Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:43, 14 July 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

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

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Earth

archive1, archive2

This summary-style article has undergone significant revisions since the prior FAC go-arounds, and I believe it's FA-worthy. Opinions will vary, of course, so I'll try to address specific concerns. The page underwent a PR in March. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments please check all sources vis-a-vis WP:RS, and fill in publisher information. For example, this looks like the personal, self-published website of a student. Miles, Hilma (October 27, 2003). The Theory of Plate Tectonics. Retrieved on March 2, 2007. An article about such a well-covered topic should be able to rely on superior sources. Non-technical readers might not recognize about/approximately here (and throughout)—might be better to spell it out: (~12,600 km or ~7,800 mi) The final image (red Supergiant) isn't loading on my browser ? Per WP:GTL, see also templates belong at the tops of sections (several are at the bottom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's too bad you didn't like the web site; that was about the best summary of plate velocities I've been able to dig up. There are plenty of scientific references for relative velocities of individual plates, but few that cover the topic as a whole. I'll see what else I can dig up. I think I've addressed your other concerns. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It was only a comment; if you find a more reliable source, you could always add that to External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While not grounds to oppose in itself this artilce renders very poorly at full screen on any sort of decent resolution in both IE7 and Mozilla. Tables cascading with images to leave gaps in the text are the biggest problem but I think the overall placment and arrangment of tables and images coudl use some work as well. This is non-trival to do using wiki-markup (and even using some raw HTML) for an article as rich in auxillary info, so that it renders acceptably at many resolutions and sizes. However, I think someone shoudl give it a go. I have a little expirence with this and may have event reid to sort this article out last year I can't remember but I am sure someone else is better at this than I. Dalf | Talk 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The page has already undergone a lot of massaging to try and avoid this, but it appears unavoidable. Either there are collisions—which people complain about—or there are long stretches of blank page—which other people complain about. The only fix, it appears, is to chop out half the images. — RJH (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There are only two places wher eI ahve any problems and I have had some luck in the past with getting the text to flow around images and tables. Though it is much easier when they are al the same width so you can put them inside a table. If I can get somethign that looks decent on both browsers I have avalible I will make the change then check back here and on the talk page. As I said probably not a good enough reason for an oppose but I think the formatting and visual orginazation of complex articles is one area where wikipedia is lagging behind the professional refrence works and this one seems like it could really look nice if we could jsut figure it out. Dalf | Talk 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well I've done what I could with it, but I only have so much control over the layout. I'm always going to expect that professional reference works have a better format; that's not a problem I'm going to be able to solve. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: looks pretty good, I'd be very glad to support once some minor things have been taken care of. The things I can remark right now is that there is only one real photograph of Earth in the article (the Blue Marble, showing only one continent) and that some subsections are a bit short. There's also some casual wording here and there. I'd be happy to help, but right now I'm a bit busy since I just nominated Moon (another one in the Solar System series). Nick Mks 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's up to 88Kb, so the article is summary style. Perhaps you want some consolidation of sections? I count 7 images of the Earth, as well as various data plots. Some images have had to be pulled to reduce the layout problems mentioned above. Anyway it looks like this article won't be getting the support it needs; so be it. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh I don't know I think I will probably support it in another day or so. I just havent had the time to give the article a proper look yet. Hopefully there are a few more people also waiting who may vote soon. Dalf | Talk 10:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm just commenting. I'd support too eventually. Nick Mks 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I peer-reviewed this article back in March and it has improved since then, but I still have some tiny concerns. I think that the article can reach FA, but there are a few small issues that need to be addressed. I will add more comments later when I have time to give the article a second reading.

• The lead seems a little technical to me. I would think that this page would receive a lot of hits from non-experts and the lead, in particular, should be accessible to them. Along those same lines, I would suggest briefly explaining some of the concepts you have wikilinked; no one wants to click endlessly. I think that the Pluto page does this well.

Could you clarify? For example, the Pluto lead uses barycenter, eccentric orbit, trans-Neptunian object and AU without further explanation. I'm not clear what you consider too technical. Note that there is a "simple english" version of the Earth article.

I will give details on the lead below and some examples from the article. My overall impression from the Pluto article was that although they used technical terms at times, I understood the information they were trying to communicate and I believe that other people would as well.

Quick question: who do you think should be able to read the lead and the rest of the article? Who is your audience here?

I suppose I had thought the target audience was people who wanted to learn a thing or two about the Earth, rather than people who just wanted a reiteration of the facts they already knew. So that might involve some new terminology for a few readers. Is that unreasonable? I mean I understood all of the terminology in the lead section early in high school, if not before, and I expect many others did as well. But then I was quite into astronomy. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are assuming a casual reader, not a careful reader (which means that "difficult" or "new" concepts must often be explained thoroughly - often a single sentence will not do). You also seem to be assuming a reader who does not already have a grasp of astronomy. I would assume that as well (although I think that you must have been an advanced high school student to know all of the terms in the lead since most of my freshmen certainly wouldn't know them). If the reader doesn't have a grasp of astronomy, it is probably best to introduce "new" terms slowly throughout the article, don't you think? Awadewit 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not assuming the reader has a specific knowledge of astronomy. — RJH (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick suggestion: Have you read the NSF scientific literacy study? It surveys American scientific literacy every two years or so. Yes, it is biased towards Americans who probably have a lower scientific literacy than other English speakers, but it is something to start with. A significant number of the respondants could not produce the information that the earth went around the sun once every year. Obviously you don't want to shoot for the lowest common denominator with your article, but it's a good idea to know what it is so that you guage everything accordingly.

• I would take out "sidereal year" and leave that for the article.
• I would leave the actual tilt measurement out of the lead.
• I would say what tectonic plates are in the lead.
• I would replace "geologic time spans" with an approximate figure in the lead.
• I would replace the word "convecting" with something more familiar in the lead.
• For clarity's sake, I would replace "the space environment" with "space" in the lead.
• In the "History" section, why can't you give a few words of description of the "solar nebula" that are then linked to it?
• The development of photosynthesis allowed the sun's energy to be harvested directly by life forms; the resultant oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and gave rise to the ozone layer. The incorporation of smaller cells within larger ones resulted in the development of complex cells called eukaryotes. True multicellular organisms formed as cells within colonies became increasingly specialized. Aided by the absorption of harmful ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, life colonized the surface of Earth. - explaining the ozone layer might be helpful; I'm not sure why you don't define eukaryotes more specifically here
• The axial tilt of the Earth causes the seasons. By astronomical convention, the four seasons are determined by the solstices—the point in the orbit of maximum axial tilt toward or away from the Sun—and the equinoxes, when the tilt is minimized. Winter solstice occurs on about 21 December, summer solstice is near 21 June, spring equinox is around 20 March and autumnal equinox is about 23 September. In an inertial reference frame, the Earth's axis undergoes a slow precession with a period of some 25,800 years, as well as a nutation with a main period of 18.6 years. These motions are caused by the differential attraction of Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge because of its oblateness. In a reference frame attached to the solid body of the Earth, its rotation is also slightly irregular from polar motion. The polar motion is quasi-periodic, containing an annual component and a component with a 14-month period called the Chandler wobble. In addition, the rotational velocity varies, in a phenomenon known as length of day variation. - not explicitly clear how the tilt causes the seasons (I'm imagining my freshmen going, "huh?"); what is "precession" and "nutation"? what does "quasi-periodic" mean? please explain the "Chandler wobble" briefly. Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to address these concerns. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to go through a quick copyedit. I saw a few grammatical mistakes and fixed them myself, but I didn't comb through very carefully. Also, I saw some mixing of American English and British English. Pick a dialect.

