Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:02, 17 February 2007

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. 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 coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), 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. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE 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). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard 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. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. 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.

Nominations

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

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Calvin Coolidge

This is one of the more impressive biographies I've seen. It is well-cited, well-written, and attractively presented. It looks like a featured article to me.--Bookworm857158367 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've done a lot of work on this article recently, so I'm not sure if I get to support the nomination, but I do think it's of good quality and should be featured. I'd be happy to make any changes that are necessary. Coemgenus 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment This seems incorrect as written: "When the League of Nations attempted to revise the Senate's reservations, the Senate failed to act; the United States never joined the World Court." The League could not 'revise' the Senate's reservations; it might attempt to 'meet' them, however. Hmains 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was more like a counter-offer. I'll rephrase it. Coemgenus 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Done. Coemgenus 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment Regarding his cause of death, it looks like he died from being disappointed in Hoover's defeat by Roosevelt. This seems medically unlikely. What did he die from? Hmains 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heart attack. I'll add it as soon as I find a citation. Coemgenus 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Done. Coemgenus 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- I like it. It definitely seems to be on the right level. FireSpike 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I reviewed the article in Biography project, and it is indeed very nice.--Yannismarou 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support with Comment - minor concern - the Cabinet section (sec. 6.9) seems oddly formatted - The images and the infobox are placed apart and create too much blank space. Otherwise, this article appears to be top-notch. -- Oaxaca dan 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree. It was like that when I found the article, and I don't know how to fix it. If anyone knows more about layout, I'd be glad for the help. Coemgenus 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like its been largely dealt with - there's still some extra white space, but i guess there's only so much you can do with a table and a bunch of pictures. --Oaxaca dan 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Image:John W. Davis.png claims that the image is PD because the author died at least 100 years ago (1907). If the photographer were to have died that year, Davis would be 34, which doesn't seem the case. Regardless, there is no source provided whatsoever. ShadowHalo 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hadn't noticed that. If I remove that photo, would the article be acceptable? Coemgenus 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, sounds fine since it's mostly decorative. If you do, feel free to strike out my objection; I'll ask the uploader in the meantime. ShadowHalo 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I replaced it with one I found at the Library of Congress website. If you find out that the old one is legit, let me know - I like that one better. Coemgenus 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you forgot to add the ID#; the link isn't working. ShadowHalo 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes. I didn't quite understand the template. Should be working now. Coemgenus 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Perhaps we can use this article as one to compare to other presidents?--Wizardman 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore

Self-nomination - The article's had a lot of work up from a stub, a couple copy-edits, a peer review, made GA, and seems to be pretty stable. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think it covers the topic pretty thoroughly. - Mocko13 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is very well written, and well cited. Probably one of the best historical biography articles I've seen. Good work. Jay32183 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well cited and easy to read with an excellent lead. All image copyrights appear to be in order. Caknuck 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that almost all of your footnotes come from an 1890 biography. As I am sure you know, the standards for writing history in the nineteenth century were quite different than they are now. Is there a way that you could find another source that verifies this information? I know that sometimes one is stuck with nineteenth-century biographies, but it is never ideal. If there is no other source, I feel that the article should make it clear (some sort of disclaimer?) that the bulk of the information is from such a source just in case the reader does not bother to look at the notes. Awadewit 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns, and had them myself. There are two more recent sources (ISBN 0938420240 and ISBN 0801879639) that could be used in referencing, but I do not have access to either of them (at least without expending a moderate amount of money) and so of course felt uncomfortable mentioning them in the references. I'm not sure how I'd go about putting in a disclaimer, though. What did you have in mind? - Mocko13 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• It might be worth checking to see if your local library participates in interlibrary loan. Failing that, perhaps you could begin the article with a small section discussing the state of the evidence--"George Calvert biographical sources" or something like that. You could inform the reader that "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s, therefore one must be cautious..." Do you happen to know why there is not more written on him? If so, that should be included as well. "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s , therefore one must be cautious...". I hope this helps. Awadewit 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Added a sentence to the lead and a footnote. Let me know if you think that adequately addresses the issue. - Mocko13 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you've got the idea but the clause is a litle awkward. The "although" does not seem to logically follow from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the idea should be its own sentence beginning with "unfortunately"? I know that is a POV word, but from the POV of an encyclopedia, it IS unfortuante that there is not more reliable information. Also, perhaps you could be more specific in that sentence. Are the 1890s biographies the first ones? The sentence could read "Unfortunately, little recent scholarship has been added to the work of the first Calvert biographies written at the end the nineteenth century..." or something like that. Also, in the footnote I would mention the date of the Brugger book (and italicize the title of the book).

• Support I support this article for FA, but I think that it can easily improve its prose before it becomes FA. For example, there are some commas missing. In the sentence "Calvert's father Leonard was a country gentleman...", Leonard should be offset. In general, I found the article short on commas. Also, there are several sentences that have clauses which seem to hang uncomfortably such as "George Calvert was born around 1580 at Kiplin and was later educated as a commoner at Trinity College, Oxford, receiving his bachelor's degree in 1597." Finally, for the Ark and the Dove, see WP:NC-SHIP. These are all very tiny things. Overall, I thought the article was extremely well-done and a pleasure to read. Awadewit 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the suggestions. Added one or two commas, fixed the Ark and the Dove. Mocko13 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (Reason for striking opposition is that I now feel the article meets my objections and is of FA standard. Since I have been editing it so much myself recently, I feel I shouldn't vote "support", as such, as I'm probably now biased in its favour. See my waffling comments much lower down.) qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It's a valuable article, in my opinion, but not a featured one, though hats off to Mocko for the work he has done here. I have two objections: the first is that there are other sources that could be used to vary this article—if the article was totally reliable that wouldn't matter, but the narrative here seems a little shaky, with opaque motivations ascribed on the basis of only one source. Secondly, the prose style seems to me vague and even odd ("Sir Cecil" for "Sir Robert Cecil"?) in places. Here are a few examples which, for me, raise more questions than they answer:

By 1612, Calvert's star had risen enough in the King's eye that the death of Sir Cecil did no harm to his political career, and he was made a Clerk of the Privy Council in 1613. (Odd way of puttting it.)

In his new position, Calvert was assigned by the King to go to Ireland and review the results of English policies there, the failures of which Calvert blamed on the Jesuits. Calvert was knighted in 1617 for his service to the King and only two years later completed his remarkable rise to power when he was appointed one of two Secretaries of State, a position similar to the modern role of Prime Minister. (What happened in Ireland? What was remarkable about his rise? In what way similar to the role of Prime Minister?)

Whether as a way to save face upon exiting the political arena or due to a true turn of faith, in 1624 or 1625 Calvert claimed to be a convert to Catholicism and resigned from his Secretaryship. (Archaic phrasing. It wouldn't be a claim if it was genuine.)

Just a few weeks later, King James died, but the newly crowned King Charles maintained Calvert's Baronet and his honored place on the Privy Council. (Baronetcy?)

The land he saw there was not the paradise that had been described by some early settlers, but was a marginally productive rocky island that had, unknown to Baltimore or his contemporaries, been too difficult for even Viking settlers from Greenland to stay. (Is this true? My understanding is that the Vikings only set up hunting bases in that area, before returning to Greenland. I don't think they were settlers.)

qp10qp 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

* Altered the 'Sir Cecil' sentence, not sure if the alteration deals with all of your concerns. Fixed the 'baronetcy' reference. Eliminated any reference to vikings, which is off topic anyway. Will expand on Ireland and the Secretary of State. But I don't fully understand your overall objections. The main source is reliable enough that modern historians like Brugger have used it as one of their main sources as well, which makes it very difficult to check the veracity source without doing original research. The other two sources I mentioned earlier are related but partially tangential and not necessarily likely to address the same basic biographical information as Browne. But could you clarify what you mean when you say the narrative is shaky, or what is meant by 'opaque motivations'. I'm happy to fix any specific problems with the prose being 'odd' beyond those you listed above. - Mocko13 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By shaky narrative, I mean that here we have a guy doing one seemingly unconnected thing after another (there are hints of motivation, but they aren't followed up). There is a suggestion that he had pinned his hope on a Spanish wife for Charles. Why? Because he was leaning towards Catholicism? When and why did he fall out of favour? What was the timescale of that, as he seems to still be a secretary of state in 1624 or 5 when he resigns (yet you say he reached the apex of his power in 1621, so how did he hang on to this prime-ministerlike job for three or four more years)? Did he fall out of favour because he was leaning towards Catholicism? Did he lean towards Catholicism because he was falling out of favour? If Calvert was falling out of favour, why did the king "suddenly" appoint him Baron Baltimore? The article merely says that James suddenly remembered his fondness for him, which seems a bit thin. And if Calvert was falling out of favour, why did Charles confirm him in powerful posts when coming to power? Because he sympathised with Catholics himself? This all seems very jumpy and unclear. And then, just as this business of falling out of favour and yet being given titles and posts is starting to intrigue me, the subject of Calvert's position in government is abandoned and all we read about from then on is his venture in Newfoundland, though he didn't go there till 1627.

Those are the sorts of things I mean by the narrative being shaky and the motivations opaque. qp10qp 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do another search tomorrow and see if I can find further secondary sources to fill in the narrative gaps you mention. But there has not been a tremendous amount of scholarship on him, which is why the article doesn't get more detailed on some of these topics. - Mocko13 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt a little mean for just criticising, and so I've looked into the section I drew attention to above and have made edits which I believe fill out the narrative and motivations with referenced information. I only want articles to become FAs, even if that means some work, and did not intend to seem destructive. I do have further concerns about the article, which I believe would be easy enough to meet, but I'll hold fire for the moment. qp10qp 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now added a section on his childhood, which shows how his family were forced to conform to Protestantism (noted from Krugler). The article makes more overall sense, I believe, with that covered. Now that the article shows he came from a Catholic family which was forced to conform, his conversion to Catholicism in later life makes more sense, I think. I still have more concerns, but I'm addressing them one by one and am now two thirds of the way towards supporting. qp10qp 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For info: I'm still reading up on this FAC and making notes. I'm quite sure now that I can get the text to the point of meeting my own objections. A few days, at the most, and I should be there. qp10qp 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some referenced material to the Avalon section now. Just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks nothing's happening.qp10qp 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article was improperly passed as a GA, no explanation for passing was given on the talk page, and it was not even listed on the main GA page. (The limit of visible review seems to of been an edit summary to the effect of "This is good") I've send it back to the GA candidates page, but I just thought y'all should know here since its an FAC too. Homestarmy 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that matters too much here, because GA isn't a qualification towards FA. But thanks for notifying this page. qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the article has been quickly re-passed as a GA: see Talk:George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore#GAC. --qp10qp 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous and self-indulgent comment: I feel the article is worthy of FA status now, though it awaits a merge in about four days' time.

I sometimes wish I had never opposed this article, as without my objection, it might well have passed by now, with its three or four support votes and no other objectors. I don't believe in just criticising and running, and so I've been working for the last fortnight to meet my own objections. Since one of them was that the article wasn't sourced to enough books, that has landed me with a mother-and-father of a load of reading and editing. But as a result, the article now has at least double the number of references and much extra material, as well as considerable corroboration of the original information.

At first I was reluctant to get involved, thinking this guy was a minor figure in history (he hardly gets a mention in my three James I biographies—only a single entry in one of them, which is inaccurate, even then). But as I read through Krugler and Codignola, among others, he emerged for me as something of a quiet hero. In the age of James, when murders, plots, affairs, and corruption infested the royal court, here was a man behaving in a civilised, honourable way at all times, and for five years pretty much holding the government and foreign policy together singlehandedly. In his belief in freedom of worship, he is also a crucial figure in the history of the early American states, which might otherwise have gone too far down the Puritan road. In treating Calvert in this much detail, I believe Misplaced Pages has a unique article here (kudos to user:Mocko)—and it amuses me that quiet George for the moment sports a better article (in my opinion) than do the incompetent monsters who messed up England (and George's life) at this time in history and excresce the history books with their oozing odiousness—such as Sir Thomas Lake, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and, dare I say it (since his article purports to be a featured one), James I himself. If only that cartload of popinjays had listened to sensible George, maybe Charlie would have lived. qp10qp 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Still support I decided to reread the article since it has altered so much. Nice work qp10qp - you have added a lot of detail and context to the page. I just want to mention a few little things.

(Thanks so much for coming back! It's become very lonely here.)

You're welcome. I get that feeling all of the time on my pages.

• Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his influence there and with Cecil to grant paid favours, an accepted practice for the times. - this sentence seems incomplete

It seems complete to me, but then it would do (one of my faults, though, is becoming over-concise in trying to keep length down). It just means that Calvert was taking money from people in return for putting a word in for them at court. I'll try to think of a better wording.

So maybe "Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his position and his connections with Cecil, who paid for the favours (an accepted practice at the time), in order to influence the king and his advisors on others' behalf." - or something like that (although Cecil's role is still not that clear to me)

• left him the single father of ten children, the oldest of whom, Cæcilius, was only sixteen years old - I would delete the "only" since sixteen was not really considered young in the seventeenth century.

I see what you mean. I expect the intention was to show how young the rest must have been if the oldest was sixteen. I've removed "only".

I thought that's what you meant. Would something like "He was left the single father of ten children, ranging in age between ? and sixteen" work better? (Of course, there were servants...)

• The degree of his disfavour was made clear to him when he was carpeted for supposedly delaying diplomatic letters. - what does "carpeted" mean?

It means being in trouble and having to stand on the carpet in front of the desk. It's a familiar term to me and I adopted it from the source, but I have changed it to "reprimanded" to make it clear to anyone who doesn't know the expression.

• had taken both Protestant and Catholic settlers with him, as well as two secular priests, Thomas Longville and Anthony Pole (also known as Smith), the latter remaining behind in the colony when Baltimore departed for England - what are "secular priests"?

The sources all use this term without explaining it, and so I thought I should follow suit. But they don't have the facility of wikilinks, so I've now wikilinked secular priests in the article. I think books describe them this way because Baltimore had been asking for Discalced Carmelite priests from Simon Stock and later used Jesuit priests.

• In early 1630, he procured a ship to fetch them, but it foundered off the Irish coast, and his wife was drowned and all his possessions lost. - it almost sounds like you are putting his wife and his possessions on the same level here - I know women were bought and sold in marriage in seventeenth century England, but was she? Do you want to imply that she and his possessions were of equal value?

I've dropped the mention of the possessions, as I agree that it might make a bad impression. Since Calvert was broke after this, I wanted to imply the material as well as human cost. When he had left for Newfoundland, he had to all intents and purposes been emigrating, so I suspect a good deal of expensive clobber paid a visit to the fishes. There are actually some annoying gaps and contradictions where the information on this wife is concerned, which I've mentioned on the article talk page.

• Also, I don't think you need to write "page" in the notes. It is more customary to simply include the author's name and the page number. Awadewit 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; but I felt that, since this is a nicety as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it would be polite to stick with the style already used in the article.

Thanks again for your comments. (I haven't forgotten that I was going to drop you a note about my "essay style" remark re Anna Laetitia Barbauld: I will get round to that before long.) qp10qp 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Organic food

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

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Ernest Emerson

Self Nomination I've been working on this article for quite some time. I helped build it up from a stub article to where it is now. I have properly formatted all sources in the Harvard Citation method and documented everything within the article. It was originally 2 articles, one on the Knifemaker, the other on his knives and I merged them into this current version. I welcome all comments and advice to get this article to Featured Status.

• Support my own Nomination.

Thank You --Mike Searson 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object I think the introduction can be a little longer, plus, some more information on his early life would be nice (for instance, what made him interested in martial arts and knife making?). There's some trailing whitespace after the "Popularizing the tactical knife" section and a few grammar mistakes punctuation-wise. Also, there seem to be too many pictures; they seem to be decoratory, which would bring in issues of fair use. Lastly, one of the pictures is way too large and disrupts the rest of the article. It's a good article, but it still needs some little tweaks to perfect it. I know that some users may object to the Harvard citation style, too. Helltopay27 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, I will work on most of it. All images have the proper tags, I didn't see that as an issue. Which image is too big? I was under the impression Harvard inline citations were the preference here...have I been misinformed? Thanks again for the help! Mike Searson 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Image:Emersonlottery.jpg is much too large (at least on my browser it is), and even if they have the proper image tags, too many pictures can be a problem, because excess use is also an issue with the fair use policy. As for the Harvard citations, I personally have no problems with it (though I prefer MLA style), but I've read other users' comments against Harvard style citations.
      • I may clip that one or remove it. Thanks for pointing that out, on the peer review I was told to make the pictures bigger and add more.--{] 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are numerous manual of style, grammar and other issues here:

• The birthdate should be in parentheses straight after the name, per here.
• Images generally shouldn't have specified widths, per here.
• Months and days should be wikilinked together for date preferences; single years generally shouldn't be wikilinked.
• Decades should be given without an apostrophe, e.g. 1980s
• First use of dollars should probably be written US$ to eliminate ambiguity.
• edged weapons authority - I assume he is an authority in edged-weapons rather than a weapons-authority with an edge, so hyphenate it. Hyphens missing throughout the article.
• You shouldn't use numbers for the notes as well as the references, to avoid confusion. I'm not sure how you've done it, but can you use letters?
• For the Emerson Knives infobox, why are "Revenue" and "Employees" marked as "N/A"? I don't see how the information isn't applicable to a company.

Added to the above, the article has a tendency to read like a puff piece. There are POV statements, like "The system is based on simple and effective techniques" (who says they're simple and effective?). The second paragraph of the lead in particular makes him seem too good. Have there been criticisms of him or his knives? It feels unbalanced at present. Trebor 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Trebor, Thanks for the input...I was not aware of many of the items you pointed out (date formatting, etc) and will correct these ASAP. I will use letters for the footnotes and plan to add some more, I saw the numbering used on another featured article and used the formatting i saw there.

• I'll work on the POV as well. There are no formal documented criticisms...for example, some critics do not care for the chisel ground edge or feel the grind is on the wrong side of the blade. Some people resent the long wait to recieve knives (in excess of 10 years). I could put these into the article, but they would be unsourced and hearsay at best. If you can think of a way I can include that sort of thing, I'll be more than happy to put it in to achieve balance, however it's been non-existent in the 70+ print sources I've researched. Mike Searson 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. If nothing's been published there's not a lot you can do. I think, then, that it just needs a weed out of anything too flowery: phrases like "numerous books", "countless numbers of...", "numerous articles", can lose the "numerous" and "countless numbers of" parts. They are redundant (the meaning isn't really changed without them; numerous is non-specific in amount) and seem to be bigging him up too much. If you give it a go, and I'll come back and take another look. And I didn't mention this the first time, but the amount of referencing is very impressive, well done. (Another nitpick: sometimes the page references include "pp", sometimes they don't.) A little work and I think this can become featured. Trebor 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I removed that stuff from the beginning, but I'll have another scan for flowery prose like you mention. I'll also make the referncing consistent, I apologize, I was looking for shortcuts to the Harvard style. Thanks again, looks like my weekend is cut out for me! {] 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it, it was in the lead section...I was under the impression that was ok...but I took them out and will work on running down accurate numbers if possible. Many thanks!Mike Searson 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Back for another look, sorry for the delay.

• Ref 68 has an unwikilinked accessdate
• The notes are a bit odd (and change size halfway through). I've never seem them used to collect quotations before, but I suppose it's okay. I feel they should be ordered alphabetically through the article, and also consistently come before or after the references for the sentence they are attached to.
• The double dash (after "baseball player") shouldn't be used; see WP:DASH for more.
• The prose is generally alright, but could perhaps do with a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. I spotted a few occasions where punctuation was used incorrectly. If you can't find anyone to run through it, I could give it a go myself, but not for at least a couple of days. Keep up the good work. Trebor 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the second look and your comments, Trebor. I wikilinked the access date, for some reason I thought that was done as part of the template. Found a stray tag in my "Footnote section" it threw the size to normal halfway through, ordered them alphabetically and put them after the source. I removed the double dash, will have another copyedit done. Mike Searson 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but there still appears to be a stray tag in the notes, and the year should be wikilinked in #68 as well. The reason it isn't happening automatically is that you're using accessmonthday and accessyear, as opposed to accessdate (personally, I don't see the point in having two options). Accessdate can be filled in in a YYYY-MM-DD format, and will automatically wikilink. Trebor 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doh! OK, either I found it and forgot to remove it, or walked on my own edit. Fixed now...ok, access date it is! I'm still kind of new to all this and probably used another article to see how this tag was used...Thanks again! Mike Searson 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support now, it looks good. Trebor 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I too have a few issues with the article...

Support My concerns have been addressed. We're now left with a well-referenced and comprehensive article that edumacated me. Caknuck 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The opening paragraph of the "Background" section reads "...traveling to another state twice a week in order to learn." Um, which state?
2. The "Viper Knives" section reads "Although he always maintained that his knives were fighters first and foremost..." I think "fighters" is too jargonny in this context. I'd suggest changing it to "fighting knives" or "combat knives".
3. Why are all of the section headers third-level, except for the last four (which are second-level)?
4. The caption for the butterfly knife image reads "First Emerson knife." I'd suggest changing this to "Emerson's first handmade knife." to better coincide with the text. Also, the caption for the Viper Knives image should indicate (if possible) which model is which, since the model names are referenced within the article.

Once these issues are resolved, I'll be happy to support this for FA. {] 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and for catching those things, the state in question was/is Minnesota. I fixed the captions on the two pictures, one of the earlier pictures I recently deleted showed 4 of the 5 Viper models and an early CQC6 marked with a Viper logo (Viper-6), I kept the current picture as it was better quality than the other, but didn't realize it was missing a descriptive caption. I made all headers Second level, I didn't realize they were different. Sorry for using the term "fighter", I realize now that this would be jargon.Mike Searson 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object None of the fair use images used here have a detailed fair use rationale. Several images are also unsourced. ShadowHalo 20:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the fair use comment; some of the images probably shouldn't be there at all. Which images are unsourced? Trebor 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, help me out. Some are pictures I took, uploaded and released to public domain, the majority were released to public domain by Mr Emerson, 3 were taken by other contributors and uploaded by them and released to public domain. If anything is unsourced, let me know and I'll make sure that it is. Which do you think should not be there? Mike Searson 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the logos. The first states that it came from a knife itself, but the others don't say where they came from, and in the case of Image:Eki.gif, there's nothing but the {{logo}} template. ShadowHalo 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooh okay. I thought you meant some non-fair use images were unsourced. Trebor 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ack! All of the pictures look like they're appropriate for the article. However, some of the logos don't say where they came from (a picture of the knives, online, etc.), and all the copyrighted pictures (the logos and the book cover) need an explanation of why they meet Misplaced Pages's fair use criteria. If you need help, there are some guidelines at WP:FURG. ShadowHalo 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I walked on your edits. OK, thanks...I'll get to work on it. I used the template on the photo of Ernest and on the Bowie logo...is this what I need to do for the rest? Do I need added permission from Emerson? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll do what it takes to make them compliant. Mike Searson 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now. I'll withdraw my objection. ShadowHalo 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me honest, ShadowHalo! Mike Searson 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I first encountered this article on peer review, and did some help early on with copyediting and referencing. Fine job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support with no comments - I like it just fine.Peter Rehse 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

Thoroughly sourced, neutral, illustrated article, with appropriate statistics, tells the story of a summer of chaos for English cricket, the "Summer of four captains". Has been peer reviewed and failed one GA nomination; concerns have been addressed. Renommed for GA, but huge backlog at GA candidates page; in any case, it seems it's now at FA level anyway. This article is largely a collaboration between myself and User:The Rambling Man, with help of late from some of the cricket Wikiproject, notably User:ALoan who gave it a copyedit. --Dweller 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blush, well suppport, but outside views from non-cricket-afficionados are particularly welcome - are there any parts that need further explanation? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support--I've been watching this article from its first GA nomination and it has come a long way. Well done.--Eva 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support if I may be so bold. Agree with ALoan, however, any other words of advice? The Rambling Man 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I know nothing about cricket, but this article was pretty easy to follow with my general understanding of sports and the effective wikilinking. The article is also well written and well referenced with appropriate use of inline citations. Jay32183 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support There are one or two lines which are not sourced such as "England had grounds for optimism leading up to the Test series", which is undeniably true. Normally I would demand a source but I believe that in this case it would add nothing to the quality of the article, and thus it gains my support. Great article - good subject - brings back some memories - and we sure do miss Malcolm Marshall.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice article. May prove to be the forerunner of similar articles in FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment --Shouldn't this article be called West Indian cricket team tour of England in 1988 instead of its current title? Mercenary2k 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure, but if you check WP:CRICKET it has guidelines for the naming of these type of articles, and the current name seems to comply. The Rambling Man 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, it's in the style guide there, "cricket tours are named " in in ": for example, New Zealand cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2005-06" --Dweller 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment and Support ---Hmmm thats a weird naming scheme. But oh well, I support then. Mercenary2k 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - clear, well written. Looks like an FA to me. Guettarda 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- Did they not any warm up matches against county teams? Buc 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the whole itinerary for their tour is here, each match is mentioned within the article. The Rambling Man 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the results should be make clear in either a list or a table. Also since this article is about the West Indians does there need to be so much about the England team? Buc 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the results, we can look at that. I think it's currently done encyclopedically but appropriately succinctly for non major matches. The article follows the standard titling for a cricket tour. Any international cricket tour is about a series between two (sometimes more) teams. The major feature of that tour was England's disarray. As an analogy, an article about a world cup in Foo, would be imbalanced if it focussed on the performance of Foo in the tournament. --Dweller 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would give undue prominence to the matches against the county sides if they were given equal billing to the Tests and ODIs - and they were almost all draws anyway, as the article already says. As Dweller says, the major parts of an overseas tour by a Test team are the Tests and ODIs against the host team (and, sometimes, another visiting team) - the series are largely bilateral, so it makes sense to speak about both teams. And, in this case, the main interest of the tour was the poor performance of the England team. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going going on the title of the article. A better title would be "1988 series between WI and E" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bole2 (talk • contribs).

As above, the WP:CRICKET style guide for such articles dictates this particular name, it's used in dozens of articles across WP. The Rambling Man 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It reflects the standard naming convention in most serious cricket reference works. It's slightly archaic and not entirely intuitive, but it's encyclopedic (and consistent). --Dweller 09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically it's about the 1988 series between WI and E but not allowed to be called so. Um ok I guess I can live with that. Still don't like it though. Support

Buc 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Moscow

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Anna Laetitia Barbauld

• Peer review from the Biography project

Self-nomination. I replaced the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry with this more up-to-date and comprehensive page. I believe that it fairly and accurately covers Barbauld, a major Romantic figure, with all of the necessary citations. The article has gone through a mini-peer review from a wikipedia peer reviewer and a larger peer review from the biography wikipedians. One question I have is: to reference or not to reference in the lead? I originally did not but was advised in a peer review to do so. I have since seen comments on other pages recommending a deletion of references from the lead. Please advise. Awadewit 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Great biographical article.--Yannismarou 09:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A well-researched and thorough article that does an excellent job in discussing the literary context and posthumous reputation of its subject. MLilburne 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is my favourite type of Misplaced Pages article, one which introduces me convincingly to someone I've never heard of. It is well written and structured and in places fascinating. I do have two criticisms: first, the article peacocks Barbauld rather too often for my taste, particularly in the "Children's Literature" section; second, it seems to me that the text sometimes lapses into essay style—for example:

Moreover, the intellectual ferment that Barbauld was an important part of—particularly at the dissenting academies—had, by the end of the nineteenth century, come to be associated with the “philistine” middle class, as Matthew Arnold would so eloquently and damningly phrase it. Not only was she attacked as a dissenter, she was also attacked as part of the middle-class. The emerging eighteenth-century middle class that had advocated for the reform of education of England and other noble causes such as the abolition of slavery had, in many ways, come to be seen as responsible for the greatest abuses of the industrial age.

You may have sources for this reading and therefore strictly-speaking fulfil verifiability; but for me the fact that someone may have said something like this doesn't make it inarguable, and the above, for me at least, is arguable. "Come to be associated"/"come to be seen" by whom? And what is so eloquent about the word (not phrase) "philistine"?

I have moved the reference to the end so it is clear that this idea has a reference. The sentences after the original footnote cited here were supposed to be an explanation of the first sentence you quote. I hope that moving the footnote makes it clearer. Also, this is a standard narrative of nineteenth-century history; during the nineteenth-century, condemnation of the middle-class, even by themselves, was a widespread phenomenon (think Karl Marx) - that is why there is no "agent" in the sentence. No historical narrative is, of course, inarguable, but I feel that since I have a source and am explaining it (or trying), it is important to include.

I have tried to remove some of the peacock terms but I specifically left the ones in the "Children's Literature" section. It is hard to "show" her impact on that genre without narrating the entire history of children's literature and this page is not the appropriate venue for that. I understand the problem, but I guess I'm not sure how to explain that a writer revolutionized a field without saying that or providing an extensive history. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though.

I'm not sure what to do about the essay-style. Might you expand a little on the difference between essay-style and wikistyle?

Since I'm confident the article will make FA, I'm happy to leave this for the moment, as to go into detail might make me seem too critical of an article I admire. It's a small point: once the article has its star, I'll drop you a note on what I mean. qp10qp 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the article is a treasure, and, to judge by your user page, one you are probably the only Wikipedian who could have provided. Congratulations on a fine piece of work.

Thanks. I'm sure there are others out there. I just wish I could find them! Awadewit 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, you are right that contradictory advice exists about citations in the lead; I favour including them, though you'd have to remove them in the separate lead required for a front-page bid.) qp10qp 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Hurricane Isabel

After working on this and its daughter articles for about 3 months, I guess I feel this article now meets the featured criteria. Another user rated it A class, so I went ahead with it. It has complete sourcing throughout the article, comprehensive without going into too much detail (the details are in the daughter articles), it has non-breaking spaces, etc. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well referenced article. Good use of images with appropriate captions. The only flaw I can see is a few missing retrieval dates, which I have no doubt you'll fix. Jay32183 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problem. In the cite web template, I did Accessdate for a few as opposed to the correct accessdate. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Now I see no problems. Good work!. Jay32183 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yet another well produced hurricane article. Fieari 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, seems like another solid hurricane article. Good job. Trebor 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• This will be another "Damnit, Hink, on how many FACs do I have to ask you to write articles on all topics because your blatant pro-hurricane-article bias means so many of them are incredible while so many other articles are not as incredible?" support. -- Kicking222 22:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, albeit biasedly, as I was the one who reviewed it as A-Class. And no, Hink, keep writing hurricane articles... Titoxd 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Titoxd. Absolutely solid. --Coredesat 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/James Govan

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Act of Independence of Lithuania

Article is result of collaborative work by editorial team – user:Novickas, user:Renata3 and user:M.K. As a result article covers important issue of Lithuania's history, is well referenced, comprehensive, has unique and free historical pictures, graphic representations etc. If you have questions, comments I (or my colleagues) will happily answer them. M.K. 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Both of the pictures on the page have unclear copyright status. They are listed as cc-sa-2.5, but the images also state "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, doesn't it mean that the owner gave permission to release images under cc?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it? Color me doubtful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

License states that You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor and that you see as Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania) is attribution, demanded by license. It is the only Museum request, that when using pictures the proper label to Museum should be provided, usage and label of image is directly fits to the license frame. M.K. 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what the image upload page says, yes. It also says "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." This leads me to believe it was not licenced under cc-by-sa-2.5, which has a lot more terms than "use their name". Where did you get the image from? Did you send whatever coorespondence existed to permissions@wikimedia.org? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are referring to "source" part, which aim was to inform that not contributor X made these images and they can be found in LNM. It would be much simple if your specifically point which parts and how makes you doubt. M.K. 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The pictures are probably in the public domain anyways. One of the pictures, after some daunting research appeared to be in public domain (taken in 1905 by Aleksandras Jurašaitis who died in 1915; Lithuania has 70 years after author's death rule). The second (with all twenty members) despite being very popular image does not have the author indicated in any sources. Therefore as "author unknown" work it is in public domain. Renata 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. Main point: I believe 'Aftermath' section should be expanded, with reactions of various factions - in Lithuania and among its neighbours to it, how it impacted their plans and eventually shaped the situation of the interwar period, before the article is comprehensive. Also, in the history of section, it would be interesting to learn if there were any factions which preffered a different outcome, and why (Krajowcy comes to mind). Other comments. In 'Act of December 11, 1917', it would be very usefulto know who voted how. I would think that the House of the Signatories and the museum are notable and should be linked. 'Path to the Act' is quite impressive. 'Final text of the Act': English should go to the left, as it is what most readers will start (and end) with. The text of the act should be on the Wikisource. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will answer to your points a bit later, but for start - do you suggesting that original text of Act should be deleted from article? M.K. 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's short ant ties in in a useful way (color coding) with the history graph. But it should be copied to Wikisource. Note that comments are not part of the objection, they are just comments (neutral vote). PS. It's usually a good idea to streamline the FACs by going through WP:PR and WP:GAC first.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Aftermath" was kept short for a purpose: the article has a very narrow focus, i.e. the one page document that was signed by 20 men. It is way out of the scope to include the formation of Lithuanian identity, anything more detailed about the dreams regarding Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ideas of those who sought only autonomy, or other "visions." It belongs to a whole new article with much wider focus. Renata 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, a brief discussion of various factions view of the Act would be in order. Or was the act unanimously supported by all internal and external sides? One more comment: Jonas Basanavičius Prize seems notable, and who awards it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article House of the Signatories is up and running, in future it will be expanded. I also think that "Aftermath" should have narrow focus; inclusion various factions and their opinions should go to article something like History of Lithuania (1918-1940). About moving EN Act's text to right, it can result mixing all these LT lines which is vital. M.K. 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - most compherehensive article in English that you could ever find. Well-sourced, and well-written. Renata 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent piece of work, written in clear, effective prose, which explains a complicated subject lucidly and fascinatingly. Two minor points: although I know about Brest-Litovsk, it might require an explanatory phrase at first mention, for those who don't. And I found the point about the word "finally" obscure. That did become clear when I came to the word in the text of the treaty, but perhaps the containing phrase needs quoting as part of the explanation, so the significance is immediately apparent. Well done to all editors. qp10qp 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For Brest-Litovsk I expanded part like this: Germany failed to recognize Lithuania as an independent state, and the Lithuanian delegation was not invited to the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, which started in 1917-12-22 between Central Powers and Russia in order to settle territorial claims. Is it satisfactory to you?

