Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:39, 15 February 2006

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

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

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

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

Nominations

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kargil War Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Portuguese Communist Party Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Papal conclave, 2005

1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

Self-nomination. My fellow tropical cyclone editors have aggreed this is one of the best and (considering time period and available information) most complete tropical cyclone articles (discussion can be found on the wikiproject talk page). I've been working on this article for a while, and I think I've finally got it structured and written to my satisfaction. — jdorje (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Here are a few problems I see (sorry I didn't tell you them earlier :)

• Structuring of the Florida section. The aftermath picture on the left is a little big, so perhaps it could be split up into three? Another option would be to move the most intense at landfall table up to the storm history section; maybe put it just below the infobox.

Much better now with larger picture. Hurricanehink

• Possibly more Puerto Rico damage.

Figures. Oh well. You should avoid using the same word in two consecutive sentences, like damage and damage in the Caribbean impact. Also, the Bahamas is not Caribbean, yet should fall in the same category as Puerto Rico and islands. Not sure the best way to fix that. Maybe Atlantic impact, or something else, but Caribbean is a little misleading (it only spent a little bit of time there). Hurricanehink

• Is there any information in the impact up the coast? It made landfall in Florida, paralleled the Georgia and Carolina coastline, then turned northwest inland.

*Personally, I don't think too much should be in parenthesis. (perhaps but not impossible), (older sources usually list 3,411 as the total count of fatalities, including the Caribbean), or (but note all such measurements are suspect) are some of those I found that could easily be included into actual sentences.

Great job with this. Hurricanehink

• Some parts are a little point of view, IMO, including the perhaps but not impossible, as well as the eerie similarity. Eerie? It was named San Felipe Segundo due to the date. You could explain San Felipe like you did, then mention the coincidence.

Overall, well done. I vote no right now, but with a little love it could be the next FA. Hurricanehink 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All good points. Too bad you didn't mention them before it was nominated!

• Florida: These pictures are pretty representative from what I can tell, but being a triple-picture makes it harder to distinguish. There is a gallery at commons:Category:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane; maybe a better picture is available.
• AFAICT there is no information available on damage in Puerto Rico (which was catastrophic), or in Guadeloupe (which was possibly even more catastrophic), or in the Bahamas (which we can assume was catastrophic), or in the rest of the United States (which was probably fairly mild). There's little enough info about coastal damage, though the gallery includes a lot of pictures. Perhaps you could find something however.
• I reworded some parts to remove the POV and unnecessary parenthesis.

— jdorje (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

When I get home from school, I'll try taking a look to see if there's something on non-Florida US damage. Again, sorry I didn't mention it earlier, but this is the first time I tried looking at it without a hurricane writer's point of view. One more thing, don't use too many short sentences. For the most part that is not a problem, but, for example, you say Then it moved over the Bahamas. You could say, The hurricane continued to the northwest, and moved over the Bahamas with estimated winds of Category 4 status. Something like that is better than saying, then it moved over the Bahamas. Then should not be used too much. Replace it with a verb, like continued or something else. It just seems a little too vernacular to start a sentence, IMO. Still, good job. Hurricanehink 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great use of images, inline citations, fantastic statistics, and the lead paragraphs are very effectful for grabbing the readers attention. Great work. --lightdarkness 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well structured article. The information is detailed, but not excessively so. The images are well-positioned. The article flows well, it's not just a heap of information. Word choice is excellent. The inline sources are well placed. FA quality article IMO. -- §HurricaneERIC§archive 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support with recommendation: Because several sections attempt to construct paragraphs along the lines of "the storm here, the storm there, the storm over there," they end up with quite lopsided development. Where the storm hit unpopulated areas, there isn't much to say, and where it hit heavy concentrations, there is a great deal. It's probably better to organize non-chronologically, by order of severity, and use internal cues to let the reader know the timeframe (which is well established at the lead anyway). Secondly, the "records" section sticks out a bit. The caveats contained in it are necessary and useful to readers, but perhaps they should be folded into the main narrative earlier (at the discussion of storm strength) rather than isolated. In isolation, they disrupt the flow of the article's narrative. These are recommendations, however, and not objections, so I support and merely see a way to make it better. Geogre 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I merged the records section in with the body of the storm history. It does flow a little better now. The "caveats" could be shortened or removed since such caveats really apply to any storm prior to about 1995 (although for older storms they are stronger). — jdorje (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - short and concise but comprehensive. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very interesting, well written. Some minor suggestions - briefly explain Cape Verde-type where it's linked to. Also, the sentence Damage was not reported but was presumably catastrophic is purely speculative and I don't think the article would suffer if it was removed. And Most survivors and bodies were washed out into the Everglades where many were never found implies that the survivors were then swept to their deaths - is this the intent? Worldtraveller 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Interesting points. I changed the wording of all three places slightly. As for being "washed out into the Everglades", my understanding is that pretty much everything was washed out into the everglades. The bodies were never found, while the survivors (i.e., the ones who weren't swept to their deaths) had to walk out of the marshes. (This comes mostly from one of the sources, IIRC from a first-hand account included in one of the newspaper articles.) — jdorje (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak no - It is practically done, but I'm trying to find some references of some U.S. impact (no Florida). So far I've found North Carolina (it caused 5 inches of rain, high tides, and strong winds). The link is here. The reason I did not add it is because there's not enough information for another section with just that. Another thing; it says not until Hurricane Dog were stronger winds measured. What about the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which had winds of up to 185 mph? The first paragraph of the storm history was a little boring (too many short sentences), so I changed it. Hopefully that's OK, as I felt the previous wording was a little sub-par. The article is getting there, though. Hurricanehink 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • The lack of data from outside Florida is a problem. It makes the article incomplete in a way. However this is not unusual for older storms: the 1900 Galveston Hurricane doesn't mention damage in Cuba, nor does 1935 Labor Day Hurricane mention damage in the Bahamas. As for the wind speed, the LD hurricane had 160 mph winds (from List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, and the best-track that's referenced in the article); higher winds may have existed but if they weren't recorded the NHC won't assume them; they might change this in future updates of the best-track however. — jdorje (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link for Hurdat, showing the 185 mph winds. Hurricanehink 02:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't read powerpoint files. What does it say? ... Regardless, that is not the hurdat. The master hurdat files are here, and clearly show 160 mph winds. That said, hurdat is subject to being revised and I have reason to believe 1935 is in the not-fully-analyzed period. So I have no problem with softening or removing the statement. — jdorje (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, after thinking about this a bit more I can't see what's wrong with the current statement. The LD storm's winds were not measured. In fact it would be easy to argue that the statement is not strong enough, since Dog's winds were measured at flight level, not surface level. It is entirely possible that no storm has had stronger surface winds measured (except by dropsonde, if that counts). Of course this brings us around to the unreliability of any wind measurement, so it's unwise to make any absolute statement since all measurements are suspect. — jdorje (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The file is an early revision to what will be released later this year. Given that it's a government site, I'd say it is pretty official. However, because it is not NHC accepted yet, the way you did it is fine. What about the North Carolina impact section? There is some info there that should be mentioned, but how could it work? Hurricanehink 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well written - informative and interesting. Seems to meet all criteria. Giano | talk 10:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Images, tables, infoboxes, references, stability and a well written article are the criteria (for me) for a featured article, since it covers all the criteria I will give it a support.

juan andrés 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support A very good well developed article. Tarret 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/3D Monster Maze