Sorry, it gets difficult to clearly spot such issues after I've been munging on a page for a while. If by mixing of American English and British English you mean specifically the spelling of units in the SI, I believe that metre is the international standard. — RJH (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I saw some other BE/AE issues besides "metre" (I did not know that metre was the standard), but I still think that the article should be copyedited. There are some typos, comma issues, etc. Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the SI page - it does mention "metre" as the international standard as well as "meter" as the American spelling, so I thought that the page would follow the American standard. Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology uses "meter" as opposed to "metre". See claiming that they are conforming to American English. It doesn't really matter to me which way it goes, I just thought the whole thing was interesting (ah, the politics of units) - there is even a little paragraph in the document I linked to explaining their rationale for the spelling. Awadewit 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the SI seems to be a religious issue to some people; I usually just try to stay out of the debate by sticking to the standard. — RJH (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Best not to get involved in those wars. Awadewit 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• The footnotes should all be formatted the same way. Why do some "unauthored" texts say "anonymous" and some do not? Why do some begin with the author's last name and some with the first name? Easy to fix. Awadewit 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have the citations cleaned up; I decided to use "Staff" rather than "Anonymous" in the cases of institutions. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What about 61 and 90? Awadewit 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay fixed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is well-written, well-sourced and appears to me, anyway, to be comprehensive (but I'm no expert). I am happy to see that we will finally have an excellent article on our own planet! Awadewit 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support now. Looks fine after all, a lot of work has been done. Maybe the references could be cleaned out a bit more though (currently, there are only a few refs and almost a hundred notes. I think it's the other way around...) Nick Mks 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support good enough, covers everything possible, almost 100 references... considering how "easy" is to find info on this, it's about time to become a FA. igordebraga ≠ 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support, although it looks a little cluttered in the sections Earth#Observation and Earth#Moon. (Just nitpicking though.) — Pious7_Talk 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I did what I could to address this, but I think there will always be formatting issues when a page like this has many table and images, and when different people are using different browser geometries. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. I could find more completely minor flaws, but I don't want to delay this by finding unimportant imperfections. (It would be cool if Earth would be the Main page article for April 22.) — Pious7_Talk 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If you could point out the minor flaws I'll try and address them. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Per WP:LEAD articles should have a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead. M3tal H3ad 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a thoroughly impressive level of nit-picking. ;-) I suppose the length of the lead is proportionate to the length of the article, and appropriate paragraph breaks were necessary. But the first and second paragraphs could be merged, if needed. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment why are the retrieval dates in the notes section in different styles? --Kinggimble 11:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh probably because somebody has been futzing around with the cite templates. I just confirmed that the accessdate fields are completely consistent across this article. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think it’s a worthy featured article. Kinggimble 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support I read this entire article and compared it to the one in the World Book Encyclopedia, year 2000 edition. In many cases, the article seemed to be more professionally written than the one in the paper encyclopedia. I did note these problems and tried to remedy them.

1. I did find on case of weird text wrapping, so I fixed it.
2. As for complaints of an overly long and technical intro, I think someone fixed the technical aspect.
   1. I don't really like the length, but I do not know how to change it so it gives enough info and doesn't leave too much out. Because this article is so long, it may not be a bad thing to have an intro that kind of presents the article in a nutshell.

This article is written very clearly, is close to as concise as is feasible for an article of its scope, and, quite frankly, was an enjoyable read. I cannot say enough in favor of this article. The writers did a phenomonal job and I honestly have not come across an article on Misplaced Pages that is more well-written than this one.J.delanoy 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks J.delanoy, I'm glad you enjoyed everybody's work. To be fair, though, the World Book version was probably targeted at a different, somewhat younger audience. That could account for their writing style. — RJH (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Minor object. There are still unreferenced sentences .-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you possibly be slightly more specific? Otherwise all I can do is shrug at your statement, rather than trying to address it. — RJH (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur with RJHall - there is no requirement that every article in the sentence be cited, so saying "There are uncited sentences" isn't very helpful. Raul654 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Such a huge topic this seems to do a pretty good job with summary style to get everything covered. It is overall a visually appealing artcle and well written. Dalf | Talk 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Yiddish language

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

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Turkey

• Previous FAC nomination

I am nominating this article since it has gone through extensive work in the course of the last month. Nearly every section has been rewritten and a huge references and bibliography section added. The article has been restructured per other FA country articles. It has just made GA a week ago with extremely high marks. Since then, more sources have been added, certain sections have been made more comprehensive all at the same time keeping it concise.

In my humble opinion, this article currently stands as one of the best country articles in Misplaced Pages on a par with Canada, for example, and will be a great addition to the Misplaced Pages's FA repertoire. A google search for "Turkey" lists the Misplaced Pages article at second first place for the moment, and I think that it will do Misplaced Pages proud :)

The article has been extremely stable since the rewrite has started, and the only thing that happens now and then is the good ol' vandalism and sandbox :) The main purpose of the article is to give a very general overview of the country without going into too many specifics, therefore that has also contributed to its stability. As a general trend, edit-wars always happen when articles are poorly written.

The references cited are generally direct sources, meaning that I have tried to find the exact reports and press releases about the subject matter (e.g. economy section figures are nearly all sourced by statistical press releases that pertain to only that subject and not just simple "factbooks"). Citations are used everywhere where need be, even for common knowledge data. They are all cited per WP:CITE as well.

I suppose that there might be a typo or two here and there, but the article has been proofread by many editors so there shouldn't be too many. So, how does it look? :)) Baristarim 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding former nom for archival purposes. Sandy (Talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent job! And wow, no edit-wars! Oh, and for me, this article appears first in Google ;) Gzkn 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article has really come a long way since it was previously nominated. I don't really see any errors or POV problems like it once had, and the article—besides being well-written—also has tons of foonotes. Gzkn is also correct that there are no more edit wars. Congrats on improving this article greatly. Khoikhoi 09:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good, filtered job.Must 09:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Comment I haven't had a chance to read, but noticed some structural things that should be fixed. I changed a section heading (capitalization) to agree with WP:MSH. The news sources are not cited correctly, because cite web is used for news sources - the correct template is cite news. When there is an author listed, they should be given on news sources (a random check turned up several incomplete in this article). Pls re-do news sources to use cite news and to include all relevant bibliographic information, including author. Also, section templates aren't used correctly - they belong below the section heading, not at the end of the section (see WP:GTL and *{{See also}}). Sandy (Talk) 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will replace them with cite news. Which section templates? Do you mean the see alsos? Baristarim 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see further comments below in the SkyTrain FAC - I was just looking up further info on the correct use of the templates, and the See also template is used when there is further info in another article that is not linked in the text, and it should be placed below the section heading (the kind of basic info not easy to find anywhere in Misplaced Pages :-) I will try to read your article later. Sandy (Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. I corrected the see also situation, and changed the neccessary citations to cite news. See alsos generally crowd the place, and most of them were already linked in the sections. So I moved the neccessary ones to the Main and took out the others.Baristarim 10:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response: I'm still quite busy with holidays, but will try to read a lot of these FACs this weekend. Sandy (Talk) 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite there yet - for example, this is missing author - pls doublecheck all refs: "Headscarf row goes to Turkey's roots". British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-10-29. Retrieved 2006-12-13.