For "finally" I added these -"" to the original word and translation. Also added that finally is translation; hope it solves a bit problem M.K. 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Both much clearer now. Cheers. qp10qp 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - one of best articles on the topic I've seen in English language.--Lokyz 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great job! Juraune 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well done, factually accurate, with sources and links. Orionus 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. --Lysy 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nelvana

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

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

History of Minnesota

I originally started this article as a section within Minnesota when we were getting that article up to FA status. Ravedave decided that the text made a better History of Minnesota article than what was currently there, so I began the process of expanding the article to its current status. It isn't all my own work, though. I'd like to recognize the contributions of Mulad, who wrote many sections that are now in the article, Appraiser, who has helped out with several topics, and others in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Minnesota. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uf-da. Just looking at the article, without reading it, is there any way to cut down that lead section? It's really big and moderately ugly. Grandmasterka 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although after looking through a couple featured "history of" articles, I note that the introduction in these kinds of articles is very hard to write without sounding awkward. I'm thinking about how I might help this one, by merging some of the intro content into the lower sections. and cleaning up the prose. Grandmasterka 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I did some wordsmithing on the introductory sentence and the first few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Not enough inline references - there are many some unreferenced paras. The lead is indeed a little too long (fails my 'rule of thumb' - doesn't fit on my screen). Glacial history of Minnesota should be moved from see also into a separate section - it is notable and related enough to be discussed in the article, I feel.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree on inclusion of either the contents or a summary of Glacial history of Minnesota in the article. Undoubtedly that is significant, but it is not part of the scope of this article. The candidate article is about History in the conventional sense of that term, i.e., human history, not natural history. Kablammo 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think including stuff about glacial history in this article would be silly. This is clearly an article about human history and is more than large enough without throwing in all sorts of crap that happened before there were any people in Minnesota. As to my original comment (not an objection, but a comment) I'll have to review the article again, but it does seem that there might be no good way to cut down that intro. It summarizes the rest of the article nicely. Grandmasterka 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've updated the introduction, based on the discussion on the talk page. I also went through and found specific references to the MNHS TimePieces series for the uncited paragraphs. Much of the older content of the article came from TimePieces, and I think I was just using one generic citation for several paragraphs in a row. I've now linked to the specific articles within TimePieces. As far as Glacial history of Minnesota is concerned, I disagree that it should be included. The content doesn't really fit within the scope of a general article on the history of Minnesota, since it's at a finer level of detail. Some topics of specific detail, such as this or Sioux Uprising, or the history of Saint Anthony Falls, are better treated as their own articles. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Good progress, but I cannot support as long as there are unreferenced paragraphs. Please see this for an example of what I consider sufficient density of citation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I support now that the intro has been cut down. As to Piotrus' third objection... It's clear to me after reading it that the "unreferenced" paragraphs begin an idea ended in a referenced paragraph. There's no need to litter this thing with a lot of redundant references, even though I do it sometimes. Grandmasterka 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've only read the article through the "Territorial foundation and settlement". I've found the following issues, but asides from those the article looks good to me. I'll read the rest of the article within the next few days.
• "Minneapolis grew from the waterfall's power, and by innovating milling methods, became the "milling capital of the world."" That sentence sounds a bit odd to me. What waterfall? How does a city grow from a waterfall's power?
• "The Great Depression brought trouble in labor relations" That's POV. Leftists might not consider strikes to be trouble, but rather as evidence for "class consciousness" or whatever. "Tensions" or something like that would be a more appropriate term.
• "The site may be one of the oldest known archaeological sites in the Americas" That sounds ambiguous to me. I'm assuming you mean that what is being researched there dates that far back, but the sentence could also be read to mean that scientists have been researching there longer than anywhere else in the Americas.
• "The practice of depicting people and animals by carving into rock faces emerged, continuing well into the 2nd millennium." The second millenium BC or AD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carabinieri (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 February 2007.

Thanks for the suggestions on wording -- I've incorporated them into the article. As far as the second millennium is concerned, I'm not even sure whether it was BC or AD, and the reference doesn't say, so I just lopped that sentence out. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - I am on wikipeoject:MN and I contributed a couple sentences. I re-read the whole article (phew thats long!) and it looks good to me. I hate to bring it up, but might it be worth splitting the article like History of California? I am guessing it would be a ridiculous amount of work considering how the article is written by topic rather than time period.-Ravedave 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the prose quality is still lacking. I've gone through a section hitting some high points, but more work is necessary. --Spangineer (háblame) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changing to Support --AnonEMouse 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Object, I'm afraid. Wonderfully thorough, but needs improvement in prose quality, and organization.
  • "Following the American Civil War and the Sioux Uprising, the state's natural resources were tapped for logging and farming." Implies the latter is a consequence of the former.
  • Native American inhabitation section starts with distinct tribes, even to 1855, then suddenly goes back to 9000 years ago? Needs reorganization
  • "Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Minnesota as the Sioux Uprising of 1862 broke out." - conversational
  • "tribes of Ojibwa" and - "group of Ojibwe" - not obvious you mean the same people. Pick one term.
  • "white traders" links to European people?
  • Sporadically, the fort imposed new restrictions, forcing the squatters to head downriver.- clumsy, rephrase. Unnecessary broken with inner clause, and the combination of "squatters head downriver" made me chuckle, surely not what you had in mind.
  • How did Eliza Winston get freed when Dred Scott wasn't, at basically the same time and circumstances? Needs at least a comment.
  • St. Anthony needs a wikilink, same place.
  • Fort Snelling section, starting with 1805, is earlier than Minnesota Territory section, starting with 1783, Lousiana Purchase in 1803 in latter section also explains why FS was built in 1805. Reorder these. In fact, does one fort deserve such a big subsection to itself? It has its own article, after all.
  • Early white settlement is in the Early statehood section? How's that again? Surely white settlement precedes statehood by quite a bit!
  • 439,000 - needs a closer cite
  • Populist, Ignatius L. Donnelly - no comma
  • but by 1900, Minnesota mills were grinding - either one more or one fewer comma
  • middlings - wikilink uncommon term
  • Jesse Ventura section has no citations whatsoever, and could use another sentence or two about why specifically he was important - one of very few third party governors, and the only former professional wrestler ever. Mondale/Coleman needs a cite.
  • Why does Guthrie Theater lead off Arts and Culture section? Why not chronologically? In fact, why is Arts and Culture between two "postwar" subsections? Reorder.
  • Putting Northwest Airlines in the Postwar Economy section implies it wasn't that important before then - clearly untrue from their article. Reorganize.
  • Our Camp Savage article doesn't say it was for "Japanese-American soldiers", rather to teach Japanese to American soldiers.
  • One of the reasons the Depression hit hard in Minnesota... - the rest of the paragraph doesn't specify why it should have been particularly hard on Minnesota.
  • Hotbed of medical care - Ow! Terrible mixed metaphor
  • Dr. William Worrall Mayo emigrated from ... - don't you think you should say "founded the world famous Mayo clinic" pretty darn early? I had to click on his article to see why he was important, and only then found the Mayo Clinic link in a completely different paragraph. Reorganize, possibly by just shortening from 3 paras to 1. They each have their own articles after all, this is supposed to be the section on medical care in the whole state, instead it's about one family and two hospitals. If they're "it", then the state isn't much of a medical care hotbed (ouch again).
  • The Homestead Act in 1862 facilitated land claims by settlers, which was regarded as being cheap and fertile. - The act was regarded as cheap and fertile? The claims? The settlers?!? (I got to get me to Minnesota...) Rephrase.
  • Falls of St. Anthony, Saint Anthony Falls, or St. Anthony Falls? Pick one, throughout. Possibly first use is forgiven as an archaicism, but not the mixture other two.

This isn't to say there aren't more issues, I'm just tired. Good try, very thorough, but needs a re-edit and re-organization. In fact, it may be too thorough - if some of the details were shortened, the organization task would be easier. --AnonEMouse 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've done some reorganization and rewording as you suggested. In particular, I've clarified that the modern economy (including Northwest Airlines) and that arts and culture aren't strictly postwar developments. I also reworked and shortened the Mayo Brothers paragraph (it's no longer a "hot bed"). I want to address a few points:

• I've linked middlings, but I need to write an article for it (because featured articles shouldn't have red links).

• Actually, I wrote an article on middlings purifier instead. It turned out to be a better explanation of the topic.

• The article on Camp Savage was unclear about the fact that they were teaching Japanese to Japanese-Americans (Nisei). I've fixed that article.
• The settlers must have been fertile, or else the population wouldn't have grown. (Just kidding. It was a statement about the soil, and I fixed that.)
• I've standardized the name of Saint Anthony Falls, Saint Paul, and Ojibwa throughout. I don't know for sure if Father Hennepin used the words "Saint Anthony Falls" or "Falls of Saint Anthony", but I'll check.
• As far as the importance of Fort Snelling is concerned, I think it deserves a section as big as it is. The fort wasn't just a fort to itself -- it spurred the development of Minneapolis, via its proximity to Saint Anthony Falls, and Saint Paul, because of the squatters who were forced to move downriver.
• I couldn't find any references that said why Eliza Winston was freed while Dred Scott wasn't. Any speculation on my part would be original research. In any case, Eliza Winston wasn't a major figure in Minnesota history like Dred Scott was, so I removed the section on Eliza Winston.
• I'll have to find references I can cite for Jesse Ventura. I think the few sentences there are a summation of news stories that we've read over the past several years, but to someone outside the state, it isn't obvious.

• I rewrote those sentences using citeable references. It turned out to be more fact-based that way, instead of being just observations from four years of news stories.

Thanks for your comments. --Elkman 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, I've struck the objection. I still think the Fort Snelling section is too big for what it has in it, it may be important, but the section doesn't say that. For example, the word Minneapolis isn't anywhere in it, (though it is in an image caption way up, it's not connected, and uncited) Mendota is mentioned without explaining that it is important due to being one of the oldest settlements still around, and Taliaferro and Dred Scott's wife are both mentioned but not connected. The mention of Saint Paul is stuck in the middle of a paragraph about some wandering squatters, so I barely found it. Rephrase so it leads the paragraph. Parrant is just a name-drop without mentioning he was the first white settler. And so forth and so on. Tighten all that, fix my remaining nitpicks that you didn't get to above, the few new ones below, and I'll support. By the way, I notice the Dred Scott business isn't even mentioned in the Fort Snelling article.

• In 1846, he prevented Iowa from including... In 1847, he kept...- how did he prevent or keep? Why was he such a MN backer, being from IL?
• tourists from southern climates sailed up the Mississippi - what does this have to do with the Civil War? If you're trying to say that tourism was a big industry in MN, move it to the economic development section - as is, it's the only non-war sentence in a section on 2 wars.
• Say a few words about the Twin Cities being twin, and the most important cities in modern MN.

--AnonEMouse 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Supporting, you got basically everything. I'm still not sure how or why Douglas stopped Iowa from taking Ft. Snelling, etc., but presumably from some kind of political maneuver, no big deal. --AnonEMouse 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's not bad, but needs sifting through to correct problems in language and logic. Here are just a few examples from the top.

• What is "a more prominent state government"?
• "the state today is a center for banking, computers and health care." Health care is everywhere; what does this mean? Do people travel to Minnesota for treatment? Computers, likewise, are everywhere; what exactly does it mean?
• "around the year 7500 BC" - remove "the year" as redundant.
• "Subsequently, extensive trading networks began to develop in the region." I see a lot of this expression "began to ..." on WP. Get rid of it: "... networks developed in the region".
• "native people transitioned from hunting big game toward smaller creatures" - what, the native people became smaller creatures?
• portions of what is now Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada"; match US states with Canadian provinces, please.
• "At the time of European contact, the region was inhabited by" - Does this refer to the many centuries of Eur. contact, or the initial contact through invasion? Tony 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I made revisions to the sections you mentioned. I had to revise the big-game hunting reference a little more than that, because the source said that large animals (such as wooly mammoths) had become extinct, whereas this article just made it sound like they changed their preferences. As far as the references to portions of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada, this source just gives portions of southern Canada, without mentioning provinces specifically. --Elkman 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

The Turk

An article on a bogus but still ingenious "automaton" that played chess: a device that concealed the fact that the chess was instead being played by a cooped-up human, thanks to magnets and candlelight. This is an article to which I have contributed nothing aside from liberal application of my fine-toothed comb, and therefore one that I can unashamedly praise. Almost exactly two years ago, this failed as a featured article, mostly for its sketchiness (here is its state at the time); it is certainly informative now, and it has also gone through the "GA" and peer review hoops. So what do you all think? -- Hoary 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support as principal author - and a hearty thanks to Hoary in particular for his help on it over the last month. I think it meets the standard:
  • Prose is in great shape, and has been copyedited by at least three different people.
  • It is very comprehensive - I believe I've covered every relevant piece of information available, and accurately - I found a number of great sources.
  • It's neutral and stable - no quibbling about facts, no questions as to whether you can even have a POV on a chess-playing automaton.
  • I believe it meets the relevant MOS guidelines.
  • All images are public domain and relevant for the exception of two which are released through the GFDL.
  • With references included, the text is roughly 37kb. The storied history of the machine and its newfound relevance and attention make it a worthwhile size, in my opinion.
• I'm very proud of this one, perhaps moreso than my first successful FA. I think it's very representative of our best work here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support well written, adequate citations, good use of images. Addhoc 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful work. Nitpick: Ref 71 (Miezkowski, Salon) says "URL accessed", but doesn't give a URL? From the peer review: Still nothing about the voice box? The Crooked Hinge? --AnonEMouse 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I may have accidentally removed the link at some point, I'll re-add it. I also forgot about the book (although I have it waiting for me on interlibrary loan!), so I'll add that in shortly. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A brilliant and very interesting read. Comments as I went throughout:
  • • Thanks in advance, I broke up your comments for easier replies, I hope you don't mind. My replies in itals:
  • years alone shouldn't be linked per the Manual of Style.
    • I'll get on the date links, I tend to overlink dates and fix them later - I'm not shocked that I missed a few.
  • When describing the Turkish look of the human model, it's important to mention that the machine was named after it; this might not be understandable for all readers at first.
    • Good call on the naming issue, I'll find a way to work that in.
  • I've also noted that there is nothing written in the section about candles, how exactly did the player see the parts?
    • I mention the candles at the end - it's important to note that the actual part of the candles wasn't completely revealed until later on, perhaps that isn't clear. Will that cover it, or should I find a way to work it in earlier?
      • Well, yeah. Some people may come to the article for the purpose of understanding the mechanism, and incomplete descriptions would cause some confusion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed, i believe'. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Not everything was lost, however" in "The final years and beyond" section doesn't make much sense.
    • I think that's a bit of flair if anything. I'll just remove it (no offense, Hoary).
  • The following sentence should explain which existing parts it used in building the machine (e.g. "...spent $120,000 building his own version of Kempelen's machine over a five-year period from 1984 using the remained illustrations of the machine").
    • Is the section confusing? It mentions that the only part it used was the original chessboard.
      • That's a part of the previous suggestion. Removing the sentence about the existing parts in the first place would probably fix it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed, I think. If not, I'm misunderstanding you, I think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redlinks at the "Revealing the secrets" seem overwhelming, remove the links or at least create stubs.
    • I'll see what I can do, I cut back a LOT from what was there.
  • A bit of point of view issue at the beginning of the "Inspiration", I suggest rewording "The Turk was so popular and mysterious that its construction..." to "Due to the Turk's popularity and mysteriousness, its construction..." Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Thanks for the commentary! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds of factual inaccuracy. The images Image:Turk-engraving6.jpg and Image:Turk-engraving1.jpg in the Construction section are presented as theough they are an accurate representation of the Turk's workings. They are illustrations of Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz's contemporary theories of how the device was operated. However, as Standage himself notes (p.88):

There are, indeed, a few problems with Racknitz's explanation. First, his model was not in proportion to the actual Turk; the cabinet was far too long in relation to its height and depth. Second, even according to Racknitz's distorted measurements, the operating hiding behind the drawer would have had to have fitted into a space five feet long, eighteen inches wide, and about seven inches tall -- surely an impossibility for an adult. Racknitz's engravings show a diminutive operator smaller than the Turkish figure itself, which Rackham described as medium-sized.

• If this can be fixed I will support. Andrew Levine 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting catch. My question to you would be how to note this. Are mentions in the photo boxes enough, something along the lines of "This is a distorted measurement based on Racknitz's calculations, showing an impossible design in relation to the actual dimensions of the machine?" I ask only because I don't use Racknitz's measurements or much else in the text itself, so I assume it's how the photos are captioned that you object to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think your suggestion is good, and I believe the more accurate engravings on pp. 198-199 of Standage should be added. The captions representing the 18th-century illos as accurate are probably all that need correcting. Andrew Levine 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The text will be adjusted by the time you finish reading this. The illustrations on 198-199 are replicated in the Levitt text in greater detail - they're apparently from the American Heritage article, and I'm thinking the fair use rationale would be shaky (on one hand, it's the most accurate engraving available, but the free ones illustrate the Turk the same way). Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess it can do without the fair-use images. For some reason I thought they were from the 19th century. Support. Andrew Levine 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What a cool article! semper fictilis 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Inspirtation section is composed of many tiny paras, merging them would improve the flow of prose.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My thought process was to differentiate between subjects. Thus, with your comment, I recalled wanting to combine the two paragraphs about inventions. The rest doesn't appear logical to my eye, but I have been working on this for over two months. Any suggestions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is just a suggestion based on my past experiences with FA. So no, not really :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I can't see any obvious problems. A very interesting and informative read. Trebor 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support this one has been very close to FA quality for a long time. Pascal.Tesson 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support The lead is brief and unsatisfying, given the (outstanding) detail offered in the body of the text. + Ceoil 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I struggle a lot with leads. Any suggestions at all? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• A few sentences summarising the "The final years" and "Revealing the secrets" sections would complete the lead overview; maybe mention that the machine fell from view until the 1854 fire, a word or two on Mitchell's articles, and a note on the revival of interest following the launch of Big Blue.
• The sentence "Upon the return of the ship that Mälzel died on, Mälzel's various machines, including the Turk, fell into the hands of a friend of Mälzel's, the businessman John Ohl" is a little hard to understand.
• Excellent work overall, though. + Ceoil 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have switched to support as comments above are really only my own preference. Lead is within 2a. Ceoil 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support a good addition to the Featured Articles. I agree with the comment that longer paragraphs might improve the narrative that may just be my personal preference. Well done and thank you for your hard work. -Susanlesch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Really enjoyed it, especially the first part, which has excellent hard prose (once Von Kempelen exits the picture, it necessarily turns into a bit of a shaggy dog story). One thing I itched to know, but it seems is unknown, is the identity of the guy inside the machine. He had to be some player to beat most comers and do the knight's tour. Perhaps I'm overimaginative, but I read into this article that the reason Von Kempelen stopped demonstrating the machine was that his player was no longer available. It seems to me he must have had a different guy when the machine started losing regularly. Well done to the editors—a great read. qp10qp 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments. Your itching raises an interesting point - Kempelen didn't want to tour the machine because he didn't want to be known as "The Turk guy" (I can somehow relate to that, no wonder I'm drawn to this thin). If that's the vibe you got, I'll have to make some repairs, so thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No repairs necessary. It's my mind that needs repairing. qp10qp 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very cool, nice work on a fascinating subject. Good finds on the images, too! Wickethewok 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much the only part that I ended up holding over - whoever initially did the article got some excellent quality scans of the materials uploaded, so it was more about my picking and choosing which ones were best. Being public domain helped a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - excellent article, though I too would love to know who the director was. It must have been quite a feat: playing on an upside-down board while shoved into a tiny box, and at the same time having to work the mechanics of the automaton. Yomangani 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great article; meets all the criteria as far as I can see. Good job! Tomgreeny 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

RNA interference

This article, on the subject of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, was the MCB collaboration from December. It was brought to GA status by TimVickers a couple of weeks ago, and has since been substantively expanded by me. It's had a very productive peer review here. Incidentally, this was also the first article I edited with my then-shiny-new account last spring ;) Comments appreciated as always. Opabinia regalis 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose copyright status of Image:Adult worm.jpg is unclear, at best. Most likley it is speedable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Corrected Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The website it was obtained from states: "Images or text created by Wormatlas may be used by individuals or organizations for non-profit educational and scientific purposes with proper acknowledgement of Wormatlas (http://www.wormatlas.org)", which would make it fair use AFAICT. Still not good, but perhaps acceptable. Any tagging ideas? Fvasconcellos 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with a freely-licensed image from PLoS Genetics. It's not quite as pretty, but it's also an example of an RNAi experiment, which is nice. I'm not sure fair-use of a worm image would fly; it's not really any different from a fair-use image of a living person in terms of replaceability. Opabinia regalis 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps a Misplaced Pages:External peer review would be useful? If we can get an academic review or two, it would be quite useful. One style comment: either reference all facts in lead or none. Currently with only last sentence of lead referenced it looks somewhat strange.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been some discussion about improvements to this article on the talk page, despite the unusual dearth of participation here. I'm not sure that any RNAi expert is going to approve of the balance of topics or choice of emphasis in a review he or she didn't write ;) (Note: I'm not an RNAi expert.) I'd certainly be curious about what an external reviewer thinks, but wouldn't know where to find such a person, as I'm not interested in associating my real-life identity with my wikipedia work, and 'some fossil from the Internet wants you to take a look at this' is unlikely to generate much interest. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and - the citations in the last sentence are mostly there to give a pointer to the original 1998 paper, which seems more useful than making someone read/scroll to the very last section to find it. Does it look that weird? Opabinia regalis 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The sentence "In Drosophila, miRNA and siRNA are differentially processed by distinct argonaute proteins and dicer enzymes." tells us there is a difference, but doesn't say what this is. If this difference is important you need to say what it is, but if it is only a curiosity, it would best to remove it.

Really? As far as I understand, we don't know the reason for the specificity yet, although I guess that sentence should point out that it's true in plants as well as Drosophila. There's a paper from 2002 claiming that miRNA and siRNA are not processed differently in mammals, pointed out by both of the Drosophila studies, but it's old enough and contains enough outdated assumptions that I'm hesitant to include it. At any rate, I think the point is important in the sense that the endogenous-regulatory and exogenous-immune pathways are more divergent than they might appear at first look. Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried just cutting the word "differentially" does this change what you were trying to say? I was reading this to say that the processing was different, not similar processing by different isoforms. TimVickers 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*The image of the argonaute proteins needs to be bigger.

Done. Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence "In animals, these nucleases are known as argonaute proteins." needs to add what these proteins are called when they are not called argonaute - add plants, bacteria or protozoa?

That's old; they're all argonautes. Thanks for pointing this out. See the additions to the evolution section; there are even argonautes in bacteria. Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence "The miRNA activity, which is a major means of regulation of cell cycle progression and cell proliferation, is also clustered in P-bodies. would be best to move the function of miRNAs to the later section on biological functions and keep the material on localisation together.

I must not have my thinking cap on straight, because I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - the localization stuff already is together? I moved the function stuff for miRNA to the functions section, which is rather short because we do have a somewhat decent article on miRNA (though it needs some ref-formatting work). Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what this means "Plants such as the Arabidopsis thaliana express multiple dicer homologs that show differential specificity to infection by different common viruses." it sounds like the dicer homologues are being infected by viruses!

Ah, we can't have that! Does the rewritten version make more sense now? Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Evolution" section needs more references.

Expanded a bit with another, older but larger genomics study. It's surprising how little investigation of this has happened so far. Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nowhere is the distinction between antisense and RNAi explained clearly. I have never been very sure about this myself, so it would be good to have it laid out somewhere, perhaps in the lead? TimVickers 18:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the current usage of 'antisense' mostly involves the introduction of single-stranded fragments, expected to physically bind mRNA and block translation (ie, stoichiometrically), whereas RNAi explicitly refers to exploitation of the dicer/RISC pathway. Some of the early antisense applications are now thought to have worked through the RNAi pathway, which I suspect is going to be generally true in an organism that expresses RdRP. The one antisense drug that I know of (fomivirsen) is a modified oligo, so it likely wouldn't be recognized by the RNAi machinery anyway. I'm not sure how much of this belongs in the lead, since antisense isn't really mentioned except a brief note in the technology section, and a lot of the excitement for antisense drugs has transferred to siRNA. Maybe this is best placed with the biotech stuff then? Opabinia regalis 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the lead since it is sometimes important in introducing a subject to clarify the difference between the area you are going to discuss and related but frequently-confused areas. What about something in the last lead section like "Historically, RNA interference was known by other names, including post transcriptional gene silencing, transgene silencing, and quelling. It was also frequently confused with antisense suppression of gene expression, which does not act catalytically to degrade mRNA but instead involves single-stranded RNA fragments physically binding to mRNA and blocking translation." TimVickers 23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this article, I was starting to think I'd tripped a few TLDR triggers ;) As always, your edits much improved the prose. Opabinia regalis 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Support all my concerns have been addressed. TimVickers 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted thanks for the review! Opabinia regalis 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ref 59 is empty. It's a named ref, so I guess its first instance was removed and the ref text not moved to the second instance. Mind if I check the history and re-instate it, or was it on purpose? Was that a typo—"Samuet" supposed to be "Saumet"? (Saumet A, Lecellier CH (2006). "Anti-viral RNA silencing: do we look like plants?". Retrovirology 3 (3). PMID 16409629) Fvasconcellos 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just a typo - fixed now. Thanks!

• Support, article provides an "encyclopedia appropriate" overview of the topic. --Peta 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Fad (ix) 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Good balance of plants and animals but I feel some more fungi stuff is needed. I've read ref 35 myself, and though yes some pathways are missing in fungi, they are still present in many of them. Maybe put some theories in as to why the fungi have lost these pathways. Also, RNAi was noticed in fungi at around the same time as plants - where it was called quelling. (Million_Moments 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

• • Added a brief reference in the history section, though as far as I understand, work in fungus wasn't part of the main trajectory. I'm not sure about theories related to the loss of RNAi components - I know loss of RdRP is supposed to be correlated with greater genomic transposon load, but I'm not aware of any theories relating to specific lineages. If you know of any, do tell ;) I can't actually access ref 35 from here and originally read the paper quite a while ago now, so if there's anything pertinent in there, feel free to add it; I won't be able to look till tomorrow at the earliest. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hope you don't mind but since I am working on dsRNAs in rust at the moment I added a few sentances about RNA silencing proteins in fungi. You might wanna check them over, they might also be better suited to the evolution section. One other thing: fungi also have an RNA interferance pathway that is in my knowledge is unquie to fungi: MSDU. I think since you've mentioned RITS that should be in there as well. (Million_Moments 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
      • Shouldn’t this go in the evolution section? Maybe the entire section on the variation among organisms be a subsection of Evolution, or Evolution being a subsection of variation. They’re much too linked with each other to separate them. Fad (ix) 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that's a good idea.(Million_Moments 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
          • I think we have to be careful here with how much detail can fit in one article. This article could be three times its current size and still omit or gloss over fruitful areas of research. If anyone wants to create a subarticle specifically about unique features of RNAi in fungus, that's great. (I was thinking of eventually creating an article on plant innate immunity, since there's an enormous amount of work out there on the plant/virus arms race.) I truncated the fungus addition just a bit, to keep it consistent in length with the other organisms and to remove some speculation on why unicellular organisms might lose the pathway. (I doubt 'unicellular = less complex life cycle = less need for RNAi' works, at least in that simplified form, because the pathway was well elaborated in the ancestral eukaryote.) MSUD sounds like a phenomenon that needs its own article more than it needs much elaboration in this one. There is actually a lot of somewhat related work on miRNA-induced meiotic events in Drosophila that is touched on in the piwi article, but not at all in the RNAi article itself. I do think RITS might have gotten a little overbilled in my desire to equitably cover 'classic' mRNA-degradation RNAi and the more recent work that has broadened the definition.
          • Correspondingly, I'm somewhat indifferent to moving the variations section; I'd rather see that material quite brief and earlier in the article than the evolution section, because the goal in the evolution section itself was to discuss the pathway as a whole rather than loss or modification of individual proteins in individual species (which, again, could be a whole article in itself). I thought of moving just the second paragraph so that the general plant/animal distinction remains early in the article. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

David I of Scotland

Have been working on this article for a while in my user space. I've had to reduce the page significantly is size, which is always heart-breaking, and involved the removal of what I considered the coolest bits. As a result, the page now has half a dozen "daughter pages". The problems it may currently have - if any - are of the kind most likely to be identified by the extra thoroughness involved here. It's my opinion that this is the right moment for an FA nomination ... but judge for yourself. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you think it's still rather long? How about splitting off the Davidian revolution? DrKiernan 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been, at Davidian Revolution, but more ruthless summarisation in the main article is always an option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi DrKiernan. The article's actually only around sixty in text; the large amount of notes is making it larger. What I'd like to know is, would cutting the article in size any more actually be worth it? I'm not sure, but this is the kind of thing where many people have to add their voice. The Davidian Revolution content is pretty important ... and lots of the other sections of the article have been cut to make room for it. Now, I'm perfectly willing to cut the Davidian Revolution section more down to size; but because I regard this material as so important, if I did so I'd have to bring the actual Davidian Revolution article up to a free standing FA quality article too. Anyways, tell me what you think ... anyone else for that matter too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support There isn't much left to cut and create other articles from. I don't think we have to keep every article extremely short if we provide a detailed index of contents for the reader. Wandalstouring 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support high quality article, well written and illustrated and very well referenced. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Impressive, well written, but I have many nitpicks. May support later.
• Changing to Support: good continuing reaction to many nitpicks (including, but not limited to, mine), thorough, beautiful images, excellent job. --AnonEMouse 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In heading, link the year per WP:DATE.
  • Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".
  • Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.
  • "bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing
  • "was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary
  • "is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?
  • "It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.
  • Remove period from "chronicle records. as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.
  • "was met by force of knights" needs an "a"
  • Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?
  • "The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?
  • "along side"->"alongside"?
  • Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.
  • Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-) --AnonEMouse 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for your time and comments, AnonEMouse; much appreciated. Here are my comments and responses:

    Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".

    He is associated strongly with this nickname; e.g. the main scholarly survey of his reign, by Frank Barlow, is William Rufus

    Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.

    I think you got me here. I was following different rules at different stages of the article writing. I did that with a few things, but forgot to get around to fixing that.

    "bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing

    fixed

    "was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary

    fixed

    "is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?

    fixed

    "It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.

    It's more that certain historians lend more weight to one than the other. No group, after all, can argue that David had no ambition, and no group can argue that he didn't wasn't involved with English kings. I've made it clearer that the two interpretations are not really rivals; although it is common to hear this topic debated in more informal circumstances.

    Remove period from "chronicle records. as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.

    tried to fix this.

    "was met by force of knights" needs an "a"

    fixed.

    Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?

    Sure, I can open a stub. I've relocated for this weekend, and don't have access to the particular books I'd need for this article, but a stub's no problem.

    "The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?

    fixed.

    "along side"->"alongside"?

    fixed.

    Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.

    this passage is governed by the following footnote; since that may not be obvious unless the footnote is read, I'll move it for clarity.

    Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-)

    This is hard for me to react to; two people here do not support cutting it, and two do. At this stage, I shall wait to see what others think.

    Good luck with your own FAC. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would prefer it a bit shorter. The contents seem overwhelming at the moment and many of the sections have only one (albeit lengthy) paragraph. Also:

• Image sizes shouldn't be set unless there's a specific reason to do so, per MoS.
• For the few external links used in "References", accessdates are needed.
• The "See also" section doesn't seem very useful, and is in the wrong place per WP:MSH.
• Check that dates are wikilinked where appropriate for date preferences to apply.
• the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - cite? Who says it's the only way?