Salsa music

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for awhile. It's difficult because the word salsa means different things to different people -- there's a section in the article explaining the history of the word (as a music genre). Until a few days ago, there was an anon inserting unencyclopedic comments about how this article was contradictory and such, but he's been quiet for awhile -- if you see something odd when evaluating the article, please check the history to see if he's come back. FTR, I think he's upset because the article explains that this term is used for Cuban-American dance music prior to the 60s/70s, which he feels diminishes the Puerto Rican contribution to modern salsa... (or something, I'm just guessing). Anyway, I didn't want this article to be rejected for being unstable, so I waited a week since his last edit, and I think it's fine now. Tuf-Kat 01:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks solid to me. Good lead, good organization, good references. Fieari 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good and solid article. --Siva197909:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive article. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting read, I support. However, would it be possible to find a few more images, particularly for the history section. Secondly, I noticed there's no link to Salsa (dance). Surely there should be some connection between the two, don't you agree? Gflores 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Link added to the lead (was there at one point, must've got accidentally cut). I'm looking through Flickr for more free images (that's how I found the Vives and salsa band pics), and I think it's pretty likely I'll eventually find some more... that might take a while though. Tuf-Kat 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Put a link in the infobox too. Tuf-Kat 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I may dislike salsa music, but this article is certainly one of the better ones on Misplaced Pages. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A very well written and referenced article. -- Samir ∙ _C 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's almost a pity that well written articles like this one don't get as much comment as the ones that need work... I almost feel like there should be a discussion on exactly what this article did RIGHT in order to balance all those other nominations where we talk about what those articles do wrong... heh. Ah well. I'm probably just being silly. Squeeky wheel gets the grease and all that. I just wish there was a better way of showing people what a featured article should look like than just pointing at the examples and regulations... Fieari 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well done, but why are there no "See also" or "external links"? 140.32.75.34 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything worth linking to is in the article, I think, hence no see alsos. In my research, no external links jumped out at me as being useful (aside from the 2 refs), so there are none. Feel free to add or suggest some. Tuf-Kat 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just curious. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely done. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. (I first tried to cast the vote during the "wikistorm" preceding the last database lock...) The "primary" in 2 sentences in a row in the beginning is a bit of an eyesore, but I don't have a neat rewording of the two sentences. Maybe move things about? --BACbKA 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, I have changed one instance to "essentially", which is probably more informative in this context. Tuf-Kat 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's a good article and should eventually be featured, but there are a couple of factual errors which make me want to check a few more references first. The 70s and 80s paragraphs could be tightened slightly. Thematically, I think something could usefully be added about the resurgence of the tipico style in the 90s. I will try to correct the straight factual errors in the next 24 hours. James barton 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a difference between salsero and sonero (and sonera)? One of my source uses both, and one uses only the former. Thanks for your help. Tuf-Kat 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A sonero or sonera is a musician who produces Son music. A salsero is Salsa musician (or dancer). So the terms are similar but not synonomous. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm more used to seeing salsero refer to dancers than musicians, and sonero mean salsa singers, particularly those who can improvise. I will try to find a reference for this. James barton 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Google agrees with both definitions. One of the articles it brought up led me to this which only mentions the son connection in passing before talking about soneros as singers. James barton 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good overall. Only thing I don't like is the location of those inline citations; seems inconsistent with the majority of FAs. A relatively minor issue though; good work on this. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I came across this article by chance, and in a very quick scan found factual errors right away. I would recommend a more rigorous search of the peer-reviewed literature for one thing.
  • If your only concerns are the ones presented on the talk page, I think I've fixed the issue. That paragraph is cited to the only source I have access to which covers the subject (90s Colombian salsa). If you have any further concerns, please mention them here or on the talk page. Tuf-Kat 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but (I'm sorry) that's not the only concern, and that section is not really fixed. Carlos Vives has nothing to do with salsa, period. He's not a salsa musician, and his music is not salsa-fused anything. Please do be careful when using Rough Guides as a source - they are (as the name aptly suggests) only rough guides and this one in particular does in fact get things wrong. Beyond the printed Rough Guides, their musical compilations get things wildly wrong - for example, their Puerto Rican "salsa" collection features mostly plenas and bombas. Anyway. Also in the same section, it's Sonora Carruseles (not Sonoro ...). Beyond that, I should point out that Puerto Ricans are not immigrants to the US - Puerto Ricans are US citizens, and it was Puerto Rican musicians in NYC who created and pioneered salsa, working with some traditional Cuban musical forms, and working with Cuban and other Latin American musicians. Beyond pioneering salsa, it was in Puerto Rican communities in the US and in Puerto Rico that salsa first became a hugely popular musical style. That's not really mentioned in this article, but it's really important to understanding the roots of the music, the musicians, and the cultural significance of salsa within Latino communities. You mention that an anonymous Puerto Rican had some earlier objections to your article - I haven't read them, but I would imagine that was a big part. I would agree with that person. Similarly, Spangineer (above) points out the correct definitions of salsero (=salsa musician / dancer) and sonero (=son musician). These terms are not synonymous. Google is not a definitive source here - anyone can make a mistake and post it on the web. That's all for now - I hope this is helpful. I wish you well.
• First of all, Puerto Ricans are just as capable of immigrating to New York or Miami as Cubans or Texans. Secondly, while you may not like Rough Guides, they are a published, verifiable source. Thirdly, this article says Vives fused salsa with vallenato and rock, which is a claim sourced to the person who made it (by an author who writes on Latin and Caribbean music for several magazines, and has had a book published on salsa). Lastly, I don't think the Puerto Rican influence is at all understated -- the article does say the culture was "primarily Puerto Rican", and in any case, all claims related to either Cubanness or Puerto Ricanness are sourced, and many widely-varying opinions are presented. If you can cite a reasonable source that gives a more prominent Puerto Rican emphasis, then that can be added too. Tuf-Kat 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've got another book now that I can look in, but since it's about Cuba primarily, I doubt it will be a source for what you're looking for on the Puerto Rico issue. But then, I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've put quite a bit in based on the new book, some of which has to do with Puerto Rico. Does this help with your concerns? Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive and I see no problem with your sources. Kafziel 18:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Interesting and seems thorough. I'm not a salsa expert, so I can't comment on the details. The reference titles sound comprehensive enough and reliable. I did have one significant style problem, to do with the explanation of lack of a clear, universal definition, which is covered in "The word salsa", and spills over into the next section, "Characteristics" (particularly the second para there, "The singer Rubén Blades once claimed..."). For me, there is too much equivocation and uncertainty for too long off the top, which sets up a little doubt about the rest of the article. I'd confine stuff like "are doubtful that the term salsa has any useful meaning at all" to the "word" section--the differing views are made plain there--and adopt a more direct, declarative tone in "Characteristics": "according to X...", "according to Y...", type of thing. --Tsavage 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved about one and a half paragraphs from "characteristics" to the "word" section and did quite a bit of reorganizing (wow, would've taken hours if not for the new citation system, and I probably still would've mucked up a few footnotes). "Characteristics" has a much tighter focus now, which I think has been a significant improvement. Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it now sounds a lot more authoritative to me! :) --Tsavage 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