Ok.. I will check them.. Thanks for the commentaries by the way, they are appreciated! Baristarim 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I double-checked all the references one more time, and made the neccessary fixes for correct citations. Feel free to let me know if I missed something. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work - I indicated support above. Sandy (Talk) 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Baristarim 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support.This is good idea.--Absar 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-cited and well-written. --Mardavich 11:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Wow! Great job! It definitely deserves FA status, but I think that the article still needs a few minor (mostly stylistic - like the categories at the end of the article which were not alphabetized) tweaks:

• In notes printed sources should have specific pages. See, for instance, note 2,3 and 19, where there are no pages.
• Are all the sources in "References and bibliography" used in "Notes". If not, you should make clear which are actually "References" and which "Further bibliography (or reading)".
• Don't overwikify the text. I think I saw Greece linked more than once.
• Negotiations with the EU have stalled not because Turkey does not officially recognize Republic of Cyprus, but because it has not yet implemented the provisions of the Customs Union with EU for Cyprus by not opening its harbors for (Greek-)Cypriot ships. The diplomatic recognition of Cyprus is not yet a problem.
• You say that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews are the official minorities. What is then the legal status of the other minorities (Kurds etc.)? I think you should elaborate a bit more on that.--Yannismarou 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• References and further reading section splitted.
• I modified the sentence about the EU-Cyprus-Turkey to correctly reflect the nature of the dispute.
• I tried to cut down on unneccessary wikifications. Some words are still cited two or three times in the article, but they are in completely different sections. I kept them simply not to force the reader to try to find the wikified term on the top of the article or vice versa. However, I don't think that there are any redundant wikifications left.
• For the references that you mentioned, I will shift through the history of the article to dig the page numbers that were lost when I was formatting the references per WP:CITE.
• I added a phrase to clarify further the status of non-official minorities in Turkey. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK! Full support - After all the notes still needing pages are very few.--Yannismarou 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Baristarim 08:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Nothing on the human right abuses by the government on the minorities from what I can see, and also nothing on the controversies regarding joining the European Union bcause of that and the denial of the Armenian genocide, and relations with the Cypriots.--Rayis 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues were talked about extensively in the talk pages (we have 9 archives! :)). The article is simply trying to give an overview of the country, and with general, but informative, sections. A lot of stuff, controversial or not controversial, have been moved to subarticles, and are given as main articles under the section headings. I know that this article has the potential to confront some controversial issues, but the important thing was to simply strike the best NPOV possible and keep it general as the GA reviewer pointed out last week. Obviously there are always improvements that can be made, but for such changes it might be better to form a concensus in the talk pages. FA won't mean that the article will be static or locked down :) Cheers! Baristarim 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Çok güzel! One of my adopted homes, so I may be a bit biased. :) --Jayzel 16:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC
• Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support A very well written article and well supported too. Also it is easy to read and yet very informative. TSO1D 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article, nuetrually written, exactly what a featured article is Abdullah Geelah 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport. Excellent article. Love the administrative division map. Great citations. Surprised that there haven't been violent debates, vandalism or edit wars. Overall well done. —ExplorerCDT 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well-written and evenly balanced. metaspheres 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, well referenced, and basically stable in terms of edit wars. Hello32020 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I passed this article into GA status and made recomendations to bring it up to FA status. All changes have been made. This is a GREAT article, and deserves promotion as such. --Jayron32 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Featured article. Well-written and sourced. E104421 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written alot of effort put into also. Nareklm 09:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Full Support per Baristarim Caglarkoca 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. (The addition is an improvement, but it is worded a little awkwardly, and it doesn't state what the position of most scholars is.) Much of it is very good, some of it extremely well done in fact, but the lack of attention given to conflicts is disconcerting. The article makes it sound as if there is no ethnic tension in Turkey and glosses over past problems. While the country being strongly secular is mentioned at least three times, only about a sentence is given to the Kurdish issue, and that's in the context of foreign relations. What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west? I don't want to create problems, I know it's extremely difficult to discuss conflicts properly, but ignoring their existence isn't the answer either. The more I look at it the more convinced I am it is a very serious problem with the article. The answer of course isn't the other way, giving 1/2 the space of the article to covering conflicts, and I'm not asking for anything even approaching that. The facts do need to be mentioned though. Finally the foreign relations section almost entirely focuses on the relations with the west. What about relations with the Arab world or Africa? - Taxman 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong? :) Sorry that you feel that way. I think that you are glossing over one of the key elements of Misplaced Pages: concensus. I didn't create the article, most of the ideological guidelines were hammered out in the talk pages. We have ten archives, and most of the contributors to the talk pages have been non-Turks, and we have had many heated discussions. Please keep that in mind and ask yourself if you are not looking at this from your own point of view of the country. I know what you are trying to say, but Turkey is not a conflict ridden country either :) Trust me, the concensus was reached by people who know the country from back to front, with many Greek, Turkish, Kurdish and European editors arguing for weeks on end sometimes. The facts are mentioned; the conflict, the casualties, the situation in northern Iraq, the Kurdish minority, its status, the situation of the language etc. As for the foreign relations.. Turkey doesn't have much relations with Africa, and hasn't had too much relations with Asia, and in the Middle East its main relations are with Israel. The balance of that section is carefully chosen to reflect the actual balance of the country's foreign relations. All the references are there, and the article has been proofread many times. In any case, improvements are always possible, and the actual phrases in certain sections can easily be modified as long as a concensus is reached in the talk pages. I do not share the view that the conflicts are being glossed over: the article has been extremely stable every since the rewrite has started one month ago, and if any major controversials had not been addressed, there would be edit wars all over the article. In fact, since one month, there haven't been even minor revert wars, let alone full-blown edit-wars. I just think that any modifications or reformulations of sentences should be raised in the talk page, if you have any suggestions, feel free to raise them in the talk page. I already tried to address Yannismarou's concerns on two points (and he is not Turkish btw :)). The article as it is reflects a great concensus, along with many efforts at comprehensiveness and conciseness. Every single info in the article is cited, nearly all of them by sources accessible on the Internet, even for books. Baristarim 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because it has been discussed does not mean the right decision was reached. Lack of edit wars also does not mean the article is balanced. In fact, I shudder to think of that being used as a criterion. I have nearly no connection to the subject, and I feel comfortable saying I can be about as unbiased about it as it is possible to be. That said, it is easy to see the article glosses over conflicts. I'm not saying it is conflict ridden either. I'm saying the article shouldn't act like it is conflict ridden if it isn't, but it also shouldn't act as if there are and have been almost no conflicts as it currently does. The article mentions there are Kurds, but not that there is any tension. It mentions 99% of the population is Muslim, but not if there is any religious tension, whether between fundamentalists or other religions or not. The failure to mention anything relating to the Armenian Genocide is further evidence of a problem. I reallize it's in the past (not even the current Republic of Turkey), a touchy subject, etc. But acting as if that type of tension doesn't exist is extremely POV. I reallize ignoring that type of thing may help to avoid edit wars, but that's not the right solution. As to foreign relations, if the reliable references support the balance of the foreign relations section being the way it