There are numerous issues with the prose; starting from the beginning:

• The early years of David I's life are the most obscure in his life - clumsy repetition of "life".
• Before he became a great political magnate in his own right by the year 1113, the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.
• David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.
• probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.
• allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?
• We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS.
• claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile - claims is also in words to avoid (and used in the following sentence).
• and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.
• by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.

A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet. Trebor 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi, thanks for your input, Trebot. Lemme respond to you to:

    - mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.

    Originally, this sentence read "by the year 1113", and was changed to "by 1113"; don't see why it's grammatically incorrect. "By 1113" is used because there is some unclarity about when exactly he became a territorial magnate, and the first certain date is late 1113.

    David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.

    Yep, you're correct; although in fairness that kind of phraseology is kinda common in history writing , perhaps because it makes it clearer that the date is unknown.

    probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.

    The explanation for this is in the following note, but I've altered the wording to make this clearer, adding "certainly".

    allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?

    The source in the following footnote alleges it. That is a common way of wording such things, and the usual understanding is that the accuracy of the source is in question, without being directly analysed. So, don't have a problem with it, impossible to rephrase without lengthening, so just deleted the statement.

    We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS

    Well, changed it to "it is not certain"

    claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile -

    The page you link, WP:WTA, states of the word "claims" - "In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect." And yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. This is not a news article reporting on a contemporary figure, it's fine to use this kind of word IMHO. Sources from this period are naturally suspect. No historian even a little familiar with medieval Scotland has to explain that Fordun and the Chronicle of Melrose may be open to doubt as sources. I've changed it, but I totally disagree with the change.

    and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.-

    Not really, it communicates that the exact point is unknown; it isn't in the slightest bit redundant.

Okay, perhaps this is a matter of style. I automatically infer from "and in 1094 marched into Scotland" that it means "at some point in 1094" but others might not.

Changed the wording anyways. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.

    Again, this is not redundant; it happens "by the end of the year" because it is known he was slain sometime this year, but not in the next. As events in the same year have already been narrated, this "redundant" usage is in fact essential.

Redundancy was referring to "himself". If you think it's alright then leave it; I just find it slightly jarring to read "so-and-so was slain by the end of the year".

OK, got ya. Got rid of the "himself". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet.

    Whoever said this kind of paragraph length is bad? Sometimes people offer objections which can be dealt with, sometimes they are just subjective and can't be dealt with. I think the paragraph lengths are good, but that's just me. Again, with the "claim" thing, you maybe don't like it, but to me it is proper phraseology for history writing. If there are other like thing you disapprove of, I cannot be expected to predict what these are. Maybe it does need another few minor proofreads - they always do - but you can be sure it'll get another couple from me alone even in the next day. Anyways, sorry it's not getting your vote. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph lengths are, of course, a matter of personal preference. I find them harder to read once they pass around six sentences, particularly with the large number of subsections used in the article but others may see it differently. Don't change "claim" if you feel that there is unambiguously doubt over what the source says; you are much more knowledgeable in this area than me, so use your best judgement. (And don't forget about my non-prose points; they're irritatingly picky I know.) Trebor 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I changed them anyways to be safe. Sometimes I think one thing, then 20 people come along thinking the opposite. The length thing is an issue; I'm perfectly willing to cut some sections ... i.e. the Revoltion section, if I can be sure that that won't arouse opposition. The latter is my worry ... to be honest, I think they'd have a point if I cut some parts and they objected. It would be nice if some other users could comment on this. It would help if I knew, for instance, if the two users who've supported the current length regard it as important, or if they just don't mind. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is splintering slightly with user talk, I'd prefer to keep it all here if that's alright. Other opinions (particularly from people with background knowledge) would be very useful. I definitely don't want to be dictating any changes. Trebor 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, all I can do is wait. In the mean time, I've given the article another heavy copyedit. I'd be surprised if there are still many problems. Like I said, splitting many of the paragraphs can easily be done in theory, and I'm not averse to trimming it some more. All I worry about is the damage the latter could do to the article in respect of other users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, assorted minor style problems and ambiguities:

• Thanks for your comments. I've tried to respond to your comments as best I can. See following:

• David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England. In England he became subject to Norman cultural influences and a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I of England.

Too many uses of 'England'.

The third one is the England in the unpiped Henry I of England. Got rid of some of the Englands; now there is only one. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• During his reign David became a great "reformer". The term "Davidian Revolution" is used by many scholars to summarise the changes which took place in the Kingdom of Scotland during his reign.

The first sentence is redundant.

• Beginning to think redundancy ain't such a bad thing. Deleted it anyways.

• The result of the invasion was at first indecisive, but after a few months the English and French soldiers given to Donnchad by King William were massacred, and by the end of the year Donnchad was slain by Domnall's ally, Máel Petair, mormaer of Mearns.

'The result of' is unnecessary, that the soldiers were provided by William is implied, the second 'Donnchad' could be changed to 'he'. Use killed instead of 'slain'.

• Deleted it and changed slain to killed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the setback, William Rufus did not give up, and in 1097 he sent Donnchad's half-brother Edgar into Scotland. The latter was more successful, and was crowned King of Scotland by the end of 1097.

Why is this glossed over compared to Donnchad's defeat? It might be worth going into more detail here, mentioning Edmund of Scotland for example.

• Well, there is no like record of the course of events, we only know the result. The only way of getting into it is by explaining the course of Donnchad's invasion, which was the same resistance. Could add a sentence about Edmund, but it would be along the lines of "another brother, Edmund, appears to have sided with Domnall". It's just a case of using judgment as to what is important enough to mention in an article which has to be concise.

Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• King Edgar was a young man, only a few years older than David, and another of David's older brothers, Alexander, was alive and well and closer to the throne than David. David was in fact so far away from becoming king that Ethelred, his older brother and superior in line to the succession, had given himself up to a career in the church.

These two sentences contain a lot of redundant information and awkward phrasing; avoid unneeded phrases like 'alive and well' and 'in fact'. Three uses of 'David' in the first sentence is excessive.

• Replaced "alive and well" with healthy. Got rid of "in fact", but don't really understand why I had to; it's a following statement; it is of course, literally reduntant, but adding meaning is not generally the point of such particles. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The two sentences are still quite clunky. How about 'King Edgar was only a few years older than him and another brother, Alexander, was healthy and closer to the throne.' Yes, Ethelred gets the boot, but if Edmund doesn't merit a mention here, why should Ethelred?

• Moreover, when William Rufus was killed and Henry Beauclerc seized power, David's fortunes got even better.

'Moreover' is unnecessary. 'fortunes got even better' doesn't sound right.

• Deleted "moreover", although see my last response. Changed "got even better" to "improved". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Although he remained for some time a princely hanger-on, the marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England. Although still a youth, from that point onwards David was a more important figure at court, with a much brighter future than he previously had.

Two sentences starting with 'although'. 'than he previously had' is redundant. 'for some time' has little descriptive value.

• Deleted "than he previously had"; now only one sentence starting "Although". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Despite his Gaelic background and childhood, by the end of his stay in England, David was a fully fledged Normanised prince.

'in England' is redundant. Did he actually have a 'Gaelic background and childhood', given his mother wasn't Gaelic?

• He had a Gaelic father and was brought up in Scotland. Would have mentioned his Saxon background (mentioned elsewhere), but as he went to England the contrast doesn't seem necessary. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• David's time as Prince of the Cumbrians marks the beginning of his life as a great territorial lord. The year of these beginnings was probably 1113, the year in which Henry I arranged his marriage to an English heiress and the year in which for the first time David can be found in possession of "Scottish" territory.

Too many uses of 'the year'. 'of these beginnings' is redundant. The use of quotation marks throughout this article is questionable, better to replace them with unambiguous descriptions. It should be made clear that David gained possession of land in England via his marriage.

• Guilty "the year"s changes to "when". I believe the consequences of that marriage was originally mentioned in that introductory paragraph, but I made the decision to cut it thinking the marriage, the consequences of which are mention in the article intro and the text following the section intro. Also "heiress" rather than just "female" kinda implies he got some kind of benefit from it. Not sure many would miss that implication. But, changed "heiress" to "heiress of vast estates in central England" "Scottish" is in quotation marks because was not thought of as Scottish then, but is now. Anyways, changed "Scottish" to "territory in what later became Scotland".Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to state that Henry arranged the marriage in what is a mini-intro, or that the estates were 'vast'? It just replicates what is said later on. How about 'The year was probably 1113, when he married the heiress of estates in England and definitely possessed territory in what is now Scotland.'

• Seizure of inheritance

Isn't 'seizure' a bit strong, considering that there was no bloodshed?

• You think so; it was taken from Alexander through threat of force. Not sure I agree, but changed "seizure of" to "Obtaining the". 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• According to Oram, it was only in 1113, when Henry had returned to England, that David was at last in a position to claim his inheritance in southern "Scotland"

Richard Oram should be wikilinked. Again, avoid quotation marks. This sentence is rather confusing unless you read David, Prince of the Cumbrians. How accepted are Oram's ideas and is there any hard evidence for them?

• There is more info about this in both the notes and the daughter article. Oram's view in this regard is supported by Duncan (see note); nothing since has been published arguing against this view - which seems to be orthodoxy now - but I have nevertheless given previous views a mention (see first sentence and note). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The part 'when Henry returned to England' is what confuses me. Where is Henry returning from? Normandy? Scotland? What does this have to do with David being in position to claim his inheritance?

• There is no evidence which shows that King Henry participated in the campaign in person, but it is clear that his backing was enough to force King Alexander to recognise his younger brother's claims.

If there's no evidence, why mention it at all?

• Because it's inherently likely. The period and context is of the type where many likely things are not directly provable. Such a situation shaped the phraseology of all writings about this period. Are you nevertheless think it should be deleted? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is sufficient to note that David was supported by Henry. Speculation about whether Henry appeared in person seems OTT.

• Years later, when David invaded England with a huge army composed almost entirely of Gaelic Scots, Ailred of Rievaulx has a Norman knight named Robert de Brus lament and complain to David about his betrayal of the Angli and Normanni, the English and Normans, whom he once relied upon. Among other things, the knight asserted:

This is too detailed for an introduction to a source. 'asserted' is a word to avoid. 'Among other things' seems redundant.

• On this point I strongly disagree. It is this source which illuminates the events under discussion. To remove this will give the impression that this is clear-cut, when it is not. It is possible that I could get rid of this whole part and just say "later evidence shows that this inheritance was obtained through threat of force", but that would make me unhappy. :( Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It could easily be cut back to 'Years later, when David invaded England, Ailred of Rievaulx has a knight named Robert de Brus complain to David about his betrayal of the English and Normans.'

• It was in this way, through a bloodless threat of force, that David gained his first territorial foothold within the area of modern Scotland.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say he gained it through inheritance backed up by the threat of force? 'bloodless' is redundant.

• Perhaps; got rid of "bloodless". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• A recently rediscovered Gaelic quatrain from this period complains that:

Where and when was it 'recently rediscovered', and by whom? Alternatively, drop the 'recently rediscovered' as unnecessary.--Nydas 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand; before you objected to detailed introduction to another source, but you want me to make this one even more detailed? The information you're requesting is given in the footnotes. So I'm glad you gave me a second option; I went and deleted the "recently rediscovered". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anyways, thanks for looking over the article. Hope you're satisfied with my responses. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few more comments above, but I still feel as if I've only scratched the surface of this article; it is really, really long. Rather than cut the Davidian Revolution stuff (though that could be trimmed), it would be better to reduce the early life/feudal stuff i.e the exact dates he spent in England, or the details of various conflicts.

More stuff:

• He was the youngest son of the Scottish King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and his second wife Margaret, a princess of the House of Wessex. David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England.

Suggest shortening this to 'The youngest son of the Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Margaret, David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but was exiled to England in 1093.'

• David and his brothers Alexander (Alaxandair) and Edgar (Étgar) were probably in the presence of their mother when she too died.

Specifically mentioning in this sentence that these brothers later became kings would help make the later sections more accessible. Gaelic versions of their names seems like overkill, especially when the Gaelic names don't have English versions.--Nydas 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address most of your suggestions. I've cut much of the opening two sections - early life and prince of the cumbrians - and edited away most of the Davidian revolution section. Tell me what you think. Also, per Trebor, made most of the paragraphs shorter. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support It is of course an excellent article, and here are a few suggested tweaks. Apologies if this duplicates some of the above - I have only skimmed it.

Lead para "There he became a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I". Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you like, but this strikes me as both informal and an unverifiable opinion. 'A peripheral figure'?

"Hanger-on" is the term Oram uses. Medieval courts consisted on inner and outer circles, and Oram means to say he was in the outer circle until his sister's marriage to Henry. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Early years "the sparcity of the evidence available". Is 'sparcity' a word? - and 'available' is redundant.

Yeah; more often written "Sparsity" (the etymologically correct spelling); changed to more recognizable spelling. "Deleted available". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

David was born at an unknown point between 1083 and 1085'. 'at an unknown point' is redundant.

This was said before I think; I disagree that this is redundant. "between 1083 and 1085" doesn't necessarily imply that the exact date is unknown. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Intervention "During the power struggle of 1093-97, David was in England. In 1093, he may have been about nine years old." We know how old he may have been. 'During the power struggle of 1093-97, David spent his childhood in England from about ages x - y'? I don't understand what you you're meaning to get at here. Could you elaborate? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggested improvement to the language. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Henry married David's sister, Matilda (or Edith)". I understand the difficulties but this does not read well. Suggest moving '"or Edith" to a footnote.

Deleted Edith. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"The marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England." Whilst accepting that the readers of Misplaced Pages who post articles about tag-wrestling in pidgin English might not be able to work this out for themselves I am not sure it adds value to the article.

It emphasizes David's new political status in England. You could delete it, but then someone else might quote the remaining passage here and ask what it's significance is. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Prince of the Cumbrians There is a link available for Annandale and Cunninghame. (They appear linked later.)

Linked 'em. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

David in England "Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland, a defunct lordship" You just told us that. 'Moreover, his father-in-law's Earldom was a defunct lordship'?

Reread that sentence, and it looks fine. It isn't redundant because Waltheof had two lordships, one (Northumberland) and the other the "Honour of Huntingdon"; he lost Northumberland but kept his status as an earl and retained possession of the "Honour of Huntingdon" (the latter wasn't actually a territorial earldom at this stage, as other wiki articles make out). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Its the para that has repitition, not the sentence. "Henry gave David the hand of Matilda de Senlis, daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland". "Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland,"Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd war against Máel Coluim "Matilda de Senlis, passed away. Possibly as a result of this". At first reading I thought 'why would his wife pass away as a result of a trial?' It's the ref tag that creates the gap in the flow. Might be better as 'Possibly as a result, and while'?

This is what Oram argues, and that's my way of giving this argument a mention without going into detail. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"The instigator was his half-brother Máel Coluim" As there are more than one of these wretched Malcolms, this phrase had me wondering. The section header tells me anyway, but perhaps: ' The instigator was once again his half-brother Máel Coluim'.

" who now had the support of Óengus of Moray" Earlier "he had the support of the King of Moray" So, if its the same Malcolm and the same King it should be: 'who still had the support of Óengus of Moray'?

No, The previous sentences said "when Máel Coluim reappears in the sources six years later, he had the support of the King of Moray". It didn't say he had support of the King then, but implies he may have. It's the only way of guessing who was backing him at that point. But I deleted the first mention since it has caused this confusion. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"including Walter l'Espec, and were sent" 'and' is redundant.

Deleted; a leftoever from the many article trims done because of this FAC. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

" In 1134 Máel Coluim was captured" Do we know where the capture happened?

I can't remember. I need to check my books, which I won't have access to again until Wednesday. I'm away from my main residence for the "weekend" and brought with me only books relevant for doing articles on bishops (see my contribs :) ). I'll get back to you on that though, or you can ask Angus. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacification "Kadrez" - one has a cap, the other not. What is it?

Fixed. Meaning unknown, but it's the word that appears in the relevant charter sources. I think it lists these regions as Kadrez of "Galloway" (greater Galloway, as in "Strathyrewen in Galweia"). Possibly cognate with Welsh "Cantref". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"in compensation for the exclusion from the succession" - 'in compensation for his exclusion' ?

Then one would be wondering, "exclusion from what". No?

I meant 'in compensation for his exclusion from the succession

Dominating the north "While fighting King Stephen" Who he? Henry's successor?

Of course. This is covered by the following section - and Stephen is linked. Do you think a "(see below)" should be put next to it. Remember that this has already been introduced in the article intro at the top of the page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"In 1150, it looked like Caithness the whole earldom of Orkney were going to come under permanent Scottish control." Missing 'and' after Caithness?

Yeah. Added. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"David's weakness in Orkney was that the Norwegian kings were not prepared to stand back and let David reduce their power" Suggest 'him reduce their power'.

OK. altered. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

King David and England Probably MOS would prefer 'Later relations with England' or similar.

Why? I did think a title more similar to the scottish section should be used, but decided to follow the daughter article. Could you explain your reasoning? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"over the most important of David's gains. It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." which gains? Don't understand second sentence.

Means that both views have to be and are taken into account by all historians, if only with varying degress. This is the second time this section has been brought up. I'll look to altering it later this evening. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that David had an eye on the English throne, or becoming a regent of some kind for Matilda?

Never heard that be suggested. Would be original research, though if you can find that argued anywhere Id be delighted to mention it. What has been suggested is that David secretely thought of himself as a potential king of England, or a part of it. David was, after all, since 1124 at least, the rightful King of England under contemporary succession laws. It's also curious that his Gaelic style, appearing in an obituary, is rí Alban & Saxain, king of Scotland and England. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishopric of Durham "However, Stephen's supporters had gotten wind of the plan" Your disregard for the Queen's English is a national scandal!

Pardon me. Don't usually use her majesty's English as a standard. Of course, you mean that this is too informal for your liking. I changed it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your dreadful user box. Thank-you for recanting.

"British Isles lost" 'British Isles was lost?

No, no; read the whole sentence - a quote from a historian - "For Oram, this event was the turning point, "the chance to radically redraw the political map of the British Isles lost forever"." The syntax of the whole sentence means that the "was" is understood. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It would benefit from a comma before 'lost' even if its not in the original.

Succession and death "He had probably been suffering from some kind of illness for a long time."'some kind' is redundant.

No it is not redundant, it makes it clear that the nature of the illness itself is unknown. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"David had under a year to live, and he may have known that he was not going to live much longer."

'Live' twice in one sentence. Suggest 'survive much longer'.

: Changed second "live" to "be alive". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"David quickly arranged for his grandson Máel Coluim" We have met the other one(s). At first mention suggest 'Máel Coluim mac Eanric'.

Other grandsons called Máel Coluim? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Scotland-proper" What is this and it also appears twice in a sentence.

Government and feudalism "The widespread infeftment" Investment?

That's an archaic Scots (?) word; I didn't actually write this word; replaced it with "enfeoffment". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

David I and the economy MOS grumble and "undermine the position of the native Scottish language" I think this is misleading - perhaps disambiguating native Gaelic and Scots might be helpful?

I don't understand why it's misleading? Scots were Gaelic-speakers by definition in this era and there was no such thing as Lallans. It's also clear from the context, if the user had any unlikely doubts, what language is meant. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes 2) "Máel Coluim had at seems to have had two sons". Syntax error

Fixed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

21) "princeps Cumbrensis". Capital 'p'?

Sure ... changed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

114) Seems to have a relationship with (48). I think they are congruent statements, but it may be worth checking.

Cover similar topics; one in relation to Moray burghs, one to burghs in general. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Will check. ATM I'm editing article and responding at the same time, so not able to go by reference number. Can easily do so when I'm finished. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Refs Clancy, Thomas Owen, "Annat and the Origins of the Parish" Annat?

Yep. A place name element. Annat meant something close to, what for it ... "parish church". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oram, Richard, "David I" Apostrophe wiki-ing is out. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point out fixes and suggest tweaks. I hope you regard my responses as satisfactory ... and continue commenting as necessary and appropriate. Will respond to my talk page message in a little bit. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most satisfactory of course. Replies on a few minor points above. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Extensive, scrupulously well referenced, nicely illustrated, covers the different views of the subject, and the prose isn't too terrible. More proof-reading would be beneficial, as would more proof-readers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support., I think that this is one of those rare article in which once to start reading it you can't stop. Excellent job. Kyriakos 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Intelligent design

Archive Excellent work on a highly controversial topic. It does have difficulties: It's a discredited arguement, (c.f. s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.), but a few, very vocal people still propogate it. A balance was, with great difficulty, attempted, and I think it comes as near to WP:NPOV (noting the "Undue weight" clause) as possible. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There remains some unsourced theories and material in the Intelligence as an observable quality. Until that is resolved I don't think the article can proceed yet.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Working on it... Adam Cuerden 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria and one of Misplaced Pages's better supported articles. Oft cited offsite as a good article on the topic by neutral sources such as School Library Journal, Jurist legal news and research, Univertisty of Pittsburgh, Talk of the Nation on National Public Radio, and Librarian and Information Science News. Offered as a source by Salon and as a primer by Science & Theology News. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 21 citations in the lead??? It's meant to be a summary of the article where information is referenced in the body. Web sources are missing date retrieved and publisher (website). Image:Time evolution wars.jpg is missing a fair use rationale - too many external links. M3tal H3ad 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of these seem like valid critiques and need to be addressed. However, just responding to the first concern 21 citations in the lead- the presence of those citations is due the controversial nature of topic which has resulted in everything being cited in great detail even when something is arguably a summary of a later information in the article. JoshuaZ 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read through WP:LEAD, it would appear that the lead should be supported like any other text (after all, it isn't an abstract). Anyway, there's a reason that everything is cited. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support An incredibly impressive article given the controversial nature of the topic. If this made FA it would serve as a great example of how this sort of thing ought to be done. But... according to WP:WIAFA, it really needs a "References" section that lists all of the sources that have been cited in the article. Given the number of footnotes, I don't envy the person who puts it together. But it really has to be done. MLilburne 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this is an excellent article and is especially well referenced. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fair use image (magazine cover) not significant to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Adam Cuerden 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: it’s a good article, but there are some issues that stop me from supporting just now:
  • The article (correctly) portrays the issue as endemic to the USA, but this is only said explicitly once, in the ‘Movement’ section, and it is not cited there. If I understand correctly, there should be a mention of this earlier in the article (maybe in the lead?) and there should be some kind of citation to substantiate the geographical disparity.
  • There are several definitions of ‘science’ or ‘scientific method’ in the article that are not thoroughly referenced. It may be enough to have them all share one footnote, but that footnote must appear next to each.
  • Per the Manual of Style punctuation at the end of an inline quoted passage should be outside the quotes, “like this”, unless “the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (‘logical’ quotations).” (Also, I happen to prefer Unicode quotation marks to ASCII quotation marks, but that’s not an objection to the article.)
  • Use a consistent dash style (outside of quotations, where of course the dashes should be preserved). Apparently the preferred style for the article is to use spaced em-dashes — like this —, but I’ve noticed several en-dashes.
  • There should be no spaces between punctuation marks and subsequent ref tags.

  —xyzzy_n 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. Not comprehensive - no treatment of how it is viewed outside US, UK and Australia. Also, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. See also is very large, per MoS the relevant terms should be incorporated in text. Finally - can we have some pictures?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is largely because it, as opposed to creationism, hasn't actually spread beyond those countries. Trying to find evidence of this. Adam Cuerden 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on a controveisal topic. I do have a small quibble with the criteria listed in 'Defining intelligent design as science'. It says a theory must be "Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)" while at the same time being falsifiable. These would seem to be contradictory. Given that the "Evolution can't be falsified" argument is a common ID canard, this should probably be clarified. Raul654 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references? That's a rhetorical question by the way (please don't waste your time and tell me to read WP:LEAD. I practically have it memorized). The load of references in the lead is ugly beyond comprehension. Quadzilla99 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The rule as we have defined it is that the lead should established the notability of th subject, and summarize information found in the rest of the article. Thus, for a properly written lead, refs are not necessary, but not prohited either. This article is fine. Raul654 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could explain the rule to you backwards with my eyes closed so there's no need to attempt to explain it to me. I commented the lead was ugly and your basic response was "This article is fine." Quadzilla99 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you know what the rules are, you wouldn't have said "Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references?" when no such policy has ever existed. Raul654 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ugly but funtional. Being a controversial topic, content (especially in the lead) is regularly challenged or removed, especially by new editors. Referencing every statement in the lead reduces this problem, and thus improves the stability of the article. Guettarda 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as per comments below

• 2.5 out of the 3 lead paras discuss the controversy of the topic, and what it is not. More info needs to be put in on what it *IS*.
• The lead para, as per wikipedia policy, should not be so heavily cited
• You do not distinguish between footnotes and citations. See Roman-Spartan War for a far better way of distinguishing the two
• The "Creationism" navbar template is flawed, since it puts all the articles listed on a single footing and puts ID and Hindu Creationism on a similar footing, whereas ID and Young Earth Creationism are a sub-theory of "creation science", which is itself a subsection of christian creationism.
• "The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" - "intelligent design" doesn't have a stated purpose, it is just a concept. People have purposes, concepts don't.
• "ID" - I don't like this acronym being used, since it has a much more common usage for another word. I'd use the full phrase.
• "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology " Weasel words. Find someone who does say that and cite it, or don't say it at all.
• "Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical" Why? Were the earlier examples disproved? If so, I would mention this, it seems apposite.
• Proceedural Aside - I'm not sure I like the idea of the Featured Article Director supporting FAC nominations and contributing to discussions. the FAD is supposed to objectively review the comments made and reach a conclusion on consensus, this will surely be hampered by a personal involvement in discussion on the article

  I don't want to put too fine a point on this (so don't take what I'm about to say personally), but your comment is flatly wrong. I have been participating on the FAC for years, including making both support and oppose comments. My involvement in this case has been limited (A) to reviewing the article and determining whether or not it meets the criteria, which is something I unequivocally reserve the right to do AT ANY TIME to any article nominated on the FAC, and (B) giving clarification to others involved on this FAC nom as to issues of policy (since this is a topic where policies tend to get invoked a lot, both rightly and wrong). Raul654 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Raul's comments have no more or less weight than those of any other registered user. Consequently, there is no reason to bar him from contributing. TimVickers 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When these are fixed, I am happy to support - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This is not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article against Intelligent Design. Many of the criticisms may be referenced, but that the criticism is there, especially in the quantity it is, is POV-pushing. This is not a neutral article, but an anti-ID article.

• The criticism begins in the introduction, and 70% of the introduction comprises criticism or rejection of the idea.
• Almost every section other than perhaps the sections under "Overview" includes criticism of the aspect of ID being explained.
• One section ("Arguments from ignorance") is entirely criticism, without even putting an ID answer to that criticism.
• It argues some points rather than documenting them, such as the second paragraph under "Peer Review".
• It makes demonstrably wrong claims. The claim (in the first sentence under "Peer Review") that there have been no peer-reviewed ID papers, whilst supported by the first of the two references supplied, is contradicted by the second reference (which tries to dismiss the paper, but does acknowledge that is was peer-reviewed). It also overlooks likely ID papers published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation.

The above is not meant as an exhaustive list, but merely to provide actual examples of the bias in this article. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the peer review comment, the article states "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". This is what the sources say. The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed science journal. Guettarda 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT what the second reference says. The second reference acknowledges that there was a peer-reviewed ID article, as I said above.

The Journal of Creation is (a) peer-reviewed, (b) has articles about science, and (c) is a journal. So your counter claim is false.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The peer review section could be better cited but the rest of your claims are less than persuasive. If a topic gets a lot of criticism, it isn't NPOV to pretend otherwise. If every single aspect of an idea is rejected by the larger scientific community, that should be clear. Meanwhile, attempting to argue that content published in an avowedly creationist "journal" constitutes peer review of ID is funny at so many different levels...(and in any event, we have reliable sources saying there is no peer review material making your personal opinion about what constitutes peer reviewed papers irrelevant)JoshuaZ 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that the article should pretend that the topic doesn't get a lot of criticism? I didn't. And neither did I say that it shouldn't be clear that it's all rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Both those points could be briefly mentioned (not argued). I said that the article should be about ID, not against ID, which is how it is at the moment.

What provokes your sense of humour is irrelevant. That the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed is NOT merely a personal opinion. It is a fact, despite what your apparently unreliable sources claim. If you still maintain that it is not peer-reviewed, could you please show me where these "reliable sources" claim that the Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed. I will be interested to see if they exist, and if they do, whether they have anything to back up the claim or are mere assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reviewed by a peer, to make sure it follows creationist values" is not what is generally meant by "peer-review". I suppose that definining terms might help here. Adam Cuerden 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you didn't invent a fictional definition to argue your case. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review. Since you obviously have no idea what it means. Adam Cuerden 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Me? You're the one that invented a definition. Instead of insulting me, how about you actually explain the alleged problem? Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some evidence that JC is "peer reviewed science"? It isn't ISI indexed, and while the Instructions to Authors say "Do not use too many big or extra words", there's nothing about peer review or any idea of the composition of the editorial committee. The assertion that there are no ID publications in peer reviewed scientific publications is supported by references, including evidence under oath by ID-proponent Michael Behe. Do you have any reputable references which say otherwise? Guettarda 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're simply looking for something that says that the Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed, see here.

I don't know why you are asking for a reference for peer-reviewed ID articles when I've already pointed out twice that one of the two references in the article to the very statement in question talks about such an article!

Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rayment's "strong oppose," appears to be just the sort of objection with no basis in policy or fact that is discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design as a bad faith or clueless objection. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that no matter what the answer was to one of Rainman's objections, including agreeing with him, he'd find some reason why the answer was wrong and simply raise another specious objection. Best not to feed the trolls. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch: Your responses appear to be merely dismissal of opposing views based on your own POVs. I have provided specifics as to what is wrong with the article, and neither of you has attempted to address them. And calling me names is not a valid form of argument. Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And they have provided specifics as to what is wrong with your objections. It’s not a fallacy when it’s justified. —xyzzy_n 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I struggle to understand how you could possibly say that. Perhaps you are referring to the various people who have attempted to respond to my objections. In that case, I'll clarify that I was talking specifically about FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch, who have not replied to my objections here at all. The other objections have been answered. Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that the Journal of Creation can Peer Review ID is abusing the concept of peer review. The term “Peer” refers to colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field). ID wants itself to be a biology related domain, a scientific hypothesis. It should therefore be reviewed by biologists. It is not peer reviewing to submit a biology related article to “astrologists.” This doesn’t mean ID is not valid, it just mean that ID has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe this needs clarification by adding “scientific”, since when the term “Peer Reviewed” is used, it is in connection to science related journals. ID being also about creationism, I do admit that we can call it Peer review if it is reviewed by some “experts” in creationism like theologists. But it sure is not a “Peer Reviewed Science” it might be “Peer reviewed theology” though. So further clarification there could be worthwhile. I too have a problem with the introduction but the rest of your critics I don't believe are valid. Fad (ix) 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fad, I agree with the your description of what peer review is, but not with the unstated implication that the Journal of Creation doesn't do this. What gives you the idea that papers in the JoC are not reviewed by "colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field)"? Your objection amounts to a slur against the JoC unless you can demonstrate the JoC does not do this. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

“Demosntrating” is quite a strong word. I don’t have to support the thesis that they do not peer review, since this would be a logical fallacy. The existence and not the non existence should be supported. Do you have evidences that the JoC peer review in any field of science? If not, then we can’t claim it is peer reviewed science. Fad (ix) 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be a "logical fallacy"? And do you put the onus to demonstrate peer review on all claimants of it, or just creationists? Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The onus to support the position is on all claimants of existence. Nothing to do with creationists. This is how science work, I am not talking about sceptic organizations or other systems which claim to do science by trying to “prove” non existence. This article doesn’t mean the ID hypothesis is fake, it just highlight that it is not peer reviewed science and that this is not what most scientists believe. It is also pathetic that we need to transform such articles into a kind of “polling scientists” thing, which if you ask me is a success for those contributors who support ID. It’s obvious that most scientists support natural selection, obvious, we don’t go on writing thousands of words and polling articles by citing how most scientist believe in a well established hypothesis. If we are at a point that this need to be done, scientists are at the defensive and this reaction is a defence mechanism. Fad (ix) 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any reason why the Discovery Institute's reprint of "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" is cited along with the original version from The American Spectator website? They say the same thing, and I don't have to worry about how on Earth I am supposed to indicate where it's reprinted using the template. Unless they have policy of making content unfree after a certain period of time, which seems rather unlikely given the date of publication, I see no reason to include the reprint.

