Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:03, 17 February 2007

February 2007

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Lion King Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ben Thompson Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bob Marley Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/C. S. Lewis Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/World War II Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Center for Consumer Freedom

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 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Halo 2

Didn't get a thorough consensus last time I nominated it; I addressed people's concerns, but they didn't return and pass judgement... previous FAC below. Dåvid Fuchs 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

→previous FAC here.

• Support - looks nice, lots of work done. SamBrozden 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Article is out of date, especially the legacy section (Which is a misnomer anyway). It needs to be updated to include the PC version. 05 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, Support as its my nom. Dåvid Fuchs 12:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Looks excellent. However, can a replacement be found for Media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg‎? IMO it's an exceedingly poor quality image. Qjuad 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look. Unfortunately those all come from compressed cinematics from hbo, I had to clean it up some but the black shows most artifacts. I'll see if there's another one, unfortunately thats the only time you see the two together. Dåvid Fuchs 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support per SamBrozden; this is a great article. Cliff smith 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as good as the Halo: Combat Evolved one. igordebraga ≠ 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Does not have any printed citations or sources. --History Fan 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And this means... what? Dåvid Fuchs 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dåvid Fuchs's reply was in response to History Fan's original comment, "Too many video games." There are several printed sources — for example, the game manuals, which could be considered printed, and GamePro, a magazine. S.D. 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment — Regardless, it's not an actionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a great article - but the subject matter is tired. Theres a huge amount of video-game articles out there. Wow, YAVGA (Yet Another Video Game Article). How about putting all that work into a subject of importance? Nice article, too bad it had to be about a video game. Sue Rangell 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't seriously see how you can possibly justify opposing a well-written article just because its about a subject you don't find interesting... so much for 'don't be a dick'... Dåvid Fuchs 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to start name calling. I'm trying to give you an objective opinion of the article. It's well done, except for the subject matter (it also has no printed citations, but there's no need to get into that) The subject matter is very important. You could write the best Article in the world about pocket lint, with great formatting and lot's of pictures, and it's still just an article about pocket lint. I mean no offense. It's a great article, but so are a bazillion others about video games.Sue Rangell 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This opposition, as with the one above, are not legitimate complaints and are therefore unactionable. Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one. Qjuad 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unactionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I still oppose on the grounds that there is not even a single printed citation or source. It's all websites, not a single ISBN in the bunch. Websites are at best secondary sources, and at worse not to be counted as sources at all. Almost everything is from a single website (bungie.net). The dates are a mess too. A lot of dates are missing. Also, in many spots the dialogue shifts from present tense to past tense uneccessarily, and that makes it difficult to read. Plus, it's full of DEAD LINKS! Fix that stuff, and I'll change my vote. Sue Rangell 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source is not necessarily inferior. It is simply a source that is based on primary or other secondary sources. And I fail to see how the official website of the company that made the game fails to qualify as a primary source, given their closeness to the subject at hand.--Rmky87 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Websites are treated as sources on almost every single featured Misplaced Pages article. There is nothing anything inherently inferior about reliable online material compared against printed material; featured video game articles such as Half-Life 2 also have only two, maybe three printed sources. The same also goes for many featured articles in the media/computer/video game categories where the most abundant sources of information will be found online. Qjuad 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Bungie.net is the official website of the company who makes Halo 2. It is not an indenpendent source of information, so you should be careful what you reference from them. Awadewit 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using only web-sources, easiest to obtain and you can verify what is cited by looking at the source... M3tal H3ad 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment — issue over print citations is obsolete. Refs formatting and copy-edit are needed, however. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Great article — as igordebraga said, it's as good as, if not better than, Halo: Combat Evolved. One comment: I suggest finding a source for the following line, "The game's Campaign mode has received some criticism, from the lack of Earth-based missions, to dissatisfaction with the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets up the sequel, Halo 3." May I remind History Fan and Sue Rangell that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." Cheers, S.D. 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written, informative, thorough, and sourced. Please fix the citation needed tag under "Reception" though. Thanks. -Bluedog423 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation has been added. Cheers, S.D. 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose right now. A few things that need checked out:

• Image:Halo02.jpg looks like it should be fair use, not CC.
• Dates are needed for many of the references (for example, the GameSpot review ref should have a date parameter in the form of date=])
• The article still has some {{fact}} tags.
• Should "superbouncing" and "superjumping" be capitalized? I don't think so...
• The "Xbox Live updates" section needs wikified and more inline citations. --- RockMFR 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the new image added, and I'm in the process of adding dates when they actually give them to me. Fixed the fact thing, I swear I must have had that sourced before, it got moved or something... capitalizations has been fixed, and I'll see about adding more inline citations to that section later. Dåvid Fuchs 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to fix — the paragraph beginning with "In June 2006, an additional online matchmaking..." is rather poorly written — I can't really even understand what it is trying to say. --- RockMFR 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fixed. Since no one outside of Halo 2 multi knows what those playlists mean, I just folded the lead sentence into the last paragraph, reworded it, and deleted the rest. Now, for those inline citations... Dåvid Fuchs 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Xbox Live updates section has been improved with cleanup and more citations and links. Cheers, S.D. 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Contains {{fact}} tags. Mrmoocow 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't anymore. Dåvid Fuchs 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — several issues:

• References — need proper formatting. For example, the game manuals do not had ID numbers and so on. See Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy VIII for manual citations. Try to fill out what you can on Template:Cite web.
• Prose — needs a copy-edit. Someone mentioned tense problems above, and I see a few bulleted lists that need proper formatting or conversion to paragraph form. Other examples:

"Halo 2 features over 14 different human and alien weapons, many new to the series." — redundant word (different), "over" should be "more than", etc

"A common complaint regarding Halo 2's online play has been the widespread cheating, which began occurringstarted almost immediately after the game's release."

Captions have excessive periods.

Otherwise, it looks good. — Deckiller 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Support

Can you point me to the manual citing? I looked through their citations, and I can't find for the life of me where the manuals are cited. Dåvid Fuchs 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: (1999) in Square Electronic Arts: Final Fantasy VIII North American instruction manual (in English). Square Electronic Arts, 20, 24, 36. SLUS-00892GH. — Deckiller 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I filled it in for both manuals... I'll check and make sure I've got cite web format for everything (thought I did, but whatever...) Fixed your obvious suggestions, I'll do a thorough check asap. Dåvid Fuchs 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. For references, most need author and date and perhaps publisher, and they should be all set. — Deckiller 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: After fixing references, dates, and copyediting, I suggest submitting Halo 2 to the requests for FAC and FAR for a new set of eyes to look at. Happy editing, S.D. 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose The only problem I currently see with the article is the lack of information in the Web Citations. While some of the misc. information might not be necessary, the date of publication and the author of the article should be included for context. If this problem were corrected I would change my opinion to a firm Support. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, Citation 2 should go from this:

{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}

to this:

{{cite web|last = Gibson |first = Ellie|date = 2006-11/20|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}

That will leave the output as ^ Gibson, Ellie (2006-11/20). Gears of War ousts Halo. Gamesindustry.biz. Retrieved on 2006-12-22, which is generally nicer overall. I'd fix these myself but can't access the Wayback Machine or some game sites from this computer. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (See below)

I've added the following (Citation number: What I've added):