I've worked on this quite a bit for the past two weeks. I guess you could call this a self-nomination. It's complete and well-referenced. I believe I've resolved all issues presented in its Peer Review. Gflores 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Solid article, decent footnotes, awesome images. Concise, with appropriate satellite articles for each topic. I think it's pretty good. Deckiller 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Deckiller Captain Jackson 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Question would converting the footnotes to Cite.pphp formet cause issues with the editors? I was about to ask at the talk page, but I figured here is no worse a place to do it. Circeus 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mind. I'm not really familiar with that particular reference format, but I guess it's ok. Is that format better in some way? You're free to change it if you want. :) Gflores 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as the wiki source code is concerned, it leaves the reference in it's location within the text and takes only one tag (<references />) at the bottom of the article. All links between notes and footnotes are generated automatically. It is that technique that is used in otehr FAC Salsa music Circeus 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's done now, how does it look? I hope I didn't mix any notes in my copy-pasting. Circeus 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks great, thanks! Gflores 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'll support with slight concern that Antarctica is more complete on that topic than "main article" Geography of Antarctica. Circeus 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --BACbKA 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - dislike the reference style William M. Connolley 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the ref/ref system used is a perfectly legit inline citation system used, so that is not a valid objection. I personally prefer the ref/note system, but ref/ref has been used by other FAs.Rlevse 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Invalid reason to object. Gflores 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that complaints about other ref styles have been considered valid elsewhere William M. Connolley 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this really actionable? (i.e. is it possible to find a system that satisfies every editor?) Why do you dislike it? –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is really a marker for elsewhere (global warming) - I prefer inline links, and am often told that these are "forbidden" for FAC. I'll be delighted if people insist that ref style is inadmissable as a criterion. William M. Connolley 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
    • I really don't want to step into a firestorm here, but I can aboslutely tell you that inline ref style is currently innadmissable as a FAC objection. The reason is simple: there is no consensus over which style is best, so any style that is used and retains the citation information and does it well is fine. That has been consistently held for a long time. Although now that cite.php has gotten so much work into it, I can see that it will eventually be the preferred form. - Taxman 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Taxman is right, any inline citation system is currently acceptable (this means the footnote somehow appears in the bottom somehow) and that the only INacceptable system is external links being in the text as it causes the reader to jump out of the article. An Inacceptable external link for FAC purposes appears like this: Go to Google
        • No, the footnote doesn't have to appear at the bottom, there doesn't have to be a footnote at all. Footnotes are not compulsory. Please note this, as reviewers frequently, mistakenly, state or imply that footnotes are a must for FAs. Not true. While inline links are deprecated, for good reasons, inline parenthetic references to print sources are perfectly acceptable. Like this (Raul, 654), where Raul is the author of a source listed in the References section. See FA John Vanbrugh for an example of this style (actually somebody has added one footnote, a rather nice one, since I did the references :-)). Personally, I prefer wherever possible to avoid footnotes, with their distracting jump out of the text and their to some readers off-puttingly "learned" apperance. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
• Question before support or oppose: What on earth is Peter di Fazio doing in there? He's not a geographic or historical expert, and his standing derives from an elected office. Secondly, why do you say that it was spotted on 1820 "New Style?" Old Style/New Style relates to a calendar reform in 1711. I.e. every date is "New Style" by 1715. The only time one needs to convert is before that, and the only times we usually perform the conversion is when the date is near the change. (E.g. Robert Gould died in 1708/1709 NS because he died in January 1708, Old Style, but January is in the next year, New Style.) Is there a Russian calendar issue at play? If so, it's probably not great to use the term "New Style" that points to the British reform. Geogre 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've replaced that source with two others. On the second point, you're right. I've removed the term now. Gflores 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: My objections have been answered. (I figured that there was a Russian calendar reform around the time, so it was more infelicitous phrasing than a non-germane point.) Geogre 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Minor objections - I agree with Geogre - how is diFazio considered an authorative source compared to the NSF, etc? Also, in the "Flora and fauna" section, I don't particularly like the text sandwiched between two images. Would it be possible to move it down? Overall, though, great article. Thanks! <Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Intersting points. The Flora/Fauna issue may vary based on screen size and resolution. Deckiller 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reorganized the pictures across the article forright/left alternancy. A specific picfor the Flora section would be nice, though. The current one doesn't make much sense. Circeus 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I like the new layout, some of the pictures go off into other sections. (see my comment on the talk page). I would like to hear some input from other people on this new look. A lichen picture is on the way for the flora section. On second thought, it's ok. I don't feel to strongly about it now that I've removed the seal image and inserted the lichen image. Gflores 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the diFrazio source, I've now removed it. For the images, I'm not sure where it should/could be moved. I guess I could just take one of them out. It looks good to me. :) Do you have a suggestion for where to move it? Gflores 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The new picture format looks good! However, I still have a disagreement with the wording of the sentence where the diFazio quote was; it reads: According to various sources (...) and other sources... Surely a synonym for sources can be found? (The close parenthesis was also missing, something I've rectified.) This should be a relatively minor fix, but I can't think of a good wording now. Also, please don't strike my comments out; if the objections been fixed, I'll do that, or if I forget, feel free to remind me. (Otherwise, Raul will notice that it's already been fixed, even without strikeout.) However, don't assume anything. :-) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I changed the first 'sources' to organizations. Thanks for the quick fix and sorry for striking out your comments, I wasn't sure if I did that or someone else. Gflores 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No problem. Support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: is there a reference provided in the article noting that the Greek translation means "opposite of the Arctic"? After searching it through a few times, I can't find one. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I didn't know references were needed for translations... see Xiangqi, Oxyrhynchus. But alright, I've added a source. :) Gflores 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are not allowed to strike other people's comments, regardless if they re-address them or not. However, I support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• List of Greek words with English derivatives. Circeus 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object, I have one fundamental and a few technical concerns:
  • The "History" section only covers the period from the late 17th century to 1911 and only mentions discoveries and firsts. A quote from one of the references: "Of the world’s 61,000 nonfiction papers and books published about the Antarctic since the earliest papers dating from the 1600s, 91 percent have been published since 1951." Perhaps re-name to "Discovery" or extend to include post-1912 happenings.
  • The first sentence is a one-sentence paragraph. An article may be able to get away with that in the body but not as the introductory paragraph, and especailly when there are three other paragraphs in the introductory section. The first sentence is excellent but does not stand on its own as a paragraph.
  • The reference concerning James Cook does not support the statement. Also, please clarify what "crossed the Antarctic Circle" means, that is its relevance/importance (the "Geography" section is still a couple sentences away).
  • All values should have a "& n b s p ;"  (why doesn't nowiki work with that?) between the number and the unit. --maclean25 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made some changes. For the intro, I like how it begins with a one-liner, I've seen other FAs do this and I think it looks fine. However, I have added another line (about its geography). I changed history to exploration and added a bit more. Changed reference for James Cook. I'm not familiar with "&nbsp ;", where do I use it and why? Maybe someone can help me out here? Gflores 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Can someone please provide a reference for the volcanoe section? I am having a difficult time fact-checking this. --maclean25 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Rewrote it with references. Also added image of Mt. Erebus. I've added the non-breaking spaces now. Gflores 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great article. --Siva1979 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice article. Rlevse 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support As it is one of the greatest articles and is about one of the greatest places on Earth. Tarret 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article, good layout. Pretty confident this will be a featured article. Uncke Herb 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object I so wanted to support this article since its layout and the content that is there is so great. However, we can't have an article on a continent be featured without a section on the geology of the place. VERY important things absent; that it was part of the supercontinent Pangaea, then a couple other continents, and finally its separation from Australia and India prior to it becoming stuck centered on the South Pole and then froze over. What's is even more astounding is the lack of a mention that our current cold climate (ice ages interrupted by inter-glacial periods) is in large part due to the formation of a circumpolar current around Antarctica and albedo from reflected snow that formed on it. That in turn reduced forests in Africa and encouraged grasses to take over. In other words, the geology of Antarctica is linked to getting our evolutionary ancestors out of the trees and standing to see over the grass. WE CANNOT feature this article until it gets a geology section. If I have time I will help, but until then this article can't get featured. Also, no mention that at one time parts of Antarctica had huge forests, swamps, dinosaurs, and very abundant life. Think about questions a child may ask or want to know; Why is Antarctica cold? Was it always like it is today? --mav 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of my objections have been fixed. --mav
• Object for now per mav. Even simple things like coal deposits are only mentioned in passing under Economy, even though it is a huge part of the theory of continental drift and modern geology. --Rory096 06:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose - the article is great, but not comprehensive enough. I'd like to see 'Antarctica in fiction' section (references in culture, popular and otherwise), an explanation of where does the name come from (ethymology), something more on history of continent before the 'discovery' and exploration age (geology per mav), a paragraph on faune and flora before the continent was covered in ice and finally, at least a comment on the theories that there was some human (?) civilization (Daniken, Atlantis, etc. - perhaps in the popular culture section).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done. --Terence Ong 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • How can you support given the above objections? Do you not think that having information on the geology of a continent is important to have in an article on that continent? --mav