And all web references --Rmky87 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the referneces go to the web but whether or not they are reliable. One of the most cited sources is the testimony and ruling in the Kitzmer case (and specifically, links to them on the web). These are reliable. So to complain that they are "all web references" is to focus on the wrong thing. Raul654 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that they should all have retrieval dates and other information like whether or not it is part of a larger work, who wrote it, who published it, when it was published/last updated, etc. I must have hit enter by mistake.--Rmky87 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- well-written and fully supported by references (which are necessary, BTW, given the controversial nature of the topic). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, unless the section on the movement is reduced ' to a sentence or two leading to its article. & the section on Controversy made NPOV. ID (despite the motives on many of its proponents) is an intelligible argument, very much more difficult to refute than many other creationist positions. The article should be devoted to it in its own right, with of course the arguments against it. Having the material on the Movement is inherently NPOV, and the actual section on the movement is entirely NPOV without any defense of the Movement. Further, the section on the controversy is entirely devoted to arguments against ID. This is reasonable, except that there should be a rejoinder of similar some reasonable though not necessarily equal length--and there isn't. I notice that summaries of the same arguments is also placed at the end of each of the sections on the theory itself. (As for personal POV, let me mention that I am not a supporter of ID in any sense of the word, and most certainly not a supporter of the Movement) DGG 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This strikes me as another clueless objection since it references policies and FA requirements that do not exist. Can you please point us to the specific policy or FA requirement that specifies that sections of articles detailing controversies must have a "a rejoinder of similar length" and where sections that have spin out articles must be only "a sentence or two." Misplaced Pages:Content forking notwithstanding, is simply a guideline, and there is no way you can properly summarize a topic as complicated as the movement as required by WP:NPOV in one or two sentences. Unless you can provide specific policy to support your objection, it runs the risk of being discounted here. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, from WP:NPOV, below. You are right that it doesn't have to be equal, but the basic requirement is that you cannot make criticisms from one side and not include replies. The section on criticism needs some perhaps smallish amount of ID rejoinder.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.''DGG' 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're cherry picking from the NPOV policy. As the ID article states, ID is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. The WP:NPOV policy tells us when writing about pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." (emphasis in original) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Clearly the article complies with WP:NPOV exactly, and your undue weight objection is baseless. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might also help both of you to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles Raul654 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not the least objection to adding the category pseudoscience, because, in summary, that is what I think it is. I can argue for it, but as Writing for the enemy. A category should indicate the various aspects of an article & pseudoscience is certainly one of them, and I have never said otherwise. But this is pseudoscience defended from another viewpoint. There's also the viewpoint of the ID Movement. Personally, i have an extremely negative view of many of the activities discussed there, but I do not think this theory owes its origin there--rather, it was conveniently at hand for adoption as being something not overtly ridiculous. ID still needs a serious presentation, and the article as a whole can not sum up for or against it. The reader will do that, and with a fair presentation and a good article, the reader will do that correctly. The reader without preconceptions will do so even without a slanted POV.

To write as much from the creationist point of view as from the mainstream point of view would give undue weight to the creationists. As for uncritical description, none of ID’s notability is directly due to its propositions so we shouldn’t waste any paragraphs on it. —xyzzy_n 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it need not necessarily be as much, but something. .DGG 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is supposed to be a "scientific" topic (it was designed to get around the Edward case, which declared that creation science was religion, not science. In the 20 years it has been around, something like 300,000 papers are published a year in the biological sciences; almost all of them work within the neo-darwinian paradigm. Even taking the broadest view of "publications" (ie, stuff in ISCID, etc) you're looking at something like 1 in a million papers which use the "paradigm" of ID, no matter how broadly...and these handful of papers have almost never been citationed by others (which is the currency of scientific publication). So, when it comes down to it, the ID perspective is given far too much space in this article. It's an incredibly tiny fringe position in science. So to say it need not necessarily be as much suggests a lack of understanding of the situation. Guettarda 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those complaining about citations in the lead paragraph need to consider the nature of the topic. They are essential for such a controversial subject such as this, and are needed for stability, though I recommend condensing a few of the multiple footnotes into one note, rather than having a horizontal line of footnote numbers referencing one point. See example here

1. Greenberg, 114-116
2. My comments for FA reference 1
   • More comments for FA reference 2
   • Even more comments for FA reference 3

Also, as I commented above over a week ago, there are still some unsourced ideas and statements and my oppose still stands.-- Zleitzen 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must admit that it's far better than it was. Give it a little more time. Adam Cuerden 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work on clipping the references in the lead, indeed it is better now. As far as I'm concerned its just the unsourced points lower down the page.-- Zleitzen 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article seems NPOV to me. An article on Adolf Hitler would include a great deal of negative information, and an anrticle on Martin Luther King Jr. would include a great deal of positive inofrmation. Likewise, an article on a discredited pseudoscientific theory would make that fact — that it is discredited both in United States courts and scientific circles — and therefore would include a great deal of negative information. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

the Article on Adolf Hitler is almost entirely devoted to a factual summary of his deeds, including several paragraph-length quotations from his work. There is no quotation from any of his opponents either in the text or the notes, though there are links. The only part that contains comment is "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory." And that is the only negative comment necessary. Similar political leaders are treated in a similar fashion.DGG

So you are trying to say that the Adolf Hitler article is written from Nazi-party approved sources? It's entirely (or almost entirely) written from the perspective of "the other side". The entire article is written from a "negative slant"...I don't see any party-approved sources. And, you really need to read the article more carefully - it's full of negative statements (like that he dodged taxes on Mein Kampf) or the statement that "Opponents unconnected with the SA were also murdered". Guettarda 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think he would have much objected to the article as a whole. The objective things that are said there are things he intended to do, knew he was doing, and generally did not try to hide. When he did what he did, he boasted about it. But back to our subject:

This should be such an article that the ID people could say--yes, it presents ID fairly. Naturally, we don't agree with the negative criticisms, but we have answered them, and anyone who believes as we do will see the merit of our case. And the strong evolutionists (like myself) could say, Yes it presents ID fairly, and it give our objections clearly, and although the ID people have tried to answer them, anyone who knows about science will see the justice of our case. DGG 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s not what WP:NPOV says. —xyzzy_n 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I totally endorse Philip J. Rayment's comments. Misplaced Pages has justifiably been called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation". No where is this more true than the hatchet jobs performed by admins on articles opposing evolutionary dogma, while they censor any criticism of the most rabid antitheists like Harris and Dawkins. Evidently their idea of NPOV is "agreeing with me". Compare The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages60.242.13.87 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A well balanced and well referenced article on a highly controversial topic. I would like to note that Rayment's objection that criticism is given too much weight is not conclusive. The controversy around ID and its total lack of success in the attempt to be accepted as science is much of what there is interesting about it, so the abundance of criticism in the article is absolutely justified. Kosebamse 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Adam (and to anyone else who is fixing the objections brought up here) - I'm satisfied that this article meets our criteria and all the valid objections have been dealt with. Finish off that last citation-requested tag and I'll promote the article. Raul654 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Houston, Texas

After discussing it with KP Botany, I've decided to reset this nom (previous FAC). Many of the problems brought up have been addressed, but there are some others outstanding. Raul654 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Gave this article a read, comparing it with the FA Seattle, Washington article. It's totally up there. Remaning problems which survived the last FACture are few, so I see little reason not to support this. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. I, having previously lived in Houston, agree with this article. It is mostly correct, with very few fallacies.--124.152.21.133 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Very few fallacies"? Can you expound on this statement? I supported the article last go-round and would be happy to support it again, but would like you to clarify this statement first. Thanks! --Jayzel 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I did compare this to the Seattle, Washington article and I found a few issues that prevent me from adding my support.
  • There is no mention of the city history in the lead. (See Misplaced Pages:Lead section.)
    • Founding/incorporation added Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Government and politics" seemed a little on the light side. Compare to the same section on the Seattle, Washington page. More than half of the section is actually focused on crime (specifically the Katrina-related crime rise), and there is little or no discussion of city politics.
    • Mostly moved to Politics of Houston when the article was being trimmed. Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Would like to note that the bulk of the crime statistics in the main article is actually text from the Demographics of Houston article, and was orginally located in that section.Deatonjr 21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The crime issue, while clearly notable, contains a lot of tactical detail. Similar details span only half a paragraph on the Seattle article. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, but I wonder if there is a Katrina-related page somewhere that could cover the crime effects of the population displacement in more detail? (For example, "Social effects of Hurricane Katrina".)
        • Revised, Postoak 23:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On a minor note, the illustration in the Demographics section appears only slightly related to the text. Perhaps the caption could be expanded?
    • Expanded Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nowhere does it mention Houston's smog problem. Wasn't Houston named the city with the dirtiest air in the U.S. in 1999?
    • Added to climate section. Postoak 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also why was it brought back for FAC if there are still outstanding problems from the previous cycle? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul agreed to reset the nom, as KP Botany felt most of his objections were fairly minor and shouldn't be too hard to deal with. Trebor 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support — I'm pleased to change my preference to support after the edits. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Postoak 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I really want to support, as this is better (in some cases much better) than the existing FAs on cities, but a few points remain. For starters, have all the points on KP Botany's extensive list been dealt with? Could The Houston metropolitan area is served by several radio and television stations. be turned into something more informative. Ref #120 is missing an accessdate. The fourth paragraph of the lead seems to be given undue weight to the visual and performing arts; perhaps it could summarise the whole of the "Culture" section. Keep up the good work. Trebor 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the radio/TV sentence since they are in the "Further information" lists, Ref #120 fixed, the fourth paragraph of the lead was revised. Thanks, Postoak 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Many of KP Botany's issues were fixed, some have not. I (and hopefully some of the other editors) will review the list soon and verify that they were addressed. Thanks Postoak 18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, good job, I'll support after that. Trebor 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Please review the article and let me know how it looks. KP Botany's list is on my talk page. Thanks Postoak 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Support. A great article which, to my eyes, meets the criteria. Trebor 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, it still needs attention to detail, but the editor, who is working on all the points I posted, needs more time--like me, someone with limited Misplaced Pages free time, that's all. KP Botany 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support You really did an excellent job fine-tuning this city article. KP Botany 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany and Trebor, Thank you for your support! Postoak 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Nagorno-Karabakh War

This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Quotes should not be italicized, per the MoS.
2. Fair use images need to have a clearly identified copyright holder, source information and a fair use rationale (Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg, Image:Shilka AA.JPG, Image:Khojaly Massacre.jpg, Image:366th and Weapons.jpg, Image:Sumgaitrioting.jpg). Fair use images should be used as little as possible.
3. Images are missing source info Image:Nkr-army6.jpg, Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg
4. Image:Damage to Stepanakert.jpg; what sort of permission was actually given for the use of this image?

--Peta 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Done
2. All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here . The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
3. I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
4. Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Misplaced Pages contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here .

• Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral contributors raised problems with the prose, sources (too many news articles) and the length of the article in the last nomination. Bias and POV issues weren't among them and even they told you this. All of the books used are academic, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion that they compromise any of the facts. --MarshallBagramyan 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• The above two oppose comments are ambiguous at best and seem to be there for the sake of opposing only. Unless they are expanded upon they oughta be disregarded.-- Ευπάτωρ 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment All quotations should have citations, and whoever said each quotation should not be included within the quotation marks. —Cuiviénen 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done.--MarshallBagramyan 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The page essentially became a site of Armenian POV, yet again claiming that Karabakh was "made" part of Azerbaijan by Stalin. This is not true, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was "established within" Azerbaijan SSR by the decision of Kavbureau in 1923. Atabek 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you guys please go a little bit further besides claiming its propaganda and lies? The sources do back up the information.--MarshallBagramyan 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is pretty much obvious that Azeris editors like Grandmaster would always oppose to the nomination of this article, and probably some Armenian editors too. Batabat is a newly registered user, this vote being his 9th edit here. Tabib will also always oppose, he is working with political parties in Azerbaijan and we can't expect him to ever accept FA on this article until it becomes the official view of the republic of Azerbaijan.
• So a note to the Armenian and Azeri editor, I think it is best for both parties concerned to not vote, comment, but do not vote. Anyway, I will refrain voting myself. Fad (ix) 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed w/ both Marshall's and Fad(ix)'s comments. This article has been fixed up well since the last FAC nomination (which failed to pin-point any POV problem). The same old issues brought by the Azeri editors on this page have been discussed 1000 times. I agree w/ Fad(ix) that we should let non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors vote. - Fedayee 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a clarification, I did not say we should leave non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors to vote, but rather that I think it would be best if such was to happen. Fad (ix) 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would also wanted to vote, but Fadix mad a good point. I rather not vote since Azeri users would oppose and Armenian users would support. The best would be to let non Armenian and Azeri users to vote on this article. ROOB323 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose For the time being, the page is not ready yet, let's return to this issue later, once more sources will be added and this page will become save quality as featured articles should be. --AdilBaguirov 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support - This article is well written has over 60 references, the image problems have been solved, and obviously this section has been invaded by Turkish nationalists. Nareklm 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have the authority to speak for Raul, but I can say that I am certain that any and all oppose votes by Azeri editors and any and all support votes by Armenian editors that provide flimsy or no reasons for supporting or opposing will be ignored. Please don't even bother. —Cuiviénen 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Mardavich 07:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - (Upgraded to strong support after many fixes were made to article. --Petercorless 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)) Prior "Conditional Support" discussion: I just went through the article, proofreading and making a few minor editing changes towards the grammar and syntax of the article. Since I am not an expert on the conflict, and since most of the references were to off-line sources, I cannot comment on the veracity of its claims. My main reservation is that it does not follow the form of citation templates favored by Misplaced Pages. I wish to see the templates replace most of the presently unstructured textual footnotes. As a neutral observer I did not sense any heavy bias, though quotes from Armenian sources might be balanced by a few comments by Azeri sources. Aside that, I have to say the article read very clearly and would be a fine featured article. I would not wish to see partisan political opposition sideline the forwarding of an article which helps illuminate the conflict. --Petercorless 11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Optional suggestion: Create a parallel article for diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to ameliorate or end the conflict, similar to Diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in the Somali Civil War, which can also cover events since the end of the conflict to the present day. --Petercorless 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I also just got rid of the last italicized quotation. --Petercorless 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have objections to the quotes. For example this quote: Congratulations on your earthquake. Nature has spared us the trouble is taken from the book by Melkonian, which is definitely not third party. No one has ever seen this telegram, and it is nothing but allegation of Armenian sources. Grandmaster 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are specific quotes like this, which are considered objectionable or of questionable origin, we can discuss excising them. Is there any other independent source of this quote? I did not find anything on Google. Of course, I have no visibility into original language sources. Thoughts on the value of this quote versus its divisiveness? --Petercorless 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has much informative value, same as other quotes included. Grandmaster 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamil Basayev was just snipped from the list of commanders; his own biography notes his possible involvement in the NK-Azeri conflict. Would anyone have a reference to prove this assertion, or should his name be excised? --Petercorless 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He was involved, but not as a commander of Azerbaijani army. He was just one of the Chechen fighters who fought on Azerbaijani side at the early stage of war. Grandmaster 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So? He was a commander of a faction allied to the Azeri army.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's this kind of careless attitude towards editing that spoils the page overall -- what is meant by "so?" That's the point, this is an encyclopedia, and only verifiable and correct information should be featured -- there is a big difference between commander of the entire Azerbaijani Army and a commander of a Chechen battallion of maybe 100 fighters, who was there only for the first half of 1992. Meanwhile, the Russian commanders who led Armenian troops, such as Anatoliy Vladimirovich Zinevich, a Major General and even "Chief of the Nagorno-Karabakh Army Headquarters", should be mentioned, as should be other mercenaries that fought on Armenian behalf (you can read Zinevich's interview in Yerevan's VREMYA newspaper in Russian, 24 August 1996, p. 3, by Ara Tatevosyan, MOSKOVSKIYE NOVOSTI staff correspondent, entitled "Once a Russian General...") Zinevich died only recently, with both President Kocharyan and next President Sarkisyan attending his funeral. --AdilBaguirov 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this in the most elemantary language possible, That column does not list the commanders of the Azeri national army. It lists the commanders of the factions fighting against Armenians. In addition, Bassayev and the Chechens were not mercenaries! Likewise, the Afghan/Al-Qaueda terrorists were also not mercenaries.-- Ευπάτωρ 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Earthquake source. Hey Peter, here is another source from TIME Magazine that supports Melkonian: A Journey into Misery (page 3): "Sometimes these tales of grief from the earthquake zone merged seamlessly with horror stories of brutal rapes and beatings during ethnic clashes last February in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. The people I spoke with insisted that after the earthquake, Azerbaijanis refused to help, announcing that "Allah has finally heard us." Some claimed that trains from the neighboring Muslim republic were even scrawled with graffiti reading DECEMBER 7. HAPPY HOLIDAY!" If it would help I can replace his book with this source. Zinevich falls under a CIS mercenary, Basayev is included because he is a notable figure.--MarshallBagramyan 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• On citation style. I believe you are right Peter but I think that adding the template would easily add several kilobytes of space on to the article.--MarshallBagramyan 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What's ridiculous is the "CIS mercenary" terminology (?!) - the Maj-General ended up staying in Armenia and dying there just some time ago, and was far more important and prominent than any mercenaries that fought on Azerbaijani side. Moreover, the page lacks references and citations of UN documents, which outline several instances of mercenaries fighting for Armenia, including Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces), who were captured in 1993 and released because of an appeal of President Yeltsin. Then what about the EXECUTION of several Azerbaijani POWs, which Western human rights organizations have slammed?

Meanwhile, the most ridiculous of all is the total disrespect to, and lack of knowledge of, the fact that Azerbaijan SSR and Azerbaijanis were among the FIRST to help Armenia after the eqrthquake -- even though it coincided with a mass-scale ethnic cleansing of 165,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia in Nov-Dec 1988 (plus the remaining 50,000 or so thousand Azerbaijanis and Kurds later)! That's right -- Azerbaijan sent a military plane full of supplies to Yerevan, and due to a very suspicious "mistake" by ground operators, the plane crashed and all but one have died. No one in Armenia mentions this, and there is no memorial or otherwise thanks. Also, all hospitals and spas (pansionats) of Kelbajar region were urgently made room at, so as to accomodate Armenian victims of the earthquake -- some 2,000 people, from what I remember reading the Soviet press back then (it should be available in the FBIS translated into English articles too, see December 1988 digests). Also, there are references in Azerbaijani press that all the blood donated by Azerbaijanis was smashed by Armenians with exclamations "We don't need blood of Turks". However, not very sure if all these references from both sides are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Long thing short -- this article is not ready, it is POV and lacks balance. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, but atrocities were committed on both sides; don't act as if Azerbaijan was an innocent party twiddling its thumbs during the war. Should I introduce instances of rape of captive Armenian women by the Azeris during the war? Of prisoner torture and abuse in Baku? Of course because then that will start pathetic POV war that up to one year now, this article has avoided. I don't doubt Azeris sent help after the earthquake but after multiple pogroms in Azerbaijan (Sumgait, Kirovabad, etc.) I don't doubt Armenians rejected, understandably, aid from Azerbaijan either. But the quote highlights the ethnic tensions prior to outbreak of war and its not supposed to be casting aspersions on any of the sides. More than 1,200 Armenian families left Sumgait after the pogrom, which was one of the ultimate reasons why the conflict grew worse, which is why many Azeris left Armenia and Armenians from Azerbaijan. None of the third party observers are seeing these silly errors Adil. Please be more constructive in your criticism.--MarshallBagramyan 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a systemic bias. If you (AdilBaguirov, others) have citations of UN documents of mercenaries, or the refutation of someone's status as a mercenary, bring the titles, dates, and URLs to the table. Offer them with a positive "can-do" spirit, and presume goodwill as the basis of our work. No stonewalling or grandstanding. Before we start devolving into who-committed-the-worse-atrocities, or who didn't thank who for extensions of olive branches and aid, let's keep in mind we are seeking to construct a sober, rational document of what happened -- not to inflame a vivid re-eruption of partisan emotions and griefs. For those of you for whom the issue is to close to your heart, take a step away from the monitor, take a deep breath, and come back with constructive comments on how to improve the document. I think people are willing to accommodate changes which are citable and verifiable. Please avoid polarizing claims and accusations. Thank you. --Petercorless 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is becoming ridiculous. Including Azerbaijani members know very well that Azeri having celebrated the earthquake is well documented, here another two sources.

A sever earthquake hit northwestern Armenia on December 7, 1988. The news was greeted in Azerbaijan by cheers in student dormitories and celebration in the streets. Armenia- portraits of survival and hope Par Donald E. Miller, Lorna Touryan Miller, Jerry Berndt, University of California Press, p.7

However, even the massive earthquake which devastated parts of Armenia failed to bring about a diminution of tensions in the area, and the Soviet press noted that some Azerbaijanis openly rejoiced over this tragedy. Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), p.668

Some members would really like to have this article as a conform copy of the official Azerbaijan republic vision.

And here, I am addressing to non-Armenian, non-Azeri members. I advice those members to go on and read the Khojali section of the article. Marshall has tried to do everything to satisfy the Azeri members, even as far as tainting sections with Azeri POV. The wording is harsher than the Armenian Genocide intro. If some Azeri members are not satisfied now, with such unjustifiable concessions, does anyone think they will ever? Both Azeri and Armenian members know that while Marshal has presented the moderate estimates of the losses of Khojali to be on the over 400, the moderate estimates in scholarship publications is in the range of between 100-200. See for instance, Roberta Cohen and Francis M Deng book The Forsaken People- Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, Brookings Institution Press 1998 p.260, or Vitaly V. Naumkin book, Central Asia and Transcaucasia: Ethnicity and Conflict, Greenwood Press, 1994 p. 95. I have also provided the fist Azerbaijani official figures supporting that contention and many other sources on that, on Khojali tragedy article itself.

Marshall has gone out of his way to voluntarily make concessions, and various, here was one example, to taint a little bit to satisfy the Azeri members. And this is how he is thanked by those same members.

But here is the situation; many of the members here are not in Misplaced Pages in good faith. Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views. Then we have new members just recently created suspected to be socks, like Atabek, Dacy etc., who had no better than maintaining Adil versions and pushing over them.

So, if Raul want to take a fair decision, and while I admit to be maybe biased, while this would be involuntarily, I think it would be best to only take into consideration members who have not been involved with Azeri-Armenian conflicts on Misplaced Pages. For now, this is all what I wanted to say. Fad (ix) 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is truly ridiculous -- Fadix is overstepping all boundaries with his repeated defamation and harassment of myself and another user, Tabib, as well as groundless and false claims about other well-established users like Dacy69 and Atabek. Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to criticism is not the best way to deal with the issue. It is very sad that Fadix consumes so much space to slander other Misplaced Pages contributors, who do not hide behind the nicknames and contribute under their real names. Adil has a very good point. How come that the article lists Shamil Basayev as an Azeri commander, while he was never in charge of any unit of Azerbaijani army and never commanded any military operation during the NK war, and at the same time, the article never mentions such a prominent Russian mercenary as Zinevich, who was a chief of stuff in the Armenian army, let alone listing him as a commander. This shows that the article is very superficial. As for the telegram, neither of the quotes presented prove its existence. Time Magazine reporter only repeats what he heard from Armenians, plus they told him about some graffiti, and Fadix’s quotes are not about the telegram either. Grandmaster 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slandering? No, I am actually describing the situation in which we are. Fad (ix) 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say Bassayev was an Azeri commander? Am I blind or are you blind? The footnote states he was in command of Chechens fighting against Armenian, for Azerbaijan obviously. No point to list mercenaries, unless they are notable individuals. I don't se how this guy is notable. Besides, Azeris had more money and had more mercenaries, if we start listing them guess who gets the shorter end of the stick.-- Ευπάτωρ 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Create an article on Zinevich and I'll include his name in the column (that is if it falls under WP:N. Your vague, stonewalling objections are becoming more superficial and non-existant as they come. Most of the neutral observers have pointed out actual problems in the article that I have no objections to rectify, but POV issues is not one of them. --MarshallBagramyan 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources." To dismiss a reference as "worthless" simply because it is Armenian or Azerbaijan, is not sufficient, and smacks of extreme chauvanism. Let's avoid that, shall we? Meanwhile, conversely, let's leave out attacks ad hominem and stick with critiquing the article, thank you. --Petercorless 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He's been doing this from the beginning, this is just the point of the iceberg, if you even knew all the racist trash he is known to write..., when I answer to this sort of stuff I am warned for personal attack. Anyway, Zuljan, is not an Armenian. Adil purpously added the 'i' to make it sound as if he is an Armenian. Zuljan is a Slovak name, not Armenian. Fad (ix) 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask all parties to avoid speaking of personal past relationships. Let's focus on the output of the work. Comments should be directed towards the quality of the article, Thank you. In regard to Zuljan's heritage: what point are you trying to make specifically? --Petercorless

Petercorless, the "ian" ending is an Armenian family name ending. Adil added the "i" to make it "ian." He modified the authors name to then claim he is an Armenian and dismiss the article on the bases that an Armenian contributed. I just clarified that Zuljan is a Slovake author not Armenian. Fad (ix) 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True. A Slovak is not an Armenian. Thank you for clarifying your logic. Let's move on. --Petercorless 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. After some further thought, I suggest that all of the quotations used to head sections be removed. They're unencyclopedic, instead making the text more of a narrative than a presentation of facts. It might be useful to mention some of the quotations in the body of some sections as appropriate, but only if they add significantly to the understanding of the section. —Cuiviénen 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Marshall, I agree that placing quotations on the lead of each sections is not encyclopedic, it gives more of a sensationalist look to the article, like the magazines bolding sensasionalist phrases in leads etc. Fad (ix) 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I removed some of the quotes and integrated those I felt were most relevant into the text. How does it look now?--MarshallBagramyan 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consider to achieve a peer review and A-class rating on the Military history project. Several NPOV issues still remain, for example already in the lead: "As the war progressed, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both former Soviet Republics, became enveloped in a protracted, undeclared war as the latter attempted to curb a secessionist, irredentist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh". The opening of the background is one-sided. A POV could be traced in the referencing (6 Armenian sources). --Brand спойт 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that added the comment as to it being a irredentist movement, because this is how the conflict is objectively classified. Irredentism is a cause of many ethnically-driven conflicts in the world. Citing that as a cause of the war is not a validation nor a refutation of either side, nor is that description particularly partisan. It is an objective description of why there was fighting in the first place. --Petercorless 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus-building

Folks, we need to develop a consensus about the quality of the article, and avoid personal aspersions or even comments about those commenting about the article. Why a person votes for or against an article matters to me far, far less than "Is it a good article or not?" I wish to use objective evidence, not subjective personal political positions. That said, I wish to address some of the issues brought about above, which are getting buried under cross-talk.

• Footnotes -- If it makes for a better article, add the formatting. In the case of this article, it would help the professionalism and standardization of the citations. Laziness is no excuse. Neither is byte count.
  • Saw fixes - excellent! --Petercorless 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Main leaders of factions should be shown in the infobox. If you want to have a more comprehensive list of military leaders of each of the participants, and perhaps a list of units under their command, you can have some sort of order of battle or leader listing in the article. It can include both civil and military leaders, wheras the infobox should be for military commanders only. Example: War in Somalia (2006–present): Key people.
• Earthquake seems notable to mention, and I suggest to add the related verifiable published newspaper/magazine/book references so long as we do not beat a dead horse or argue ad nauseum. If there are objections, ensure to cite who made such claims to show they were assertions as opposed to provable/verifiable fact. If there are counter-arguments that these events or expressions never occurred or did not occur as asserted, then cite a published source where the refutation was made. No personal assertions or POV-based excisions. Back your statements. If you cannot, we won't delete simply because you find it an objectionable topic or reference.
• Quotes at the start of sections -- Personally, I liked them as a stylistic engagement of a reader. But yes, they can be argued to be non-encyclopedic that way. Some of those taken away could be worked back in to the paragraphs either inline or as cquotes for the section.
• Seems close to ready -- aside from some minor and often technical disputes which are never going to be resolved unless people put down partisan positions, this article seems about 95% ready for FA status. Remember that no article is ever complete, and just because FA does not mean the article is enshrined in a temple somewhere. --Petercorless 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I believe we got points 2 (for the most part) and 3 squared away. --MarshallBagramyan 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another comment:

• Non-"third party" objections of sources -- If this was an article about World War II, it would be allowable to quote from either Churchill's six-volume history of World War II, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as both individuals were personally and primarily involved. You cannot toss away a primary source by calling it POV. What you can do is note who the source is, and ensure that assertions, allegations, and other non-verified claims or opinions of an author, even if a primary source, are properly contextualized. --Petercorless 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK

I will remind that we are not simply supposed to throw up any roadblock to progress we can find in Misplaced Pages's arsenal of templates, especially if said template additions are not followed by a related discussion or citation of what the problems are. Talk rationally, thank you. --Petercorless 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I already explained that Basayev was not a commander in Azerbaijani army, still he is listed as such in the commanders section. I also provided a full text of Kavburo resolution, which says that Nagorno-Karabakh was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and not awarded. The article clearly provides inaccurate info with regard to these issues. Grandmaster 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Basayev was not a commander in the Azerbaijani army. He is not listed as such. He is listed as a commander during the war. He is not listed as a commander of the Azeri army. Stop this malicious nonsense. It's understandable why you're seeking to remove this fact from the article but it's just silly. -- Ευπάτωρ 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind civility. Second, the two warring sides were Armenia and Azerbaijan, so Basayev should be a commander in the either army to be listed as commander. I'm not trying to remove Basayev from the article, he can be mentioned in the text along with people like Zinevich, but the attempts to present Basayev as a commander are deliberate misinformation. Grandmaster 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. He need not be part of the Azerbaijan army to be listed as a commander in the Infobox. He simply needs to have been a commander of a notable faction or formation. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dodging the issue by saying mind civility is uncivil and uncalled for. No, the two principal warring sides were the NKR Army and Azerbaijan. Both sides were supported by others. NKR by Armenia and Azerbaijan by Afghan mujahedin and Chechen guerillas commanded by Basayev. In addition each side employed mercenaries. Basayev with his Chechens was as much a part of the conflict as Azerbaijan was. Basayev cannot be compared with Zinevich since Zinevich was a mercenary while Basayev was not.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You cited no sources to support your claim that Basayev commanded any military unit. He fought in Karabakh, but none of your sources say that he was anything other than a soldier. And again, Basayev did not command any military operation, while Zinevich was chief of stuff in the Armenian army. Grandmaster 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are countless sources that name Basayev. Even De Wall: " One of the last fighters to leave Shusha was the Chechen volunteer Shamil Basayev,". He was a commander of batallionm always has been..

President Dudayev soon dispatched Basayev to Azerbaijan to assist the Muslim Azerbaijani national army in fighting the Russian-backed Christian Armenian...:-The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror - Page 13 by Paul J. Murphy. This book: Caucasus: A Journey to the Land Between Christianity and Islam - Page 186,by Nicholas Griffin - 2004 - 248 pages writes extensively about Basayev and his dirty deeds for Azerbaijan. Link:-- Ευπάτωρ 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps his role should be detailed specifically in the text as well as the Infobox. Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. Was it in an older year entry? I also suggest to add it to Basayev's own Misplaced Pages entry. Again, please use reliable sources, and since there seem to be doubts, put in more than one if possible. If his alleged battalion had a name or designation, it should also be cited. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA information is about the role of Armenia. It says that Armenia occupies part of Azerbaijan's territory. Grandmaster 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, quit parsing the words and arguing semantics with these trivial points. If he lead a unit into combat then that makes him a commander. --MarshallBagramyan 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Basayev did not fight in Karabakh, show me a source that proves that he commanded any significant military unit or was in charge of any operation by Azerbaijani army. Otherwise he cannot be listed as a commander. And even if he was a battalion commander, he still does not qualify to be listed there. You cannot list every battalion commander in the list of commanders. Also, Armenian sources have obvious bias in this issue and cannot be trusted. Grandmaster 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a foreign command with a foreign commander, there are times when it is appropriate to cite the external force, and other times when it is not appropriate. If this was a squad or platoon of advisors, that would be one thing. Once you are talking about a battalion commitment, that is arguably a sufficient force for citation in the infobox given the scale of the war. Also, while the force itself is not major, I believe the point that is trying to be illustrated is the convergence of Islamist forces in support of the Azeri government. For that purpose, it is significant and duly notable. Those who assert his presence in NK, also cite sources on the alleged size of the force he commanded. Transfer further discussion to the Talk page. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of commanders should include those who were in charge of military operations, and not every minor military leader. Plus, we have no sources to support the claim that Basayev commanded anything at all in Karbakah war. We only know that he fought in Karabakh. He might as well be just a soldier. On the other hand, Russian general Zinevich was chief of stuff of Armenian forces, so he definitely belongs to the list, while Basayev does not. Basayev can be mentioned in the text, but should not be listed as a commander. Grandmaster 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Continue on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh War. Not here. --Petercorless 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gush, not this AGAIN. Grandmaster we've been there, two Administrators have mediated the whole thing on the NK and you've wasted the time of countless numbers of users on this for months. There has been various sources on that, and both administrators, including all the other members beside you have opposed to this word. You much know why Kavburo resolution contained that word, this was discussed for a very long time. No one is interested to bring this for a year, two year, three year. Fad (ix) 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And you remember that we agreed on a compromise wording, which is not what the current version of this article states. Grandmaster 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know what the compromise was, you know I left the article because I had no time to waste fighting over one single word. Bring this with the other members who were still there. But there is no any single word used there as POV as "left." Fad (ix) 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither were the words "awarded", "granted", etc. We avoided such wording altogether. Grandmaster 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Awarded and granted are more acceptable and more accurate wordings than left. Something can not be left in an entity which was just created with no official borders. But we can claim that the one having created it "granted" or "awarded" it. Also, I havent seen you editing it with the wordings of NK main article, you have rather replaced it with the term left which you knew was more opposed by the 2 administrators and members than the terms "granted" and "awarded." Fad (ix) 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to distort the facts. This was my edit, which was reverted by certain people: I proposed a compromise in line with the main article about Nagorno-Karabakh, but you insist on your prefered version, despite it contradicting the text of Kavburo resolution. Grandmaster 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I recommend to transfer the discussion to the talk page, the nomination already has a long tail. --Brand спойт 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, the major issues have been addressed. The arguing over minor semantic differences should be handled on the Talk page henceforth. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. If you check the link next to Chechen Volunteers and Basayev's name in the infobox, you'll see that its a clickable link refers to a book I added. The number 2 citation follows the "Republic of Armenia" in the infobox where it refers to the participants in the conflict.--MarshallBagramyan 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The problem is in the fact that note and note in the infobox occurred twice. I made the link to the CIA Factbook a standard citation template. Also, as many, many, many of the military conflicts on Misplaced Pages have to do with unrecognized or de facto states, I dropped the note from RNK. --Petercorless 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support, per nom and Petercorless. --Pejman47 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC); I see that objection of User:Piotrus to citations of some claims in the article is withdrawn: so stronger!