This is all the information I found — however, I might have easily overlooked something. Hopefully this will take care of comments about formatting references/web citations. Happy editing, S.D. 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little more to the few refs that S.D. missed- at this point I believe we have essentially all the info we can get on these. Some have no post dates or authors, or some (like all the bungie.net links) are screwed up due to a site redesign: while I can promise I will go back and fix each and every one of these, right now they are all 404 errors until Bungie migrates all their old stuff to the new design. Dåvid Fuchs 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Needs copy editing ("one which the humans have been nominally losing" -- is it called the "War of Humans losing to Covenant"?) for verb tense, grammar, punctuation; lack of formal tone ("The Master Chief manages to stow away") and other fancruft style issues (When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a out-of-universe perspective. Or simply put, do not describe fiction as fact.), shouldn't there be "spoiler" tags for plot synposis?, most of the "Development" section should be merged with "Reception," and break Reception into popular and critical. Obviously a lot of good work though. Madcoverboy 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

not to be nitpicky with your suggestions, especially as grammar,etc is certainly valid, but a couple points: one: spoiler tags are generally not needed for a clearly labeled 'plot synopsis' section. Secondly, reception doesn't have to be broken up into more headings. After all, its roughly divided that way anyhow. I don't see why we should merge Dev with Reception, as they are two very different things. I'll check again for oou stuff. Dåvid Fuchs 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops — I went ahead and added spoiler tags and headers; feel free to take them off for the time being. In my opinion, development doesn't need to merged since the section "takes place" until before the game was released and reception takes it from there: after the game was released. Cheers, S.D. 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Development doesn't need to be compressed into Reception. Development is about how the game was created and the steps the company took to hype the game before release, and reception deals with how it was received after release. Also, splitting reception into popular and criticial is basically just overemphasizing the paragraph breaks, so I don't think that's necessary, unless the WikiProject has it in their formatting guide. — Deckiller 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make subsections under Development for Audio and Video (or Havok engine or...)? The section reads like a stub and isn't well integrated with the other information around it.Madcoverboy

I agree about audio; it's only one paragraph, so it can probably be integrated into Development. — Deckiller 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since "Audio" has been expanded, the section "Development" could be renamed to something such as "Prerelease events" or just "Prerelease." Cheers, S.D. 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The PC computer game is scheduled for release on May 8, and though it may be common practice for Misplaced Pages feature ads to run in support of product releases, the featured article criteria (1e) say the content of an article is not supposed to change from day to day, as it surely will in the wake of the release and publicity. Furthermore, the article contains statements such as "Bungie has stated that the issue has been fixed ... for the Windows Vista port", for which so far as I know only the manufacturer has been permitted to form an opinion as of this time. I do not believe that the manufacturer's opinion of an upcoming product release is a neutral point of view. Mike Serfas 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The game has been out for 2 1/2 years now. The fact that it's now being ported to another platform isn't going to change the content of the article significantly (in other words, it will not destabilize the article, as you allude). Raul654 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support with the obvious qualifier that the article will need to be updated when the PC game drops. It meets my definition of stable (in that the content itself is not going through changes) and it violates no FA requirements that I see. To quote the assessment scale... "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light" fits this article pretty well. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update I have put in a request with the League of Copyeditors to run through this article and fix any grammatical/prose worries. Dåvid Fuchs 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - nearly all of the bungie.net references are dead links. Most of these seem to still be accessible through archive.org. These will need to be fixed up (use the archivedate and archiveurl parameters of {{cite web}}). --- RockMFR 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I contacted bungie, and they assured me that eventually the links would be restored, within the next two weeks, s it would be painful to change them then switch them back. If they don't migrate everything by then, then I guess I'll have to trudge through it. Dåvid Fuchs 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is heavily based on that source, my oppose will stand until the references can be verified. --- RockMFR 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• More stuff I noticed:

• "Bungie was notoriously secretive and occupied with security; large pains were taken to make sure development builds were not leaked when used for marketing purposes" — source?
• Ref #14 points to Halo: First Strike, an unreferenced article. Is this supposed to be a source?
• Am I assuming correctly that the "Characters" section is built from in-game quotes? If so, would it be possible to actually cite these quotes? Not necessary, but it would be nice.
• The bit about "I Love Bees" needs to be sourced (this should be easy) and probably could be expanded a bit, based on how much attention it got. --- RockMFR 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sourcing, added a bit to the ilovebees (I'll format the links properly soon, i promise!) and I added a specific page citations for Halo: First Strike as its in poor shape. Dåvid Fuchs 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. The lead shows a density of issues with the prose that indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout. Please don't just fix these examples.
  • "critically-acclaimed"—No hyphens after "-ly".
  • "On 20 June 2006, more than 500 million games of Halo 2 have been played and a total of over 710 million hours have been spent playing with it over Xbox Live since its debut, and by 30 October 2006, this number was raised to four billion.". Better to start with "By"? "Had" is used elsewhere, so perhaps here too. Why is one count alone highlighted with "a total of"? Is it more important? "Playing with it over Xbox Live"—Playing with? Elsewhere, it's just "playing/ed". "Its" could refer to Xbox Live or to Halo 2. "Was raised to" is awkward here; why not just "rose to"?
  • "genocidal collective of alien races"—more comfortable as "collective of genocidal alien races", I think.
  • "As of 9 November 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Same problem with tense: use "had", since the date is in the past. Best-selling requires a hyphen.
  • "many new to the series"—The ellipsis is too much here; insert "of which are". Tony 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Glad to see you back, Tony. Like I said above, I'd help, but I've been swamped. — Deckiller 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Other issues with prose — although I changed to a support, I agree with Tony that more touching up is needed. Other examples:
  • "Halo 2 takes place in the same science fiction universe created by Bungie Studios for Halo." Is there a need to mention Bungie Studios here?

• • "The main player characters are..." "playable" characters may sound better. Let's face it, the geeks who invented some of these RPing terms weren't word nerds.

• • "The player assumes the dual roles of Master Chief and the Arbiter," "dual" might be redundant here, especially with the word "and".

• • "The game comes to a close with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo, aided by fellow Elites as well as surviving members of In Amber Clad's' crew." can be trimmed to: "The game concludes with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo...."

— Deckiller 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

These have been fixed, but here are some more examples:

"As of November 9, 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Over should be "more than"

"...and a bonus cinematic called "Another Day on the Beach", amongst other features." "amongst" should be "among".

I have some time right now, so I'll see if I can give you a hand. — Deckiller 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Covers everything well. Enjoyable read. Buc 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is quite the article and the immense copyediting that can be seen throughout the course of this FAC has rendered it close to flawless. Nice job. I don't see the rationale behind "Oh no, not another video game article" that I believe Sue brought up. What if someone created an article about pocket lint, as you mentioned, and it was so well-written and well-referenced that most people online went to Misplaced Pages for good information on it. That article would really deserve FA status. The specific notability of the article, in my opinion, is a totally invalid argument. We want people to bring every article to FA status, not just the exciting ones. Some people like video games, and I don't think it's remotely sensible to oppose an article just because you think that person's time could be better spent writing an article about who knows what else. Anyway, I'm off to play a video game and enjoy myself. JHMM13 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - anything else, then? Dåvid Fuchs 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. 6 fair use images in an FA article doesn't usually sit well with me, but they are used here well, so I won't complain. However (and I know this is super fine tooth comb), but you might consider changing "Screenshot of a Halo 2 game in progress." to "Screenshot of a Halo 2 multiplayer game in progress." It was a little misleading until I really looked at the picture, since you labeled the other multiplayer picture as one.--Clyde (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great overall article, images are source and it's extremely well referenced. -凶 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one at that, nice work FA class all the way to bad the article about pocket lint is not this good. Max 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any of the opposing rationale to bear much weight. "I don't like video games" is not a very standing argument, and no printed sources...for goodness sake, you don't read Halo 2, you play it. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the bungie links are still broken. There is no way to verify the content that is sourced with these links. Please fix them. --- RockMFR 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

bugger... stupid bungie web guys went back on their word... hopefully by the end of this weekend I'll have time to convert all these. Dåvid Fuchs 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article did a phenomonal job of explaining this game to a total moron (a.k.a. me) who had never played it before. I think that this article is definately good enough for featured article status.J.delanoy 01:49, 16 April 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/Big Brother (UK) Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Southern United States

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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Dannii Minogue

