the HHOF is... would that be good? :-) Maxim_(talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting on the article tonight and will continue tomorrow evening. While I have a general familiarity with the subject matter, I've never read the article before, so I'll have fresh eyes. Risker (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I copy-edited the article and made some minor corrections here and there. I had a couple of small quips that Maxim covered. And, also, I agree with Rlvese (sp) that some of the refs could be shifted to the end of sentences/paragraphs. But other than that I think it's a decent read. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, part of the reason is that sometimes a sentence uses two completely different sources and I want to make sure each statement has a proper citation. As well, several quotes are used and I made sure each one had a source as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've noticed that even though I quite involved in this FAC and article, I haven't supported. :D Support. Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please check throughout for WP:NBSP, and newspaper names should be in WP:ITALICS in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've italicized all of the newspaper names. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Things to do before I can support I have done a copy edit of the article up to the end of the "Exhibits" section, mainly to improve prose. I've made some small changes to overall structure; however, there are some significant article structure issues that would best be handled with the source materials close at hand. (I will finish up tomorrow after a bit of sleep.)
  • The second paragraph of the lead discusses the method by which people are nominated and selected for membership in the HHOF. This level of detail I think would be better later in the article, in the "Hall of Fame" section. Instead, I suggest a simpler sentence saying that inductees are selected by a committee appointed by the HHOF board of directors. Keep the sentences about the annual ceremony, number of inductees and the exclusiveness criticism. Add more about the HHOF's mission and internal structure (charity, board of directors), keeping things fairly general. (Note: I have not made many edits to this paragraph, since I'm suggesting much of it should be moved around.)
  • More detail about JT Sutherland and why he believed that Kingston was the birthplace of hockey would be useful, if you can find it.
  • Include discussion of the split between the HHOF and the International HHOF. I think this is quite a significant part of the history. The IHHOF continued to exist separately in Kingston. Did the HHOF mission/mandate change when the NHL took over?
  • Please verify that 350,000 people visited the temporary HHOF in 1958; that number sounds more like the total number of people who attended the CNE, especially given that later in the paragraph you indicate an annual attendance of 75,000 (which would have included visitors during that year's CNE).
  • "Due to the success of the exhibit, it was agreed that a permanent home in the Exhibition Place was needed."
    • Who were the parties to the agreement? Active voice would be useful here, as well (e.g., "Due to the success of the temporary exhibit, the NHL and the CNE agreed that...")
  • Third para of "History" is standing alone, now that I have moved the part about admission prices up to the second para, where it fits better. I suggest developing that into a full paragraph in the "Hall of Fame" section.
  • Adjust the size/positioning of the "World of Hockey Zone" image so that it doesn't affect the positioning of the heading for the next section.
  • "...former NHL referee-in-chief Scotty Morrison, who was the president since 1986,..."
    • President of what?
  • The curators are named, but some description of how they shaped the HHOF would improve the article. We have an article about Lefty Reid, maybe touch base with the primary editor of that article to see if he still has the source material. What challenges did Morrison face with closing down the old location and developing exhibits in the new location? Did he supervise development? Is he still the curator, or did someone else take over (or is there a curator at all now)?
  • The next section talks about current governance of the HHOF. I'd suggest developing this further to talk about the changes in governance from the time of its creation to when it became a not-for-profit. How does the NHL fit into the governance over time?
  • In the Exhibits section, I found the quotation marks around the names of the various exhibits to be somewhat confusing because there are also actual quotes within that section as well; I haven't changed them, though. Consider italics if that is acceptable under the MOS. Whichever you do, be consistent in the usage.
  • "...equipment worn by players during special performances."
    • I assume you meant special games, and have changed the wording; revert if I was wrong.
  • Re the 'Dynasties' section - I've reworked the quote you used; it is a direct quote from the source material, but the source material is not particularly well worded, so better to smooth it over.
    • When describing the Canadiens' dressing room mockup, consider including the line of poetry ("To you from failing hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high"), which is from In Flanders Fields. I recall reading in one of Ken Dryden's books how deeply that line was ingrained into every player on the team, and there is obviously a special element of Canadian content there.

Sorry to hit you with so much, and to admit there will be more coming. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't agree with the copy edits I have made, go ahead and revert them. --Risker (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)