• Comment It's a lovely article and I'd like to support, but there is one small problem I noticed. Tourism is mentioned only in passing, but from news accounts I've read for the past several years, Antarctic tourism has increased rapidly over the past decade with many cruise ships coming from Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. Some people are now concerned about environmental effects and talking about a yearly tourist limit. Has anybody else heard about these issues? I think they should be mentioned in the article. --Sophitus 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Almost there. No full object because this is quite excellent. The Geology section exists now per Mav but needs a little more meat. Effects of Global warming should be mentioned directly rather than just alluded to. I'm neither here nor there on the "in fiction" stuff, but if it addresses others objections and swings this close to an FA, go for it. Otherwise, good job. Marskell 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article covers the Antarctic Continent proper, while in the English language 'Antarctica' refers both to the mainland and the wider geographical region comprising also the islands and waters situated south of the Antarctic Convergence. (See the article Livingston Island for further details.) Arguably, the article ought to cover the rest of Antarctica as well. Apcbg 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Star

Prior FAC attempts: archive1, archive2

This article is about a core concept in astronomy. It has undergone multiple PR's and all of the issues raised during the last FAC have been addressed. Since the last FAC this page has undergone some growth and the organization of two of the sections have been enhanced. I believe it is of FA quality. Please take a look and let me know if you agree. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object
• First sentence: A star is ... gravity and, unlike a planet, ... to sustain nuclear fusion in a very dense, hot core region. Bad sentence structure. Don't use comparisons or negative phrases in the lead (unlike)
  • Ah the joys of collaborative edits. That was actually correct at one point before somebody decided to edit it into the current form. It appears to have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• (HR-diagram)... lay people will not know what this is unless they click on it (causing a fork in reading). Avoid using in lead as the context needs to be explained to establish understanding.
  • "A Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR-diagram) shows the pattern of the temperature of stars against their absolute magnitude..." Isn't this self-explanatory? I reordered the sentence slightly to make it clearer. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1.1 & 3.3.1 are single subsections. Considered bad style to have a single subsection in almost all style guides.
  • The manual of style states to "use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long". I see nothing in there about it being bad style to have single subsections, and the section breaks seem appropriate. Could you clarify? — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • About the sectioning: I can't quote a style guide off hand, but in all my work editing over the years, I have come across the rule that to have a sub section, you must have at least two subsections. The text before the first subsection becomes the overview of the following sections. Take a look at any printer manual or magazine article.
• I don't see the lead summarizing the article.
  • Yes that's somewhat true. I think it focuses on key points. But I added in a couple of additional paragraphs. Hopefully that will be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Early astronomers such as Tycho Brahe
  • Fixed. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Observation history contains mostly western science viewpoints. In 1584 Giordano Bruno suggested that the stars were actually other suns, and may have Earth-like -- has this never been proposed before?
  • The focus of the article is on the scientific aspects of the stars. Unfortunately most the history of the telescopic observation of the stars is from a western viewpoint. So I regard a certain bias in that aspect as a necessity from the 1600's onward. I added in Democritus and Epicurus, two early Greek philosophers who suggested the idea of other worlds. Also western, "unfortunately". :-) — RJH (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• seeing variability -- I've just started to read the article and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  • I attempted to clarify this. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 225 km/s -- Mos for units not followed. Use the non-breaking space
  • Mos? Please clarify your abbr. Ah, okay: mos = Manual of style. Mos states to use SI units. "km/s" is SI units. I added npsp's and linked the units. — RJH (talk)
• Article size is large. Suggest a summary: =Formation and evolution= can and should be summarized keeping the technical details in sub articles
  • The "formation and evolution" section is a summary, at least to me. Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic. I am reluctant to implement this suggestion as this is a core element of the article. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic – sadly, most FAC editors get stuck with this point. See #4 of WP:WIAFA. (staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • By moving extraneous content here to the sub article, and summarizing that content here, you can get the daughter article featured with a little extra work. It's referenced after all :)
• .gif image found. Convert to .png
  • I am unclear why this is the basis for an objection. Gif files are a well-known format that is supported by all browsers. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Format states that static diagrams should be in the .png format. PS I'm happy that some of the diagrams are svg. Excellent work!
• I don't see an absolute need of keeping mathematical figures for =Radiation= & Nuclear fusion reaction pathways. The two sections can be summarized further, and details moved to sub articles. Since this is a general topic, the page should be reader friendly to people not familiar with trignometery.
  • I'm going to wait and see if others object to this. For now I think the formulae are relevant and can be kept on the basis of precedent: black hole, photon, roche limit and speed of light.
    • Well not all articles are the same. Roche limit for example would be more tuned for a person with a science background reading it. Afterall you need a knowedge of trignometry to calculate it. The formulae are currently essential as it is used in context, but to remove it you would have to rewrite it so that the need for the formulae is obviated.
• Main article: main sequence -- should be Sentence case: (Main sequence)
  • Why? It's all one sentence. Please clarify. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • {Main article} clarification: The first letter of the linked article should be capitalized. (star formation --> Star formation; Stellar evolution). So that this is consistent with the usage in other articles on wikipedia. Regards.
• Use &minus; to mark out the minus sign
• ...to our eyes, only because it is merely 8.6 light-years away from us, while Canopus is much further away from us at 310 light-years. --> "...to the eye only because Sirius (8.6 light years) is much closer to earth than Canopus (310 light years). (Don't use our)
• Context needed for many terms. I'll give you one example: As the cloud collapses, individual Bok globules form... --> ... as the cloud collapses, dark clouds of dense dust and gas called Bok globules form...

I don't have time to check on all the points. If all are taken care off, please strike my objection off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.4.162 (talk)

Thanks for your review. As I noted above I have a some issues with a few of your objections, so I'm going to hold off on some of the suggested changes to see what consensus is reached. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, with some qualifications. Re anons points, the use of a comparison is appropriate here because it's central to the definition. To define a star is to distinguish it from a planet.

I agree with the anon. The article on Definition states that you define something by stating the essential properties of the thing being defined. It not being a planet is not an essential property. I've removed the "unlike a planet" due to this.Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The formation section does appear long given the sub-articles, but this article is better than the subs, after a glance at them. Don't compress this one, until you're sure those are in order. Abundance and redundancy is preferable to a lack of coverage.

• The lead is insufficient, as it only summarizes evolution. Consider a short para on characteristics, another on classification, and at least a sentence devoted to observation history.
  • I've added two more paragraphs. If it were any longer I think people might complain about excessive length of the introduction. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Writing: some excess language at the clause level, but this is well-written.
  • If there is excess language, some judicious cleanup would be most welcome. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Marskell 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead sentence says that a star is "a massive, compact body...". Massive and compact seem contradictory words and a bit ambiguous. Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the word "massive" that's ambiguous? Perhaps "enormous" would serve? Massive implies dimension, while compact is a measure of density. (A galaxy is enormous but non-compact; a neutron star is relatively small, but highly compact.) — RJH (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps change it to "massive, dense" or something similar? Harryboyles 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The density of a star is variable, depending on either the radius and the state of evolution. Using "dense" would be inappropriate. I think "compact" captures the concept more accurately. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • In everyday (non-scientific) usage, compact means (or at least strongly implies) small, not dense. For example, I expect a "compact digital camera" to fit in my pocket, not to meet some arbitrary space utilization percentage. Thus, it would be easy to see this as a contradiction in terms (massive, compact). Also, I don't see why you say "compact is a measure of density" but then say that "the density of a star is variable", and thus conclude that "compact" is a better term to use than "dense". Even if used as a term of density, "compact" implies high density, just as "dense" does. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Merriam-Webster: "1: predominantly formed or filled; 2a: having a dense structure or parts or units closely packed or joined." The word is perfectly fine as used here. Marskell 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I still disagree, but in any case why not simply say "dense", since that's apparently what "compact" means anyway? Ambiguity is evil. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question There seem to be a lot of multiple wikilinks. Is it necessary to link all of them so many times? Jay32183 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I always liked having a relevant link close at hand, but no probably not. Is there a program somewhere that will search for duplicate links? — RJH (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Auto Wiki Browser will find them. I'd have done it when I viewed it for the simple spell check, but I wasn't sure what astronomers considered necessary. I think the typical view arcoss wikipedia is that only complete dates need to be, and that's so date formatting works. If you want to get rid of all of the multiples or have a list of those you wish to keep, I can make all of the duplicates so it only has the first instance. Jay32183 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If you have a means to automatically eliminate the duplicates, that would be most appreciated. The extra links can always be added back in where they are most needed. Otherwise it would be an almost herculean task to check and compare every link. In fact it would be beneficial if WP had a tool that would perform the task of finding duplicate links on a page. — RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I have reduced all the duplicates to only their first use. This reduced the overall number of wikilinks to 225. Jay32183 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Personally I really dislike having to search through an article for a link I want. But the majority deems otherwise, apparently. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro is improved. Good job.