Self-nomination: This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations and such. It received very little attention in peer review, but I think that this article is ready now, and I hope you agree. -- Underneath-it-All 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• /Comment - Please add an additional paragraph to the lead, to summarize her personal life and the controversy section. I also suggest you go back and copy edit it, as I already fixed one very obvious typo in the lead paragraph. I have only skimmed the rest of the article, checking references and such, but I quite enjoyed what I saw (I'm a sucker for pop-culture articles). I'll go back and read it again later tonight or tomorrow. Jeffpw 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Now that the lead has been expanded, I can support this article. It's a fun read, and very well referenced. Jeffpw 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Abstain - The article is almost there, but some things should see some improvement:
  • Problematic prose: Minogue achieved early success with hits such as "Love and Kisses" and "This is It", though by the release of her second album, her popularity as a singer had declined and this led her to concentrate on other fields such as television presenting. You might want to insert a full stop somewhere in there.
  • Run-on sentence: The late 1990s saw a brief return to music, Minogue reinventing herself as a dance artist with "All I Wanna Do", her first number one UK Club hit.
  • Problematic prose: Minogue was born in Melbourne, Australia to an Australian father, Ron Minogue, and Carol Jones, who in 1955 had immigrated as a child from her native Maesteg, Wales to Townsville, Queensland. You might want to split that up a bit.
  • Weasel alert: She reportedly began recording her third album ...
  • Problematic prose: After the release of her first two albums, Minogue had discovered an interest in dance music, which had began with several remixes of her songs by Steve Hurly. The dance music genre was created by Steve Hurly?
  • Run-on sentence: Minogue's interest in dance music and clubbing influenced her third album Girl, released in September of 1997, which featured collaborations with musicians such as Brian Higgins of Xenomania, and Minogue contributed the majority of the lyrics.
  • Content question: In 2001, Minogue signed a six album deal with London Records The "London Records" section, however, only mentions one record being released (Neon Nights). What happened to the other albums (or to the contract)?
  • Not my kind of prose: "Perfection", another collaboration, this time with the Soul Seekerz, followed in October of 2005.
  • Superfluous prose: The single, however, remains without a confirmed commercial release date. How about adding details about said single if and when it is released?
  • Section overload: The "Acting career" section also details her stints as a television presenter. Unless she was faking her way through those jobs, you might want to rename the section title.
  • Crystal ball alert: In 2007, Minogue is scheduled to begin filming ... You might want to check WP:CRYSTAL and see if there's sufficient reason to put that paragraph in.
  • Copyright alert: Although it takes great pains to say it, I doubt the Esquire cover image will qualify under Misplaced Pages's fair use policy. Check Misplaced Pages:Fair use, and counterexample 7 in particular. Obviously the image has great... eh... "educational" value, but it doesn't establish anything of relevance to the article. Yes, they're sisters, and yes, they're gorgeous. It doesn't require the use of an Esquire cover to establish that. Note: someone with more experience in copyright matters might want to check if my ramblings are somewhat on the money.
  • Where's that source?: While part of her appeal lies in her upbeat dance music and her confident sexual posturing ... According to whom?
  • Comma fatigue: She has long been a supporter of breast cancer research and, in October of 2003, performed in a London comedy show, titled Funny Women, which raised money for breast cancer research, as well as awareness of domestic violence.
  • Word fatigue: I counted twenty sixteen instances of "success" or "successful". You might want to tone that down a bit. Check on "popular" as well, while you're at it.
  • It's so... quiet: How about adding some sound samples of her greatest hits?
  • Random, probably not-to-be-acted-upon remark: Minogue's debut hit single "Love and Kisses", described as "excellent" by All Music Guide ... What were they thinking?
  • Thanks for the great work so far, and good luck! --Plek 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started to make some changes and will continue to later tonight and tomorrow. I have also asked a couple other editor to look it over to help fix some bad prose. -- Underneath-it-All 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're getting there... I think one final, critical copyedit session is still in order to get the remaining pesky prose in line, but it's coming around nicely. You might also want to play with the positioning and content of the samples boxes a bit; putting a box on on side and an image on the other leads to some less-than-ideal page layout. Changing vote to abstain. --Plek 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Object - I want to read through this a few more times but there is a lot of good in this article. A couple of things that jump out at me as problems.

• It's not our place to blame Julian McMahon for the marriage breakdown and without a source the comment about "the media" just adds a weaselish tone to a comment that is already out of place. It contravenes Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people. It's only mild but it's still making a value judgement about someone that is negative, unsupported.... and unnecessary.
• I am absolutely certain that the Esquire image does not meet our fair use criteria. It's being used solely to show the sisters together but the magazine itself is not mentioned in the article, and their appearance on the cover is not particularly noteworthy. For it to be fair use, the magazine cover/article would need to be discussed in such depth that an illustration would provide clarity to the text. A fair use claim would need to also make it clear why, of all the images that could possibly be used, this particular one was chosen. We've got free images of both Minogues so we know what they look like individually and the magazine shows us nothing new or unique.

I think Plek has raised some valid points, and addressing them can only improve the article. Congratulations on your efforts so far. This article has taken on a new life since you started working on it. Rossrs 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed both the statement about McMahon and the magazine cover. I will continue to work on Plek's suggestions over the next day or two. Thanks for your feedback. -- Underneath-it-All 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Prose and copyedit problems in the first section I glanced at: In January 1994, Minogue married Australian actor Julian McMahon, whom she met at while working on the television series Home and Away in 1991. References for bio info include fan sites and IMDb.com, and full biblio info on news sources aren't given in Refs (provide author when available, article title, publication date, and source). Are song titles italicized or not? A serious copyedit by a fresh set of eyes might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Other featured articles such as Angelina Jolie and Uma Thurman use fansites and the IMDB as references. I have gone through the references and have made sure everything is cited properly. Only album titles are italicized, songs are supposed to be in quotations. -- Underneath-it-All 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Definitely a good article, but some changes need to be made before I can support this for FA status. Some of the basic ones, especially MoS-type stuff, I've gone ahead and done. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Here are some things that still need to be addressed:
  • There are several mentions of her work with other acts (Steve Hurly and Flower Power, for example) where the other acts aren't linked. Could you check into seeing if these acts are notable and, if so, add red links to the appropriate pages?
  • Is the surname spelled Hurly or Hurley?
  • "In the summer of 1994, Minogue returned to television as a presenter." Whose summer? My summer's around July; if I remember correctly, that's winter in Australia. To maintain NPOV, dates like these should be more like "September 1982" or "mid-1992".
  • "It...was a tribute to Australia's gay and lesbian community." In what way? Its lyrics, its music video, just a note in some album liner?
  • The section about music focuses heavily on the format of mentioning the album/song, stating its chart/commercial success, and often mentioning the critical response or genre influences. This becomes formulaic after awhile, and combining the music and acting sections into one biography section would probably alleviate this. When doing this, consider also merging in some of the information from "Personal life" (especially the controversies section for NPOV).
  • The sections on LGBT activism and fashion design need expanding.
  • "Dannii had been closely followed by the media, who wanted to know about Kylie's developments." Why? I know that Kylie's a major figure, but it hasn't yet been presented. There needs to have been an earlier mention of Kylie's success, however brief it may be, possibly in the early life section about Dannii's family.
  • The chart positions under "Top ten singles" need references. If the references used are the same as the ones in the article text, then add citations to the headers or song titles as appropriate; if you need to find new ones, you may just want to add a separate section to keep the table from getting too messy.
  • The navigation template at the bottom is lacking; consider adding links to her studio albums in it. ShadowHalo 05:25, 7 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Amarillo, Texas