• Strong support, per nom. -- Aivazovsky 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong supprt, Marshall has taken care of all the minor issues. - Fedayee 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object. There are still several important claims missing citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And now?--MarshallBagramyan 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn, and I am impressed by how quickly you provided all the refs I requested :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blessed be the search tools Proquest, JSTOR, the free TIME archives and the mundane Google ;)--MarshallBagramyan 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article criteria and call for consensus - As per Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, the page seems well-written and comprehensive. Issues of factual accuracy and neutrality, including extensive footnoting, have been addressed to the general satisfaction of most, though there are definitely going to be some who would oppose the NPOV issue no matter how many revisions it goes through. Even for the changes, the vast bulk of the text remained stable. Many of the objections listed above have been addressed already. While my own view is that the article is ready for FA status at present, given the extensive discussions above, we have a few options:

• Approve it as it stands now, in recognition of changes incorporated since the start of this review.
• Fail it or agree there was no consensus for this FA candidacy.

Thoughts? --Petercorless 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is always going to have its detractors; many of those who opposed the article did it outright, listing that it was misrepresenting history which is only about 5% of this article, in other words, it does not correspond to their (point of) views. Those who have objected due to more realistic concerns (i.e. sources, citations style, etc.) have voiced their support so I think we'll go with option 1 :) --MarshallBagramyan 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but if possible more images of Azeri soldiers/equipment should be added. Mieciu K 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. We seem to be about evenly split in votes supporting and opposing. Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Grandmaster, you seem to be the main proponent of a certain viewpoint in the discussion. Is the article now at a good state of readiness in your opinion? What would be needed to change your vote from "Object" to "Support" at this time? Or should we move for "no consensus" at this time, and try again in a future round? --Petercorless 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Not to mention that one of them was found to be a sock puppet . But I'm surprised as to why Brand and Peta have yet to reply in regards to the changes made on the issues they originally raised. Asides from GM, does anyone else have objections to this article's FAC? Eupator, Fadix, and Roob23 were also to raise their support for the article but abstained for the sake of having it attain FA support via 3rd party editors, which it broadly has. --MarshallBagramyan 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs more work. The Azerbaijani side of story is not fairly presented (you can see it even by photos), and the problems that I mentioned have not been rectified. You may have noticed that none of Azerbaijani editors voted in support of this article. You may discard their votes, but this fact shows that the article lacks objectivity, otherwise they would have at least abstained from voting. Fadix blames the position of Azeri users to ethnic bias, but if it was so, we would have voted against other FA articles created by Armenian users , which we did not. But since this article has a direct relation to Azerbaijan, the opinions of Azeri editors should be taken into account. Grandmaster 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article is still biased, especially in the background section. The numbers provided for Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic composition in 1923 are based on two sources - one clearly Armenian, the other one from 1921 when Nagorno-Karabakh did not exist and therefore its borders could not have been determined. However when Nakhichevan and its being part of Azerbaijan are mentioned, nothing is said about its predominantly Azeri population. Parishan 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nakhichevan was not the reason why this conflict began. Its impossible to satisfy all sides, whether you're Armenian or Azeri. I've had to revert this article and others several times whenever someone has injected Armenian POV. The images are not my problem, nor should they suggest that I hand picked those favorable to a certain POV: no one, asides from Baku87, bothered showing me images of the Azeris fighting in the war which I would more than happily accepted into this article. It does not show it lacks objectivity when only Azeri users are finding hints of systematic bias. It simply means that they do not agree to the current version because it does not correspond to their POV, that's tough luck because it definitely does not correspond to the Armenian, nor any other interested party, POV either. That is why the problems raised by the neutral contributors have found little to no traces of POV, all of which, if found, they or I have quickly sought to fix.

The content is biased and tendentious -Tabib

The content contains historical distortions and verbal manipulations while using sources in order to create an impression that NK used to be part of Armenia and was transferred to Azerbaijan by accident (which is nonsense, like 2+2=5) - Batabat

And so forth. We cannot be listening to Azeri editors if all they complain about is who Karabakh belonged to in 1921 or 1923 or who or what gave it for. Images, yes; troop numbers, yes; command decisions, yes but 97% of this article is about the war and yet seemingly, we are focusing on what words we should use in the background section. I have spent little over a year focusing on what went on with the war rather than drag through on the reasons that brought it which, although important, does not solely merit an oppose vote to block and stonewall an article because someone disagrees on the way it is written. If its not Karabakh's population in 1923, its the death count and perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre, or its the casualty count and actions of Khojaly, or its the circumstances of the capture of Shushi, or its the capture of Kelbajar - certain people are always going to have problems with this article, but that does not mean the article itself is problematic and filled with errors and inaccurate history.--MarshallBagramyan 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyam, I understand how frustrated you may feel after working very hard and very long on this article. Stay calm, even in the face of criticism, whether perceived as fair or unfair. Remember that even a very few words can be "show-stoppers" to people. While I am not validating removing any specific text at this time, nor offering that we fundamentally rewrite (or whitewash) the background or any elements of the article to please partisan audiences, we need to consider how to resolve and conclude the present FA discussion. Nakhichevan is mentioned a good number of times in the article. Might it be worthwhile to make a brief description of the contrast between how Nakhichevan, as an Azeri exclave, resolved quite differently than NK, as an Armenian exclave? Something very high-level, including general population sizes, influences, and results. Perhaps a small table or sidebar? Bullet point comparison? If we do include something like that, would it be an element editors would support, or oppose? I'm trying to find the resistance points to FA status. Please, bring specific and constructive suggestions forward at this time. Presume and work in good faith, folks. --Petercorless 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There were a few skirmishes in Nakhichevan between Azerbaijani forces and the Republic of Armenia's military but much of the war rested on Karabakh Armenians who were fighting to secede from Azerbaijan. Perhaps the attacks there were diversionary in May 1992 due to the victories in Shushi and Lachin but its apparent that Azeri leaders were intent on keeping the region out of the caranges of war and so diffused the crisis within a matter of days (Nakh.'s Azeri pop. was in the high 90s by the breakup of the USSR). It never grew into a second front but I don't mind if someone wants to introduce something about it.--MarshallBagramyan 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Much improved since the last nomination. Therefore, I support.--Yannismarou 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great job Marshal. The changes since the last nom are astounding and well done.-- Ευπάτωρ 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda

Already a good article, and the most recent peer review came out with very minor issues—all addressed by now. The article is well written, very comprehensive, referenced, and accurate. I'm aware that the following is not a reason to feature an article, but it may be the most complete material available on the topic.

• Self-nomination and support. Per above.--enano 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Looks nice after a quick glance. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are no articles about the flag or the coat of arms. It isn't in a "Featured Article" status yet. Tomer T 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Tomer T, can you pls explain what policy or guideline requires a separate article about the flag or coat of arms of a municipality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As Sandy pointed out, that's not a requirement for FA, but since they were red links in the infobox, I have created stubs for both topics. See the flag and the coat of arms. Tomer T, could you please give more detail about your objection? What precisely fails as featured article status? Thanks.--enano 16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Support: The fact that there were no articles about the coat of arms or the flag really bothered me, because a featured article should be a role model. In this case, it should be a role model for articles about cities, and I think that a good article about a city must be an article that has articles about the coat of arms and the flag of the city. Now, that they were created, I Support. Tomer T 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I think this article is ready to be featured. --Ricardo Ramírez 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a contributor. I reviewed this article in its second peer review, helped check sources, and did some copyediting. I've watched Enano working on this article for a year; he has done an excellent job of putting together reliable information about El Hatillo (a place I know well), covering the entire Municipality while giving balanced treatment to the tourist haven that is the main town. Hard work, nice job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Cannibal Holocaust

Self Nomination I have followed the model of several other featured articles about movies, and I have included most present information about Cannibal Holocaust. It covers most aspects and information surrounding Cannibal Holocaust, I believe it is in a neutral point of view, it has several (30+) reliable sources, and is written in a comprehensible and formal tone. There are no copyright issues for images or sound files, and it has a well-written introduction. Helltopay27 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment woah.-BiancaOfHell 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's what I thought the first time I saw it. 70.226.12.49 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment at least one ref to EW.com needs to be fixed, as it appears to reference the entire website rather than an artcle. Please include the article title and retrieval date in case the link stops working one day. I'm about to read this though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I fixed the EW.com reference, including the access date (which was already present). I also truncated the synopsis slightly. Helltopay27 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support after a copyedit; it's a compelling read. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to oppose after some of my copyediting was inexplicably undone- in the plot summary, "executives" was changed back to the slangy "execs" and the sentence "The group’s first encounter with each tribe is the death of a Yanomamo woman" was restored- I don't think one group's encounter with another can be the death of an unrelated third person. You'd say that during the encounter, the death was seen or witnessed, or stood out.CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Response Sorry about that... I had to trim the summary down to less that 1000 words to avoid fair use issues and forgot about your changes. I'm correcting your copy-edits. EDIT: Your changes have been restored. If you still object to some copyedits, I'd be willing to change them. Helltopay27 16:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The gory stills, especially the one of the impaled woman, are very explicit, and I don't see that it's really necessary to actually use it in the article. I don't recall seeing any articles on pornographic films being illustrated with penetration footage, and as far as I'm concerned this is far more offensive. / Peter 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response The "stills" assist the article by depicting information visually, like every other article with pictures. The impalement scene is one of the most famous scenes in the movie, and it is highly talked about in the article. Also, the burning of the hut has no explicit gore, and the piranha photo has gore, but very little. Misplaced Pages even has disclaimers about upsetting content, and so I feel your argument lacks merit. Helltopay27 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy. Helltopay27 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm aware of the fact that Misplaced Pages shouldn't practice self-censorship, but the actual application of that guideline is in reality fairly restrictive. For example, the "depictions of human anatomy" generally don't go beyond neutral depictions of genitalia or drawn softcore illustrations of various sexual acts (which might be very difficult to imagine without those images). And while I am not a fan of any kind of moralization, I understand the real world attitudes that make such an interpretation necessary.

    And we're talking brutal, speculative, photo-realistic, sexualized gore in this case; a bloody, naked woman impaled through the ass. It's extreme! Allowing such imagery in an article that would eventually be featured on the main page would be too liberal a stance. It's not remotely comparable to what is otherwise tolerated, and there's already two non-photographic depictions of the scene in the article (the poster and the soundtrack cover). It's definitely not necessary to clarify anything other than its being horribly explicit, which is explained in some detail in prose. I think this should be solved by external linking to stills, like at Deep Throat (film). / Peter 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    Who says it'll go on the main page? That's for Raul to decide. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    Deep Throat isn't featured, but it still doesn't have a single shot of deep throating, even though the entire film evolves around it. Same thing goes for Basic Instinct where Sharon Stone's infamous crotch shot is clearly absent. And why not compare this with Salò, where at least a modicum of moderation has been applied to the choice of illustrations. What we're talking about here isn't notable because it's intended as social commentary, high art or even satire or parody; it's just gratuitous violence for shock value. And, again, it's already depicted twice in the article somewhat more stylized. So what's the point of displying it other than... well... extending that shock value? / Peter 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think I've found an image that is a good compromise. Helltopay27 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Still fairly gruesome, but it does seem acceptable for our purposes. Objection stricken. And a fine job in writing the article overall, I might add. With some of the additions and tweaks already suggested, I believe the article should considered to be of FA quality. Support. / Peter 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comments. I just noticed that the citations are burdened with a lot of redundancy both in terms of repeated use of the same footnotes and the applications of ref tags and citations templates:
  • The lead, even though it's supposed to be a summary of the entire article, is heavily cited, which doesn't make all that much sense, since all these facts appear in greater detail (with the same sources) later in the article. One source is used 4 times in just 3 sentences.
    • In "Production", the first paragraph cites the same source three times, even though it's the only one being used. Another repetition can be found in the last paragraph.
    • "Original Italian controversy" really only uses the same two footnotes (with one exception) throughout the entire section, but repeats them over and over, often in tandem. It would have basically no effect on the verifiability if they were reduced to one of each and placed at the end of the section.
    • Similar repetitions can be found in "Film influence" and "Releases and sequels".
  • Instead of using the <ref name="xyz"/> for repeated use of the same footnote, the full source info, including the bulky citation template, is used. / Peter 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Response I had thought of that, but it would inevitably lead to people saying that there weren't enough citations, or some people would put down where there weren't citations. EDIT: I've eliminated "redundant" sources, but if someone starts on with how there aren't enough, I'll change them back. Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object for now due to prose issues, for example:
  • Several instances of things like 'Another controversial aspect is that...', 'An irony is that...' - ugh.
  • 'Production began in 1979, when director Ruggero Deodato was contacted by "the Germans"' - what Germans? This is the first time Germans are mentioned in the text. What they contacted him about is also unclear.
  • 'but in order to keep it as an Italian film' - redundancy, but also unclear why two Italian actors make it an Italian film. Casting details in general read as strung-together bits of information.
  • 'Among others, actress Francesca Ciardi also had some unpleasant experiences' - not sure why she merits her own paragraph, but this is an awkward sentence in any case.
  • 'it was in the actors' contracts that they were not allowed in any type of media' - contracts with whom? Did the eventual appearance break the contracts, or was the clause dropped?
  • Why was it re-banned in NZ in 2006, and why is that a stuck-in parenthetical?
  • 'With the laxing of cinematic standards in recent years...' - 'to lax' shouldn't be a verb, and this sentence doesn't seem to mean anything. Does it intend to point to laxity of standards for content censorship?
  • Interpretations section lists a lot of possible interpretations as if they are fact, immediately after quoting Deodato that the interpretations are overstretched.
  • Generally, the text repeatedly refers to 'Ruggero Deodato'; we know who he is by now and you can just say 'Deodato'. Opabinia regalis 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Response I believe I've resolved each point that you've made.Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I no longer actively object to this article, but I'm not at the point of supporting either, due to prose and clarity issues. The final sentence in the plot synposis uses the first-person plural, not encyclopedic in tone; 'long time Italian horror screenwriter' needs a hyphen; 'Still, things were not in the clear yet' is a lame transition; '...usually because of unkind remarks from Deodato' - things aren't objectively unkind; presumably this was someone's observation and shouldn't be presented in the text as fact. I appreciate the attempt at clarification but I still don't understand why a film had to have a nationality (who imposed this requirement?) or why two actors who speak Italian make it an Italian film (when apparently all the actors who spoke English didn't make it a film of their nationality). Similarly, the circumstances of the actors' contracts - who they were with and why they weren't waived when the director was facing imprisonment. Opabinia regalis 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just came across a great article that addresses the nationality issue and explains not only why the films required a nationality, but what called for the nationality criteria (it was under Italian law, as a matter of fact). This information has been added into the article and should no longer be a problem. Also, I mentioned the contracts - they were with Deodato and the film's producers, and they were waived to avoid life in prison. Lastly, tell me exactly where the hyphen should be and I'll add it. Helltopay27 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Added the hyphen. I like the explanation about the nationality stuff now. In the controversy section, the article says 'Disregarding the contracts that the actors had signed with him in order to avoid life in prison, Deodato brought the foursome onto the set of an Italian television show' (btw, television show probably doesn't need linking). That implies to me that Deodato and the actors deliberately went against contracts that were still in force. If that's not the case, that sentence should be reworded. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Response Since Deodato was the holder of the contract, he was able to declare it void. If this is ambiguous, I'll change it. Helltopay27 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Opabinia regalis makes several good points on the prose; in addition the plot section is too long and delves into trivial details.--Peta 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I site Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which is a featured article with almost 200 more words in its synopsis. Helltopay27 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Episode II has a fairly complex plot compared to this film. The blow by blow summary in this article accounts for about 1/4 - 1/3 of the length of the article and raises issues of fair use.--Peta 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I must agree with Peta. The Star Wars films have a fully-developed background story and a very complicated mythology behind them. There's nothing like that in CH. / Peter 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I have narrowed the plot synopsis from 1101 words to 946 words. I think the trimming is adequate. Helltopay27 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Object It's on the right track but it needs some work still. My main concern is the writing, it's clunky, and needs to be copy edited for flow (I would even recommend rearranging the sections into a more natural order), the prose tightened up and redundancies eliminated. Also, the main sources for information seem to be the DVD supplements and reviews, which lends the article an anecdotal feel. I can understand the Cannibal Holocaust book being difficult to track down but surely it being such a notorious film there must be others that cover the topic. The horror community is large. Plus some other small things I'll list:
  • The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead.
  • Citation 2 is IMDb user comments which is not a reliable source. I understand the point you're trying to make with it but it's already adequately covered with the other two citations that sandwich it.
  • There's no mention of how well the film did. It's implied that it has a following and one can infer that it did well, as most controversial films do, from all the sequels and such but it's not stated explicitly. It's well known but how big is the fanbase?
  • The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Misplaced Pages has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px.
  • Unless you're planning to update the IMDb rating in the userbox for the rest of your life, I'd lose that. The IMDb is one click away making its use here of little value.
  • The first two paragraphs in Plot start with "the film" which is grammatically undesirable.
  • It was a sea turtle, wasn't it?
  • Beginning in the plot with Professor Monroe, and continued throughout the article especially with the director, people, seemingly at random, are referred to by their full name, then last name and back again. Use the full name once and then stick with he/she or the last name. This isn't a solid rule so there are exceptions but some pruning is in order here.
  • The transitions in the plot can be tightened up, for example "Back in the film," can be "In the film". Later, "Deodato, the film's producers and screenwrite, and the representative from United Artists" should be "Deodato, the producers, screenwriter and the United Artists representative". Who else's producers would it be?
  • There are some typos, "the film reels then end" (should be "ends"), "screenwrite" and "rain forest" is one word.
  • Citation 9 is the IMDb's trivia section which is stretching it reliability-wise. Plus, assuming the production start date was there at one point, it isn't anymore.
  • A lot of the wikilinks need to be DABed.
  • The tense fluctuates, most of it is past tense and then suddenly the director "would also spend three additional years" in court.
  • The reality TV and irony bits read like WP:OR and need sources.
  • Lose all of the year in film links, expect the first one, as they're low value. Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
  • The Controvery section should not have a subheading with controversy in the title.
  • BBFC should probably be spelled out in full once and definitely should not be wikilinked three times in the same paragraph.
  • Since all of the countries cannot be wikilinked to "Cinema of" articles, and because it's more the government than the film industry doing the banning, I would direct them all to the main country articles.
  • "A pig is kicked and then killed with a rifle when shot in the head by an actor." Didn't I read somewhere that the actor didn't shoot the pig himself? And that can be tightened up especially as it's in a list of animals that are killed. Perhaps, "kicked and shot with a rifle".
  • "Documentary" links to Mondo film (which is misleading) and then "Mondo" links to Mondo film in the next sentence.
  • There must be some reviews of the soundtrack, I'm not sure it qualifies as OR but surely there are some sources out there.
  • Releases should be Home video or DVD releases.
  • Natura Contro is wikilinked twice in the same sentence (under different names).
  • The See also section can be removed, all the links are included in the article except Cannibal boom which should be added under Influence (a little expansion about the sequels wouldn't hurt too.)
  • Citation 30 is a repeat of citation 19.
  • I'm unclear what the Deodato's involvement with Hostel: Part II is.
  • The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way.
• Finally, is there no information on how long the production and post-production were? Any audience reactions? Any protests? Anyway, it's a very good article. I've listed a lot of points but these are all fixable, I think. Keep at it. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • "The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead."
    • It's a weasel-worded statement that should keep its sources (or at least that's what I've read in Misplaced Pages's guidelines).
    • "It was a sea turtle, wasn't it?"
    • No, it wasn't. Why do you ask?
    • "The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Misplaced Pages has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px."
    • Site Misplaced Pages's fair use policy regarding images: images must be of low-resolution and of inferior quality to the original.
    • "The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way."
    • This is because of how the citation template is formatted.
    • "Releases should be Home video or DVD releases."
    • I site Jaws, which is from where I decided to format that particular header.Helltopay27 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good work. You're right, that is a bit weasel wordish. I'd recommend changing it to "some critics" and removing "important" as I haven't seen anyone claim it's a great insight but I have seen a number say it's heavy-handed. Then you should be able to make the lead citation free.
• I noticed some of the images came from here. Rather than listing the DVD as the source, the internet site should be used.
• All citation templates allow for "lastname, first name" usage.
• I'm going to change my vote to comment for now. I still feel the prose can be improved and the article isn't as comprehensive as it could be. A Google Books search didn't turn up anything substantial but browsing through reviews and various websites shows that there's more information to be had. Namely, it could be contextualized further within the cannibal genre, details about the filmmaking, audience reactions and responses. I didn't find any wellsprings of information in my Google searching but I'll check out some other cultish FAs and see how they handle information gathering and then reconsider my vote. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Then you should be able to make the lead citation free."
• "Some critics" is still a weasel worded statement (in fact, it's one of the examples on Misplaced Pages:Weasel words). Other than that, I think I can fix everything you've mentioned. UPDATE: I've added a section on the reaction (box office and critical response).

• Comment (maybe opinion later):Changing to Support after re-reading. Very thorough, probably the best that can be done about this film.
  • "Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."" How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
  • The Yanomamo seem to be an actual tribe. How about explaining whether they are or are not actually cannibals? Similarly, specify whether the Shamatari and Yacumo are real, and the extent to which they are accurately portrayed.
  • The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
  • "a cruelty previously unknown me" seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?
  • What's the source for the budget estimate?
  • Reference 11 (Geleng) has a "Retrieved on" but no link? --AnonEMouse 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "'Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."' How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
    • That's a direct quote from Deodato; they wanted a film "like Cannibal Holocaust," that is, like what would be the final product of Cannibal Holocaust, even though they didn't know what it was.
    • The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
    • I'm not sure how that would be relevant (his connection with Deodato has already been mentioned), but I'll add it somewhere if you see it fit.
    • "'...a cruelty previously unknown me' seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?"
    • That's a typo on my part. Also, after watching the program again, the quote is slightly off. It has been corrected.
    • "What's the source for the budget estimate?"
    • The "In the Jungle" program. Since it was in the infobox, I didn't really notice it. It's been corrected.
    • "Reference 11 (Geleng) has a "Retrieved on" but no link?"
    • There's a link, but it's on the next line down (at least it is on my browser).
      • It reads: {{cite video | people = Gelend, Antonio (interviewee) | year = 2003 | title = In the Jungle: The Making of Cannibal Holocaust | accessdate = 2007-02-10 | medium = Documentary | location = Italy | publisher = Alan Young Pictures}} There's an accessdate= field but no url= field. Also don't forget the part about the actual tribes; calling them cannibals is rather severe, and needs to be specified true (and if so, cited) or not. I don't know if an entire tribe can sue for libel, but if they can, they could have a case ... :-) --AnonEMouse 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The "url" field is only for the IMDb entry, and that's only if there is no Misplaced Pages article for the program. Since there is neither, the "url" field should be blank (cite Template:Cite video). Helltopay27 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Then so should the accessdate field. That's for when the URL was accessed, not for when you watched the video! The point is that "we guarantee this URL was good at such a time". The video won't change since the accessdate, the URL may well go away. --AnonEMouse 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah, crap, it appears you're right. I'm correcting that, and I've also added information about the tribes under Production. Helltopay27 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Thanks, supporting. One last nitpick - you write that many unofficial sequels were made: can you name a few, and/or provide a reference so that people who are interested can look for them? --14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Under the Controversy section of the article, i found the "moral crusaders" comment to be somewhat biased and non-neutral. Thats all i noticed wrong with the article. I dont think that just because some people would like to sensor the movie means they are crusaders neccessarily. RRM MBA 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Response Changed to moral activists. Helltopay27 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Compelling article. Makes me want to see the film again and read all of those sources. --Myles Long 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Fairy tale

Self Nomination I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, so I'm putting it up for FAC. Goldfritha 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty good, with lots of info and images, no unsourced statements, and a lot of references. I say it is FA quality 2Pac 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The article doesn't even mention Hans Christian Andersen, who is one of the most important people in this genre. --Maitch 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I add him, in what sense do you think him one of the most important people? Since I would like to address your actual concern. Goldfritha 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Or now that I've added some information. (He was already in the list of compilations of fairy tales). Goldfritha 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does the term "fairy tale" refer to a primarily European form of storytelling? This is the impression I get from reading the article, but it is not made explicit anywhere. If so, this should be mentioned in the lead, as it is important to distinguish it from other cultures' folktales. If not, the article is lacking information on Asian, African, and Native American fairy tales. Andrew Levine 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What information do you think is lacking? Goldfritha 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is either missing a statement that fairy tales are predominantly European in origin, or else If they are not primarily European) the article is too Eurocentric on the whole. Whichever one applies. Andrew Levine 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is not clear. What information is missing from the article that leads you to assert that it is "too Eurocentric on the whole"? Goldfritha 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is. If the fairy tale is a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article lacks any explicit mention of the fact. If the fairy tale is not a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article needs to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. Andrew Levine 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article does not need to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales just so there will be many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. The List of fairy tales exists to point to fairy tales. This article exists to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances; adding instances for the sake of adding instances is not strengthening it but weakening it. Goldfritha 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Swapping out a few of the European fairy tales discussed in favor of non-European ones is more along the lines of what I'm thinking. As it stands, this article merits a {{Globalize/Europe}} template. Andrew Levine 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure anything is missing here -- a fairy tale isn't particularly European, nor quite the same thing as a folktale (it's a subdivision of folktales as a whole). All of the information regarding fairy tales that the article presents would apply equally to Asian, African, and Native American tales. The objection might stem from the history seeming Eurocentric -- but quite a lot of the early development of the study of the genre was Eurocentric. I suppose in addition to the Arabian Nights and Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio, some other non-European collections could be mentioned (Lafcadio Hearn's Kwaidan is one that comes to mind), but part of the point of the article is that these tales are, at base, surprisingly similar to their European counterparts. Aside from that, I wanted to note that the references aren't all consistently formatted; some of them appear to be incomplete. The text of the article, though, is well-written, well-referenced, and reasonably comprehensive. Shimeru 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. First, it does need more about Native American and African fairy stories, I'd think a paragraph or even a full section on each, these are rich traditions. At least mention the very important Trickster motif which seems more common outside Europe. More specific complaints "According to a 2004 poll of 1,200 children by UCI Cinemas" - clearly needs a link or other reference information so we can find it. "Ethnographers collected fairy tales over the work" world, surely. The External links section is huge - many are more appropriate to the sub-articles, like on the Langs' tales. One paragraph talks about Briar Rose, and the next refers to Sleeping Beauty without any evidence that these are actually talking about the same story, we can't assume readers "just know". Why nothing at all about films, especially animated films? I'd think that to much of the world the Disney movies are now the iconic forms of Snow White, Cinderella, etc., and they introduced several other popular modern ones. Sorry, but you've picked a very big subject here, this article isn't comprehensive. If you don't think you have room in one article, then write a sentence or a paragraph with a clear "main article on this is here" link. Right now this doesn't have that. --AnonEMouse 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is distinctive about the Native American and African fairy stories that would require them to have a paragraph or even a full section?

By that "Trickster" comment -- do you want a section in the article about motifs in fairy tales?

I'll see if I can get a reference for that, or I'll delete it.

Corrected the word and the Sleeping Beauty article.

I'll take a stab at the external links and develop the contemporary fairy tales in other media.Goldfritha 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article isn't comprehensive. To be perfect, it needs to give an overview of nearly everything there is to say about fairy tales. It just doesn't. As so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales, but says nothing about African or Native American fairy tales, and doesn't point to an article that does. Here, let me contrast with another FAC I'm supporting, Solar System, up for review on this very page. That's another big topic, but that article does a much better job - it gives an overview of everything and refers to more specific articles for individual planets, units, history of discovery, history of exploration, etc. Notice the writers never say "What is distinctive about Uranus? Let's just leave it out." Yes, you need a section on common themes. You need a section on fairy tales from different regions and ethnic groups - all of them. You need to be able to answer any obvious question that comes to mind when a reader thinks about fairy tales, or at least give them an obvious pointer to what article they should go to for more details. Fairy tales are a huge topic, people get doctorates in this, many people devote their entire careers to this field of study. This article does not do that justice. --AnonEMouse 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that having separate sections on European/Asian/African/Native American fairy tales is probably not warranted and would look like tokenism if done that way. I like the way Goldfritha has added them in the past few days, weaving them in with the mentions of the European fairy tales, as it emphasizes the similarities between fairy tales across cultures rather than their different settings. I think the article is now not too far away from being ideal. Andrew Levine 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that if someone asked "What is distinctive about Uranus?" it would be simple to point out many things, from its discovery to its axial tilt. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And that if by "so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales," you are talking about the opening paragraph of the history section, may I point out that in that a lot of those "European" fairy tales -- aren't European? (If not, what section are you referring to?) Goldfritha 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for me it is still far from comprehensive - though I do appreciate the addition of the film sections, etc. For example, the Association with children section only addresses European stories by implication. Were Chinese, Japanese, African, etc., stories similary bowdlerized? We don't know. Don't you think we should? The Popular tales section says European stories are popular, and cites an extensive collection, the opinion of someone who is both an important writer and a literature professor, and a survey, great. However then it says that Arabian Nights stories exist, but doesn't say whether they are actually popular, and who says so. Are they? Say so. How popular, where? That's what the section is supposed to be about. Anyway, are any other stories -- besides European and Arabian Nights stories -- less popular? If so, say so, and why. If not, say so as well. It also uses the wonderful lines "all people" and "most people" as if they really referred to worldwide popularity, though I humbly venture that Tolkien wasn't considering, oh, 1 billion Chinese who wouldn't know Perrault from Grimm if they bit them. That whole section could be used as a poster child for eurocentric bias. I still only see Africa and the Americas mentioned in a single sentence for the lot. No. If you want to rename the article "European fairy tales", I'll look at it again. For an article purporting to be about all fairy tales, it falls dreadfully short. AnonEMouse 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read that section - who says Lang's work provides "excellent examples of the genre"? Shouldn't puffery like that be cited to someone? You can say it's extensive just from the pagecount, but "excellent" is a value judgement, not Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. --AnonEMouse 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's out. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that this is not a criticism of Goldfritha's work, which is clearly improving the article by leaps and bounds just since my first criticism. That's great work, and I appreciate it. It's just a big topic, that people really do write doctoral dissertations on. Maybe the idea I threw out above is the best way to go about this, start with a sub-article on the European fairy tale, which really could more usefully take in 3/4 of the current content of this article, and would probably "inherit" most of the support votes from this FAC. Please don't take it as personal criticism, you're clearly a good editor, and I'm glad someone like you is writing here. --AnonEMouse 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about "European fairy tales" and I vigorously oppose any attempt to rename it. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting for legibility. Struck some comments that have been addressed. New ones cropped up:

• • Puddocky is not a maiden in the Tower tale - inconsistent Capitalisation
  • "Anderson's work" - spelling
  • Where is the Chesterton quote from? You should always add a citation when quoting published material.
  • "The anime Magical Princess Minky Momo draws on the fairy tale Momotarō." - how? The Minky Momo article doesn't say anything about this.
  • You still haven't addressed the "fairy tales were altered for children" bit for non-European tales. If we're writing about Japanese anime, I'd say there's at least an equal amount of fairy tales being altered to make them actually pornographic....
  • There is still a heavy European focus, not just in the sources cited, but in the stories described - as a rough estimate, I'd say the article is 85% European, 5% modern American, 5% Chinese, less than 5% everything else. If it's not supposed to be about European fairy tales, you need to explicitly say why they're so heavily represented.
  • By the way, this complaint isn't just about the classic third world being left out - you're also leaving out American folk tales - Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Uncle Remus. Heck, how can you write an article about Fairy tale without mentioning Aesop? --AnonEMouse 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.

Fixed.

It's out.

I provided a reference.

The equal amount does not refute that they are also being altered for children.