Another editor pointed out that one difficulty with this page is the introduction of terms without an explanation. Having dozens of paranthetical asides can make for a clunky ready, but perhaps someone can go through and at least add an adjective or two based on the sub-article.

For instance "individual conglomerations known as Bok globules" --> "individual conglomerations of dense dust and gas known as Bok globules". This won't overburden the writing too much and will make the page more user-friendly. Marskell 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've done quite a bit of editing to try and address those concerns. Some of the heavier material has been moved to the stellar evolution page, for example. I also moved most of the formulae elsewhere, but I left the nuclear reactions in place for now. I'm not expecting this FAC to succeed at this point, and it's not clear to me that the article has a chance of becoming significantly improved. So time for me to move on. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Just a query: "Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, the star expands to becomes a red giant,..". It's not my area, but I had a vague idea that, depending on its pre-existing size, a red giant was only one of three options here. I'm probably wrong, though. Tony 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In fact, our page on red giants suggests that red dwarfs may not be large enough to undergo the expansion. If so, even "most stars" would be innappropriate as most stars are red dwarfs. That will always be speculative though, because no red dwarf has yet completed its lifecycle. The third option would be a supernova. I'll try and tweak that if RJH doesn't. Marskell 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support though I'd rather not see this nomination oscillate between active and withdrawn anymore. My only suggestion would be to include an example of an HR diagram - I know they can be large, but a small one would be useful, because it's discussed a lot but readers have to click the link to see what it is. (Also, "massive and compact" is in no way contradictory; leave that one alone.) Opabinia regalis 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)), with a few caveats that I'd like to see fixed:

• A fair few of the references have (English) next to them - this is superfluous, as it is normally assumed that the references are in english unless a tag saying otherwise is present.
• All dates should be of the form 13 October 2006 (or October 13, 2006) - namely, wikilinked. Some of the dates in the references aren't.
• "However, since the lifespan of such stars is greater than the current age of the universe (13.7 billion years), no black dwarfs exist yet." - how can you be definite that they don't exist? I'd refine that to say that it is expected that no black dwarfs exist, and possibly mention that it would be difficult to detect them due to their low / non-existent emissions. A reference would also be nice here.
• The article should have more pictures. As said by someone else above, a H-R diagram would be a good idea. I'd also consider adding a segment of a spectra of a star, and at least one decent one of the sun - there's plenty to choose from on Sun.

Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ernest Percival

self nom. Yes another Anglo war leader but in this case a very human one who experienced highs and lows in his military career, who sometimes seems to have embodied the "stiff upper lip", a genuine hero in the Great War, he worked to help his fellow prisoners after their release and yet at other times earned a reputation for being unnecessarily ruthless. To my mind a personal mirror for the end of the British Empire in the 20th Century Nickhk

• Comment Problems I noticed at a quick glance:
  • Duplicated footnotes need to be combined, see Misplaced Pages:Footnotes for more information.
    • I think these are now improved Nickhk
    • Notes 13 and 15 both say "Percival, Chapter 1, see link above". This should be one footnote referenced twice. Also, I'm not sure what link this means. --Pagrashtak 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Circeus has kindly worked on the refs to address this. I have also collapsed the Bibliography into the References - I hope this will remove the confusion about the reference to the link Nickhk
  • Check your ref tags; footnote 15 does not link back correctly, I'm assuming it's just a label problem.
    • Fixed Nickhk
  • Resolve copyright issue on images like Image:Flyingcolumn westcork-DB668.JPG and add fair use rationale to images claiming fair use. --Pagrashtak 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have written to the uploader - lets ssee what he says first Nickhk
      • He's added info to the image; it wouldn't hurt to add fair use rationale, but I think it's enough for me to strike the comment. --Pagrashtak 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I think this is done. Can you now support? Nickhk
• Support - looks good! --Pagrashtak 15:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Minor objections. First, I'd like to see the sections on early life and later life expanded; it's a bit short. I realize that information may be scarce on these times, but if at all possible, they should be a bit more comprehensive. Second, I'd also like to see the publications section be re-formatted. I'm not sure what the MoS says about that, but that section just seems to stick out like a sore thumb to me. Finally, I would also like to see the issues Pagrashtak raised above addressed. Overall, though, a great read on its way to FA. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he was cold shouldered after retirement so missed out on appointments etc. There must be more on his early life though and I will have a look in the library next weekend. If anyone has any untapped sources please let me know Nickhk
    • I have gone though Hong Kong Central Library and extended the article in these areas. Can you now support? Nickhk
      • Great! Support, though I do want to comment that the section title "A Hero in the Making" is a bit trite. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks quite good. The "See also" section should be trimmed of anything already linked elsewhere, though. —Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • trimmed Nickhk
    • Support, then. —Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well-referenced. Deserves to be FA. Gflores 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and informative article. SoLando (Talk) 08:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Stiff Upper Lip Support. As per SoL's comments. Fine work, it is all an FA should be.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article is well researched, well written and meets all the criteria. Leithp 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well researched, good historical type photos, detailed and well tied references, well written overall....good balance of time epochs in his lifeAnlace 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and researched. Genuine insight and very accessible Brat31 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good read. Factually correct as far as I can tell. __earth 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very well done. --Thunk 13:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

previous FAC

Uma Thurman

previous FAC

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

An excellent article on this infamous hoax, that includes both a great history as well as in-depth discussion of the document's origins and uses. Lots of references, images, and good sectioning make it both easy to read and easily verifiable (it has also been through a peer review). I have already seen the Misplaced Pages article cited several times online as a good account of the history of the Protocols (for example: LA City Beat and Engage, etc) and it definitely deserves FAC status as one of the best overviews anywhere of this tragically important document. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*Object. Good work, but shorten up the intro (if it weren't an FA candidate, I'd slap the {{intro length}} template on it. Also, two problems re the images (which I haven't even checked for licensing yet (Update: oops, they're book covers and can be used): 1)The Times exposé of the forgery should be down in that section of the text, and 2) is it really necessary to have all those images? At times I thought it should be retitled Gallery of images of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Daniel Case 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

:And can you give us a link to the peer review to see what issues were raised? Daniel Case 15:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review linked. I should also clarify, I haven't worked on this article (except in the last day or so), user:humus sapiens, among others, deserves credit. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro is rewritten, are you happier now? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

::::It's a little bit better, but the last two grafs could be combined somehow. Maybe by taking out the sentence "The Protocols are widely considered the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Conspirators Hierarchy: The Committee of 300" if it isn't properly sourced. Daniel Case 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I have the chance to read the article in depth and make minor edits for clarity and style:

:::::"For further information, see INRI, Jewish Messiah, Jewish view of Jesus." Can that go in See Also? I see what you're trying to do, but we usually don't put that sort of thing in sections.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Also, get rid of the year links unless they're necessary, as we've been trying to do everywhere.

"After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, various warring factions used the Protocols to perpetrate hatred and violence against the Jews." Which warring factions? In Russia? Outside? It should be clearer.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Mein Kampf citation be a footnote?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"He was brought to court, in what has come to be known as the Berne Trial, by Dr. J. Dreyfus-Brodsky, Dr. Marcus Cohen and Dr. Marcus Ehrenpreis." Are these the prosecutors? Judges? Is this referring to a book? If so, it should be named as a reference.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also clarified that it was a civil suit now. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many Arab governments fund the publication of new printings of the Protocols, and teach them in their schools as historical fact." Which ones? We need sources; otherwise this will doubtless spark vicious edit wars.