This is mostly a pessimistic FAC nomination. I worked on this article since early 2006 by revamping the article and trying to make it have featured article status. However, I stopped working on it since autumn. Not because it is "perfect" and "finish." Just don't have the time and effort to find flaws. Also the last two peer reviews for this article were not exactly helpful. Especially, the second one consider nobody responded. Now to why I'm wasting my time to nominate this. The article has the right amount info regarding the size of the city and metropolitan area. (about 200,000 people) Most of the article's photos were taken by me except the Palo Duro Canyon and of course, the photo dated back to the early 20th century. No problems with the photos and they're tagged properly. It has over 70 references even though most of them are just from the city's main newspaper, Handbook of Texas, and the City of Amarillo's website. If the nomination fails, at least I will have some feedback. :-P --J. Nguyen 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written article. It is also very well cited with footnotes in almost every line. The sources are reliable and the self-made pictures are very good too. Front page article. --Ineffable3000 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object I only read through about the first half, but it's not the most well-written article. Could definitely use a thorough copy-edit.
  • Lead could use expansion per WP:LEAD.
  • Amarillo's name probably derives from the nearby Amarillo Lake and Amarillo Creek, named in turn for the yellow soil along their banks and shores (Amarillo is the Spanish word for the color yellow) or the yellow wildflowers that were plentiful during the spring and summer. Kind of awkward. The "or" is ambiguous, it's unclear whether the "yellow wildflowers" stuff is referring to the lake and creek or Amarillo itself.
  • Sanborn also offered to trade lots in the new location to businesses in the original city’s site and help the expense of moving buildings. "Moving buildings"!? Did they really move the actual buildings? Also, I think "help with the expense" is better.
  • It rained heavily and almost flooded Berry’s part of the town in 1889... "It...almost flooded"? Try "Heavy rains almost flooded Berry’s part of the town in 1889..."
  • By the late 1890s, Amarillo had emerged as one of the world's busiest cattle shipping points, and its population grew significantly. The "by the late 1890s" seems to indicate that this should be "...its population had grown significantly".
  • ...feed-manufacturing center after an increasing production... Awkward. Try either "after an increase in production" or "after increasing production".
  • In order to try to help revitalize it, the organization Center City of Amarillo was formed to establish partnerships with groups who have a huge presence in the city to support the downtown. Redundancies abound! Get rid of "in order to try". The later "...to support the downtown" is probably unnecessary too, since we know the group is trying to revitalize it. "huge" is not the most encyclopedic word.
  • Since its conception in the 1990s, Center City created archways over two streets, sponsors public art projects such as murals, and started block parties in the downtown area. Tense issues with those verbs. Should be "has created", "sponsored".
  • The 31-story Chase Tower, the tallest building between Dallas and Denver, was opened in Amarillo's downtown in 1971. It is an office building and had two prior names: SPS Tower and Bank One Center. Is the second sentence really necessary?
  • A local newspaper article in 1914 promoted the planting of trees as a sanitary asset due to the author cited studies by the New York County Medical Society and the New York City Park Commission which claims areas with trees have less bacteria and fewer dust particles
  • Amarillo is in an area of the United States which tornadoes are most frequent called the "Tornado Alley."
  • Some curious wikilinking...I would think that most readers know what the words "color", "yellow", and "sunrise" mean (also see WP:CONTEXT). I also saw multiple wikilinking of the same phrases (nuclear weapons, helium, oil). Gzkn 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment some dates in your footnotes are wikilinked some aren't. Pref is to wikilink all. Using the accessdate=yyyy-mm-dd option makes it easy.Rlevse 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm hesitant regarding the culture section and subsections - I think they need more of a historical context. How has Amarillo's culture changed over time? Tuf-Kat 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. WP:MOS issues; for example, full dates are not wikilinked, and non-breaking hard spaces are not used on units of measurement. Interestingly, this article didn't receive peer review feedback, where those sorts of basic issues are usually detected - which leads to concern about what other WP:MOS issues might exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, I can understand I had to put a non-breaking space on the measurements. Didn't catch that one. I fixed that but what I don't understand is your dates issue. Prior, to the nomination I wikilink all full dates expect the one in the intro because I didn't catch that. Most of the full dates are in the "History" section and they have been wikilink prior to your complaint. There's no wikilink on partial dates. ("April 1887" shouldn't be wikilink according to the style guide.)--J. Nguyen 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Though there's a lot of good information here, I don't think that the article is up to FA level yet. I agree with Gzkn that there are several sections that need to be rewritten. For example, "Completed in 2000, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park adjoins with a shallow playa lake which located south of it was the original town site of Amarillo." The flow needs to be improved as well, like one paragraph which starts with a sentence saying that the city suffered a depression, and then the next sentence talks about all the highways that intersect in the city, bringing business, which seems to contradict the first sentence. I'd also like to see references closer to some of the more unusual claims, such as about being the helium capital, and having an organization that's hosting block parties. --Elonka 04:33, 5 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Aquinas College, Perth

This article has under-taken extreme measures to become a very good article on Misplaced Pages and has done everything asked of it in regard to peer-reviews and general feedback on the talk page. It is high-quality work and is far-better than its current rating. Smbarnzy 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would you mind telling us when the last FAC was?--Rmky87 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the article's history, but there's no mention of an FAC nomination in there. I did find the archived peer review, though: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Aquinas College, Perth/archive1. --Plek 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no previous FAC Smbarnzy 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This article is rather disorganized, both in terms of content and layout, but the layout in particular needs work. There is a somewhat jarring combination of many different types of lists, boxes, templates, galleries, indented block quotes, and so on; the text has a lot of awkward line breaks and white space, at least on my browser. I think the pictures are also overdoing it, particularly as the school's crest appears no fewer than three times, and the gallery of sports uniforms is a bit much. Prose is quite problematic; lots of very short and choppy sentences with numerous one-sentence sections and paragraphs, as well as subheadings that are unnecessary (such as under "Geography"). Also, it needs a copy edit - I am seeing comma splices and typos. The lead does not provide a road-map for the article, and focuses almost exclusively on one aspect of the school, its location. On another level, I think the article delves deeply into the realm of trivia; even the article about Eton is not this long, and do we really need to know so much detail about the uniforms, the school grounds (including every building), every dean, and so on? The article does not seem to have a length and bredth appropriate to its subject, which is after all just a high school. I recall a number of AfDs a while ago relating to a number of daughter-articles that had been created detailing the exploits of every sports team at this school. All of this generally smacks of boosterism (not an accusation, mind you!) or at the very least partisan involvement, which is not necessarily a bad thing but does suggest that the article needs more independant editors with no school connection who might be a bit more ruthless. Maybe I'm being somewhat harsh, but there you go.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I might also suggest that some of the daughter articles that do exist are a bit problematic too; this article makes it seem like there are substantive articles about the house system, the sports, etc, but really those daughter articles are just lists upon lists that, after all, probably belong more on the school's website than on wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of the block quotes is just an inspirational message from the school's religion teacher, the sort of thing you'd expect to see in the student handbook but not in an encyclopedia. This is a further sign that the article needs third party involvement.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for prose at the least. Far too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Lots of listy sections. Why exactly is "Coat of arms" a subsection of "History"? The references need accessdates. Why is "former" wikilinked in "Notable alumni". Trebor 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the Trivia section only contains info on the solar car team, consider creating a "Solar car team" section and turning the short list into a small paragraph. Paragraphs are usually better than lists and some believe that trivia as it is trivial should not be included in an encyclopedia. See here for a more detailed explanation of what I meant. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - This article in general is a very good article, it has all of the relevant information regarding the school, its operations and affiliated groups. In parts it is slightly narrow, but is good enough for featured article status. Smbarnzy 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I don't mean not to assume good faith, but I'd like to point out you're a student of the college. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I beleive that it has quality images, the paragraph stuchture is "crisp" and to the point and, the Article is not wordy whatsoever. The article is also interesting which cannot be said for a lot of wikipedia articles - articles are ment to educate and not bore people

symode09 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you go this college as well? I've got to be honest, I don't find it interesting in the least. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of discussion regarding some of the daughter articles going on at AfD, and my general impression is that this article and its offshoots, while more or less well-written by wikipedia standards, are engaging in subtle and understandable POV pushing to make the school seem super impressive by giving it a Harrow or Eton-style treatment.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the following reasons:
  • Refs are not adequate. They are not formatted correctly. One even points to a page that doesn't exist. Half of them are in the middle of a sentence. Too many come from the Aquinas website - not an adequate source.
  • Trivia Section...need I say more - see WP:TRIVIA
  • The same picture is shown twice in the article. Why???
  • Pages such as Christian Brothers, Mount Henry Peninsula and Perth are wikilinked several times.