is, then I fully defer to you on that. I guess I'm surprised given the location, but facts are facts. - Taxman 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing was removed to soothe the article, if that's what you are trying to say. You are mistaken, the article clealry mentions that 37000 people died in the Kurdish insurgency, how is that a glossing over? As I said, I am afraid that you are looking at the country without knowing the specific dynamics of it. I didn't say you were biased at all, in fact, I was trying to say the exact same thing as you said; that looking from a standpoint where we have no connection to the subject matter, we can be easily influenced by only the superficial and sensational information we have heard. Your example with the foreign relations is a great example: the current layout was well thought of, ironed out, and is fully supported by solid references. Cyprus and Greece get a paragraph because they are key to the biggest thing in TR foreign relations: EU. If Turkey was trying to enter the Arab Union, the foreign relations section would be about the Arab world, not about the EU. This article wasn't written in a day :) You have said that the article doesn't mention any conflict with the Kurds, but it does mention that 37000 people died. Believe me, the article is very well referenced, though of, comprehensive and concise, and it doesn't gloss over any conlicts. There is a whole paragraph about the Greek-Turkish dispute, how is that a glossing over? The demographics section clearly mentions the underlying conflict and causes of the illiteracy figures, with very solid sources. But any suggestions are welcome, it would be more useful to raise them in the article's talk page. I am sure that your objection was duly noted, and if you have any general suggestions pls share them in the talk page: we shouldn't be using this page too much for content disputes, at least not about the extent of the tensions about the subject matter. This article has potential to cover contentious issues, so it would surprise me if somebody didn't object. Every country article has the potential for strong POV disputes, nevertheless this article does a great job of summarizing them and keeping them concise in a way that will not cloud the rest of the subject matter. In fact, this article is very informative and concise to anyone that wants to learn about the country. However, please also remember that there are many daughter articles listed as main that talk about every single topic in more detail.Baristarim 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No one said it would be easy. Sometimes only an outsider can see the imbalance. Now that I've pointed it out I think it will be fairly obvious to others that review the article, and I'll just let my comments stand on their own. I never said it was awful or that the whole article was bad. There are many very good aspects, but also one very important problem. It wouldn't take re-writing the entire article to fix it, and it seems you're taking this a little too personally. - Taxman 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems. However, same exact comments were made before by User:Reyus. What I don't get is, even though he made harsher comments than you have, he still said "conditional support" and not "strong" object. The article has very strong 100 inline citations + 10 books, some from presses like Cambridge University Press + solid pictures + types of maps that are not found in any other country article + small guides like the CIA factbook are not even cited once + there is not even one typo, the structure of the article is more than adequate. I don't think you are being fair with a "strong object", that's all. That article is frequented regularly by users of many nationalities, and I am sure that any further improvements that can be made will be raised in the talk pages. I am not the sole creator of the article, I assumed the rewrite on behalf of WikiProject Turkey and keeping in line with general talk pages concensus that was established over a long period of time, so I find it a bit awkward. The thing is, I responded to your comments: first you said why Africa wasn't mentioned in foreign relations, then I pointed out to you why it was so. There is no imbalance: that is the correct academic balance, sources are there. Then you mentioned the disputes. As I said earlier, disputes/tensions are adequately, comprehensively and concisely covered as it can be seen on a closer look of the article. The talk pages are and will still be there, FA doesn't mean a "lock-down" of the article, the article will continue to improve no matter what. That's all I am saying. If you have any suggestions about reformulations of sentences, let's please discuss it in the talk pages. Baristarim 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved my object to strong to denote the importance of the problem, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which for the most part is impressively high quality. This last issue needs to be brought to the same level. I let the foreign relations part of my objection go because I take you on your word that enough sources have been consulted to support that balance. However I believe it is clear that various conflicts have not been given their due in the article that the proper balance of the facts would dictate. For example, I would take it as fairly self evident that if something that some large countries have stated is among the largest genocides ever is not even mentioned, then too little attention is given to conflicts. Again they don't need to dominate the article, but they need to be mentioned more than the current amount, which is nearly ignoring them. - Taxman 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Taxman, you're saying "What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west?". It would be perfectly reasonable if you've stated that "the article fails to mention this (specific conflict) and that (specific conflict), which are of major importance in this subject". Could you please be clear about what conflicts you are talking about, so that the article can be improved (like Fedayee did below)? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Atilim. I would like Taxman to say specifically "this", "this" and "this" is missing in a "bullet style", so that Baris and the other editors can address his concerns, and so that the reviewers can more easily check what is done, what is not and what cannot be done.--Yannismarou 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Atilim and Yannismarou I would also like to see some bullets about the missing conflicts. I read the article over again and I see the TRNC controversy, political instability, coup d'etats, tensions with its neighbors, particularly Iran and Greece, financial difficulties, minorities being a sensitive topic, the Islamic headcover issue. Perhaps the only glaring missing conflict is that of the Armenian genocide. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I would say that the article reflects, in terms of conflicts, pretty well what a visiting outsider would see. I have had people go to Turkey and express surprise that they did not find the entire country full of bombed-out cities with ethnic gangs shooting each other at every street corner. This is the view one can easily get reading about Turkey as a foreigner from most sources and this is incorrect. The conflicts and the problems are there and should not be ignored, but they are not the first and foremost thing that one notices about Turkey in "real life". --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that's not the case. I've been very careful to say I don't think it should go overboard discussing conflicts and devoting a lot of space to it. But too little isn't right either. The Armenian issue is an improvement, probably enough, though if the facts support the next sentence from that article starting "However, most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that it was indeed a genocide", then what has currently been added to Turkey is not enough. Perhaps changing the sentence to rejects the notion put forth by _____ or supported by. Or simply note they are in the minority in their position. A shorter overall mention of the issue would be fine if possible, but also needed is whether that tension is felt today or not. Perhaps eliminate the sentence starting "Poor conditions of the Armenians...". Perhaps with the fixes to the Armenian issue that will be enough. Once that's done I'll defer to other's view if it's been solved. Ask Sandy or other experienced reviewers. - Taxman 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that last sentence was cut, and the sentence is still based on Jayzel's first addition. I am still looking into the foreign relations section. I see your point however. I will try to see if it can be shorter as you said, and comprehensive at the same time. If it can't be, it can stay as is. Cheers! Baristarim 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :). Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, I did mention a specific problem. But sometimes the problem with pointing out specifics is that sometimes only that specific thing you mention is changed without fixing the overall issue. It also means you have to know exactly what the correct fix is. In this case I was very confident about a general problem but didn't know the exact fix. While specifics can be helpful, it's not required in order to point out a problem. Sometimes the best you can do is bring attention to an issue. - Taxman 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to cut short :) Some of the specific objections have been addressed. However, it is normal that people can have different views when they look at an article, especially an article about a country. All I am saying is, npov issues have been worked on, in every aspect of the article even in economy section, to the best possible standard. There is no way that we can have an article that will be considered as npov by everyone that reads it. However, this article has a very good academic balance as it covers issues, about the economy, culture, demographics, politics etc sections. Any subtleties should be developed in the daughter articles. Anyone reading the article from top to bottom will know what the issues are in a concise and comprehensive manner, and the structure of related daughter articles lets every issue to be explored in more detail.Baristarim 08:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Support(info on Armenian Genocide and foreign relations has been added) I'm not trying to be "the Armenian again" who votes against it just because it is an article about Turkey. In my opinion, this article is very well written, as Baristarim said, as good as the Canada article but reading Taxman's comment made me realize that this article fails to mention anything about the Armenian Genocide. I am not trying to start WW50 on this issue, I am not pointing fingers but when something like that is a major issue between Turkish-Armenian relations and when the government of Turkey does everything possible to stop other government's recognition of the 1915 events as Genocide, then I think it is worth mentioning in the article. These events have a major role in Turkey because demonstrations are held against it by nationalists, you see a Nobel prize winning author being arrested, you see Turkish-EU relations being questioned over the issue , Turkish-French relations etc. In fact, even US-Turkish problems may appear according to Turkish news , , , , . Anyway I think my point has been mentioned, maybe all this should be covered thoroughly in Foreign relations of Turkey article but not to see one mention of the words "Armenian Genocide" is kind of odd. Anyway on the positive, this article is very well written and I would gladly support it if it weren't for what I mentioned above. Good job Baris on almost re-writing all the article single handedly. Fedayee 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the Armenian deaths to the Ottoman history section. I hope that is acceptable to all involved. Regards, --Jayzel 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am still kind of annoyed at Taxman for not saying it sooner and instead looping the discussion to Africa and I don't know what. The current state is ok, however I will try to see if it might fit into the foreign relations section since it is more of a contemporary topic, more than it is a historical one in any case, sadly. If this was it, I could have made the addition myself and made a note on the talk page for more input from others instead of talking about TR-Africa relations :) It should be fine for now, I will try to raise the issue in the talk page to see if it might fit better into the FR section, or a bit higher up in the OE section. In any case, someone could have left a note on the article's talk page about this.. But anyways, c'est la vie. Baristarim 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think the issue of Armenian Genocide clearly plays an important enough role in Turkey's foreign relations to be mentioned in this article. It would be better to have a mention of the issue and Turkey's stance regarding this. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I will leave a note at the article's talk page to decide where it should be mentioned, in the history section or the FR since, as I said, it is much more of a contemporary issue, sadly. Or maybe move it in the history section? But no biggie, that's what the talk pages are for :) Baristarim 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make it a personal issue against people that oppose. Stick to the issues as I have done. It's not just about the Armenian Genocide, it's a general issue of the article making it look like there was little to no conflict ethnic or religious. The foreign relations issue was brought up because that issue looked like it could have needed a broader perspective too. Given that at least one big issue was not covered and you fought tooth and nail as if there wasn't a problem when there was, it's not unreasonable to be concerned about some of the research. - Taxman 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For Fedayee, I do not think that public surveys need to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. The problems in U.S Turkey relations are due to the fact that most people dislike the U.S foreign policy specifically the iraqi war. Otherwise I do not know any recent major problems between US and Turkey. For Turkish French relationships, we can include a paragraph in Denial of Armenian Genocide article. I do not agree that the main article is the place of it. Before making accusations, we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we must mention only encyclopedic details. And further dtails should be discussed in talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For Caglarkoca, the links I gave were to show how much of an impact the Armenian Genocide has on Turkish foreign relations. It affected French relations, it has affected relations with every country that has accepted the events of 1915 as genocide. I am not asking for an article on US, France etc. I am asking something simple that is very clear. The impact of the Armenian Genocide on Turkey is big. There are demonstrations by nationalists in Turkey against it, the film Ararat was banned in Turkey, the upcoming ban on Sylvester Stallone's 40 days of Musa Dagh film, Orhan Pamuk's arrest, the cancelled military contracts w/ France, the closed border w/ Armenia, some EU countries questioning of Turkey's place in the EU because of the Armenian Genocide...these are all the because of the Armenian Genocide issue. I think it deserves a simple mention. I am confused on why this is not encyclopedic. Besides on a side note, do you think Turkey would be pleased if the Democrats pass a bill recognizing the genocide? Anyway this is off topic, I have said my points. Thanks Fedayee 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So going back to the topic :) The history section was edited accordingly, however I will peruse one more time. As for the foreign relations, I will post back when I will have done so. Cheers! Baristarim 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Technically, the article is very well written, neutral, stable, thoroughly referenced using solid sources, and clearly meets the Misplaced Pages featured article criteria. I think that it gives almost perfect relative balance to issues covered within each section (though I believe the Culture section could and hopefully will be improved). It is of appropriate length, provides a very good introduction to the subject without being boring and it leaves further details outside the scope of an introductory text to the specific main articles listed under each section heading. A very good addition to the featured articles list overall. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written, reflects the country realistically and provides a good background. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support conditionally As above it meets the requirements of a FA, but it does have some glaring omissions that have been mentioned. Consensus doesn't mean altering the facts. Still, article is well-balanced, outside of the omissions, very few grammar errors, a few typos, covers much for a country with such an extensive history, explains things well and clearly without resorting to language-consensus (words with no meaning), is accessible to all levels. In general, more than other country articles I've read, it allows the reader with little to no knowledge of Turkey to learn enough, without any further reading, to be a knowledgable watcher of what is going on in Turkey today--except for the glaring omissions, mentioned above, which are being corrected. A current events article on Turkey would make an excellent addition for more information in certain areas that could be better covered. KP Botany 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The part about the Armenian Genocide was already edited in the history section, and the only thing that remains to be seen is in the foreign relations section. As for the other omissions that you mentioned, can you be more specific? Me and other users have asked Taxman to explain his reasoning, and his comments are general comments about the article. What specific omissions are there? I really cannot see any glaring omissions: nearly everything is covered. And what do you mean about a current events article? Do you mean a section? If it is a section, I have to disagree that we should have such a section: other FA art do not include such sections and, in any case, it is much more professional to include relevant bits into appropriate sections. I hope that I were able address your concerns. Cheers! Baristarim 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Another article for current events in Turkey.. Yeah, why not? I will leave a post at WikiProject Turkey's talk page. Baristarim 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nearly there... The sentence (you know which one) says Turkey rejects the thesis, but doesn't actually say that it's the consensus (or at least that it's widely accepted/ the majority PoV). I'm switching to 1024x768 to check for image overlaps. Brilliant work, Baris (and others) yandman 17:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. I made a (slight) mod to the sentence: "Although most scholars ... Rep of Turkey believes ... ". Hope everyone can agree on that. yandman 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stupid Question. Why did you change the infobox map? If all country articles have the same type of map, why this article should be any different? And could you remove the timeline box from the infobox, it best fits in the history section, or better in the history article. CG 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all country articles have the same type of map: see Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine etc. The new map style was introduced by Wikiproject Countries a few months ago, with many countries recently switching back to the old green maps, and there are still an ongoing discussion about this on the projects talk page. And with all due respect, the correct place for your question is Talk:Turkey, if you have anything of relation to the FA candidacy please share that with the rest of us. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact, some other articles also use that map. As far as I know, the actual map was drawn later after the older maps, so that's why it looks different. The timeline is also common practice, it is there to simply give a background of the country and the main events that led to its establishment as a modern country. See Canada and India for example. I am not too sure if taking them out would be a good thing. But I will try to make some more research and look into other country articles. Baristarim 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I think that everybody can learn enough from the article because it is detailed, it has proper links to the main articles of the mentioned things in it, it has external references and it has a nice picture gallery. I think that the inner and international issues of Turkey are objectively shown in the article. Deliogul 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• ObjectNeutral Changed my vote. After a compromise was worked out regarding the Armenian Genocide, the original nominator has taken it upon himself to remove the information at this late a date in FAC. Article unstable and nominator not operating in good faith. --Jayzel 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal sockpuppet attacks are also excluded from the stability criteria, a user vandalized the page using four sockpuppets, and all of them were banned. Any article can be subject to such attacks. It is not a question of good faith. I reverted the vandal's edits, then later did the merge under foreign relations section. In my latest revert, I said that I was going to take a look at it very soon, just like I had done here . I do not have enough time on New Year's to deal with this! However, considering the urgency I took a look at it, the latest version cut down one sentence, and it looks better. That's my version. Let me know if it is removed. Baristarim 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When I looked up the history I saw you were the most recent person to remove the paragraph and was surprised to say the least. I'll take back my comment you are acting in bad faith, but I think I will remain neutral on whether this should become an FA. I have a bad feeling it will remain a target for edit wars well into the future. Regards, --Jayzel 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I also left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article, I really would like to move on - I spent nearly one month on that article. I was going to do some work on the exec of Saddam, but not so fast apparently :) So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a lonely source while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. However I tried to revert edits that were not in line with talks at FAC or talk page . I was not happy with the middle sentence in the foreign relations bit where it dwelled too much on details of what happened when, so I took it out as well. As far as I am concerned, people can follow the wikilinks and learn more about the subject there. If people want to work on those articles, that's where they should be working. I am aware that the article might be some attract-fly, but the latest version is the most concise and matter-of-fact way of putting it IMO. Any modifications that can be done are very minor wordings, however that also holds true for the rest of the article - any section or article can be reworded better as a general rule. As I said, keep the article on your watchlist, let me know if any wholesale deletes have taken place - now or in the future. Cheers Baristarim 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, it would surprise if the article wasn't subject to all sorts of edits in the future - and not just for a particular section. I had to wage a war against other sockpuppeteers who insisted on removing the literacy figures, those that tried to remove Orhan Pamuk's picture etc. You would be surprised actually :) However, the article is there to give an overview of the country, and it will be normal that many people will have different opinions about a country such as Turkey. As is, the article covers everything there is to know about the country + all conflicts there are, and they are all cited. I cannot see it getting any better. Baristarim 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Weak support (weak because edit wars have already started...hopefully it dies down but doesn't look like it) per Jayzel. I thought the issue was over with? Stop tampering with history, already it was bad that no such mention was there on the article. Fedayee 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. A vandal had been attacking the page for the last 36 hours, I cannot do anything about that. Four IDs were banned for being the sockpuppets of one user. Only other changes are those that were done to address the concerns in the talk page. I also reverted that user's edits and . I fixed them both under foreign relations section last night . The problem is, I cannot be everywhere at the same time on this holiday season! Baristarim 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys can keep an eye on the article as well you know. I didn't create the article, I just worked on it. Look at the actual version and let me know if someone tries to revert it. And also pls take a look at the article's history closely, there is no bad faith. cheers! Baristarim 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment concerned about the issues raised by Taxman and others, hope they will be (continuously) dealt with, lest this go the way of Hugo Chávez, which passed FA with brilliant prose in spite of glaring POV and biased references (issues not understood by most reviewers at the time it passed, since the media wasn't yet paying attention to Chávez), and was subsequently FARC'd due to instability and POV. Please heed Taxman's and others' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problems. I raised some issues with many editors and some admins so that they keep an eye on the article as well. Hopefully as a country article it will be more stable, even though certain users, particularly newcomers, tend to expect a newscast about the country :) Until three months ago, nearly every major event concerning the country got included. Prime Minister said this, said that, an airplane was hijacked etc... Hopefully the "overview" rule will not be disturbed, but generally a wide range of editors keep an eye and contribute to the article, so that's always a plus. That's why most sources are impartial as a rule; only Turkish sources are for some economic figures as released by the Turkish government + geographical information and a couple of general references. And nearly all of the news sources are from the BBC, simply because it is very reliable and does a good job of keeping neutrality for a wide range of subjects. For the moment the article is only getting the usual anon sandbox/vandal occasionally. Thanks though! cheers Baristarim 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree on the BBC; in fact, it was long one of the big problems with Venezuela/Chávez reporting, so take care to diversify sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well done to all those involved. --A.Garnet 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support M&NCenarius 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Needs a serious copy-edit to attain a "compelling, even brilliant" standard of prose. Let's look at a couple of small sections as examples of why the whole article needs work.
  • "was elected on 16 May 2000, after having served as"—Spot the redundant word.
    • This one I couldn't get, he was elected while he was (or right after) serving as the President of the Constitutional Court.
  • "though he exercises a largely ceremonial post"—Exercises a post? "has a largely ceremonial role", surely; "although" is inappropriate, since many heads of state have this role.
    • done
  • "court of last resort"—ort, ort.
    • done
  • Why are the head of state and PM referred to with generic male pronouns? Can't a woman accede to these offices?
    • I will try to fix this by moving some words around
  • "The executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers that make up the government, whereas the legislative power is vested in the unicameral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey." And replace "whereas" with a semicolon—there's no contrast here. In fact, go through the whole article identifying the false contrasts: I see "although" and "whereas" wrongly used in several places. Here's another false contrast in "nevertheless": "As of 2004, there were 50 registered political parties in Turkey, whose ideologies range from the far-left to the far-right. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court can strip the public financing of political parties that it deems anti-secular or separatist, or ban their existence altogether."
    • done
  • "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament; though in most cases they are"—The semicolon is wrong.
    • done
  • "mitigated proportional representation"—"mitigated"? Very odd.
    • done
  • "There are 85 electoral districts that represent the 81 administrative provinces"—No, try: "85 electoral districts represent the 81 administrative provinces".
    • done
  • Minus signs or en dashes for below-zero temperatures: see MoS.
    • You mean they should have, or shouldn't have? Currently all sub-zero temperatures have minuses..
  • "publicly-owned"—No hyphen after -ly words. "investor-confidence and foreign investment"—Why the hyphen?
    • done
  • "Turkey's GDP currently ranks 17th"—Spot the redundant word.
    • done
  • The appearance and readability are severely compromised by the fact that the text is so blue: messy and bumpy speckling, especially at the top. While many of the links are focused and useful, why not sift through and remove perhaps 20% of them. Some are repeated, some are unfocused and not useful, such as English, democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic, Europe, Asia, China, the list goes on. Why on earth would our readers need a blue link to China? Let them key it in the box if they need to go there.
    • I will try to remove some of them. I did some removals, but I am not sure what else I can remove from the intro.. Some of the links are there for completely uninformed readers. I will continue to peruse though.. Baristarim 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, I tried to cut down on the unneccessary wikifications.