That's not my point; you don't say that they are being altered for children, just "draws on" which could mean anything. Did this also started with the Victorians, only with the coming of anime, or when? Are African, Native American, South Asian, Middle Eastern fairy tales also being altered? How and when? Again, this section seems European focused. --AnonEMouse 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the tall tales article; therefore, Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill are unsuitable. So is Aesop, who wrote fables. Goldfritha 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess this goes to the insufficient definition of your main term, then, the one you have given -- "story featuring folkloric characters such as ... talking animals" -- seems to fit many fables quite well, and isn't far from tall tales either: Paul Bunyan is clearly a folkloric character, and though not one of the stereotypical ones of the definition list, neither is Bluebeard. Panchantra and LaFontaine feature prominently in both the Fable article and your Fairy tale article. That's a pretty strong objection, by the way, the article clearly needs to define its main term, and not in a way contradicted by the article's own main author. --AnonEMouse 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That a collection contains both fables and fairy tales, and that a writer wrote both fables and faiy tales, is not an argument that they are the same.

And just because I've done a lot of work on it does not make the "main author."Goldfritha 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose changed to Support -Susanlesch 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) at this time. Sorry but I do think you will get there eventually. By "modern versions usually have a happy ending" do you mean Disney versions of old tales? Or do you mean new tales written today have happy endings? Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers? Who did the publishers hire to illustrate the tales? Did that choice influence the popularity of some stories? Or do fairy tales exist apart from books? If so, who is responsible for repeating the tales? Did Disney influence the list of most popular stories? (When did Disney start to publish Little Golden Books? I don't know sorry.) Would it be helpful to say that the Brothers Grimm were German, that Andrew Lang was Scottish, that Hans Christian Andersen was Danish? -Susanlesch 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by the "happy endings" comment, since I didn't put it in, but it's easy to pull out.

"Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers?"

To quote the article: "The fairy tale was part of an oral tradition; tales were told or enacted dramatically, rather than written down, and handed down from generation to generation. Because of this, the history of their development is necessarily obscure."

Or, in other words, No. I can't give any such summary. No one else can either.

For what reason do you think Little Golden Books important enough for this article? Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Little Golden Books themselves don't belong here (unless you start talking about publishers). I meant to suggest they may give a date on which to hang Disney's influence. The release date of the Snow White (1937) and Cinderella (1950) films might accomplish the same thing. In the Popular tales section, we have Tolkien saying that people recognize tales of Perrault. The list of favorites made me wonder if and if so to what extent and when Disney replaced Perrault as people's source of information in their answers (the books are just one indication, e.g., they are labeled Movie or Television Tie-Ins at Random House).

Thank you for removing "happy endings," something that would have needed to be explained if it is true that tales have changed over time. On second read this article is a great deal better than I realized, and it was only the style of the treatment of facts I tend to scan for that had me lost. In other words, the people and titles of works are here. What I didn't see right away was that Panchatantra for example is Hindu and maybe 1700 years old. Sorry for that impatient reading.

After looking at Google I think you have the majority of the work done and very well. You may have seen parts of Twice Upon a Time in Google Books. I read it too fast but think Harries makes an argument that oral tales are separate from literary tales. If that seems reasonable, then one can give a factual history (countries, dates, persons) of the literary form, while keeping the view that the origin of oral tales is unknown. One of your external links has what looks like a suitable timeline that could be condensed into one paragraph of prose. But you and others will surely know better. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have included a history of literary forms, in the history section. Is your complaint that it doesn't have enough dates and countries? Goldfritha 15:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Goldfritha. Afraid I don't much like a change in vote being called a complaint. Thank you for removing the list of popular tales, a good edit that solved an issue. Yes, I think countries and dates are important. Dates would be enough, and here are some examples. "The oldest known written fairy tales stem from ancient Egypt", the Panchatantra or The Golden Ass, Carlo Gozzi and Pu Songling, Perrault's Cinderella, Lang and or Andersen and MacDonald. I have no more comments. Thank you and best wishes. -Susanlesch 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC). P.S. Another date that would help is some indication of when the Brothers Grimm worked. -Susanlesch 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You described something about the article as being wrong; I would say that a neutral description of such a description is "a complaint."

I will look at putting in dates, where available. Goldfritha 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More dates are in. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I know that "fairy tale" is a very hard genre to define, but it seems to me that the page lists lots of examples of fairy tales, some characteristics and lots of competing definitions. I think that it needs to pin down either a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. It is not easy to figure out what a fairy tale is from reading this page. Doing so might help you determine what traditions to include or not include on the page. Once a genre becomes so inclusive that it appears all over the world and all across time, one wonder how helpful the definition really is. Awadewit 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, arguing for WP:OR. Given that there are a lot of competing definitions of fairy tales -- and there are -- it is Misplaced Pages's place to report that and not to pin it down to a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. Given that folklorists agree that there are fairy tales all over the world and all across time -- and they do -- Misplaced Pages must report that, regardless of whether we think it would be helpful if it were more limited. Goldfritha 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If folklorists argue that fairy tales exist in all times and places, that is fine (I'll go argue with them, then). But I still feel that the page needs to tighten up its set of definitions. Certainly, among folklorists some definitions must be more accepted than others and it is those that should reflected in the wikipedia entry. I am just concerned that after reading this very thorough page, a reader may still not be able to say what a fairy tale is. Imagine reading it and then being asked to explain in a few short sentences "According to this article, what is a fairy tale?" I found myself unable to do so in a very coherent way and since the most important function of the page is to define the fairy tale, I feel that this is a problem. Awadewit 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article records that, in fact, the definition of fairy tale is unclear, less than coherent, and not capable of being defined in a few sentences without sacrificing accuracy about how the term is used. Some definitions are more accepted than others. Those are the ones I put in the article. Goldfritha 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this problem could be solved by simply organizing the article a little better. For example, could you create subsections for each definition? I think that such a division would greatly assist the reader in identifying the various definitions.Awadewit 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the competing definition are clear cut enough to make that feasible. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where is Bruno Bettelheim in all of this? His Uses of Enchantment is a standard interpretation of fairy tales. Awadewit 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a mention. Goldfritha 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I find this an excellent treatment of fairy tales. Goldfritha has done excellent work encapsulating a topic that is broad and, in itself, somewhat ill-defined. Shimeru 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good article. This is neither a support nor oppose, but I expected to find quite a few references to Roland Barthes here, but I see he isn't cited in the article. Is the lack of Barthes an oversight or is it simply not necessary given the cited work of Angela Carter and others?-- Zleitzen 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you expect to find him referenced here? Bearing in mind that the article is concentrating fairy tales and not interpretations and uses of them. Goldfritha 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me, Barthes - alongside Vladimir Propp and Angela Carter (who are cited in the article) - is a key text for students of fairy tales. In fact, why would this article not also mention interpretations and uses of fairy tales?-- Zleitzen 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It does mention them; it does not concentrate on them because this is about the tales, not the interpretations and uses.

Furthermore, there are a lot of authors who have written about fairy tales. Compare the counts from your search and from this one. or this one or even this one. Goldfritha 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive, well written and coherent. Fulfils all FA criteria. cheers Cas Liber 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Coil (band)

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

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

T-26

A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources, it's safe to say that the majority of them are secondary. Even Baryantinskiy's Light Tanks is built principally on Soviet archival evidence (or, at least, he claims so - no sources are actually given, but sourcing is rare in almost every tank book I have) and information he himself knows from seeing the tank personally, but it's secondary. I don't think I have any 'tertiary' sources. Maybe the only primary source is Freezing in Hell which is an interview published in Military History magazine. Given the subject of the article I think primary sources regarding use of the tank in combat are hard to comeby, especially considering the wars the tank was involved in. I personally don't own any combat memoirs of the Spanish Civil War, and I don't think combat memoirs of Soviet soldiers and generals oftentimes mentioned a tank that was overshadowed by the T-34 in importance. In short, they are all secondary sources. JonCatalan 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: Concerning unreferenced statements in the introduction, I felt that these were referenced in the body of the article and so didn't need to be referenced twice - especially since theoritical the body is also much more specific. There are a few statements at the end of paragraphs that I didn't feel needed a reference. Specifically (this is also for myself, so that I can make the changes when I get home):

• The T-26, however, saw wide and valuable service during the Spanish Civil War. - This end of the paragraph leads into a section that details the use of the tank in the Spanish Civil War. All referencing is in that section.
• Additionally, the Soviets would provide over 50 BT-5 fast tanks. - This sentence needs a reference (and will get one).
• The T-26 would remain the backbone of the Spanish armoured forces until the beginning of American military aid in 1953. - This sentence is actually repeated twice, and is referenced the first time it's mentioned. However, the first sentence's context is different, but the point is the same. I guess I should remove either of the sentences, and reference the one that's left.
• Given the lack of information on the latter upgrade attempts it is possible to deduct that both projects never got off the drawing board. - Is actually referenced the sentence before it. I'll move the reference in order to encompasse it all.
• Its perceived success fatally influence post-Spanish Civil War Soviet military thinking as it proved ineffectual against advanced anti-tank weapons and better-armed tanks. - This sentence was meant to lead into the next section, but there is a new section between the two old sections. I'll reference it.
• Below is a comparison of the different tanks used during the Spanish Civil War. - I don't think that requires a reference.
• The debacle in Finland persuaded the Soviet Union to reassess the value of armour in an offensive war, but also made public serious weaknesses in the Red Army's armoured divisions which were not corrected until after the catastrophic losses of 1941 against invading German armour. - Agreed; requires a reference.
• By the end of the year most surviving units of the T-26 had been reverted to other duties, including logistics, and were often used as chassis for new tank surrogates. - Requires a source.

JonCatalan 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All sentences I mentioned above have been referenced, if needed. JonCatalan 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:In the design section a paragraph comparing the T-26 with it's close relatives it's ancestor the Vickers 6-Ton and it's half-brother the 7TP would be very apreciated, Especialy since the T-26 and 7TP could have been used against each other. Mieciu K 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: Sorry, I didn't see this comment before. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources on the 7TP. I was tempted to use information on both the 7TP and Vickers 6-Ton Wiki articles, but they weren't referenced so I refraind. I did add a small paragraph that compared the T-26 to the Vickers 6-Ton, but it's hardly as deep as it could be if I had proper sources on these two tanks. JonCatalan 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Mieciu K 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object after further reading. The text refers to events which are not linked (ex. Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Invasion of Poland (thus is not fulfilling WP:BTW) and worse, has confusing or mistaken statements, ex. 'Soviet military failure in Poland' - presumably reffering to Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) - which actually was a Soviet victory. Further: the claim that Spaniards invented Molotov cocktail and Satchel charge to deal with T-26 needs a reference, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Response Regarding the links, I'll get to changing those to links. Concerning the Soviet military failures in Poland it doesn't imply that the Soviet Union was defeated, just that the campaign was in reality a failure for the Red Army. But I'll make that sentence more specific. JonCatalan 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Response I added the source where you asked for it - hope that makes a difference. Regarding the dubious tag on the sentence which reads: Although the offensive against Japanese forces infiltrating Mongolia was an unexpected success following Soviet military set-backs in Poland and Finland, despite the ultimate Soviet victories in both cases, it became apparent that the T-26 was obsolete against newer tanks, including the Japanese Type 97 Chi-Ha, the older Type 89 Chi-Ro and German tanks which were showcased in Poland, such as the Panzer III and Panzer IV. That sentence doesn't directly say that the T-26 proved to be a failure, it says it became obsolete when compared to other tanks, such as the Japanese and and German tanks listed. I expanded the reference, including reasons why the comment is made and a source used by Glantz (which is Soviet), and hopes that justifies removing the dubious tag which I think is not necessary. However, I truly appreciate the help in improving the article! JonCatalan 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am always happy to nitpick. My point is that while the Winter War was certainly a near-defeat for the Red Army, and while the Germans PIII and PIVs that Soviets saw in September 1939 in Poland might have given them a pause for thought, the Soviets suffered almost none military setbacks in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Without going into details (yes, they did suffer a defeat or two), comparing the hell of Winter War with the September walkhtrough (not that suprising considering they were invading an unsuspecting foe who stripped that part of the border from virtually anything) is confusing, and thus the sentence above needs to be reforumlated. I will give it a shot.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit you made is fine. Any other objections? JonCatalan 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zazzer

• Comment The pictures and the article tend to go back-and-forth over the tank designations (T26A, T26 Model 1931 etc.). I think it would be better if you used one nomenclature for the entirety (where possible) of the article and listed alternate designations only in the variant section. Oberiko 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but in regards to the pictures I think it's necessary. Some pictures show the tank with two turrets - somebody using the article as a source can mistake it for a later model tank; I think it's important to distinguish. When used in the design section it's meant to distinguish when certain upgrades took place. JonCatalan 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object for now. Mainly because of the quotes at the beginning of some sections. They are unencyclopedic. They don't help the article at all and could even be seen as a way to introduce a POV to an otherwise very neutral article. But there are a few more minor concerns:
  • "Soviet Experimental Design department" should be linked not its acronym OKMO, even if the article it will be linked to is titled OKMO. You always link the "real" name of something not the acronym in parentheses.
  • "Around 1,627 tanks with twin turrets were produced between 1931 and 1933, and 450 were armed with the 37 mm PS-1." This sentence should make it clear that its referring to T-26A tanks.
  • I'm not sure about this one: but shouldn't it be "better-known" rather than "more well-known"?
  • The term "unfortunately" is extremely POV. It absolutely has to be removed. Same thing for the word "catastrophic".
  • I don't really understand why you organized the sections the way you did. There is both a section named "Inter-war years and the Second World War" and another one called "Second World War", which doesn't make any sense. Why not make the "Second World War" section as sub-section of the "Inter-war years and the Second World War" section?
• I would be happy to make a support out of this, but I think these issues have to be addressed before the article can become an FA.--Carabinieri 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the quotations, this would not be the first article with quotes to be featured. The T-34 article has been featured twice, and it includes quotes - in fact, there were a great deal of compliments. The link to OKMO has been changed accordingly. Regarding the T-26A and making sure readers know of what type of tank 1,672 were built, the article never states that there was a T-26B until after, so I would have thought that the reader could have assumed that the figure referred to what variant was being discussed at that point in time - but I will make it clearer. I changed the wording to better known accordingly, as well. Unfortunately was removed completely and catastrophic was exchanged for large-scale. The headings were corrected and 'Second World War' was removed completely from the heading, as that heading never discusses the Second World War - I don't know why I made that mistake. I think the only thing remaining are the quotes, as I'd like to get the opinion of others. It's strange that this didn't come up during the candidacy of the T-34 article. The quotes used in the T-34 article are much more NPOV than the ones I use in the T-26 article. For example:

• • "The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design" —Steven Zaloga et al. (1997:3)

Really, the three quotes used in the T-26 article, IMO, are not suggesting a certain point of view. JonCatalan 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there are precedents for articles using quotations passing FA. Had I participated in those FAC discussions I probably would have objected to them being granted FA status with the quotations in place. My question to you, however, is: How do those quotations improve the article at all? I only find them distracting and I think they mar what is otherwise a really good article (besides those few issues I mentioned above and some missing wikilinks I'm going to add myself soon).--Carabinieri 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think that the quotations do contribute to the article. It may not be a completely "educational" contribution, as the quotes can be erased and the reader not lose any of the information from the article, but I think the quotations give a little life to an otherwise uniform article - like most Misplaced Pages articles. At least, this was an attitude shared by many during the FAC of the T-34 article. It seemed to have regenerated interest within the reader on the subject matter. In that sense, I do think they improve the article. I really would like for some other people to share their opinion on the subject on quotations in articles, and so we could perhaps get a general consensus. Besides that, I think most of the issues you brought up (and I forgot to thank you for reading and helping me correct those errors) have been corrected. JonCatalan 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Those points have been addressed. So I'll switch to a weak support. This article is great, but those quotations do bother me. Do you think it would be possible to integrate them into their respective sections? I think that would be a lot better.--Carabinieri 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can try to do that. JonCatalan 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well all my concerns have been addressed. Strong support.--Carabinieri 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for your patience. JonCatalan 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I copy edited this during A-Class review and was very impressed with the scope and referencing of the article. I see all the kinks it had then have been ironed out and I am happy to support.--Jackyd101 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Glad to see the process continued to improve the article. Great stuff (and I like the blue box idea to seperate comments, I'm gonna' steal it). Staxringold _talk 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good work on the article, very informative.UberVash 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Ellis Paul

Self-nominated. Have gone through Peer Review. In the time since the article achieved GA status prose has been reviewed and improved. I have also added content and references to better substantiate the lead paragraph. Have used other musician FAs (Alison Krauss, Elliot Smith)as models and feel that the Ellis Paul article meets all FA criteria in strong fashion. Kmzundel 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this nomination is seemingly being overlooked? I'm new at this and am hoping I haven't made some kind of blunder. Kmzundel 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Very nice work Kmzundel, the article is close to FA standard, but needs some work to bring it over the line. Just a few suggestions:

• You might consider splitting the References section into "Sources" (which would list the full details of books you have used, and "notes" (for inline cites). Example here

Will consider this change, but all the references are inline cites. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This would need to be implemented. I can make the change in the next few days, see what you think then. + Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Kmzundel 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For my own edification - why would this have to be implemented? I looked at the example provided and it seems to be splitting hairs. Also - not to beat a dead horse - but I went to great pains to model the article after what I thought would lead me down the correct path: Here Kmzundel 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. + Ceoil 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ref 16 states that the cite is "brought to you by Happenstance and Doug Coppock" (!)

That's actually the cited website's sub-title and thought it should be included.Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeepers. Sound like it was written in 1932, but thats ok. + Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Detailed fair use rationale need to be added to the ogg files. You can use this template - Image:1979.ogg.

I modeled the fair use rationale after FA Alison Krauss.Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not to say that they are sufficent. Look at the Smashing Pumpkins review, and tremble.+ Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Will take a look and comment. May not be until tomorrow.

Looks like the Smashing Pumpkins issue was more with images. I should be OK with images since I only used images that I own. I looked at several other FA musicians re: sound samples and the Fair Use rationale seems to be fine (when compared to Alison Krauss and Elliot Smith) but beefed it up per Celine Dion. Kmzundel 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Loose the flags in the infobox (see here)

Another editor added the flags to the infobox, but I will happily remove them. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You beat me to it! Great! :-) Kmzundel 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Opening sentence should read "Paul Plissey (born January 14, 1965) (better known as Ellis Paul). This isn't policy, but is more usual, and I think, more logical.

Another editor made that edit and I like it. Two sets of parentheses doesn't seem right. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, its a subjective call. + Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "his father was Executive Director" - maybe mention his fathers name.

Done. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "He also played trumpet" - 'also' is redundant.

Removed "also". Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "It was then that he realized folk music was nothing to make fun of." - The 'make fun of' statement is out of context and reads strangely.

An unusual quote, perhaps, but it supports the previous sentence and nicely describes his surprise at finding folk music. Kmzundel

But the article doesn't mention that he 'made fun' of folk before this. I know what you are getting at, you just need to be more explicit. + Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about how I can paraphrase that quote and still get it across.

Removed the quote and got the thought across nicely, I think. Kmzundel 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "and continued to participate in track" - where he continued to participate in track?

Made the change. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "He earned his first award in 1989 when he won the Nameless Coffeehouse’s New Songwriter Award" - 'Award' appears twice in one sentence.

Edited the sentence. Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just from a very brief scan of the article, I'll read it properly over the next few days and post other comments. + Ceoil 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Kmzundel 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be back. + Ceoil 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The sound file would benefit from better descriptions, good eg's here. + Ceoil 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Listening to the sound files, he's great! + Ceoil 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back too - when work quits getting in the way.  ;-) Kmzundel 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Added sentence (description) to the two song sound sample boxes. (And YES, he's great!)  :-) Kmzundel 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• The lead claims that the Boston Music Awards "are considered a pinnacle of contemporary acoustic music success". However, these awards seem to be open to artists from the greater Boston area only.

The awards have been won by artists outside the Bonston area. I will think of a way to re-state that. The quote I had used originally was nixed by another editor. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The source I cite for that statement refers to the Boston Awards at the "New Hampshire primary" of acoustic awards which is the statement I had originally used. Another editor thought that term (New Hampshire Primary)was confusing - see my UserTalk page for his comments - so I re-wrote the statement to what it currently says. Can you help me re-state that? Also, the BMA website says the awards are given to showcase artists "with strong ties to Boston". Kmzundel 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, I revised the "pinnacle of acoustic music" statement a bit when I re-wrote the lead. Kmzundel 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Paul went to high school in Presque Isle, Maine, listening to Top-40 radio and participating in track." - Mixed tenses: 'went', 'listening'.

Corrected. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "He played trumpet in the stage band" - either 'a' stage band, or 'the school' stage band.

Edited. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "..on February 19-21, 1993" - between February...

Re-written as two sentences. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "..egos got in the way and End Construction disbanded" - When did this happen, how long were they together as a collective?

Need to find source to cite. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote that sentence per the cited source. No date (year) was mentioned. Only that they broke up. Kmzundel 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ceoil, found another source that I was able to cite saying that they disbanded after 3 years. Kmzundel 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The following year in November Paul once again was successful in having a song in a movie when "Sweet Mistakes" was featured in Shallow Hal starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jack Black." - The following November; "once again was successful" - could be better worded.

Reworded. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Nora Guthrie stated that there was a job description that her father left behind (writing music for the lyrics) that Ellis took on" - meaning is unclear; to me at least.

I had originally used a Nora Guthrie quote "my father left a job description that Ellis took on" but another editor didn't like it. Have to think about how to re-state her quote to make it more clear. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote those 2-3 sentences. See if you understand the meaning of Nora Guthrie's statement now. Kmzundel 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The Nov. 5th episode of the TV series Ed featuring Paul's “If You Break Down”." - not a complete sentence.

Corrected. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "was asked to participate in the Ribbon of Highway, Endless Skyway tribute show to honor Woody Guthrie, the brainchild of Texas singer-songwriter Jimmy LaFave." - dangling modifier.

Corrected. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These are examples of prose issues remaining in the text, can you run through to resolve others. Good work so far, however.

• "The show toured around the country, selling-out auditoriums from coast to coast." - would need to be cited.

Removed that statement until I can cite source. Re-wrote 2 or 3 sentences there. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a general comment the lead is not a concise overview of the article per WP:LEAD; at present it mostly details career achievments, rather than provides a biographical summary. + Ceoil 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Will need to think about this before making edits. Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, I re-wrote the lead, adding some content and rearranging. Kmzundel 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Kmzundel 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support The lead still needs a little work; at present bio details take us to his high school knee injury. I've reorganised sightly - and you are allowed to disagree with my edit of course ;) -, my suggestion is that adding a few more bio sentences in the second para would greatly improve the opening.

One final point: would it be possible to split the "Current career" section into two smaller headings; at present it is over long and out of proportion to the other sections. + Ceoil 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can do that. Kmzundel 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria. + Ceoil 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• that had not yet found a home on any recording, - 'found a home' is not a good term

Edited. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The beginning of the poem can be heard in the sound sample box. - remove this sentence (we can see the sample box and shouldn't be said anyway)

Removed sentence. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nora is executive director of the Woody Guthrie Foundation - When referring to her use her second name Guthrie

I was attempting to distinguish between the two Guthries. Have edited it to read 'Nora Guthrie".

• writings to choose one set of lyrics to put to music. - 'to put to' can be better worded

Edited. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nora Guthrie stated that there was a job description that her father left behind that Ellis took on. - I don't understand this sentence, what job? what description? why is this randomly put in? - refer to Nora as Guthrie

Added explanation to make clearer. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• a popular hymn of the day - POV

Removed 'popular'. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The year 2002 closed out - 'closed out' poorly worded

Edited. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• kicked-off on Feb. 5, 2003 - February 5, 2003

Done. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• October 3, 2001 - wikilink

Can't seem to find this date. Will look again later. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 13th Boston Music Award, this one in the category - remove 'this one'

Your suggestion is how I had that sentence originally written, but another editor said it sounded like he won 13 awards in that particular category which is why I added "this one" - but I have removed it again per your suggestion. Readers can see the individual BMA categories in the list under Awards. Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The first two external links link to the same site, remove the 'discussion board' one as there shouldn't be blogs - forum type things.

Can you direct me to policy on this one? I specifically read the MoS re: External Links and did not find anything and forums are linked on both FAs Alison Krauss and Elliot Smith.

Once these are dealt with I'll have another look. M3tal H3ad 08:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your assistance! Kmzundel 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed a copy edit you made re: the wording of the Kerrville New Folk Award. You actually reverted back to what I had originally written. MrFizyk felt the statement was misleading - see his Jan. 17, 2007 edit. See also the Kerrville Folk Festival section on my UserTalk page. Kmzundel 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:EL # 10 discussion boards add nothing to the article anyway. M3tal H3ad 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Removed external links to MySpace and Discussion Board.Kmzundel 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Support M3tal H3ad 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again! Kmzundel 10:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hello chaps. To be honest I haven't read the entire article because I am completely unfamiliar with the artist, I'll maybe get round to reading and casting a vote later. However, I did do some small edits to help the article, and I've got some suggestions. The lead is fine, but beef up the middle paragraph with a concise summary of how he got into music and perhaps say how and when he gained fame as a musician. I also feel that the review quote in the lead feels a bit out of place and could perhaps be placed later on in the article, historically closer to that album's release. My last point is to do with the media: Good job with all the free photos, and a nice selection of samples, but they need better descriptions/captions to explain to the reader why they are there or why they are significant. Use the descriptions to highlight the aspects of his music/career they exemplify, or any other significance they hold. Just spell out for the reader how these photos/samples add to the text. I hope this is a help. =) - Phorque 22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Phorque's point that a direct quote in the lead contravenes 2a. + Ceoil 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I moved the quote from the lead paragraph to the "songwriting" section where songwriting style is discussed. Kmzundel 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Have beefed up the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Kmzundel 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*Not sure (kinda brain-dead right now) about the song sample captions. Re-read what's there and combined with the article's content (which you admitted not reading) I think they're OK. May re-visit tomorrow. Kmzundel 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK! It's a new day! Just added a bit of description to the sound samples and the first (Maine) image. Let me know if that beefs things up enough. Kmzundel 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Phorque for the awesome Discography table.  :-) Kmzundel 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, wiki tables are fun. =P Good work with the lead! - Phorque 16:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Support In the spirit of lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness, I went in and edited the captions to my liking. It was an easy task as this is a well-written, interesting and informative article that, with the final touches that are being done through this nomination, will be more than worthy of the Featured status. The images and samples are a nice addition to the article. My final suggestions for improving the article are:

• Providing some kind of external link and/or reference(s?) for the "Awards" section, even if you re-use sources used in the prose.

• The best I could do was link to his website biography. Is that OK? Sadly, the Boston Music Awards website stinks and does not provide any historical information, nor have I ever been able to find a compiled listing of winners anywhere else. I do have a list that *I* have compiled that I could link (it's on a website that I maintain), but I'm not sure that would be appropriate. Kmzundel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Explaining either in words or with a wiki-link what "the Mount" is in one of Ellis' quotes regarding the Guthrie festival.

I'm assuming he was talking about some kind of holy or significant mount that one would make a pilgrimage to or something? (couldn't find anything else giving it away in the external link either... am I being uncultured not knowing what he's on about?)

• Well, that's a trick question.  ;-) I'm certain he was referring to the same mount (The Mount of Olives) that Jesus went to as told in the Bible. "Going to the mount" means being close (or attempting to be close) to one's God or communicating with same God. Have wiki-linked it. Kmzundel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all. Good work! - Phorque 16:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for lighting the candle. This is my first Wiki experience and you, Ceoil and M3tal H3ad have helped me learn alot from your support, patience and encouragement. Kmzundel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Mourning Dove

1st PR
1st FAC
2nd PR

Second time self nomination. I withdrew the first nomination because the reviews thought the writing could be better. After a second peer review I feel that it meets the criteria now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the article is crowded with images, some duplicating that which is already shown. Image galleries are for the commons, not the wikipedia main namespace. Why is the lead in four parts; I think given the size of the article it is too long and its content is directly repeated later. The as a symbol and in the arts section should be in prose, but bullets could be effectively used to delineate the 5 subspecies in the taxonomy section.--Peta 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree strongly as to the article having "too many images". Bird identification may not be the primary function of a Misplaced Pages entry, but it is nonetheless a significant factor - and one that is facilitated greatly by the inclusion of high-quality imagery showing different variations of the species, from different angles, and in different lighting conditions. This article is a good example of how these types of entries should be done. 'Card
  • That should be done now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, thanks for making those changes. One minor thing, is a birds call a part of its physical description or a behaviour? --Peta 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The call seems to be placed in description rather than behaviour generally. I conitnued that in some corvid articles. Now to have a better squiz at this one......Cas Liber 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: a little short but I can't see what else should be in there. I feel it satisfies all criteria though I do like ref footnotes in smaller sized scripts as on the dino FA articles. Also the heading "Physical description"; the word "physical" is redundant (what other type of description is there?) - I have removed the first word on loads of dino, bird, plant and fungi pages. cheers Cas Liber 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object - Comprehensiveness. What is the etymology of the name? Why "Mourning" dove? The last section about artistic use is too short, and I feel more could be written there. Fieari 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The naming thing, and the paragraphing of that section have been fixed.Sfahey 03:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• weak Oppose needs a copy edit, common incident is with Inches it should be dab to Inch. The flight speed 88km/hour, what is that in mph? while on that 88 km/hour should be written as kilometre per hour or km/h. Gnangarra 15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• another problem opening sentence of the lead the dove family Columbidae have a look where these three links redirect to. Gnangarra

• further link problems Game bird and call both in the lead both redirects. Gnangarra 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and distribution these should be seperate sections, also there 6 links in this section that go to redirects. Gnangarra 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have bypassed a few redirects, made the suggested changes to the units of measurement and added the etymology. Emu (which is the source for section names in this article) has the section Taxonomy and distribution, so there is no particular problem with using that as a section. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

George I of Greece

Self-nomination A "good article" meeting fac. DrKiernan 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Improper referencing. Not enough inline citations to match claims. Lead section far too short for my taste. Prose not brilliant. Here is an example: "George was not the first choice of the Greek people (citation??). Upon the overthrow of Otto, the Greek people had rejected his brother Leopold, the heir presumptive, while adhering to the concept of a monarchy. JHMM13  08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Three references are given for the above - Van der Kiste, Clogg and Forster - all at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose and Conditional Support Support. I agree with JHMM13 that the article needs a larger lead and more citations as some sections do not have any. I also think that the article needs a seperate references section. If my concerns are adressed I would be more than happy to support the article. Kyriakos 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have expanded the lead and separated the note from the references. The unreferenced comments are ones which occur in more than one source. I shall select representative references and insert them gradually. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• That isn't particularly helpful or constructive. Please be more specific in your criticism. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I would suggest disregarding this vote as biased, possibly nationalist and absolutely unbacked. Todor→Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after some thought I've decided not to continue with this proposal. I just don't understand how an article like George IV of the United Kingdom can be the Main Page Featured Article in April when it has no citations, and includes comments like "...every time he had intimate relations with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7,000 such envelopes." Whilst at the same time you oppose FA status for my article because of "Improper referencing" even though it contains no contested comments and is fully referenced.
(1) As I am not able to understand your criticisms, I consequently cannot address them.
(2) I think my limited time would be better spent improving what I consider a bad article like George IV, rather than improving an already good article like George I into a fantastic one.
Please close the discussion and accept my apologies for wasting your time. I would prefer not to enter into correspondence on this matter. DrKiernan 12:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The featured article criteria have changed, George IV was promoted back in 2004. If you think it doesn't meet the criteria, then nominate it for a WP:FAR, but that there are bad featured articles still doesn't mean your article is good enough to be an FA. Some problems with it: no main references, only footnotes; list within the body; no use of cite templates; tiny sections ("Titles, styles and arms" and "Territorial expansion (1871-1881)"). Todor→Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer For the same reason that other such articles have made it there recently: they weren't FARC'd in time to prevent that.--Rmky87 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither a main reference section nor use of cite tempaltes are required or particularly recommended, so I wouldn't call these issues "problems". Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Do I really have to cite WP:FA? OK then: "... this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations... the meta:cite format is recommended." No, cite templates are not required, but they're strongly recommended because they provide uniformity and are easy to use and identify. An FA has to represent "our very best work", and in that sense it should be as good as possible. If it can be improved, then this should be done. Todor→Bozhinov 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The full citations can be mixed in with the notes, as they were in this case before the article was changed; nor does the section need to literally be called "references," although the criteria may be misleading in this regard. See e.g. recent promotions The Four Stages of Cruelty, Hurricane Erika (1997), and many others. Citation templates are specifically "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE) -- while some people like them, others find them strongly distasteful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I think it's a lot more convenient to have the main references and the footnotes in separate sections — it looks better arranged and neater. It also allows you to use simplified syntax in the footnotes instead of giving all the long bibliographic info every time when you just want to list the specific page(s). But it's a matter of personal taste to an extent, that's for sure :) The same goes for cite templates, I guess. Todor→Bozhinov 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • On the usefulness of a references section, at least, I agree with you, and it's obviously okay to suggest methods that you find convenient. But in consideration of nominators I think it is useful to maintain a line between what is actually required and what is a matter of taste. cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have provided main references; split the footnotes; formatted the list according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Bulleted lists; used cite templates; and expanded sections George I of Greece#Titles, styles and arms and George I of Greece#Territorial expansion (1871-1881). DrKiernan 09:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article seems to meet the criteria for featured article status.Argos'Dad 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It is usually a good idea for the article to have sections other than biographical, particulary one describing concepts like his achievements, influence and notability.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

The Smashing Pumpkins

Self-nomination. This article was nominated for FAC a while back here at a point where almost everyone agreed (including myself) that the nomination was premature. However, after much work I feel the article fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for Featured Article consideration. WesleyDodds 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like how the article has shaped up. I'll be glad to help addressing any concerns other editors have with it. I'd love to see more on bands influenced by SP, but Wesley and I had a stab at that and it seems the statement in the article about the Pumpkins being an "island unto themselves" holds true to some degree. - Phorque 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article seems very extensive and cites sources very well. It doesn't seem to be lacking in any areas. Good use of photographs and soundclips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.35 (talk • contribs)
• Object images and soundclips need fair use rationales, when that fixed i would comment further. Jaranda 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now added fair use rationales where I felt they fulfilled the criteria and contacted the uploaders when I had questions. WesleyDodds 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks very thorough... although I do think that the post breakup section should include Darcy Wretzkys mugshot. -- UKPhoenix79 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support A comprehensive and well-written article. However, my only concern is that the infobox picture doesn't seem to have a fair use rationale. CloudNine 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's been a pleasure seeing this article come together--it's a well thought-out, well sourced history with a fine sense of appropriate emphasis and detail. Per CloudNine's observation, a fair use rationale has now been provided for the unobjectionable infobox picture.—DCGeist 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, 8 fair use images and 7 fair use sound clips, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a 💕. Please reduce the amount of fair use media, many of the images serve simply as decoration and make no contribution to a persons understanding of the article (WP:FUC 8). Has any attempt been made to contact the management of the group to ask for free images?--Peta 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These are for historical context, and given that the band has just reunited (although only with two of the members confirmed), getting free images is difficult, if not impossible. As for the audio clips, there's no way we'll get free soundclips until the band's material enters the public domain in a few decades. All other musician FAs rely on fair use soundclips, and we've tried not only to include the clips relevant to the release of each album, but also included additonal musical or critical comments.WesleyDodds 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They historical argument is very weak. We can read in the text how the number of members changed, we don't need photographic proof. --Peta 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the point of these images is that the band has changed their image a number of times. I'll try to make that clearer in the image descriptions. Looking at some recent music FAs like Pixies, Megadeth, and Frank Black they rely on a mix of images to illustrate the bands at various points in their careers as well as relevant album covers. Would a mix such as this be more acceptable? WesleyDodds 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask, can the reader understand this text without images? The answer will be yes; why not just make a timeline table to make sure the reader doesn't miss that the lineup changed? The articles you mention don't need those album covers for the reader to understand whats going on, they shouldn't really be there.--Peta 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which ones do you think the article can definitely do without? WesleyDodds 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is little evident basis for your argument, Peta. All of the images currently included in the article fall clearly within the boundaries of well-established fair use precedent in general and Misplaced Pages fair use practices in specific. If you have any good faith reason to believe that a particular image is being used in violation of defensible fair use practices, please (a) identify that image by name, (b) state why you believe it's in violation, and, if you can, (c) cite one single case of the presumptive copyright holder contesting fair use of the image or any similar one on Misplaced Pages or any similar noncommercial educational platform.—DCGeist 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific issues.