These are just formatting issues, but as well as this prose is unexciting nor compelling or brilliant. Todd661 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment trivia section removed, 2nd use of college logo is removed, why cant they be wikilinked a few times? i cant see the one which points to a page that doesnt exist (i think you are referring to "Aquinas College History (access restricted)" that page is only open to people who are staff/students at Aquinas - hence the login when you click on the link. Smbarnzy 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article doesn't explain why the school is notable and seems to fail all three criteria for notability at WP:SCHOOL. Not only are none of the references non-trivial published works, but the article doesn't state that the school ever has been the focus of such works. Furthermore, it's not asserted that the school has gained non-trivial national recognition in any field. Based on the information in the article, this school doesn't seem to be significantly different from the average Australian school aside from having better than average facilities. --Nick Dowling 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to vote here as I have seen the article's progress over a number of months, and made a few fixes and recommendations at an earlier stage. One of the peer reviews (I forget which one) listed two hardcopy books which give a very solid historical treatment to the area and to the school - IMO these should have been consulted and referenced before coming to FAC. The school is on a par with Hale School and Guildford Grammar School in Perth terms, but probably not many others. Sydney's equivalents would be The King's School or Cranbrook. I agree with you that the article needs to assert this more clearly, although I acknowledge the difficulty that a student at such a school may have in performing a bird's eye comparison of this kind, and finding a way to make such a comparison in a non-POV way will be a challenge. Orderinchaos78 16:26, 8 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Chris Gardner

Feature article candidate. New promotion. After many hours of work, this article is ready for featured article status. This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It's currently rated at GA status and has gone through a peer review. I feel that it is comprehensive on the subject & accurate. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations. It's the most comprehensive biography on Gardner out there. The peer review is here.
Trade2tradewell 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

please hold off while I fix this dramatically wrong submission - it's listed as a FAR, not a FAC. I'll do the moves to correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everything is corrected now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comments WP:MOS problems - I corrected for WP:MSH, full dates are not wiki'd per WP:DATE, solo year wikilinks should be removed unless they provide WP:CONTEXT, publisher not identified on all sources (e.g.; ^ "Man Who Inspired B.O. Hit Skips Opening"), and the article is heavily sourced to Gardner's own website.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. full dates are not wiki'd per WP:DATE

2. solo year wikilinks should be removed unless they provide WP:CONTEXT,

3. publisher not identified on all sources (e.g.; ^ "Man Who Inspired B.O. Hit Skips Opening")

• - I have identified the publisher for this source.Trade2tradewell 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4. the article is heavily sourced to Gardner's own website.

• Oppose. The lead needs work. The first sentence goes into excessive detail, naming where and with whom he struggled with homelessness - is it really first-sentence material? Sentences like "After the birth of his first, son Chris Jr. (born in 1981)" are messy and have redundancies. "Within the next several years," is vague. "Today" should avoided as it will ecome out-of-date. We get told his firstborn is called "Chris" three times in the lead. I haven't read any further. Trebor 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The lead needs work. The first sentence goes into excessive detail, naming where and with whom he struggled with homelessness - is it really first-sentence material?

2. Sentences like "After the birth of his first, son Chris Jr. (born in 1981)" are messy and have redundancies.

3. "Within the next several years," is vague.

4. "Today" should avoided as it will become out-of-date.

• - I have replaced Today with As of 2006.Trade2tradewell 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

5. We get told his firstborn is called "Chris" three times in the lead.

• Oppose - unnecessary fair use media, both the book cover and movie poster appear to just be used as decoration.--Peta 00:06, 9 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka article has had peer review and says content is excellent ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. For so much content, inline references are needed. See Canada for an idea of how much you'll need. Carson 07:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong object inline references needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECTION. References needed, as stated above. Please remove pixel parameters from images to accomodate user preferences, per WP:IUP and WP:MOS. This is just a start, and I'll give it a thorough read-through soon. —ExplorerCDT 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Too many red links? And someone's signature is in Media for some reason. Mark83 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The reference list at the end of the page needs to follow proper style. Arrange it in alphabetical order by author's surname. I edited it a few days ago and included a minor change by adding a reference on media. But someone has removed my revision.
• Strong Object Not many references and the ones that are there are nearly useless. Pembroke 19:49, 3 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

United Kingdom

This article was formerly nominated but rejected. I have re-nominated because I think it has reached the standards of a featured article. --Rcandelori 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

former fac

• Not yet I didn't even get past checking ref fmt: some say "accessed" some "retrieved", some mdy, some not, some wikilinked, some not. They should all be the same format, suggest "Retrieved on m-d-y". Use accessdate parameter and it'll do it for you. I always check this issue first because if it's correct and consistent, it shows attention to detail in the rest of the article. And footnotes normally come right after punctuatiuon with no spaces.Rlevse 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Patricknoddy (talk · contribs)
• Support I think that this article finally reaches the Featured Article criteria. --Wolf 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. 122KB overalll with 73 KB prose is a non-starter. See WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. Reference formatting problems mentioned by Rlevse (I fixed the footnote placement, but refs aren't formatted correctly). The infobox is a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this article is well written & presented. The links are all specific for the subject in hand.LondonAngel 20.35 4 February 2007
  • LondonAngel (talk · contribs) - newly registered, only and first contributions to this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC). I think it's a good job for a large topic, it may be worth considering forking. I see nothing that is a show stopper. US reviewers should note that the British style of footnotes is reference tags before the punctuation, see note 4 of wikipedia footnote guidelines. Also, m-d-y is US style. Most others use d-m-y, or better still the Swedish(?) style of yyyy-mm-dd, because it sorts correctly.Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The British style of footnotes is indeed before punctuation, but Misplaced Pages uses the American style, even in British articles. Trebor 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Rcandelori 14:35, 5 February 2007 (AEST). I would also say that the criticism regarding the footnotes in the info box are misplaced because they are appropriate given the unique and disparate cultures that exist in the United Kingdom. This article has long been FA-Class quality and thus it should be recognised as such.
• Object - there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed. 1) There are still three "citation needed" sentences that need to be cited, two of which are in the Economy section. 2) The Visual Art section does not use proper summary style, and the Culture section as a whole is rather poorly-structured and unbalanced. 3) The Transport section is far too long and is not written in nicely-flowing prose (instead utilising bullet points, and list-type statistics). 4) Overall, the article is not optimal, probably because there is too much content accompanied by poor use of summary style (lack of tight prose). I don't generally have a problem with long articles per se, but this one isn't really indicative of FA status (though I concede the UK is one of the harder countries to write an article on, due to its complexity). Ronline ✉ 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object - What is this? (under Climate) at Edgmond, near Newport, Shropshire. and this Faversham, Kent. . Seems like external links but there's no links and they should be converted into references. 3 Citation needed tags, one sentence paragraphs. The article is severely under cited, "Sports" has fourteen paragraphs and two references, Religion is about nine paragraphs and five or so references, the article should decide on either British or American English, automated peer-review brings up lots of problems, some references aren't formatted properly. I haven't looked at the prose but these are pretty simple things to spot out. M3tal H3ad 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being, per above. There are numerous problems with the article. Trebor 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose first strip out at least 30% of content, as per SandyGeorgia. (Caniago 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose If only on length. I suggest to take a look at the recently promoted Turkey and Germany for inspiration and smart use of summary style and subpages. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 04:47, 9 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Rocky Balboa (film)