There's a lot of good in this article, so let's complete the job ... Tony 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will do them in a couple of hours. These should be easy to fix, but I have to go out at the moment, so I will look at them in a couple of hours. Thanks for the comments! Baristarim 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I just removed the turkishweekly.net links (on this FAC page), as they were triggering the spam blocker, rendering the entire FAC page uneditable! Apologies. Gzkn 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

previous FAC Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hoi polloi Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charizard

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

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

The Bus Uncle

Archive 1: Link

Self nomination: As it stands, the article about the Bus Uncle, Roger Chan Yuet Tung is a Good Article. Last year, it was nominated for FA status, but failed. The major reason was the lack of citations. Anyway, I started improving the article over the last month, in an attempt to reach that level.

I have improved the grammar, rearranged the layout, separated important points into different subsections, added fair use rationales to all 4 pictures and added citations to many paragraphs made in the article (through newspapar articles, magazine articles, radio programs, news reports and even a TV drama episode). I checked the article several times, and couldn't find any flaws. I believe that all criteria are met. Perhaps you can leave some comments on the article.--Kylohk 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article is written well, but the problem is in the images. If you look closely at the images (Roger's one and Elvis' one) they have been drawn on them. Somehow I think they are edited in Microsoft Paint. New pictures should be replaced, and cameraman's photo must be put in the article. --Jacklau96 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Had you not told me, I'd never noticed those odd scribbles at the bottom of the images. I have played some free online videos involving the 3 people, and used PrintScreen to take screenshots of them. Those shots are cropped down to size, and uploaded. Now, they appear to the right hand side of the "Persons Involved" section.--Kylohk 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the videos on Youtube is free or not. You said on the images it is public domain and you made them, but actually the videos are not uploaded by you. This may be a copyright problem. --Jacklau96 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, I have changed the copyright tag to that of the screenshot to a film. I have to admit that the definitions can be confusing.--Kylohk 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did some clean-up of the inline referencing in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well referenced, covers almost everything one needs to know about the incident. Completely different from the last failed nom. --:Raphaelmak: 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but please fix this unnecessary intensification in the lead: Marked: "Not only did the video become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong, it inspired vigourous debate and discussion on lifestyle, etiquette and media ethics." Unmarked: "The video become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong, and inspired vigourous debate and discussion on lifestyle, etiquette and media ethics."
• Plus:
  • "ise" or "ize"? It's inconsistent. My personal preference is for the s, and in Hong Kong, you have a choice.
• "Fong also stated that the reason for the recording"—Remove redundant "also". Same for "The catch phrases also appear on Internet forums,", which shouldn't be a new paragraph.
• Consider "was" rather than "consituted" (x 2).
• "The video clip, though subtitled in English erroneously in parts,"—No, make it "The video clip, although subtitled in English (erroneously in parts),".

Really interesting topic! Tony 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas and support. I've standardized the article with British spellings, and removed many "also"s and "not only" redundant words. "Consituted" was replaced by "was" and "be", depending on the position. Brackets have been added to that sentence you mentioned. Cheers.--Kylohk 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per my comments in the article's peer review in WP:Biography.--Yannismarou 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nashua, New Hampshire

Hamilton-Burr duel

A clear and detailed article that documents an important event in American history. --kralahome 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object 2a, prose problems. This is the lead: The Hamilton-Burr duel was a duel between two prominent United States politicians, former Treasury Secretary General Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804, in which Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day in Manhattan. Sandy 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Sandy. I could imagine this could be longer too. --Oldak Quill 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object The detail is nice, the writing style is bulky and unwieldy at best. If that were cleaned up, I'd support. Tdslappy
• Object. Short lead (see WP:LEAD). --Maitch 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Weak lead, unsourced quotes (I've noted several by inserting "citation needed" tags, but there are more), limited sources, and minimal discussion of the aftermath. The discussion of why this was such a bitter feud is OK but could be much better and more extensive. The collection of sources actually cited is interesting but narrow: essentially much is drawn from one academic article and the rest from original sources and local histories. Usually, I love to see both academic articles and original sources, but can't think of another case where I've seen them used without any broader secondary source survey. It would be good to either use more than one article or to throw in some broader material for the big picture. This isn't ready yet; I'd encourage some attention to these comments and would then consider. Sam 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sakoku Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Constitution of Indonesia

Macedonia (terminology)

I'm restarting this nomination - the old discussion was too long to parse and contained a number of no-longer applicable sections. I'd like to see more work done on addressing the issue of list-heaviness. Raul654 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. in current form. The article is list-heavy, but also extremely informative. The lists seem appropriate here, but could be improved by converting into prose. If any section needs it, the one which needs it most is "In History." Neutral in curent form, would support fully with some list conversion. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We tried converting history to list form, it made it very confusing. - FrancisTyers · 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine! I know it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I Support! RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, well that was easier than I expected :) Besides, Niko took care of the history section now :) - FrancisTyers · 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose As before on the basis of it not being an article, but a list. As before, looking at, for quick examples, most of the featured lists of birds contain blocks of prose as this article does but are fundamentally lists as this one is. Staxringold _talk 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: FLs that were specified before (List of Anuran families, List of Kansas birds, List of Florida birds, List of Oklahoma birds) contain extremely less prose.
  • On the other hand, there are many precedents of featured articles that also contain lists:
    • Rugby World Cup
    • Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)
    • Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 (massive lists)
    • FIFA World Cup
    • €2 commemorative coins (massive lists)
    • History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) (massive lists)
  • This is an article, which has the following main differences from lists (of birds or anything):
    • It has a subject: To clarify the mess and semiological confusion among terms used in Macedonia. (Birds only have identical names for everyone, which are simply listed)
    • It illustrates the controversy that created this mess (UN did't deal with birds, and different species don't quarrel over who's to be called eagle.)
    • It explains which term, under which context (referred for whom, addressing whom, and said by whom) can be considered pejorative and for what (cited) reason. (Nobody is offended when someone calls a bird by another name.)
    • The text/list ratio is 58% - 42%, including references. Compare the truncated versions I created:
      • Macedonia (terminology) PROSE (28.1Kb)
      • vs
      • Macedonia (terminology) LISTS (21.0Kb, plus some 'lists' included are essentially not lists, as explained below.)
      • Such a ratio does not exist in any type of featured list. (They are more like 20%-80%, including the FL examples above).
    • The 'lists' that have remained, are not essentially 'lists'. They are paragraphs that have been bulleted only to illustrate semiological confusion. No other featured list contains paragraphs for every single entry (excluding the bottom part of 'terminology by group' section).
    • On the other hand, there are featured articles with greater dominance of lists (examples above), plus their lists are indeed lists and not bulleted paragraphs.
    • Three (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to remove the bullets from these paragraphs. See examples of ways to reformat the history section:
      • One by Errant: here
      • One by myself: here (note, 'history' didn't exist as a section yet, see bottom of intro)
      • Another by myself: here
    • The proof that it is not a list, lies in the fact that it was indeed formatted as prose, but then bulleted back only to illustrate semiological confusion. Try doing that in the lists of the precedent featured articles I specified above!
    • Nine users who had 'list' concerns, removed their opposition in view of the large scale additions and modifications in this article.
      • 6 of them support (User:UberCryxic-Wholehearted Support, User:Smurrayinchester-Support, User:Jaranda-Support, User:TheGrappler-Support, User:Fieari-Support now, User:RyanGerbil10-Support) and,
      • 3 of them are neutral (User:Robth, User:Zafiroblue05, User:Huntster).
  • Please consider the gravity of each objection: It seems there are like 30 users who approve it as it is, 9 users who thought it used to be a list and isn't now (6 of them on top of that now support), and we are trying to deal with a veto of one or two users who just object on bullet-formatted text. The veto power of the users who objected to bullet removal, the main contributors included, was overwhelming. I request you follow user Robth's example to reconsider your votes, and go for Neutral, which will not veto the wishes of the extreme majority here. :NikoSilver: 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Veto power :) - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I have no idea what this veto crap is but I am still objecting on the list issue. NikoSilver has tried to argue against it instead of addressing it. Please address it since it has been a concern since the beggining and both attempts to fix it have been, in my opinion, tentative at best. Joelito (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as before. Tony 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, im still going against the grain here, although I see why people are arguing this is a list it also wouldn't make it through the FL process. In fact it definitely wouldn't and would be very out of place as a featured lists. I think the problem here is that this is an article worthy of featred status - plus it is on an interesting and controversial topic and deals with it so well!! It is a shame that it gets denied that by being too list'y but I suppose that is the way things go. In fairness to Nikosilver and Frtancis they have done a sterling job addressing all the problems as best they may so I think Joelito is being a little unfair, in truth they did experiment with more prose but they are right that it made the article more confusing.