1.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1990 promo.jpg fails FUC 8, we already know what the band looks like from the infobox

Arguably illustrates nothing not already illustrated by infobox picture. WD, can we find a more informative image here?—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2.Image:Smashing Pumpkins melloncollie promo.jpg, as for the previous

Picture illustrates major change in band's image. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, same as the previous

Picture illustrates major change in band's lineup. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

4.Image:Todaypromo.jpg, some guy and a van, this image does a poor job of conveying anything

Supposed description obviously misrepresents image and its significance.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the samples go, consider FUC 3; The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. <snip>. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.--Peta 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally established practices are not necessarily the best precedent to go by, see this; we should limit all fair use media as much as possible.--Peta 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you completely ignoring the fact this band has a hugely diverse sound which is discussed at length in the article? Each clip serves the purpose of illustrating the musical progression of the band at that point in time, and each clip has its significance illustrated in the description. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, all the images in the article do not "clearly" fall within those boundaries when someone is expressing concern that they don't. Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment. It certainly establishes that the usage isn't "clearly" unproblematic. It's up to the person wanting to republish unfree content on any Wikimedia project to make a persuasive claim that it is absolutely essential. As for your "c)" point, please keep this focused on improving the article. It's not Peta's obligation to defend our fair use policy. Jkelly 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is most unclear is the case you're attempting to make. My "(c)" point is entirely focused on the quality of the article: if a known or putative copyright holder has a history of challenging fair use claims of identical or similar material on Misplaced Pages or similar media, then there is a strong rationale for subjecting such material to a higher level of scrutiny. And of course it's not Peta's "obligation" to defend our fair use policy (no one asked Peta to do that, by the way). Just as it's not my "obligation" to defend the article's adherence to that policy. None of us are "obliged" to make any sort of effort here--we're all volunteers, right? Each of us can choose to be more or less helpful, more or less proactive, more or less responsive, more or less precise, etc.

Also, please recognize the conceptual flaw in your argument that "Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment": as in all walks of life, good faith does not equal good reason. By your own logic, the fact that someone (me) is expressing concern about the images' proposed removal obliges you to "seriously reassess" your following claim that "we don't need" these or similar images. The precision of your observations below is appreciated; I now look forward to the results of your "serious reassessment."—DCGeist 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the case, simply because we treat unfree media differently than we treat media that is part of our mission. Don't approach this as if it were a discussion over whether or not something that is free content belongs in an article or not. It's really unclear to me why you keep asking about whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders or not. Are you just curious? Our goal is to be so conservative in our use of potentially infringing media that the issue doesn't come up. If I say that we're not always successful in meeting that goal, does that answer your question? Jkelly 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that, in a practical sense, the heart of the mission was the creation of free encyclopedic text, in particular, and the creation of a freely available and highly useful encyclopedia in general. As I have acknowledged below, it does appear that the Wikimedia Administration Board is intent on establishing that totally free media is also at the heart of the mission. In the context of Misplaced Pages, this saddens me, because I believe it unnecessarily complicates, frustrates, and in many cases undermines the creation of a highly useful encyclopedia. I keep raising the issue of whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders—not in general terms (I know we do), but in specifically relevant terms—because I wish to demonstrate that the devotion to totally free media unnecessarily makes the creation of a high-quality encyclopedia much more difficult.—DCGeist 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how does one create a featured article about a high-profile band under these kinds of rules? Almost anything to do with them holds some kind of copyright. In our case, trying to convey the sound and image of the band is near impossible without using copyrighted images under a fair use claim. If I'm not mistaken, most of the Smashing Pumpkins live shows would not have allowed an audience member to carry in a camera of any kind, because there would be official photographers making (once again) copyrighted images. How could we ever hope to find free photos to convey the things we are trying to illustrate in this article? Is there no solution along the lines of "keeping pictures (a), (b) and (c) would be enough, and audio clips (x), (y) and (z) would suffice and still keep this article featured." What about my suggestion of making the pictures smaller? I haven't heard one complaint about this article's prose or referencing. Once again, where is the solution, the middle ground in this debate? - Phorque 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object until the unfree images we don't need in this article are removed. Image:Sp1991.jpg doesn't have any verifiable copyright holder information and nothing at the source indicates the implicit license to redistribute of a promotional photo from a press kit. It should be deleted. Image:Smashing Pumpkins live seattle.jpg fails WP:FUC #6, as it a screenshot used to illustrate the subject being shot, not to discuss the video the screenshot came from. Image:Smashing Pumpkins melloncollie promo.jpg is sourced to a random fansite and fails WP:FUC 10. Image:Smashing_pumpkins_1998_promo.jpg has been apparantly been altered to remove copyright holder information and should be speedy deleted, along with Image:Smashing pumpkins 2000 promo.jpg for the same reason. They're also large enough to print and sell. Image:Todaypromo.jpg comes from an likely-infringing Flickr upload! Image:Smashing pumpkins 1990 promo.jpg is actually a promo photo. Does Image:Billy Corgan - Tribune Ad reduced.jpg give the reader anything that couldn't be accomplished by an external link? Judgement call, I suppose. There is not a single freely licensed image in an article about a band currently active, and two of the images might be okay, if our standard is "business as usual" after the recent announcement. Jkelly 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: the band hasn't been active since 2000, and while they have recently reunited, they have yet to make any public appearances. WesleyDodds 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The images here appear to be taken by the uploader. I've been mainly focused on the prose and research of the article, so I'm basically in the dark about photos. How would I go about asking permission for photos and uploading (or if someone more knowledgable could do it instead, that would be helpful)? WesleyDodds 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wesley... I'm sure Billy Corgan has some kind of contact address, I guess it wouldn't hurt to drop him a line and ask where you could obtain promotional images of the band more "officially". - Phorque 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His website is down for the moment. I do have the band's MySpace page on my friends list. *ducks* It used to be Billy Corgan's personal page (the one where he posted his autobiography) so the band for sure has some direct involvement with it. I was about to send a message asking for promotional images, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it (and I sure as hell wouldn't know how to upload or detail them). The goal would be to ask for images that illustrate the band's history; we don't want to just end up with that flag promo icon they have on the website right now. Additionally, it's very likely the request might get lost in the shuffle of all the fans that message the account. WesleyDodds 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to replace Image:sp1991.jpg with a cropped version (to remove the "smashing pumpkins" at the bottom) of the clearly promotional photograph used in the early days paragraph. I think this is fair. Hundreds over other websites (eg. Allmusic.com) and magazines use promotional photographs with the copyright info cropped out... that's what they are for, it's not going to make any copyright holder angry. We are not denying that the copyright is there by cropping it out. There's no need to get quite so pedantic about copyright rules... at this moment I'm almost tempted to use a bit of WP:IAR. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, please don't crop out copyright holder information from images we're claiming fair use on. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use for more information. Jkelly 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment "That's what they are for"?! "It's not going to make any copyright holder angry"?! Reference to widespread precedent?! Phorque, you've clearly spent too much time in the real world—your analysis is way too sensible for this process.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fear we must concede, comrade! Us damn kids and our "punk rock" are simply not what Misplaced Pages is about anymore! (Dear objectors, please excuse my sarcasm! Have a sense of humour will ya?) - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just hit a nail squarely on the head :) It's already a lost battle, the fair use cops have won I'm afraid. --kingboyk 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object per Peta and Jkelly, who follow Fair Use about as closely as anyone on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure they do. Unfortunately, their vision is circumscribed. To understand the issues, they need to be contextualized, seen in a broader perspective. I follow copyright-related legal matters fairly closely (Entertainment Law Digest is one excellent resource), and I am aware of not a single case in which EMI or any of its associated labels or The Smashing Pumpkins or any of the band's individual members has ever contested the use of any still image of the band in any noncommerical, educational medium such as Misplaced Pages. I have invited the previous objectors to cite a single such case. If there was even a single one, we could say that there was a reasonable basis for their concerns about the defensibility of one or more images in the article. But there is no such case, because EMI and its bankers and the band and the band members' financial managers are surely more than pleased to see the band well represented in a medium such as Misplaced Pages. That's the real world in which fair use law in general operates and to which those of us who defend Misplaced Pages fair use policy should remain mindful of if we're to best serve the project.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• But Misplaced Pages is licensed under the GFDL so its content may be used for commercial purposes and all content therein must follow the same premise.↔NMajdan•talk 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The latest notice from the Wikimedia Administration Board does, however insensibly, support your position. Ah, well.—DCGeist 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, where is the solution? If we removed every promotional image of the band, removed all the clips would you feature this article? Personally, I wouldn't. I really don't get it... there are simply no free alternatives! How does the Foundation ever hope to illustrate and inform people about copyrighted subject matter that is highly significant to human history and culture? But perhaps DCGeist has hit the nail on the head... Misplaced Pages is not the real world. It's supposed to be some kind of GFDL utopia where everything is free and capatalism is no more. With a heavy heart, I fear that the objectors to this article are right. If there is a solution to this dilemma, please enlighten me, or just be honest and tell us that this band is not notable enough to warrant this amount of "fair use" tomfoolery. - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article has some free images already, so how can you claim that there can't be free images of the band or their concerts? Yes. There isn't going to be free copies of their music, ... I wouldn't oppose the FAC on the basis of some short fair use audio excerpts, although there should not be too many... this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site. --Gmaxwell 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been able to find one free image that we could use since this FAC started, and even then that might be a problem since it's licensed for non-commercial use through Creative Commons. It's very hard to find free images this band on the Internet, not to mention ones that list the copyright. I browsed fan sites with image galleries an the hopes of finding suitable photos nd was consistently frsutrated that not only do they not list who owns what, but they mixed untagged fan images with promo photos. WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wesley's comments, yes, we found one image, and it turned out to be non-free in the end. Yes it was live, and the author of the photo himself said "1991, when you could see them play on a stage two feet away from you." because after that the Pumpkins subsequently got wildly popular playing stadium gigs most of the time. I also think my assumption that fans wouldn't be able to bring a camera to shows after the band reached a certain level of popularity is fair. For instance: the other live show shown wouldn't have allowed fans in with cameras because they were filming, and wouldn't want flash photography messing it up. It's not that we don't want to find the free images, we're trawling the web and finding next to nothing, and still nobody is telling us what media in the article could go/stay in order to satisfy fair use and get the article featured... I'm really running out of ideas here! - Phorque 09:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Non-free headline image. Non-free concert image. I could possibly see some role for non-free media in this article: For example if we are discussing the bands copyrighted works we could include some excerpts of their works, but the current state of the article is pretty sad from the perspective free content. Until that is fixed, this is not the among the best that we have to offer. --Gmaxwell 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While we get the image situation sorted out, I'm having trouble determining the amount of proper soundclip usage for an FA these days. In the past (that is, about a week ago) musical FAs were expected to have a number of pertinent audio samples, per the examples I've listed above. After all, we're dealing with a professional band who lives off of releasing copyright material for sale. We've tried to make clear the significance of each soundclip being there; certainly there's more uploaded to Misplaced Pages, but we've purposely tried to keep it to the bare essentials needed for an overview of the band. What are your thoughts on each clip used in the article as of now? WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the featured article criteria mentioning that being "pretty sad from the perspective free content" should stop an article being featured or that including free media makes an article "our best work". You also admit that non-free media should play a role in this article, but do not state which media we could do without. Please be a little more pro-active and get specific as to what can help us fix this article! Those non-free images have rationales, are they not good enough? - Phorque 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Considering that the band were so popular for so long, there should be many free images available out there, they just need to be tracked down. This debate is distracting from the fact that the article very easily qualifies on all other criteria; with bells. If a few images are lost, well that won't take from the fact that this article is easily "one of our best." + Ceoil 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your comments. We have looked on the commons, flickr and several other websites and fansites to no avail. I have also posted a request in a Smashing Pumpkins forum for free images. Can you suggest any other sources. - Phorque 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Many photographers would be willing to grant permission to use their work on a high profile site like this, provided they are credited. However, you need to state explicity the implications of GFDL (There are sample image request templates here). Here are some starting points, I'll let you know of others as I find them: Mike Rynearson, Bob Masse . You can find others by searching online fanzines, venues, and local newspapers. How many of the online source are illustrated - would they be willing to grant permission? Have you considered using flyers or ticket stubs, bty. + Ceoil 12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have begun sending out requests to Flickr photographers and will see what can be done. I'm not sure flyers or ticket stubs would add significantly to the article's text, but I will keep my eyes open for relevant content. Thanks for all your help! :) - Phorque 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a point: if the image already exists on Flickr, you can ask them to change the license to Creative Commons... just make sure they're aware they can't use the no derivitives or non-commercial tags! Ceoil is right in that a lot of people will agree to use their stuff on Misplaced Pages in a free-use fashion - I run around 50% success rate in my efforts. See my User page for some additional info - specifically the Luke Ford permissions page. Tabercil 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I got one photographer to do, the other decided he wasn't cool with commercial redistribution, so your 50% success rate holds true for me too. =P So at this point I'm not sure where this article stands. We've gotten a free image in to replace another, removed one of dubious source, and replaced all other promo shots with copyright info present to better satisfy fair-use. The objectors don't seem to be coming back to say how they feel now. - Phorque 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection iff the first image becomes a free picture of the band and the audio clips get converted into -Q0 or -Q1, ideally Q0 but if there are any artifacts -Q1 is okay, they are -Q5 oggs right now. I'll gladly do the latter part of my suggestion so long as no one will be mad at me. I'll change to support if we do the above take it down to one audio clip per album unless we're really going to have an indepth discussion about more than one... and if we use only free pictures for concert images. I've been trying to find some free images for the article, but wow there is a lot of copyvio (and smashed pumkins) on the internet. If I support I'll see if I can swing the other folks who have opposed. Obviously when writing about something mostly known for it's production of copyrighted works we're going to need to excerpt from some... but an article isn't among the best we have to offer if it's not as free as possible. The work we do to find free images will be useful to everyone else who needs a free image. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about how to edit soundclips so if you can do that that would be great and much appreciated. WesleyDodds 10:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced the soundfiles with lower bitrate versions. I'm not familiar with -Q0, -1Q terminology, but the program I was using helpfully informed me that I was compressing from a bitrate of 128 to 112. Whatever that means. + Ceoil 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Vorbis#Technical_details. Vorbis' performance is much better than MP3, especially at lower bitrates. Outside of situations involving trained listeners and pathological difficult to encode source material Vorbis at 128kbit/sec should be difficult to tell from the original CD audio. I went and changed the files to -Q0 ones, and fixed the vorbis tagging. Any luck with free images of the band? Perhaps we might want to try something unconventional such as putting a "Have you taken pictures of The Smashing Pumpkins? click here" *in the article* for a little while? --Gmaxwell 07:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The one I'm particularly worried about is the infobox image, because it's been pretty impossible to find a free image of the four "classic" band members. This is before widespread use of personal digital cameras and it's not like the band went walking around together in their free time. However, this is not the current line-up. In fact, we won't find out what the current lineup is until summer when they perform at European festivals. I've put in image requests here and at Wikicommons, so hopefully when they do finally perform live we can get a free image. Basically what it comes down to is that the infobox image is a stopgap measure until we finally find out what the new lineup is. When that happens, we'll most likely change the image anyway to reflect that new lineup. I guess what I'm asking is if it's ok to use the infobox image until we find out what the new lineup is. Another solution I suppose could be using the one free image we have of Billy Corgan as the infobox image. The problem with that though is that it only shows Corgan. WesleyDodds 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We also had questions about using soundclips from the last album Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music. It was released only in the form of 25 vinyl copies with instructions by the band for fans to copy it. So any copy of it would be obtained free and with the permission by the band. Would that qualify as free media? WesleyDodds 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly convinced this hits the same stumbling block as everything else because Machina II was not licensed for commercial re-distribution. Any samples from it would still have that problem, so unless a Machina II sample would be a better example of the band's sound, it's not worth uploading one. - Phorque 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object as per others who have cited fair use concerns, if it were to be used for a featured article, why not contact the Band's Representatives/Management or Record company, to see if free media (such as sound clips and images) can be authorised for use on Misplaced Pages by them? Then the problem would be solved and the article would likely get the green light all round. - Deathrocker 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Doubtful since the original band with the original members is no longer together. We will find out if more than 2 original members are back together in June/July 2007. -- UKPhoenix79 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that the sound files are again an issue. Are you implying that a stricter interpretation of fair use, over and above the current guidelines should be applied to this specific article, in a break from precedent. Ceoil 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like the way the article has improved since being nominated, and besides the fair use issues, it seems to be fine. The only other problem it had were with numbers under 100 needing to be spelt out, but I fixed that. So I support it and the editors endeavours to get it this far. Darthgriz 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, comprehensive, well-cited and well-illustrated by images, with extras like audio samples and more.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Minor object Image:The Smashing Pumpkins - The Everlasting Gaze (sample).ogg needs a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected this so that it reflects the other samples' rationales. - Phorque 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. ShadowHalo 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Arguments against the images and other media not being fair use are, I see it, simply looking for a reason to object. Nearly all, if not all, the images are promotional in origin and thus they qualify for fair-use. Additionally their removal has never been requested by the band or it's affiliations. Not to mention that pictures are always wanted on Misplaced Pages yet people bitch when they're used. It's obviously very hard to contact Corgan or the band for images so we have stuck with promotional ones. AgentA (Matt) 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article, and like many other users, I have seen the proggression it has made in the past while, and I feel the final product if one of Misplaced Pages's finest articles. The only thing is the images, the articles weakest point. It isn't fair to harp on fair use images like Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, and Image:Smashing pumpkins 2000 promo.jpg, which show the band's distinctive image at a time before Misplaced Pages and dedicated Wikipedians and Commons people existed. It is just a shame there seems to be such a deficiency of free-use images taken by concert goers, or even images like Image:Billy Corgan pic.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. I'm sure flickrhas been thoroughly combed through for any more. Besides that, there is the issue that SP is releasing a new album, subjecting the article to instability created by die-hard fans. But I have no worries, as I know dedicated users like WesleyDodds, Phorque, and others are there to keep shit in line. Two thumbs up, even though the right one is sprained. -- Reaper X 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see another high quality article about a musical group. The lead photo is absolutely fine: no free alternative from that era with that quality is going to be available, and the record label released the image with the express intent that it be published in the media (including the commercial media) - that's what promo packs are for, folks. --kingboyk 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - one of the finest, most concise articles on wikipedia. very well kept and updated. the pictures, although many fair-use, are a welcome addition. --ThrowingStick/Talk 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Probably one of the best band articles in general on Misplaced Pages, well cited, and the images are vital additions. Fair Use covers the images when necessary, and I think that the bald Billy Corgan image is the best and only image that a search for a free license image can find - any further searching would most likely be fruitless. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Storm (comics)

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

The article was promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Hurricane Danny (1997)

previous FAC

Failed one FA nomination earlier this year, has been improved since the last nomination. I believe it is now a comprehensive article, with the previous grammar issues fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not quite there. Juliancolton (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is not there? Remember that objections in FAC have to be actionable. Titoxd 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is ready for FA. Support. Juliancolton (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(good thing supports don't, eh?)--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Make sure to copy the CNN links out of the Wayback Machine, as they're currently kind of broken. Titoxd 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All right, I did that. Titoxd 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support it's very pretty--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Might it possible to merge some of the Impact sections? Surely Florida could be merged into "East Coast", and maybe Mississippi could be combined with either Alabama or Louisiana. Also, the long list of individual damage totals in the lead is unnecessary and a bit of an eyesore. (They could be moved into the impact sections with only a total mentioned in the lead.) —Verrai 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the impact sections, I've reorganized them a little bit. I've removed extra numbers from the lede as well. How does it look now? Titoxd 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Much better. Support —Verrai 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment When was this article put up for FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. it was put up on the 8th. Does that mean Hink has to write an article? Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some comments (Julian, it has to pass first, and sorry Hello32020, but I gotta comment on this). First, the lede is a bit messy and confusing; it contains an entire sentence about Emily in 2005 breaking Danny's record, which is inappropriate for the fifth sentence of the article. The second clause of the first sentence (second hurricane and fourth named storm) might be confusing to non-hurricane readers, since the sentence after it says it was the fifth tropical or subtropical cyclone. I'd like to see a bit more storm history in the first paragraph and less about the rest of the season (since some SH is in the second paragraph as well, that would have to be removed). Also, maybe a breakdown of deaths by state would be useful in the lede. Some of the dollar values, and their inflations, are confusing and sometimes incorrect. $100 million can be seen as between 1 to 3 significant digits; thus its inflated figure should have between 1 and 3 significant digits, not $128.47 million (which is 5 sig. digits). The dates in the storm history should be Wikilinked, to allow for user preferences to kick in (July 17 will show up as 17 July or July 17 depending on prefs). In impact - "likely a lower amount than if a larger storm were to repeat it." seems like OR and a bit unnecessary. Writing in the impact could be better; the first three sentences in the Gulf Coast section talk about the same thing (heavy rainfall - we get it). Then, in the next paragraph, its structure is a bit weird. The first sentence starts by talking about electricity then switches abruptly to boat damage. I recommend you combine alike sentences, such as those on the heavy rainfall with sentences about flooding, or those about the waves with sentences about erosion. In the Mississippi paragraph, "Eastern Jackson County had the most impact throughout Mississippi" begins the section, which seems to imply that Jackson County was hit pretty badly. Then, a bit later it says that a few houses were flooded in the county. Was there much damage in the county (perhaps some more info is needed, only one source is used for the whole state), or was damage indeed minor. There are a few more locations where metric units are needed; instances where the original unit is rounded should also have the converted unit be rounded (about 3 inches should be 75 mm, not 76.1). Also, the impact section has a few more instances where there are a few too many digits for damage figures, such as the tornado damage. One quick thing I just noticed - the HPC report says Danny dropped 37.75 inches of rainfall on Dauphin Island, but the article says 36.71. Which one is it? That's it for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a little of that. Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed up your areas of concern Hurricanehink, with the help of Julian. Lead is more organized and added death totals to the impact section of the lead. Other concerns have also been addressed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I am going to make a couple minor edits, and after that, I think it passes. Juliancolton (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The only thing wrong is that picture of Danny to the south of Mass. is in the Gulf Coast impact section. I don't think that is a good place for it. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Looks better. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
              • It looks better, but this sentence is a bit awkward; This is quite rare for a tropical cyclone, but occurred possibly due to having a good inflow from a baroclinic source. That was 10 years ago; surely there has been a reason found why it re-strengthened, or at least confirm the NHC's suspicion (MWR or AMS, perhaps?). --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Changed it to ...likely occurred... TCR says that the reason it strengthened over land suggests it strengthened due to a baroclinic source. Can't find anything further, hope this is good. Hello32020 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • This link explains the transition a little further, and says that the restrengthening was due to baroclinicity. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • Added, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Alright, you have my support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good article all in all. Nice job Hello. Certainly would make 1997 an inactive season with 2 FAs.32 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is the other one? Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Erika, and by the way please try not to have a line between two comments in * format, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry about that. Juliancolton (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, who decides when this actually passes? Juliancolton (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Monaco Grand Prix Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Geography Cup

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

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Mini Moke

Self nomination This article has passed WP:GA and been generally well received by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles members. It's stable, well referenced and contains no fair-use images. As far as I can tell it passes all of the FAC requirements. The only slight problem is that it's only 17kBytes long - which is a little short for an FA. However, when you've said all that needs to be said, anything more would be useless padding - so there we are. The subject of the article is a fairly obscure British vehicle - there aren't many books about it - I'm 99% certain that every book that contains any information about it whatever is in my collection and is referenced in the article. Additionally, the article has been carefully read by several leading members of the Mini Moke Club (who, sadly, are not Wikipedians) - the few minor flaws they managed to find have been passed on to me and eradicated since passing WP:GA. SteveBaker 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed this is a very good article. I have cleaned it up a bit per MOS (minor changes) and I used the citation templates for some of the references. When editing it (expanding cm and other units out in text) I used British English because I found kilometre in the article, but you can change it if you like. The paragraph below is choppy, lots of short sentences ruin the flow making it difficult to read.

From 1975 a pickup version of the Moke was produced with a 1.45 x 1.50 metre (55 x 59 in) drop-sided bed which protruded behind the back of the vehicle. There was a cloth top over the cab area. At least two four-wheel drive Moke prototypes were manufactured by Leyland Australia in the late 1970s. Unlike the British 'Twini' version, these used just one engine. One of those prototypes is now privately owned by an enthusiast in Western Australia. Leyland were planning to market this version but the end of Moke production in Australia in 1981 saw the demise of the project

• This paragraph is also a bit hard to read, it's using the same sentence twice right after one another "Because X, Y occurs." Mix it up a bit.

Because the Moke's A-Series engine, gearbox and suspension are identical to those of a standard Mini (which was still in production up to October 2000), most spare parts are still readily available. Because there is no chassis, the front and rear subframes holding the wheels, brake assemblies and suspension are bolted straight onto the monocoque shell just as with a standard Mini. Mokes tend to require much structural maintenance if they are to stay in good running order

Once these 2 paragraphs are cleared up or if it's decided to do something else (you never know) I would be happy to support. James086 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After one has read and tweaked these paragraphs about a bazillion times, it gets hard to see the wood for the trees! Both suggestions are well taken. I've made changes to both paragraphs, I think they read more easily now (but now I've read and tweaked them a bazillion-and-one times...so...) let me know if there is anything else I can do. SteveBaker 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and yes, this was originally a British car (although the Aussies have some significant claim to it) - so I've used British English throughout. SteveBaker 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, would it be possible to create a short stub for the Nuffield Guppy to avoid a redlink?--Nydas 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be possible if I could find anything at all to say about it! Alec Issigonis' biography merely mentions the name - offering no further details. The Nuffield company was pretty obscure and there isn't much written about it. The top Google hit for 'Nuffield Guppy' is this article and the only other links that are talking about this vehicle are mirrors of this article! The best stub I could personally come up with would be "The Nuffield Guppy was some kind of a motor vehicle that was designed by Alec Issigonis for some sort of military role."...I thought it would be better to leave it as a redlink so that someone who knows something about it would spot the redlink and be provoked into writing something. Redlinks are (in moderation) a good thing - they help the Encyclopedia to grow. SteveBaker
    • OK - Nuffield Guppy is now a happy little stub! SteveBaker 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Support, this is a fine article. Great work finding out about the Nuffield Guppy.--Nydas 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support as paragraphs have been reworded. Excellent work. James086 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's all gone awfully quiet. Are we done? SteveBaker 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead; a vehicle can't be a cult - it would be logical to say that it has a cult following; the lead also lacks focus it goes from what they are to how they were popular and back to where they were first made. The prose of the rest of the article needs work, it slips into a non-professional tone in parts, grammar needs work, and the single sentence paragraph pops up a few times. The latter part of the article is comprised of short sections that don't really say much, could the competitions and kits sections be merged into the text somewhere else (competitions into history and kits into construction)?--Peta 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment You said: "a vehicle can't be a cult"? Well, the Wiktionary definition of "cult" gives as its sole example of proper usage: "The Lord of the Rings" is a classic geek cult novel - so we can have cult novels but not cult cars? I'll try to reduce the number of single-sentence paragraphs but I'm mindful that a paragraph is supposed to be about a single subject and that just glueing separate paragraphs together without regard to content just in order to limit the number of short paragraphs is not a good thing. SteveBaker 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The two short sections are now merged into other sections (see below).SteveBaker 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment with this sentence In Australia the Mini Moke was a popular car for college students into the late 1980s, the term "college students" when referring to Australian students is ambigious as its a term not used within Australia, student are referred to as either using High School or University. Gnangarra 08:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I might argue that whilst we are talking about Australia, this article is written in British English - but to avoid the issue entirely, I'll say just "students" and leave it at that. SteveBaker 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- Although I disagree with User:Peta about the tone/grammar (I think it's suited to the subject matter and isn't unencyclopedic) I'd agree about consolidating paragraphs; "Kit cars and look-alikes" would fit well as a "Construction and maintenance" sub-section, while the "Competitions" bit could, I reckon, be reduced to a single paragraph and spliced into either "History" or "Popular culture" (since sport's become part of pop culture nowadays). I was going to do a quick edit and revert just to have both versions to compare, but I noticed I'd need to tamper with the layout/position of images, so I chickened out. I also reckon that since the Mini page isn't specifically about construction and maintenance, you don't need to give it a Main article: Mini. And well done on getting the Nuffield Guppy stub off the ground too. --DeLarge 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I've merged those two sections. Kit Cars is now a sub-section of construction & maintenance - I guess that kinda fits. The "Competitions" part ended up being split in two because putting it into the history section resulted in the first paragraph being related to British Mokes and the second to Australian ones. I'm still not convinced that this is a good change - because anyone who is interested in competitions involving Mokes would have looked to that section - but now the information is kinda mooshed in with what is essentially a time-line of the development of the car...but anything for a quiet life! If I ever find more information about racing/autocrossing Mini Mokes so I can expand on the theme a bit, I may re-instate that section - but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I replaced the {{main|Mini}} with a 'seealso' - but because so much of the information about the nature of the engine, transmission, suspension, etc is in the Mini article - we need some kind of a link here. Incidentally, the Nuffield Guppy article required me to spend $75 on purchasing an original memo written by Issigonis to Nuffield management from a collector in Germany - the guy told me that it contained the answer to my question (which it did) - but wouldn't tell me what it said unless I bought it from him! Such is my commitment to getting the truth out there - I hope you guys are happy!  :-) SteveBaker 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Magicians in fantasy

Self Nomination Well, I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, if it needs more neither I nor the peer reviewers can see it, so I'm being bold and putting it up. Goldfritha 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was moved to "Magician (fantasy)"; the redirect is going to the page I meant. Goldfritha 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad typo fix earlier. Apart from that I'm not happy about this article yet, it attempts to cover a large and fairly diverse area from which it isn't easy to draw very general conclusions, therefore I have trouble with its comprehensiveness.