Self-nomination. Nominating for featured article status. After much crafting and shaping, this article has really come a long way. It passed GA status with only minimal edits - I think it might just be ready for prime time. Theirishpianist 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Preliminary comments (haven't read it yet)- video game section is short; suggest merging it with the soundtrack section as some sort of "Merchandise" section. I noticed "Rocky Balboa" isn't italicized in the soundtrack section, but it should be wherever it appears (unless you mean the character). The "Statistics based on figures obtained from boxofficemojo.com" is awkward just dangling there- move it to a footnote, or incorporate it into the text. Also, the article has a tag, although this one, a "this section documents a film's box office" is kind of obvious/redundant so you may want to remove it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object 1a, 1c. I corrected a section heading to conform to WP:MSH, reference punctuation to WP:FN, and removed white spaces between sections. References are not correctly formatted: please expand all footnotes to include full biblio info (publisher, author and publication date when available - see WP:CITE or WP:CITET). Prose is not compelling, example - Several items of note also appear at certain points in the movie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment refs are fine Sandy seems to think that her personal preference is a Misplaced Pages policy, see the FAC for Mutual Broadcasting System among others for more on this. Her views on this subject can and probably should be ignored. Quadzilla99 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The lead needs work.
  • It is the sixth and final film in the Rocky series, which began with the Oscar-winning Rocky thirty years earlier in 1976." We're told that Rocky Balboa is a 2006 film. Either thirty years earlier or in 1976 is fine; no need for both.
  • "The film portrays Balboa in retirement, a widower living in downtown Philadelphia, and as the owner and operator of an Italian restaurant in the city called "Adrian's", named after his late wife." No need for "a widower"; "his late wife" signals to readers that he is one. This seems to suggest he's working, not retired. Perhaps "in retirement from boxing" is meant here? The sentence in general is long and awkward.
  • "Rocky Balboa was produced as the final sequel to the Academy Award-winning Rocky." Didn't we just establish this?
  • "The film also holds many references to people and objects from previous installments in the series, especially the first one." Can you hold references? This sentence could be much better phrased. BuddingJournalist 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for prose. Heavy overuse of "also" throughout the lead, it's rarely needed. Synopsis is over 1000 words long, the film Wikiproject recommend around 600 unless the plot is particularly complex or integral to the article. You could also check out their style guidelines for formatting of cast: actor and character names tend to be bolded, and then there's a colon before the descriptive text. Clumsy sentences throughout. The article is undercited throughout, for anything interpretative it's a must. The "Critical response" section is just a list of "positive" reviews (it's unclear how you measure that). It would be better to give a metacritic or rotten tomatoes rating to give an overall impression, and then quote specific sections of reviews to show which bits of the films were liked or disliked. Trebor 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I won't go as far as oppose because I haven't read the article in full detail but it seems odd to promote such a recent film to featured status. The box-office numbers and DVD sales numbers will still change and any info about the legacy of the film (if it ever has one) won't be included. So we can't expect that the article is really stable. Also, when articles are written so quickly after the movie has come out, much of the critical discussion relies on sources with no perspective beyond "should you go and see this movie this week" and the result is an article lacking in depth. Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 6 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Raven banner

Self nom as initiator, though many others, including User:Berig, contributed as much as or more than I did. This is an article about a somewhat obscure topic, drawing on multiple primary and secondary sources. It has been featured on DYK and is a "Good Article". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 1c, 2. Please see WP:CITE; references are not formatted. Review section headings per WP:MSH. Why are there two columns of text, and why is full non-English text given? "Purported" in a section heading is weasly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I have three major issues with the article as is...

1. The first image is of exceedingly low-quality to be the primary image of a FA. The image needs to be recentered, with the anti-aliasing corrected and the background color changed.
2. The second section is far too long and tangental, and perhaps should be forked off to Symbolism of the raven in early Scandinavian culture. Mentioning the import of the raven in Viking art, literature and heraldry does set the stage, but quoting blocks of Old Norse text detracts from the article.
3. The lead describes (and the image depicts) the flag with "a rounded outside edge", yet later in the article, it is described and shown as being triangular, too. Is it one or the other? Both? The lead needs to be crystal clear on this, otherwise the article contradicts itself. And if it is (or can be both), then the depiction of the flag should show both variants.

Caknuck 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, all of your images need to have descriptions of what they are, their licenses, where they were taken, etc. A lot of them aren't even sourced. gren グレン 08:53, 8 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.

Houston, Texas

You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/Archive1 or Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/archive2, see here for corrections to old archives made in November 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article at all. I was simply thumbing through Misplaced Pages and discovered this nicely written article, which looks to me to be very close to FA status. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are totally inadequate. And unless the original writers are still around and have references handy, it will be a big job to source an article this size. Mark 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where should I get sources? I am one of the original writers. However, I may not have access after Rita. WhisperToMe 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What sources did you use when writing? Mark 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article may or may not dramatically change following Rita. Phoenix2 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd advise waiting a week or two to see if the city is substantially affected by the storm. If it is, then this article will undergo a lot of revisions so it would make sense to only vote on it after that. Everyking 04:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) History section should be continous, 2) No references 3) Page size too large. Summarise 4) ToC granulated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Houston.jpg, Image:Uptown Houston Skyline.jpg have no source or copyright information, and may vanish at any time.
  2. The image Image:Downtown Houston 2.jpg has no source information, and may vanish at any time.
  3. The image Image:Tropical Storm Allison.jpg has no source or copyright information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
  4. The images Image:Houston Panoramic.jpg, Image:Tranquility Park Houston.jpg, Image:HOU095.JPG, Image:HOU032.JPG, Image:Hobby Center.jpg, Image:Space Center Houston.jpg, Image:Bayou Place Houston.JPG, Image:Astroworld.jpg, Image:UH100.jpg, Image:Rice University.jpg, Image:HOU002.jpg, Image:HOU069.JPG, Image:Minute Maid Park.JPG have no source information, and are listed on WP:PUI.
  5. The images Image:Houston Industries Plaza.jpg, Image:WilliamsTower.jpg, Image:Houston City Hall.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no source information, making a "fair use" claim impossible to evaluate.
  6. The image Image:Texas state seal.png in the "State of Texas" navbox is tagged as {{coatofarms}}. This does not specify a copyright status.
  7. The image Image:CitySeal.PNG is tagged as fair use. Is there a more precise tag that can be used, that specifies why "fair use" is justified? If not, a fair-use rationale needs to be provided.

  --Carnildo 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, at the moment. The article is currently unstable due to Hurricane Rita (and let's hope it doesn't strike Houston directly as a Category 4 or 5 storm). The lack of references could easily be rectified with a visit to the local library (or Google Print). The fact that an article of this size (52 kB -- should be reduced to less than 40 kB) has not gone through peer review is, to me, a red flag unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time cleaning up the article and addressing other people's concerns while it is on FAC. Though I have spent time cleaning up the article's layout, I am not knowledgeable enough of Houston to vouch for the information in the article. Pentawing 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Social Distortion

I'm adding Social D to the featured article candidacy list because I think a lot of work in this article, done in the past few months, days or weeks, has turned out to be OK. I do think it definitely deserves FA status. Alex 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• White Light, White Heat, White Oppose. Love the band, love the importance, but the article has way too few inline cites. Needs a lot more work if it's going to be considered a featured article. Suggest withdrawing the nomination and get some sources, preferably from books and magazines, and try out a peer review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object No fair use rationales, trivia section, gallery of album covers, and I think the line-up table is broken. ShadowHalo 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object To add to the above, the influences section has no references, one sentence paragraphs, solo years are wiki-linked and the whole article is under sourced (7 inline references). M3tal H3ad 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object per ShadowHalo and M3talk H3ad. Article needs a lot of work to meet FA criteria.
• Object

• "They are (along with Minor Threat, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, and many others) often credited as one of the leading bands of the 1980s' punk revival." This line seems weasely. Who credits them with that? Can we find a source?
• Just looking through quickly, I found a few minor errors (such as lack of spaces between words, etc.) which I fixed, though there are most likely some that I missed.
• It seems odd that the section on their mainsteam success would be shorter than the section on their "Early career and first hiatus". Besides this, each of those sections only have one source for their entire length.
• In partiular, the line "...Dennis was moved to rhythm guitar, Brent Liles (died, 01/18/07 in truck/bicycle accident) who was also with The Band Easter was brought in to play bass..." should be fixed. A sorce should be quoted, and the parenthesis should be reformatted Webster100 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

← ANAS  11:00, 1 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Gordon B. Hinckley

I have nominated this article for FA is it is well written, very long, with Citations, full detail, very advanced, with quality images in it. Also being very intresting on the president of the church of Latter day Saints. It is also a spoken article for Misplaced Pages. I don't know why this article hasn't been nominated yet. Retiono Virginian 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment ref fmt is massively inconsistent.Rlevse 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object per Rlevse's concerns and the fact that certain statements still need citation per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Which ones?jj 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for above, for numerous issues with the prose (stubby list-like paragraphs for the main part of "Life", large overuse of "also" and "additionally", wikilinked single years, etc.) and comprehensiveness (only two real sections: "Life" (should that be "Biography"?) and "Awards"). Trebor 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object Needs a thorough copy edit. Examples only:

• Born in Salt Lake City, Utah, Hinckley completed high school there in 1928. - A bit clunky. Maybe try something like - Hinckley was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he graduated from high school in 1928.
• He served in the British mission headquartered in London in 1933. He started in... Consecutive sentences beginning with "He" - reduces flow.
• but for most of his mission worked in the mission office - "Mission" is used twice in one sentence.
• Hinckley returned to the United States in 1935 after having completed - "after" is redundant.
• preaching the gospel in both Berlin and Paris. - ditto "both"
• Out of this meeting - From this meeting. + Ceoil 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose excessive use of fair use media, one unfree image to show what he looks like would be OK, the rest are not justified.--Peta 00:08, 9 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 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Pirate Party

Well written article on the topic of political parties. Containing a well referenced body and factual substance regarding the associated subject that is interesting for a reader. Lord Metroid 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not going to go either way on this one since I'm not a FA expert, but it seems to me that you need more inline citations verifying various sections of this article, especially the history section. As it stands, much of what is claimed appears to be unverified. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Nice start, but going from AfD to FAC in a month, without a peer review, is amibitious. External link farm should be pruned; lacking citations (some examples only - The web server received a million hits on its first day of operation, two million the next. and Less than 24 hours after the opening of the website, the party had collected over 2,000 signatures (2,268 at 16.05 CEST). ) This is not a reliable source (Active country sections on Pirate Party International forums), and foreign language sources should be identified with the appropriate language icon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The AfD was 1 year ago in January 2 2006. Lord Metroid 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• oops - struck - a peer review might have been wise, anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as undercited; there's only one reference in the whole of "History and founding" (which could, incidentally, probably be shortened to "History"). Trebor 12:07, 6 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

What It's Like Being Alone

Partial self-nom. Yes, it's short; but it's comprehensive for a CBC show that bombed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." -- Article as a whole seems well referenced, but that's certainly a sentence in need of a reference!
  • The Characters section does not read like a dispassionate, encyclopedic entry.
  • "finds any way out blocked by a lake monster and a dangerous forest, among other things." ... begs the question, what else?
  • Quite a few red links. Mark83 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The introduction is meant to summarize the article and does not need references since the rest of the article will expand upon its ideas- the ratings reflecting generally poor ratings is covered below under reception and has two references. I'm not sure if the character section having some livelihood makes it unencyclopedic; it reflects what happens in the show, and doesn't contain any original research. Additionally, do we need all the details as to what else? 24.64.165.149 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • All good comments. I saw that reference later down and considered adding it to the intro using <refname>, but thought it was better to leave it as a comment here and let someone who knew more about the subject decide. By livelihood do you mean it doesn't matter that there's slight informality? That may be so, some of the words and phrases used just struck me as too informal. And sure, summary style suggests not every triviality should be listed, and maybe this is indeed trivia. Mark83 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I meant a fun read, sort of along the lines of exploding whale, but yes, informality is still discouraged, so I tried to smooth it out a little. BTW, I can take care of one or two of the red links once I'm able to log into my account- Fred Fuchs is a glaring omission- but I've been generally surprised as to how many of the voice actors turned out to be blue. 24.64.165.149 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Fred Fuchs is created. 24.64.165.149 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Two of the redlinks were accounted for by the use of "Peter" for a person who did already have an article, albeit at "Pete". That's been corrected with a redirect. Bearcat 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And, I just started Evelyn: The Cutest Evil Dead Girl. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Overall the writing just feels choppy and not ready for FA status. I have several comments: "Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." Indeed shouldnt be there, the opening only breifly mentioned CBC and indeed requires the audience to know more than it does. Could you elaborate on this statement, what other shows were failures during this time? This could be its own section.

Secondly, I would consider seperating the Story section into two section. One section would be a backround on the season/show and the second part would be a summary of the episodes. As it is now, its hard to read.

Thirdly, "One CBC critic commented that What It's Being Alone has "arguably the most surreal opening sequence in TV history" Which CBC critic? I wouldn't say that this is weaseal words, but context would be nice.

Fourthly, put the ratings into some context. I see that they are bad. How bad? Whats the average rating in a time slot like that on a channel like that in Canada. I have no clue.

Why don't you request a peer-review? I think that the article would be greatly helped by it. Warhol13 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I'd be doing some work on it during this. Anyway, I've given some other shows that have flopped at the time, but the sources don't say what the average is and digging it up would be original research; the fact that the ratings are bad is referenced. I'm kind of surprised by the weasel words comment and the reference was there but the article doesn't become more confusing in naming the critic. I've also tried merging a few sentences for flow; and I've subsectioned the plot section. The first part wasn't so much "background" as it was the pilot. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as my fourth point goes, I meant what are the ratings of the other shows on national tv during that timeslot. Or what was the rating of a show in a similar timeslot on that channel a few years ago. I didn't mean that you try to figure out for yourself what the ratings should be. Also, it wasn't weasel words because you cited a source. When I read that section I just want to feel like I am reading a few respected critics from respected newspapers and not "one cbc critic". I don't know how you feel about my second suggestion, though. I think you should have an episode list, with the name of each episode in bold, and possibly a overview of the plot synopsis for the show on the whole. Combining the two just reads funny IMO. Thanks. Warhol13 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wary of putting in another list- this isn't WP:FLC- and originally the titles were bolded but that made the article look messy, so I settled on italics. Anyway, I tried restructuring the plot section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Too unprofessional a topic to be featured. Media-related articles don't exist in normal encyclopedias; retaining an article (also unwise) is one thing, but featuring it only encourages further abuse and gaming of the system. Altogether the wrong focus of what should be presented as the pinnacle of achievement, for an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose doesn't cite anything actionable; being featured is about the quality of the article, not the topic. Trebor 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • Passive voice sentences to not identify subjects properly, such as "These ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." "The style of animation was chosen due to Peyton's personal interest in it." "Additionally, some animation was done through computers." "The airing of the series had been stalled for a year, perhaps due to difficulties within the CBC."
  • The lists of characters and episodes compose too much of the article - half the article is a list and not an article.
  • Is the show canceled? I can't find where, why, or who.
  • Need much more substantial information on production methods and technology to be comprehensive. --Mus Musculus 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You're asking for a bit of information that does not exist; and the episodes section is not written as a list. The article is clear that the show is cancelled- "The final episode, 'Silver Screen Lucy' or 'The Sweet Stink of Success,'" "On September 18, the series finale had only 163,000 viewers." Moreover, other TV series FAs have character lists- Arrested Development (TV series) for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair, if the information isn't accessible, then it's not possible to be comprehensive enough for FA status. The article may seem clear to you, but I'd rather see a concise section detailing the cancellation, the circumstances, who made the decision, etc. Again, if that information is not available, you do not have a comprehensive article. Many readers skim articles for information - if one were looking for that information, it is difficult to locate at a cursory glance. As for the character list, I do not weigh FA candidates against other FA's. I weigh them against the criteria listed here. Thanks for your response! --Mus Musculus 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • IMO, the theory that any article can be a FA dictates that the article can be considered comprehensive if you've covered the published, notable commentary. I don't think WP:OR would be justified for a more "comprehensive" feel. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Where is that theory published? I don't agree with it. I'm looking at the criteria at WP:WIAFA. It lists "comprehensive" as a criterion, and defines it as "the article does not neglect major facts and details." There is no disclaimer of "unless you can't find it." In my opinion, in-depth production information including technical details, and circumstantial details of the show's cancellation are "major facts and details" per the criteria. I definitely wasn't suggesting you violate WP:OR, I was just suggesting that if the information is not available, the article isn't appropriate for FA. --Mus Musculus 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
            • This has been debated countless times, including right above you: The topic doesn't preclude an article from FA status, and in this case the topic's obscurity is preventing books and journal articles. Here's another diff- - if it can have an article, it's eligible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Well... that is a different argument. I'm not saying your topic can't be an FA - I'm saying it isn't currently. If someone has said everything there is to say about a topic, and it's still short, then it could be an FA. My point is that you haven't said everything there is to say. That you can't find sources is inconsequential. The person above me was claiming that your topic is unprofessional, which is completely different from my claim that the article is not comprehensive. What it boils down to is this: When one can say about an article, "I have said everything there is to say" then it can be an FA assuming it meets the other criteria. If one can only say, "I have said everything I can find sources for." then you don't have a comprehensive article, and thus, you don't have an FA. Make sense? --Mus Musculus 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Right now, I have good access to sources, including Canadian newspapers as you can see from the article, all of which I added, as well as access to journals and whatnot, and the Internet (obviously), so I don't think you can cast me as the guy who can't find sources and never bothered to look. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nay, that wasn't my intention at all. In fact, I commend your research on the topic. But do you concede my point that even if the information simply isn't available online, said information may still need to be in the article, and if it isn't, the article isn't comprehensive? Let me use another example. Say I decide to write an article on a notable hockey player. All I can find are his stats, and maybe his trade history. I know that he has a whole biography that I can't find anywhere online, but I have stated and sourced everything I can find - his stats and his trades. I write about those things brilliantly. Do I have an FA, even though his article is not effectively comprehensive per WP:WIAFA? --Mus Musculus 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You've missed my point; my access to sources is good enough that there is a high probability that the main points are covered; I think you'd need to point to specific source material to show that info's missing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've just added some production information (not sure you'll be happy though) from an already-listed source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the addition. Have you considered my other suggestions re: use of passive voice and possibly adding a subsection entitled "Cancellation" that summarizes the circumstances? --Mus Musculus 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I've tried to highlight the cancellation in the intro although the infobox makes it clear. But I can't give you a subsection. I wasn't sitting in on the meeting where the execs chose not to buy another season. I can't speculate why there wasn't another season, although the reader will have imagined it was because of the ratings. As for passive sentences, I've adjusted a few (and generally set out to avoid them in the first place) but there I some sentences you point out that I actually don't agree are passive. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:02, 6 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 20:39, 3 February 2007.