The article mentions quite a few, and more dreadful examples can be easily sourced. ←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Protocols have been accepted as fact by many Islamic extremist organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda." There's good evidence for the first two, we know, so it could use a citation. Is there anything extant that suggests that about al-Qaeda, however?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I checked footnote 14 and the source is a summary of Horseman Without a Horse, which says nothing about whether the Arab leaders in question had made the attributed statements. It seems from the source text that you may have mixed up a reference? Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This still needs to be fixed.

The refs were fixed long ago. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why do I still read "Past endorsements of The Protocols from Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, one of the President Arifs of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, among other political and intellectual leaders of the Arab world, are echoed by 21st Century endorsements from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hamas, and the education ministry of Saudi Arabia," without any sourcing or citations of the named individuals in the first half of the sentence? That's what I've been asking about. Take it out, soften it or do something with it. Daniel Case 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you there. It was not my passage but I think now I found a pertinent ref. ←Humus sapiens 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Translations of the Protocols are extremely popular in Iran." Source?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistent dating and quote-mark style throughout the article (some use single, English-style; others use double American quotes)

Source: 'Hadith and Islamic Culture', Grade 10, (2001) pp. 103–104" This should be in the bottom footnotes.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are all the references to Palestinian use of the Protocols necessary? They're encylopedic and verifiable, but that section sort of reads like it was written by MEMRI or something. We get the point with just one or two.

What up with all the whitespace after "Egypt?"

"On February 20, 2005, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (appointed by Yasser Arafat)" Is that necessary? Some of these can really be put in other articles with links back here.

I do feel it is important. ←Humus sapiens 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why? Did someone ever confront Arafat over this? How did he react? That should be in there. 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Still would like something on this. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arafat is gone. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about some more material on their contemporary use and dissemination among neo-Nazis in Europe and North America?

Daniel Case 06:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we've got what we're going to get. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see what you fixed but some issues I have remain.

I added some stuff at the head of the Arab section to give it a little context I think it needed.

In the intro, it occurs to me, we should say more clearly that this revolutionized conspiracy theorizing by being the first popular CT to assert that a single group secretly controlled the world and/or was bent on doing so, it strikes me that this was also the beginning of purely secular antisemitism (in that the Protocols turned the supposed motivation for opposition to the Jews from "They killed Christ" to "they're running the banks" ... do the references support this? (And the intro is much improved, BTW)

Finally, what the whole article has a crying need for is a single section explaining in detail why the Protocols are a fabrication. As it is we have the evidence of plagiarism of earlier work which faulted other groups in one section, Nilus's changed story and contradiction of himself in another, and the use of terms Jews were not likely to use in yet another. Given the discussions on the talk page by various people who assert "bias," we need one section where it is made ringingly clear why all credible historians have concluded this document is a forgery.

We also learn, near the end, about Kerry Bolton and his book trying to refute that conclusion. It might be interesting to know what he would base such a refutation on and have something about it in the article (it would help avoid the claim made by some of the antisemites on the talk page that WE'RE PART OF THE PLOT because "we" sweep Mr. Bolton under the rug). Not that those people will really respond to rational argument anyway, but why help them out?

Or maybe this can all be taken care of in some hypothetical daughter article. We'll see. Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, it is difficult to imagine how we could express in more detail why they are a fabrication. If they were not the secret transcripts of a bunch of elderly Jews in a graveyard, then they are a fabrication, and the article explains where they actually came from. Can you give me a clearer idea of how you would want this explained differently? As for Bolton, there are lots of anti-Semites who say that the Protocols are true, the arguments basically are "the Jews/Zionists made up the story of the forgery" -- trying to answer these sorts of silly assertions point-by-point give fringe views much more room than is needed in a main article. If you want to create a new subarticle about this, I am happy to help. Any chance you can change your vote now? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted more detail, just that the detail you have should probably be centralized in some way. Maybe some bulleted list? (It's a shame the formatting doesn't allow for sidebars, which would be the perfect place for it)

I think if you get that done, then I can support this. Daniel Case 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just went through it again myself, looked at Graves' article, and put some things in the article to clearly indicate why fact X shows the Protocols are fake.

I also like that you put the Islam and Anti-Semitism link at the head of the Middle East section. That gives it more context.

I'm getting a lot closer to supporting this. Let me look over the whole thing again tonight. There might be just a few more things to do (As for the daughter-article idea on the continuing claims for their authenticity, I think it's a great idea but it is not necessary for featured-article status, so that could be done later). Daniel Case 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am now changing my vote to provisional support if, between now and whenever this goes on the Main Page, the remaining issues above are taken care of. Plus, the Nora Levin quote needs a footnote. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object the lead needs a substantial rewrite. (1) it is too long, (2) it needs to be a summary of the rest of the article (per WP:LEAD), (3) I don't think wikipedia should be using Britannica as a source, (4) having refs in the intro is very distracting (besides, some reference-able statements are refed, others are not). Also, "Subject matter" needs to be referenced; so do "The forger" and much of the rest of "History". Contains weasel: "Some scholars compare..." etc. Mikkerpikker ... 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, to address (1) and (2) the lead is rewritten and now summarizes the content; I also removed the "some scholars compare" language. As for the other points, I have to disagree: (3) I moved the Britannica reference to a footnote, but there is no reason to eliminate other encyclopedias, we quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia and others all the time in Misplaced Pages; (4) references are critical in the introduction because (as you can see in the talk page) the factuality of the article is sometimes challenged, and the references are useful in discouraging this; and (5) I tried adding footnotes to the forger and history section, but exact footnotes aren't really needed here, since this is the commonly accepted history, and every book in the reference section states the same material, thus it doesn't really demand footnotes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the lead! Big improvement... I relent on (1) (fixed), (2) (fixed), (3) (it's my personal taste so I'll let it be) and (4) (forgot for a moment how controversial this is, you're right refs are needed in the intro). However, my objection stands on the issue of references. WP:V states

Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible.

And, as WP:CITE points out "The main point is to help the reader and other editors". That is why you still need to cite your sources in the "Subject matter" and "History" sections - even if the material is in most (or all) sources consulted, you need to say where in the those sources and which particular sources you're using so we can check it up for ourselves. Mikker 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Fixed, I believe, I added a number of footnotes, and the restructuring addressed some of the other issues.

• Weak object, expect to support once this is addressed. "One example is the semi-messianic idea that constantly appears in the text, of establishing a 'King of the Jews'. This was never a Jewish term, and was referenced only on the cross of Jesus." At best, this last sentence is vague; can we cite for the origin of the term? - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay with it now? Otherwise, the sentence can be cut. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support haven't re-read whole article, but as I said I was close to support already. Certainly the new wording is much improved on this point. Glad to be rid of the dubious claim that "this was never a Jewish term." - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object ems 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that the article has improved a lot today and the points above have been addressed. In order to improve further, please give comments/suggestions. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Any reason? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object This is a very good article, however it does need more citations. Some of the claims border on OR. If this can be fixed I the it is an approve from me. --Scaife 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you say which claims need to be sourced? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well... I guess when I read it the first time the Overview and the section immediately following it seemed like they were missing some citations. Like I said, though, this is a great article, and I may be in error. --Scaife 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Approve --Scaife 00:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - while the lead's length has been reduced, I still think it's a tad too long, but acceptable. However, the "Overview" section is not. It reads like it's from the lead. Finally, some formatting issues need to be addressed, especially the placement of the images. Perhaps cut down on the book covers? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Book covers trimmed a bit, the overview has been reorganized and reconfigured. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent Article. However, in the following section The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Used by the Nazis, 1930s-1940s, these is a "blockquoted" section that is not footnoted. Is that a quote from Nora Levin or is that actual article text that should not be blockquoted? My other picayune remark is that under The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Other contemporary appearances, the placement of the UK cover leads to a significant amount of dead space. Other than that, excellent work. -- Avi 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: An excellent factual account of this complex and controversial topic. Giano | talk 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object: very interesting article, but not there yet IMHO.
  • The text has to be proofread against unnecessary rhetoric. Preferrably by an editor who has not seen the article recently; and who can do it calmly. (I myself feel very strongly about the subject and have to restrain myself so as not to use pretty strong words about the "protocols", so I'll pass :-) ) For an example look at the end of the lead: still has currency in the arsenal of contemporary anti-Semitism.)
  • Should be more detached (explicitly invoking the cited sources, as in "according to..."), rather than stating things matter-of-factly in some cases, e.g.: The text is generally accepted as truthful in large parts of South America and Asia, especially in Japan where variations on the Protocols have frequently made the bestseller lists. BTW, speaking of which, I believe I have read a different opinion once, perhaps in the earlier version of this very article, about the contemporary usage in Japan --- that they study it in schools etc. as an explicit example of a forgery? Sorry I'm lazy to look it up myself...)
  • Becomes too sketchy towards the end, feels a bit cut in the middle. (Some restructuring needed?) this one is probably more of a comment than an objection, as I don't have a suggestion what exactly to do.