Some specific points:

• I'd be happier if it stated early on, or in the title, something that made it clear that the article didn't cover fantasy art, film or computer games or alternatively the article could be expanded to cover these.
• The article is very focused on 'Western' fantasy, I know this is what you get in the bookshop's fantasy section but I think that there should be some discussion of magicians in, for example, Far Eastern fantasy and in general a comparison of the similarities and differences between magicians in world fantasy would make an interesting section.
• There should be more on the appearance of wizards in fantasy, for example the tendency to wear robes, stereotypical evil sorcerers, crystal balls, familiars hanging round, etc.
• The sentence that starts 'Despite the great powers' is confusingly worded. Can it be made clear what it is that is 'equivalent to the effects of technology'? Also subjects shouldn't be mentioned in the intro that aren't covered later in the article.
• 'increasing tendencies of wizards to go on quests'. I assume you mean that in more modern books wizards go on quests more frequently than in older books?
• The fantasy role-playing games section is very short. Are the wizards in these the same as in the rest of the article or in some way different? Explain what is meant by 'more clearly defined'? Do non-D&D games not get a mention? JMiall 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Working on it, but I have a few questions.

I put in something abou their appearances, which is fantasy art, but I'm not sure what I could put in for fantasy film; are the wizards in film and written word so different?

I think that wizards in film and literature are very similar, given that film is so widely written about can you find any references about stereotypical magicians in film? It seems to me that generally where a film has stranger magic users it gets called horror etc.JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Put in some examples from film. Is that what you were thinking of? Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what Far Eastern fantasy you are thinking of? Most of the references I consult have found more similarity that discrepencies.

On the Far Eastern fantasy front I was thinking of things like wuxia where the extreme martial arts skills of the characters enables them to do magical things like fly or heal people which is rather different to a wizard like Gandalf say. I'm sure there must be other examples that I don't know about. Resorting to fairy tales for another example which probably doesn't exactly represent world fantasy you get things like:

1. Witches riding broomsticks
2. Indians/Aladdin riding a magic carpet
3. Baba Yaga flying in a pot

I suppose that some categories of world fantasy make up their own genre separate to what we normally think of as fantasy. For example if a book involves voodoo it would probably not be classed as a fantasy book even if in other respects it is very similar. JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have overestimated the scope of the article. It is not about magic in general; it is not even about fantasy magic in general (that one's Magic (fantasy)). Witches riding on broomsticks is a historical belief of people who actually believed in magic. Aladdin's magic carpet does not make him a magician, because it does not require study; magical objects are treated in Magic (fantasy). Baba Yaga is also not a magician because she does not study; she is a forest spirit whose powers are innate.

wuxia might fit, but I would have to research it. Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarified the scope in the lede. I hope this also addresses your concerns about the "large and fairly diverse area" Goldfritha 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some info on wuxia. It's on the edges of suitable for this article, but I put in info to make it clearer. Goldfritha 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearances -- working on

Reworded those two sentences; are they clearer?

Yes, basically wizards in RPG are wizards in fantasy; the enormous variety cuts across the genre boundries. Actually, I'm thinking of slicing the D&D references, because this article is about the magicians in general, and going into individual RPG does not necessarily make the concept clearer. Humm. . . Goldfritha 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done more. Goldfritha 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Some short paras can be merged for better prose look. See also in text are bad style, try to transform into normal sentences. I have a feeling 'Wizards, magicians, and others specific to a work' section is rather incomplete, and besides it's a good idea to split lists off normal articles. I am hesitant to support as I am afraid the article is still incomplete - for example, no mention of fantasy-sci-fi crossbreads like Technomages, no mention of conepts like Mana... don't get me wrong, the article is impressive, but I am just not convinced it's ready.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Added info about mana. Goldfritha 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose: I am inclined to agree with Piotrus, though it has alot of promise. The main issues are the prose and the comprehensiveness. There are other books which could do with a mention - Phillip Pullman's trilogy, the hilarious Bartimaeus trilogy, even the Thomas Covenant series (with the lords, esp. lord Mhoram continuing the wizardlike helper role, though the agelessness in this case is reversed). In terms of prose, the whole 2nd para could do with a rewrite: the first sentence, starting...."The magicians discussed in this article..." immediately makes me question its comprehensiveness. Why not just, "Magicians in fantasy literature...". Through the prose, I think there needs to be more use of words like "portrayed" or "depicted", some of the sentences sound like you are talking about situations as though they are real eg. Still, most fantasy wizards have a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic. I feel really bad I didn't see this on the Peer Review and point it out. I think all it needs is a thorough copy edit and some more comprehensiveness but overall I think it shouldn't take too long. I'll try to point out some more stuff. cheers Cas Liber 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are other books which could do with a mention

There are lists for fantasy magicians. The purpose of this article is to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances. If a book should be mentioned, what is it that it is an example of that needs to be treated in this article?

I'll look at the style. Goldfritha 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is: who decides which books and examples to include? We need to be comprehensive, and it's just difficult for one editor to know and write about all examples in literature (although I am impressed by the refs you use, are they comprehensive?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to be comprehensive on concepts, not on books. And if they are not comprehensive -- well, what's missing? You're another editor; what do you think is missing that needs examples? Goldfritha 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree about not having endless lists of books (I will comment in a minute once I get this point out). I think some link to this page - Hero's journey - is needed as the article is descriptive but this latter page provides some literary critique and synthesis of info. more in a minute Cas Liber 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Prose issues "Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic." - this sentence is cumbersome - how about,"Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift which sets them apart from the vast majority of characters in fantasy worlds who are unable to learn magic." Cas Liber 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"...in common belief and in literature", belies suggests fact when were talking about ancient stories, many of which would have not been believed literally - what about "...have appeared in myths, folktales and literature throughout recorded history" Cas Liber 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"..and as heroes, a more recent development." (too many commas; why not - "..and more recently as heroes themselves."Cas Liber 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although they are often shown wielding the great powers, equal to or great than anything technology can produce, they seldom bring about major changes in societies, which in most fantasy worlds remain at a medieval level of technology." - this sentence has grammatical errors which need fixing (removing first "the" and "greater" instead of "great") -but could be written in a less clunky prose.

- all these are in the lead alone. Will keep going when I have a minute Cas Liber 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- On second thoughts this is quite time consuming - do you want me to have a go copyediting though it?Cas Liber 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hero's Journey"? Why? Magicians can appear in fantasy tales that are not, in fact, based on the hero's journey, and the hero's journey doesn't need even to be fantasy.

True, they can but the overwhelming majority of fantasy literature is modelled on the Hero's journey Cas Liber 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's disputed -- and there's still the question of why the hero's journey is suitable for the magician article. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your copyeditting it. I will take a look if you can't. Goldfritha 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Flows better now. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Good luck with the article, I like the choice of subject matter. A few thoughts upon reading the article:

• 'History of fantasy wizards'- it's difficult to get a feel for the chronological history of fantasy wizards. The history section opens with a reference to Shakespeare's time (1664-1614), then jumps backwards to refer to Virgil (70-19BC) then forwards to refer to Merlin (1100s or earlier). What are the earliest instances of fantasy wizards / magicians? What time period does Gwydion of Welsh mythology belong to? Similarly, what time periods do the fairy tales Esben and the Witch, Molly Whuppie, How the Dragon was Tricked The Twelve Wild Ducks and The Wounded Lion belong to?
• 'History of fantasy wizards' - "Others, even in medieval romances, learned their abilities by study; Merlin, despite his half-human origin, studied with Blaise. Still others did not have consistent stories told of them; Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name, but in Le Morte d'Arthur, it is said that "she was put to school in a nunnery and there she learned so much that she was a great clerk of necromancy". Likewise, a hag can be either a witch or a kind of fairy." The last line seems disjointed / out of place, it does not seem to follow on from the preceding discussion in the paragraph.
• 'History of fantasy wizards' - " Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name " Should this sentence read "shows her origins as an innately magical being" rather than "in an innately magical being"?
• It may help to provide context for some of the names which are mentioned in the article. I'm familiar with the subject matter, but many readers may not be. For example, in the section on Appearances, it would help to provide a few words explaining that Albus Dumbledore is in J.K. Rowling's series of Harry Potter novels (this is his first mention in the article): "The appearance of wizards in fantasy art, and description in literature, is uniform to a great extent, from the appearance of Gandalf to that of Albus Dumbledore." Likewise, it would help to provide some context for the first mention of Gwydion.
• 'Appearance' - "The association with age means that wizards, both male and female, are depicted as old, white-haired, and (for men) with long white beards." It may be better to say 'are often depicted' or 'are frequently depicted' rather than 'are depicted' since the statement is unlikely to hold true in all cases.

--Jazriel 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Working on it -- got some of it in, but will have to ponder "History" a little more on how to structure it better. Goldfritha 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "history" section was not tracing the historical development of the fantasy wizard; it was pointing out sources. I have retitled the header to make the matter more clear. Goldfritha 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - The writing style is far too relaxed for my liking, & not really up to encyclopedic levels. It needs to be a bit more scientific sounding, just up to highschool level. This problem may have occured because only a limited amount of people, such as the person who nominated, have worked on the article, so that their level of writing is throughout the entire article. This can be easily remedied by having a couple of professional copyeditors & rewriters go through the whole article & put in better prose. Other than that, I can see no reason why this article couldn't make FA status. This may not occur this time round, but if its small amount of problems are fixed, then next time it should be no problem... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting in light of requests to simplify it and make it more understandable. Goldfritha 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, don't listen to them, listen to meee! ;) By making it better prose, then it will become more understandable, by way of ease to read. At the moment the article sounds as if it's written in a weird way, that's why a couple of copyeditors need to swept through & bring it up to standard. Goldfritha, this is not the way to handle an FAC either. Making short defensive comments in reply isn't going to do any good for you , this FAC or the article. A posistive response would be "Yes, that seems like a good idea. Although there are requests above for the article to be made simpler (Which I suppose you knew), a good copyedit by an outside editor wouldn't hurt anybody." That my friend is why this article isn't going to make it this time around. Spawn Man 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Wesley Clark

Very, very old previous FAC

There were a lot of issues brought up in the old nom that are now moot. Nomination reset. Raul654 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support again, still seems good to me. Trebor 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support — engagingly written and well laid out with interesting photographsAhadland 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - fair use Image:Clark logo.bmp does not add substantially to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Corrected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note It's been replaced with a png version per request. Staxringold _talk 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reply What? It's an image purposefully distributed to be reused, so it's not like the fair use is contentious. Beyond that, it's a campaign sign for a campaign section. Staxringold _talk 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I continue to believe this fair use image does not add substantially to the article. I suggest you replace it with an image that shows a campaign appearance, perhaps? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You can contend that but it flys in the face of basically every other featured article on Misplaced Pages where logos are useable fair use images to display the subject (in this case the logo of his 2004 campaign used to display his 2004 campaign). And I've sent his campaign a request for free 2004 images. Examples of fair use logos in featured articles include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Cheers, The West Wing (TV series), Avatar: The Last Airbender, Blade Runner, and the list goes on. Staxringold _talk 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• That things have been done wrong in the past does not make doing them wrong again ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• But why do you alone get to redefine what fair use is? Fair use is clearly allowed to include an image, such as a logo, that is freely distributed to represent the subject. That's exactly what this is. Heck, even Barack Obama shows his campaign sign. Staxringold _talk 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not. Review Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria - "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." This image does not contribute significantly to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not to sound argumentative, but yes you are. Why does {{logo}} exist? The fair use is specifically stipulated there, "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Unless you're suggesting that every image under Category:Logos be deleted, you are arbitrarily picking this particular logo out. Staxringold _talk 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have not suggested deleting logos from articles about the campaigns themselves, rather from the bios of the candidates. I'm also focused on fair use in featured article candidates, which this is, not on not-featured-article candidates. Our best should be free as in speech, not free as in beer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• But this is the effective article on Wesley Clark presidential campaign, 2004, but it is not broad enough to warrant it's own article (John Kerry and George Bush are the only such articles I know of). It exemplifies the section, it is used exactly as the fair use template dictates, identical images in identical situations have been used in other featured articles. Please do not try and act like this is you voting based on policy, this is your opinion, which is not an actionable complaint. Staxringold _talk 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• My oppose stands. Replaceable fair use should be replace. Decorative fair use should be removed. This is both. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then your objection is not actionable and I'll let Raul handle it whenever the FAC is closed. It is not replacable as there is no free way to display a campaign logo (though, just for you, the next time the woman I've been talking to emails me about photos I'll ask if WesPAC can release this particular logo image) and it is no more decorative than any other logo. So I expect you to propose, at the Village Pump most likely, that every single logo image be deleted or else this is just an arbitrary oppose. Staxringold _talk 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, two actions you could take would be to replace the fair use image (you did that, but apparently you MUST MUST MUST have the image in) or remove the fair use image. Are those not actions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have asked User:Persian Poet Gal for an independant administrator's opinion on the issue, and I will not comment further until she has to avoid violating WP:DICK. Staxringold _talk 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest if you cannot keep a level head you either remove the image, thus fully satisfying me, or withdraw the FAC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have not lost a level head... I asked for independant review, the proper next step when two parties cannot reach an agreement... Staxringold _talk 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• See, that was easy. Image deleted due to community consensus at WP:FUC. Staxringold _talk 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It would be better if this image could be uploaded in the PNG file format. Harryboyles 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done Staxringold _talk 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. If only for the work that has been done since it was nominated. Harryboyles 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The entire article is nothing but campaign propaganda. Staxringold even deletes, repeatedly, the usual non-partisan links (such as FEC campaign finance records) in External links. Instead we are treated to old campaign websites and someone's personal blog about Clark. Flatterworld 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Usual such as in what featured article? Because unless I'm mistaken, trimming external links to as slim as possible is a very basic requirement for good articles. I'm not being biased, I'm trying to keep this already very long article trimmed. I'm removing the Wes Clark Democrat now, just to make it clear. Staxringold _talk 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply Look at the politicians included in Featured articles - Politics and government, such as FDR, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. 'Slim as possible' doesn't mean taking out everything, regardless of merit. It means don't include spam and don't include material of only slight relevance. Flatterworld 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've added back some of the links to keep it trimmed, but with the campaign contribution site and such to keep it fair. Staxringold _talk 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Much better. Change my Oppose to a Support. Flatterworld 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've done some copy editing to the article and if the one citation needed tag I added to the 2004 Presidential campaign section is addressed, I would be happy to offer my support to the article gaining FA staus. It meets all criteria. Good job to those who worked on it. Regards, --Jayzel 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Support --Jayzel 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. For the completeness, fully documented sources, and NPOV writing stance, this should be an example of where Misplaced Pages should go in the future. --CTwikipedier 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. Minor issue, though: while I appreciate the desire to use named ref tags, the situation with notes 32–37 is simply atrocious. Could you please combine those into a single note? Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly, I'll do that now. It is quite a long line of refs when they're one by one. Staxringold _talk 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I certainly learned something from that article after reading it. It's very well-written, very well-cited, neutral and stable. I don't see a reason why not to support it. JonCatalan 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/University of Oklahoma

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

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Cricket World Cup

This article has undergone massive renovations to bring it up to scratch with the likes of FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup. See first PR, failed FAC, second PR. It is a GA. Nobleeagle 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support(partial contributor). This article meets the criteria and it's a really important sports related article.--Thugchildz

• Object For now because it is almost there. Tournament and Media coverage sections need exspanding. The "Performance of teams" section looks a bit odd stuck between two tables. The lead infobox should only have the current champion. A lot of original reserch. Buc 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Please point out the occurences of original research so that we can fix them. Nobleeagle 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  what else is there to do? the tournament and media coverage have been expanded, the tables are the same way for the fifa world cup and thats a FA, and you still have not pointed out orginal research.

• Object (for this state:). The article looks good, but I still have some comments below. (Note: please don't mix your replies/answers/comments on my comment below as it will confuse who said which. The darkred fonts were copy-pasted from the article.)
  1. Please complete all fair use rationale of all fair use images used in this article. Some fair use images, esp. logos, have high resolution. Its size should be reduced, per WP:FAIR.
  2. I'm not really good at compelling prose criterion, but the following sentences do not have a good flow. The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England. Cricket was included as a sport at the 1900 Summer Olympics, where Great Britain defeated France in the final to win the gold medal. Cricket was not included in subsequent summer olympics. The next international cricket competition was the 1912 Triangular Tournament. They just look like bulleted items presented in a paragraph. No conjunction words and there is big gap between sentences.
  3. I'm not also good at grammar, but this is the first time I read the word "while" is used strangely without a complete sentence. Here they are: Non-Test playing teams from the last World Cup automatically qualifies for the Qualifier. While, the next best ranked teams are seeded in division two and division three. From division three, two teams are promoted to division two. From that, four teams qualify for the World Cup Qualifier. While the others are still in contention. (see the bold part). Also, it confuses me to read "From that". Which "that" is it? the division three or the division two?
  4. Again with the cutoff half-clauses (main and subordinate into two sentences) like these: The top two teams from division five then moves up to division four. From which, the top two teams are promoted to division three (second edition).
  5. Could you just draw a graph to show how the qualification process works, rather than confusing sentences of "from that", "from which" and other "from..." ?
  6. The television distribution rights to the 2007 Cricket World Cup have been sold to EchoStar Communications Corporation, which will be broadcasting to viewers from countries around the world, including an estimated 12 million viewers in the United States, which is a non-cricket playing nation. (too many "which"es)
  7. The number of references is a bit thin, compared to the article size. Some sentences need inline citations, for instance:
     • The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England.
     • Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs, the closest margin ever in World Cup final history.
     • ...,were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance.
     • The 1999 event was held in England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands.
     • In 2009 the name "ICC Trophy" will be changed to "ICC World Cup Qualifier".
     • The 2007 Cricket World Cup will feature 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.
     • There is still room for another ten teams to have their name inscribed.
     • The tournament today is one of the world’s largest and most viewed sporting events. (I don't believe this. Compare to the FIFA World Cup?)
  8. Now let's look at the current references:
     • 2. ^ Cricket World Cup PDF → please complete this.
     • 3. ^ a b Ruthless Aussies lift World Cup. bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 29 August 2006 → when did this news appear?
     • 17. ^ Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004 → what is this? book? newspaper? who is the publisher?
     • 18. ^ ICC Cricket World Cup Anti-infringement programme → infringement? It's only FAQs. Which one is it?
     • Ref. 18 & 19 link to the same place, but they give different citations.
     • For all citation to news, please provide also when the news appeared. It's not informative to state only when you accessed it.
  9. Numerous sponsorship deals have been made for each of the World Cups, for example, the sponsors for the 2007 Cricket World Cup include LG Electronics, Pepsi, Hutch, Hero Honda, Indian Oil, Scotiabank and Visa. Of course, all modern sport events now have sponsors. I don't think spelling out sponsors for a tournament is an encyclopaedic terms.
  10. In the "See Also" section, there are two wikilinks: "International cricket in 2006-07" and "International cricket in 2007". Why are they different?

— Indon (reply) — 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

comment all objections have been addressed and explained to the users who objected;here & here--Thugchildz

(Moved from my talk page, please address all concerns about this article's review here. Please don't put them in my talk page, okay?) — Indon (reply) — 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

hello, thank you for pointiing out the things that needs to be improved on the article. Right now most of you ojections for the article's FA have been addressed so can you please strike out you objection and comments (with <del>...</del>).

Edit:i found out im not supposed to do that so sorry about that.--Thugchildz

Response I know how to strike, but I don't like striking reviews. It's awful to read strikes in a review. I will only strike my oppose vote later after running a second look. — Indon (reply) — 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Second look. I'm still opposing it after a glance look again to the page. Take one example, ^ Book:Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004. Is this a good way of citing a source? Please read examples in WP:CITET and then you know why. (Note: WP:CITET is not mandatory but it is a good place to see what minimal parameters for a citation to be informative.)) — Indon (reply) — 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

it has a better source now--Thugchildz

• Comment some images still lack fair use rationales. Also, the refs need to be completed with authors, dates (and pages for the PDF files), for example, ref no. 3 has an update date, but isn't cited; ref no. 7 also names the author but it isn't cited either. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  what do you mean by ref no.3 abd 7 not being cited? also all of them are complete with authors and the dates, plus PDF have now the page no. and plus as said above WP:CITET is not mandatory--Thugchildz

  I mind, this source names the author and the publication date (Martin Williamson / April 30, 2005), if you cite that source as a reference, you've got to include all the information, it doesn't matter if you're using a citation template or not. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  WP:CITET does not say you have to include all the info. it only says that the bold ones are required and plus those templates don't even have to be used, so i dont think its mandatory include every single info about the source. may be i am wrong but not that i know of--Thugchildz

  The bold parameters in WP:CITET are required for the template to work. If you don't use the "title", or the "url" parameter, the ref will show an error. Read Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources and Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources/example_style. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is not directly related to the article. I use a widescreen display and the "Infobox Cricket Tournaments" is grossly oversized in that format, i.e. I think its default size should be set so that its the same size in a 4:3 or widescreen display - just big enough to hold all the information. As it is there are massive empty spaces. Mark83 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The trophy section of the article has an embedded comment that says <!--Need to add data about the original trophy -->. Is the article complete or incomplete? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's complete that was just left there from before--Thugchildz

• Support An excellent, well-illustrated, informative article, with a considered, appropriate use of stats (in a stats-crazy sport) - deserving of FA status. --Dweller 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've pooped out better articles than this. --24.235.229.208 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign in and provide some constructive criticism as to why you voted oppose.Nobleeagle 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need to sign in to make coments here? Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if you check the history, I didn't strike out his comment, he did it himself, with the edit summary of "vandalism". But I think that if you want your vote to count in the tally, you need to be signed in as this means there can be no sockpuppetry or vote stacking. Nobleeagle 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sorry about forgetting to cite everything using proper templates. It's done now. Please point out any other problems and I'll quickly go and fix them, referencing format shouldn't be the factor keeping this away from FA. Nobleeagle 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think "Most Successful" "Top run scorer(s)" or "Top wicket taker(s)" are really notable enough to be in the lead infobox. Maybe move them to another part of the article. Also I think the lead image should be either the logo or just the trophy on it's own. Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

they are, because cricket is a stats-crazy sport and those are summary of the stats provided in the article--Thugchildz

I think you're right... the leading batsman/bowler need to remain. The "most successful" stat is, however, misleading, as it gives the impression Australia has won 40 world cups. I agree with comments above regarding the image in the info box... perhaps the Australia team image and the trophy image could just swap positions in the otherwise excellent article. --Dweller 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

taken care of; the pictures is a issue.--Thugchildz

Not sure what the problem is with the pictures (unless it's a landscape/portrait problem) but the stat is still a bit unhelpful IMHO (although no longer misleading). Surely the reader interested in the most successful side wants to know who's won the most World Cups, not matches? England's win record is pretty decent in terms of matches (joint second best, according to the article)... but they've never won the shiny metal thing. Surely the natural thing to list would be "Australia (1987, 1999, 2003)"? --Dweller 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah its lanscape/portrait so the other way looks odd and your right about world cups won not/matches--Thugchildz

• Support A great article; provides good information, well supported with images and good knowledge about this world cup.--Superplaya 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

comment i think you have to sign to have it count, right?--Thugchildz

Superplaya (talk · contribs) newly registered user - first edits to WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Having worked on the article I don't wish to support or object it, but I would like to bring out a few problems I have with the article at present.
  1. The infobox for me serves little to no purpose when all of the information quoted in the box is already stated in the introduction right next to it (with the exception of the top run scorer and wicket taker). On top of that I have problems with what is in the infobox: "Time Line" should be read as timeline and "round robin, super sixes and knockout" should not be capitalised. "Total participants" is misleading - this could mean a number of things and is ambiguous even to a reader familiar with the topic. But all of that said, I still believe it should be removed altogether and would like to hear the thoughts of other editors about this one.
  2. I have major issues with the use of some images. I fail to see the purpose of the inclusion of the 2007 Mascot under "Media coverage" and the use of Clide Lloyd's photo with the number 75 stuck on. The Trophy image should be used as the lead picture instead of the picture of the Australian team. The topic in question is the Cricket World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup champions.
  3. The article has a few factual errors. Instantly when I read the introduction I see that a "Super 6" stage is one of the tournament stages. This is incorrect, as the upcoming tournament will have a "Super 8" round robin stage.
  4. I don't see the purpose of "Process summary in chronological order" of qualification. Maybe it's just me, but I think it goes into too much depth.

That was just to point out a few major issues. I don't think this article is ready to be featured just yet. --mdmanser 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for enlightening us, will take these to account. also super 6 will be changed to super 8 when it happens, not before. the mascot is related and Clide Lloyd's picture is for the 1st world cup and is fine with fair use as it's not better than it would be printed from original copy, that said it belongs to represent the 1st ever world cup; you cant expect pictures back to the same as picture of later on. chronological order is what the explains it best. these have already been addressed and/or discussed in the peer reveiw--Thugchildz

also on the other hand the topic is the cricket world cup not cricket world cup trophy, so what makes the tournament- world cup- the trophy or the people?--Thugchildz

It's up to you whether you want "Super 8" or "Super 6" in the article, but whichever it is, the wording needs to be changed accordingly. "Nowadays" implies the present; Super 6 is no longer used. Also, let's get opinions from other editors about whether the infobox should stay or go. Peer review is much less critical than this stage (as I've learned before) and it would be smart to address all possible concerns now rather than in 2 weeks. --mdmanser 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

fair enough--Thugchildz

• Comments. Why are the news report citation not reporting the date of publishing of the news? Without them, citations look incomplete. Also, I think that the "format" in the infobox is highly misleading. Any reader who reads it now would most likely be interested in the format in place, not the one outdated. For a casual reader who came to the page to confirm how the format would be like would be misled by the infobox that it would involve a super six. While it is true that until the event takes place, super eight would never be in place, but it is equally true that super six is is no longer in use. I think we should mention the latest format decided by the ICC, and make a footnote saying that the event with this format is yet to take place. Also, the world cup tournament isn't an everyday phenomenon, so writing "nowadays" in the lead is highly misleading. Also, it reinstates the view that the upcoming world cup would follow the super six format. Now, regarding the image to be placed in the lead, there could have been a possibility of a debate if there were two possible images. However, as I noted on the article talk page, the Aussie cricket team image violates the fair use criteria since a free replacement of the world cup's image is available. It needs to go and the trophy's image needs to be put in its place. Regarding the "Participants" in infobox, it is not clear what "from 97 entrants" mean. By standard dictionary definition, entrant is a synonym of participant. How are they different? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Like most world cups in sport, many countries fail to qualify for the finals tournament. --Dweller 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  I knew that all along. What I was trying to say is that a reader not knowing it would get confused. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  as said above entrants are the teams that tried but failed to make it to the final 16 for the final tournament. picture is not a replacement because it trophy alone doesn't show australia with the trophy does it? so its not a vio for fair use criteria. also the citation is a only big issue now and it would be great if anyone could solve it--Thugchildz

  Why do you think it is important to show Australia with the cup? I don't think that provides any additional information. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Super Six to Super Eight change has been made. I'm not sure about the image placement in the lead but neither do I really care which image ends up there. If people really want to get rid of the Australian win image then we can do so. Nobleeagle 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I request other editors to assess the issue of fair use claim of the image. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• As much as I'm a cricket fan, I'll have to Object per 1(a), the prose doesnt really seem that compelling, with some redundant terms in there (eg. The number of teams getting selected through the ICC Trophy has varied from event to event. Currently, it selects six teams for the Cricket World Cup.) just to point out one. (Referencing in concerned section has been done --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC))The Performance of teams section could do with some references per 1(c). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Further to that, the tournament format could be referenced, especially the Super 6 stage, cause its unclear whether the Super 6 format may continue into WC 2007. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Although I personally disagree with Super 6 and Super 8 being separate articles (as both can change over time as the WC expands and more associate nations eg Canada.. (go Asish Bagai!) have to qualify to participate in expanded World Cups). All concerns have been addressed, and will be more than happy enough to Support. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support good article, easy to understand for the most part, but thats because i don't know much about cricket--Kbk1 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Note: Above user's first edit Nobleeagle 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The infobox is unnecessary and rebundant. Most of the information could be found easily in the lead or in respective sections (the statstics section at the end). So what is its use? CG 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  it was answered already "I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"

  --Thugchildz

• CG, discussion on the infobox is on the article's talk page. You will notice that I supported the removal and I still do despite Thugchildz's and Noble's arguments. However, I don't mind if it stays especially after it has undergone a bit of renovating and no longer misleads the reader in any way. Gizza 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  can anyone check and strike out the objections that's been addressed; that would be most of them I think.--Thugchildz

• Suggestion. Is it worth putting this bid on hold till after the 2007 tournament? Buc 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  No WikiProject Cricket wants it to be FA in time for 2007 tournament--Thugchildz

  But the article will have to be notably changed during and after the tournament. So even if it's a FA now it may not be after the 2007 tournament. Buc 09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not really, 2007 Cricket World Cup would change a lot, but this is just general phenomena and past history, not sport details. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't. Everything would just be updated. It deserves FA now. Every article changes but they don't wait arround for it to not change when nominating it and plus that's whay FA review is for. It wouldn't change much anyway because all the things are up to date and so there would just be little things updated or added. At the moment it deserves FA, we can't wait around to see if it will FA in the future or not; no article can. And it would still be a FA most likely. that's just a rubbish--Thugchildz

• The editors must be wondering why so many people have commented, yet so few have supported the article. In my opinion, this is because the article's language is not up to the mark to become an FA. I request the editors to find someone with good English to copyedit the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not wondering......(I'm not the author of the page), but yeah, the reviewers aren't impressed and they know the FAC isn't "winning" at this stage, so they don't really have any reason to drop by for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that the biggest obstacle in the article is the mediocre standard of prose. As one of the major contributers to the article, I'll be too "attached" to it if I try copediting. So can you suggest anyone (probably two or three people) willing to copyedit the article? Gizza 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I think Nichalp would be an ideal person to copyedit the article. Not only is he good at copyediting, he also understands the topic well in depth. So he will also be able to provide inputs on comprehensiveness. Thugchildz has asked for his help, let's see what comes of it. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I have finally got around to doing a full end-to-end copyedit. Another pass from a second editor may be a good idea, but this it very good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd support this article per the nomination listed. I think that it is a great treatment of an important topic.--Eva 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Very close to support now. They thing bugging me is that maybe the "Awards" section could put into a table. Buc 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  that could be done but would be too many tables...also the section explaining why they got the award might get messy--Thugchildz

  Well I've added it in. Looks fine to me. Buc 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Another issues with the wording. Thugchildz says that saying "tornament" all the time is "boring". I wouldn't have thought how boring an article is would matter, it's designed to infom not entertain. I would also say sticking to the same wording in more encyclopedic but I'm not really bothered. Anyone eles got a preference either way? Buc 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  No it has to be both informative and interesting at the same time. A well written article is never boring.--Thugchildz

• Question Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version should be used? --mdmanser 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  Well first off, I don't see why there's need to be two different infoboxes that basically does the same thing. Right now the orinal version doesn't have anything ambigous and technically incorrect. There cant be more than 97 because if your not a ICC member you can't qualify for the tournment. The format of the tournament goes by the current format, "multiple" imo is ambiguous. Also some of the better things were incorporated into the orinal one because the original one is used by other articles as well so why does there need to be two infoboxes when the orinal one can do the same thing?--Thugchildz

• Support Everything looks good now. Buc 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like the history to be more comprehensive and informative, but it has been cut down before. I have left some comments on the article's talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  The history part is informative I think. 1st it had more details and then some editors said it had excesive trivia and so it was cut down some. It still is has everything without geting into too much details, which should be in the main article- history of the world cup and the specific world cup articles anyway imo--Thugchildz

  I've done so. Hopefully we will have a problem of choice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - the infobox is now admirable, containing a good mix of "top level" info, without digressing into minutiae. The History section is about right too, considering that it links to a main article that deals with the subject exclusively and at length. What else needs to be done before this is passed for FA? --Dweller 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  Ha, Dweller just to let you know, you supported the article earlier on! Gizza 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the article is near-FA quality, but not there yet. Here are some of the sentences I found that can do with some editing. I am not doing it myself as others may disagree. (Note: quotes italised)
  • The two teams competed regularly for The Ashes, with South Africa being admitted to Test status in 1889. Part of sentence before and after the comma talk about completely different things. Either bring in flow, or break-up into two sentences.
  • The event was not a success, due to lack of public interest and poor weather. "Not a success": There must be better ways to phrase that.
  • In the subsequent years, international Test cricket has been generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the quadrangular Asian Test Championship in 1999. I don't see why a colon is used.
  • Starting in 1962 as a four-team knockout competition (known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup), and Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity, leading to the formation of the national Sunday League in 1969. The Midlands Cup info is an important part of the sentence (not just an additional info), and thus should be outside braces. Also, I think it would be wise to break this sentence as this is very long.
  • The first One-day International event was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. If cricket matches lasting one day were played since 1960s, then how was the first ODI played in 1971. If the operating word is "official", it should be categorically mentioned.