Military history of Pakistan

I have nominated this article since it seems to fullfil all the criteria of a Featured article. It seems to NPOV though there might a few statements which need rectification. The article also has a large number of references(31). It gives a complete and comprehensive idea of the military history of Pakistan. Gambit 321 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object - fails 1c, and uses weasle words. With just a quick glance, I found glaring examples of text that should be cited/attributed. One example only:

• Pakistan used American weaponry to fight the Afghan incursions but the weaponry had been sold under the pretext of fighting Communism and the USA was not pleased with this development, as the Soviets now became the chief benefactor to Afghanistan. Some sections of the American press blamed Pakistan for driving Afghanistan into the Soviet camp.

• I also find the word "famous" unencyclopedic - prefer notable. It would also be helpful if you would shorten your book references - all info need not be repeated in each footnote - see Battle of Ceresole. I also have 1a and 1b concerns; an example is the single, short paragraph in the section "Yemeni civil war". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reject - Although this article is quite interesting, and although Pakistan, its military forces, and the history of both are extremely important to our world, I must write that this article is poorly written. I wrote a first draft of this commentary that pointed out the errors in the third paragraph of the introduction; however, my list of errors became so long that I decided to omit it. Also, the article contains many uncommon words and phrases that need to be linked to appropriate Misplaced Pages articles.

Here follows a suggestion of how the current article's third paragraph could be rewritten to conform with standard English-language usage. I quote the current text, and follow it with a possible revision that repairs the grammar and faulty structure.

The Military was created in 1947 and was staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. It was also given units who have had a long and cherished history during the British Raj such as the Khyber Rifles. Since independence, the military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. It has also fought a limited conflict at Kargil with India after acquiring nuclear capabilities. After 9/11, the military is engaged in a protracted low intensity conflict along its western border with Afghanistan with the Pushtun tribesmen.

Pakistan's military forces were created in 1947, and were staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. Some units, such as the Khyber Rifles, have long and cherished histories dating as far back as the British Raj. Since Pakistan's independence, its military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. In the 1990's Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons; since then, conflicts with neighboring India (which also possesses nuclear weapons) have been of grave concern. Subsequent to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, Pakistan's participation in the War on Terror has resulted in a protracted, low-intensity conflict against Pushtun tribesmen along Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan.

Note that this is only a suggestion that addresses possible corrections to faulty grammar and sentence structure; my proposed paragraph has its own faults, and is only presented as an example of possible mechanical repairs.

GrouchyDan 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object - needs a thorough copyedit, per GrouchyDan. CloudNine 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not Ready Yet - I have done general copy-edit for style & should have opened another window for comments here, but, from memory:

No reason given for first coup

In general political interface of military, which can hardly be ignored, not well explained or covered at most periods.

famous units - famous not the best word - dates please.

not enough on ISI/army relations

not enough on where troops recruited from, how much paid, no National Service/conscription & general social issues. Are army units mostly regionally based (ie from same region)?

Possibly a bit too much on the glacier, expensive though it is.

Current position - who supplied current arms - quick overview needed.

I have made some changes to part of the para Grouchy Dan rewrote above - his changes to 2nd part probably needed also. I did not really look at the citations. Johnbod 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, at the very least fails 1)c. There are many paragraphs without a single reference. Trebor 15:23, 31 January 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 20:39, 3 February 2007.

Dundee United F.C.

This article has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria and could be worthy as a featured article, particularly to those interested in football and sport. Fedgin | Talk 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Object Most of the way there, but still has some rough edges.

• Facts mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the relevant sections of the main article.
• What critieria for incusion are used for the list of notable past players?
• Lack of images - while images are not obligatory to pass FAC, it should be simple enough to create at least one free-use image, such as a picture of Tannadice. The fair-use Euro 2008 logo should not be used in this article, as Euro 2008 is not the subject of the article.
• What is the origin of the nickname Terrors?
• When did Dundee Hibernian join the Scottish Football League? In what year did the club first reach the top division?
• There are a few too many one or two sentence paragraphs, which should be merged or expanded.
• A few things require citations, including
  • Dundee F.C. protesting the use of the name Dundee City
  • The significance of the Scandinavian players of the 1960s
  • Being the first Scottish club to reach the UEFA Cup final
  • Uniqueness of their record against F.C. Barcelona
  • Newspaper headlines following the FA Cup win
  • Being the only club promoted to the Scottish Premier League by a playoff
  • The proximity of Tannadice to Dens Park.

Oldelpaso 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ack, I missed the PR for this one, as did everyone else it seems. Anyway, object.
  • Everything Oldelpaso said.
  • I'll re-emphasise the need for freely-licenced images of the team or the stadium, this is the biggest sticking point.
  • The italicised comment at the top of the "Colours and badge" section (The jerseys below are meant to reflect either a change in colour or prominent design. Please see the discussion page for more on this.) should not be there - articles should never refer to their own talk pages.
  • List of supporters should be deleted, consensus is they are of little merit in articles.
  • List of managers should be ideally be given tenures, statistics for the matches, as in e.g. Arsenal F.C.#Managers. If, as I fear, it gets too long it should be moved into a separate article and only the most significant managers in the club's history listed.
  • Succession boxes for trophies should be removed - can you imagine if this was done for every trophy in every article? Too much of a waste of space.
  • All managers and players should be wikified, not just ones with existing articles. If there are too many red links in the article from wikifying, then create articles for them.
  • Records should be better formatted, and could even be split off into a new page. e.g. Arsenal F.C. records. Qwghlm 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Objection. Agree with Oldelpaso. The writing could use a copyedit. Several paragraphs are in bad form, comprised only of two sentences. Repeated use of whilst is archaic usage and should be changed to more modern usage. I would prefer if the "Achievements" section were turned prose rather than be a list. This isn't a bullet point on a resume. Elaborate on these "achievements." While not absolutely necessary, it would be nice to have some real images other than .gifs of the uniform. —ExplorerCDT 09:18, 31 January 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.