--BACbKA 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Some change have been made, take a look again. And specific points of objections would be helpful. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctantly have to oppose. No doubt, a notable topic, but a featured article must look and read good. As of today, the article looks ugly (personal impression). Lots of small sections with long titles, with text often not matching titles. Sectioning countrywide with a single sentence per section is pointless. Further, as with any historical work, naturally, there are statements about possible motivations of the actions of persons involved, which are, naturally again, someone's POVs. The article must put more effort to make sure that these POVs are not wikipedia's POVs, but of certain experts. mikka (t) 07:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, it is customary to put potential FAC to wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. It seems to me that AID is hastely happening now. mikka (t) 07:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. I would also suggest to put all numerous book covers into a wikipedia:gallery and move some huge captions into article body or into image pages. mikka (t) 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've reworded a little and consolidated some of the smaller sections. The small images are now a gallery. Not that I love the section titles, but I don't see anything wrong with them. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - sorry, this is generally an excellent article on an important topic, but there are too many one-sentence paragraphs - even one sentence sections - and I don't think we need a gallery of 15 cover images, pretty though they are. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the sections really help the organization of the article, what else would you suggest? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the images are important to prove and illustrate the distribution of the phenomenon. ←Humus sapiens 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. It is amazing to see the effort in spreading this text. HOwever I'd restricted one pic per country: 4 Egyptian is just too much. mikka (t)
      • We already removed a few images, I think the rest are important: not so long ago, the talk page was full of "believers". Regarding Egyptian editions, post-1972 were published in various periods after the Camp David where Egypt committed to stop antisemitic incitement and during the Peace Process. Look at the graphics. ←Humus sapiens 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there any statistics about Protocols: in how many countries printed, total circulation volume, etc.? mikka (t)
      • I didn't feel comfortable putting this into the article, but according to Radio Liberty , "In the last 100 years, the Protocols was published in tens of languages worldwide, and its cumulative print run most likely exceeded the works by Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Protocols appear to be the largest contribution by Russia in the global so-called 'culture'." (The translation is mine) ←Humus sapiens 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Why not add that, with citation? Regarding the images, I can understand the need to show some of the - rather striking - covers, but the number seems excesssive to me. The geographical spread is obvious from the text. Regarding short paragraphs/section, they should be expanded or consolidated. Much of section 3 ("Contemporary usage and popularity") consists of single-sentence paragraphs (the single sentence section, "Lebanon", has been expanded). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems there is a consensus, so I have removed a few more unimpressive images. The RFERL citation essentially is a guess, it has no hard numbers. Also, I love Russian literature (my POV). ←Humus sapiens 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I'll take another look. The citation may be a guess, but is verifiable as someone else's guess, so can go in, suitably qualified and cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gregorian calendar

Western Front (World War I)

World War I has significantly shaped the modern world, and the Western Front proved the decisive theater of this war. This article now covers the entire history of the front at a high level, with all the notable offensives as well as commentary on the strategies, tactics and technologies involved. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences. — RJH 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice article. Two questions, though:

1. Do we really need two huge see-also templates at the bottom?

• I would have no problem with a single template. But it's a cross-page issue, so if the bottom template gets removed then somebody will probably slap it back in again. — RJH

1. Could you perhaps add an {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and/or the appropriate campaignboxes? —Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay it's added, but I haven't been able to find western-front-specific numbers for some of the boxes. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I avoided that because the other operations-level pages lacked a similar template. *shrug* — RJH

• Second template was commented out. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support with Comment - The leads is perhaps too long. I know usually we encourage longer leads, but this one seems a bit excessive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Other than that, though, it looks great, so I'll give it my support. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay I tried to thin the introduction down without losing the specifics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice work! I think the lead is just right. However, can you add some wikilinks to the image captions (where applicable). Gflores 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• comment: It might be better to replace the huge see also template with a portal of ww1 on a later date
• Support. --Myles Long/cDc 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*Some objections Take care of the following:

• Sudden introduction of "The French offensive plan, Plan XVII ..." in a section that tells us it's about the German invasion of France and Belgium. Huh? Give it some context, preferably from the linked article.
  • Unfortunately a number of new entries have been added since the FA nomination. This was one such. I think it's being addressed. RJH
    • Doesn't look like it yet. We don't know, from this article, what we know in the Plan XVII article, why the French wanted to capture Alsace back, and how that set them up for the initial success of the Schlieffen Plan. I think right there at the start we could use some explanation of what both sides' ultimate strategic objectives, their plans for winning the war, were. Right now this Plan XVII stuff feels like it's looking for somewhere to go.
      • I fixed it, I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*Consistent date format and metric/English. It has "March 10" (my birthday, but so what?) at the beginning of the second graf of "1915 — Stalemate" and then "By 15 May ..." later. It should have the continental style throughout as per the subject matter. Ditto with metric: how many tonnes is "168 tons" equal to? (or 450 tonnes?) Also, "35-4500 yards" without a metric equivalent? The examples are too numerous to list.

• • Consistent "date" format? That seems like more a matter of literary license.
    • Well, either the months come first consistently or the days. But right now it's a mishmash of both styles.
  • Interestingly the English-language histories from the war were primarily pre-metric. That's probably why you're seeing those units. RJH
    • Not a problem, but both English and metric needs to be used.
      • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, believed that although a breakthrough might no longer be possible, the French could be defeated if they suffered enough casualties". Well duh, kill them all or nearly all and they won't have an army anymore ... is that meant to be "would surrender"?
  • Falkenhayn's stated goal was to "bleed France white". Yeah it's a no-brainer, but it still needed to be said. I could not definitively state whether a defeated France would have surrendered or resorted to guerilla warfare. RJH
    • I put in "capitulate," which is probably acceptably ambiguous here. But what does submarine warfare directly have to do with winning land battles, BTW? Falkenhayn was Chief of Staff, yes, but if his naval strategy was to complement his land game that should be explained.
      • Okay clarified slightly. I don't think it needs much coverage here. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• More wikification. The article as a whole links mainly battles, dates and people. There's a lot more in there (aerial photography, for instance) that should and could be in blue. Three whole grafs in the middle of "1916" have nought but a single footnote.
  • Possibly. I've seen people complain about over-wikification of articles, so I focused on the linking the topics that seemed like logical drill-downs.
    • It's always a judgement call. I just think there could be more ... it feels a little dry as is.
      • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By grafs I assume you mean paragraphs?
    • Yes. Not zeppelins :-).
  • Is there a footnote quota that needs to be met? RJH
    • Every reference that needs it, as always.
      • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Use Hindenburg and Ludendorff's full names on first reference (not at the bottom of "1918"). And spell Hindenburg properly and consistently.
  • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The new leaders soon recognized that the battles of Verdun and the Somme had depleted the offensive capabilities of the German army along the western front. They decided that the German army would go over to the strategic defensive for most of 1917 along the western front, while the Central powers would attack elsewhere." Clean this sentence up a bit, as well as most references to "along the western front" unless, as you are here, drawing a distinction between it and theatres elsewhere.
  • Your statement seems ambiguous, so I am unclear about what actually needs cleaning up. This paragraph regards the situation on the Western Front in the context of the Central powers' war strategy. So the distinction is needed IMO. RJH
    • Yeah, but can you do the two sentences without repeating "along the western front"? It's a pretty heavy phrase to have to repeat in back-to-back sentences unless you can't avoid it.
      • Okay. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The battle had also seen the first massed use of German stosstruppen on the western front ..." I shouldn't have to click on the link to find out what Strostruppen are.
  • Note added about infiltration tactics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "By summer 300,000 American soldiers were arriving each month and would reach 2.1 million by November." Bad grammar, clean up.
  • Fixed I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• As a whole the article is a bit wordy in some places.
  • Some places? The same could be said of the Gettysburg Address. ;-) What do you consider too wordy? Again it seems like a matter of personal taste and style. RJH
    • I mean it could get phrased more efficiently. I'll try to work on that.
• Link to the film versions of All Quiet on the Western Front as well.
  • The linked page covers both. Is that not sufficient? RJH
    • My fault ... didn't scroll down enough and assumed. Still, there should be separate articles.
• And why is the second of the huge templates under "External Links?" This is confusing. Would it be possible to put all the links in one big box, or put the second one up near the top? Daniel Case 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be more than happy to see the second big template removed, or "smerged" with the first template. But that's a cross-article issue. A removed template might just get slapped back in at a later date. Thanks for the feedback. :) — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. Daniel Case 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I commented the second template out with a hidden note. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Support. I think it's ready now. Sorry to take such a long time to get back on it. Daniel Case 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Daniel Case raises some good point. The lead is also a bit long, as is the sections (perhaps having a main article for each of them?) In addition, the "External link" section seems badly placed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm leaning a little toward oppose myself now. This semi-chaotic edit/review process is a tad discouraging. :-/

As for the length of the introduction, well I believe the peer review said the old intro was too short. It figures. I'm reasonably satisfied that the introduction is proportionate to the comparable size of this pretty-lengthy article. Thanks. — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the issues have been addressed now, I hope. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see some kind of war/battlebox, tweaked of course to be a 'theatrebox' :) And surely more pictures can be added?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, but the numbers will remain incomplete unless somebody can find a data source. Most sources cover the entire war, rather than the western front in particular — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Fix the length of sections. 1916 and 1917 in particular are a bit too long. --The1exile 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I broke up the sections to make it a little more palatable. But people keep on adding to the article. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon

"Smell'd that Smoak, figur'd you'd be needing something to nibble on," the doughty Mrs. W. greets them. (Mason & Dixon, chapter 28)

Partial self-nomination. I wrote big chunks of this, though many of them have been chopped up, rearranged and generally improved since then. (If I listed all the users who made good and important contributions, I'd be sure to slight somebody and forget their name, so I'll just make a blanket acknowledgement here.) I posted this to peer review and got one comment, which I addressed. It is as comprehensive and NPOV as we could make it, and it has enough parenthetical documentation to satisfy even the footnote fetish of a Wikipediphile like myself. Anville 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Very good article that I hope to support. I'd like to see the literary-style citations converted to the Cite.php style (see Dixie (song) or Krazy Kat for ideas on how to do this, with the footnotes in one section and the list of references in another). I would also like to see a citation for this sentence: "However, the full Pulitzer panel vetoed their decision, describing the novel as 'unreadable', 'turgid', 'overwritten', and in parts 'obscene'." Andrew Levine 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence is now cited. (I didn't do it, but I should note that it got done.) Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object only for failure to mention the Irwin Corey incident, one of the very few early occasions when Pynchon received mass media attention. Monicasdude 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Support Monicasdude 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, I think. Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support- I didn't realize those were footnotes at first-I never have seem them done like that before, but it works perfectly fine. AndyZ 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) *Object per Andrew Levine's comment - no inline citations, 2(c) of FA criteria. AndyZ 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Response: Harvard referencing is listed as an appropriate style of in-line citation at Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. It is much "cleaner" than the footnote style, though I agree that there could be some internal and/or external hyperlinking (to online sources) within the body of the text (if that is allowable under Misplaced Pages conventions). Abaca 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll poke in to agree that the Harvard style references are totally okay. It's a perfectly fine way to meet the requirement for inline citation. Monicadude's objection should be addressed though. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I still prefer the Cite.php and would rather see it used here. Maybe I will add it later. Andrew Levine 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I would like to see footnotes and inline citations; also, some sections are a bit lengthy. Perhaps breaking them down into sub-section or "main articles"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I transitioned the article over to the Cite.php methodology, using Krazy Kat as my model. I also expanded the bit about "hypertext fiction", since the article on that topic doesn't really explain why Pynchon matters in that context. (To do it right, we'd need a new article somewhere about "hypertextual literary criticism" or some such, and wading through the lit-crit chaff to find the wheat for that is a little intimidating even for me.) The "Recurring themes" section is now subdivided. I couldn't think of a good way to split any of the others, though since the whole page is only now 34 Kb (including references and notes), I don't think we're at the point where we need sub-articles. Call me when it hits 45 Kb, and we'll talk!  :) Anville 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, disregard all that. I really don't want to get into an edit war over what content to include and which reference style to use. When I am less irritated, I will try to work on this in a sensible fashion; for now, I'll just fume quietly. Anville 15:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I'm done fuming; as I expected, after a good night's sleep it all matters less. Feel free to read my rough draft to see how my own stylistic quirks play out. Anville 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support An excellent article about a major literary figure. I'm not fussed about the citation style issue, just so long as its clear where the information comes from. Lisiate 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The mediawiki citation style, while nice, is not the only acceptable style. This objection is flatly invalid and future objections for this reason will also be flatly ignored. Raul654 07:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Anville 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawn, I caught article in middle of bad timing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object, though it's close.
  • There should be a summary under "Biography" and "Media scrutiny"
  • While I have no problem with the idea of using that style of citation, there should be consistency in format and tone (remove stuff like "see, for example"), and I think the external links ought to be moved to the references section
  • If the see alsos are linked to elsewhere, they should be removed. If not, they should be.
• Tuf-Kat 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a summary paragraph to "Media scrutiny". If anyone else cares to write one for "Biography", they're welcome, although I think that such a paragraph would basically amount to repeating the lead immediately after the lead (not so helpful). I went through the parenthetical citations and adapted them to <span> tags, so that clicking the citation automagically transfers the reader to the appropriate place in the "References" section. (This has the advantage that external links only need to be checked and fixed in one place; it also makes the citations look more uniform.) I removed a few extraneous "see" and "see also" particles and generally tried to make the referencing consistent. However, I think the "for example" with regard to the Nobel Prize comment should stay, since in that case, the comment being referenced is one repeated by many, many sources. The article provides three sources, marginally more distinguished than the rest, out of the great mass all saying the same thing.

According to the Citations style guide, it is appropriate to keep external links and whatnot which pertain to the topic and may be of interest but which have not been used as specific sources in a section entitled "Further reading" or "External links".

Finally, I worked the bullet points in the "See also" section into the text, and removed the section. Anville 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Technical question re. referencing. Is there a way to create a "" command at the end of each footnote which returns you to the point in the text you were at, instead of having to scroll down again from the top? Abaca 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not aware of a way to do this; at least, I haven't seen it done on any other article. I suppose one could the same system in reverse: put <span> tags in the article text and use wikilinks like ] in the References section. The trouble is that we use some sources (like Royster 2005) more than once. Cite.php has facilities for handling this, but I don't know how to work it out in Harvard style. Hitting the "back" button in one's browser is probably simpler, and as far as I know it works for everybody. Anville 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Native Americans in the United States

• Misplaced Pages featured content