The thing is that this is (and never was) a list - so if it's not an article then what is it. Regardless I am supporting this still simply because it is a great piece of work that both these 2 and others have spent a long time perfecting... --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok. I'll try to address it, but not that it hasn't already been extensively addressed.:NikoSilver: 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand the objections. We could view all wiki articles as a "list" of facts, especially since there is no room for original research, and we have the POV factor. Indeed, most articles consist of a list of different facts, in appropriate order, they build a picture of the same object. Here we have a list of facts describing a same noun/appelation but which is interpreted in different ways. It is that difference of interpretations that forms the core of the article, one that has preoccupied a number of academics, politicians and historians. In my opinion, several experts in the field - some of them also true experts in the ways of wikipedia - have poured over the article, debated and concured that it is an article, not a list. Therefore, I think its FA suitability needs to be evaluated in terms of a bona fide article. Politis 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank Errant and Politis. I too think that it may have been something close to a list earlier, but it is simply unfair towards the extensive efforts and attempts that have been made to de-bullet it, to simlply stick on the list issue and not want to discuss! The precedents are numerous and the arguments above were compelling (did the opposers read them? Why don't they respond?) I will make one more attempt, though, but I strongly believe it will be to the detriment of the article's readability. Again, please do not ignore the wide consensus of the rest of the users who support, and of those that have dropped their 'list' objections. It is simply unfair to veto this great article, without any real basis, and without any discussion! I am deeply dissappointed. :NikoSilver: 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To opposers: Please see it now, and respond if this is the direction to which you wish the article was formulated...:NikoSilver: 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody responded to this, but my opinion is it sucks coz it repeats the same thing in three places, just to include some prose: maps+text+table. :NikoSilver: 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and Support I want to express my strong disapproval of Joelito's comments. At first, I too accused Niko of not addressing that issue and trying to argue around it, but since then there has been clear and extensive improvement in that area. "Tentative" means something like "experimental," and while I'm not trying to give anyone a vocabulary lesson, the changes that Niko has implemented are very sweeping, not tentative at all. Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!UberCryxic 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• For anyone wishing to verify the "clear and extensive improvement in that area" here are the diffs . I still see the same lists. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply eye-jogging through the article reveals massive differences, either large white spaces where none existed or new material. I am not going to document every change, but you can see that the lists in the lead were taken away. Beyond that, you haven't really addressed my point. Some of the lists are still there, but Niko has made huge strides in adding prose to what is now firmly an article. This statement by me, "Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!" holds very true with your link. Anyone can see that there have been huge changes made. At the very least, you questioning Niko's efforts to address the problem are disingenuous in light of evidence that you yourself have presented.UberCryxic 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Joelito: Point? Where exactly do you see the same lists? Also, I think the diff is so messed up, that I am beggining to think you haven't followed the article's evolution since nomination. Let me put simply:

• Original version before nomination (July, 10): 17.3Kb
• Macedonia (terminology) today (July, 24): 48.7Kb - all additions in prose and refs. No list added.

• Major additions:

• WP:LEAD 1 par -> 3pars
• Etymology: ->New section, 3 pars
• History: 1 sentence + a list (still incorporated in lead) -> 3 pars + list, separate section + 2 subsections
• Templatised Maps: as cool as always. Unchanged
• Geography: 2 lists with 3 pars intermingled -> 2 lists plus 6 pars
• Demographics: Just a list -> a paragraph and a list with much lengthier entries
• Linguistics: Just a list -> 3 pars + 1 opening sentence + a list
• Politics: List with sublists containing 1 par -> No list + 3 pars
• Names in the languages of the region: Unchanged
• Terminology by group: 1 opening sentence + 3 lists -> 3 pars + 3 lists
• Notes (one of the most important parts): 4 essential notes -> 5 essential notes
• References: 4 -> 73! (we even have an objection for that now below!)
• Totals: 9 pars + 2 sentences + 9 lists + 4 refs -> 27! pars + 2 sentences + 8 lists + 73 refs

• How can you (Joelito) not notice that and ironicaly request us to verify UberCryxic above? I think you better strike that last unfortunate comment (at least), or your opposition is likely not to be taken seriously at all. :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Stop trying to dismiss anyone (attacking the messenger) who opposes you and start addressing the concerns. I have commented every time a new section for the FAC has been created so I have been following the progress. 9 lists --> 7 lists + 1 table are still too many lists for an article. If I am not mistaken only 1 of the lists has been converted to prose. I know the article has been expanded considerably (also some of my past concerns) but the list concern has not been addressed to my (and others) satisfaction. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• He is not dismissing you. He has already significantly addressed concerns like the ones you have brought up. We can certainly have a conversation regarding what degree of satisfaction Niko has given those objecting, but don't making the categorical statement that he is not addressing your concerns. That's just a plain lie. Obviously he has; you can see the article for yourself. Niko has actually proven himself to be one of the most involved and quickest FA nominators I've ever seen.UberCryxic 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006: I suppose 5 tables and 3 lists would be fine then, huh? Nobody attacked you. It is your insufficient arguments I am attacking. You have never responded on the issue. You always just post a message to keep the conversation alive. Kindly respond to every single argument in my two lengthy posts above. If you can't then you're wrong. I am certain the article is in the wrong path with the recent irrational additions. This is not Macedonia (region) we're writing here. It is Macedonia (terminology). :NikoSilver: 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• object so many references to such a small article. Needs proper development not to reference every word. Very nice and instructive maps!!! --Pedro 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now that's an original! :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much refs isn't a reason to oppose any FAC Jaranda 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Half of the article are refs, that's original! An article is not a collection of references. It seems a reference page in a PHD, not an encyclopedia article. --Pedro 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not very kind, Pedro. How can references be original? All articles in wikipedia are, arguably, a list of referenced facts because we do not accept POV or original research. I would say this article is an OK introduction to a PhD thesis, not its reference pages. Politis 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot satisfy you and remove references. Feel free to keep opposing. Thank you.:NikoSilver: 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm just saying it needs expansion and better formating and not concentrating to much on references, many of those references are not very useful, but you shouldn't remove them - That would be stupid. --Pedro 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedro, we can't expand it further. (a)It is already almost 50Kb, without the templatised maps. (b)We will not be "tightly focused on the subject". The subject is terminology. Why the hell should we expand further e.g. history? The parts that are relevant in illustrating the controversy and confusion in terminology are expanded more than adequately. After reading it, do you have any question on the how's and why's of the terminology? Anything you believe would apply? The fact that we have so many refs, is because we can't tolerate nationalist rant about 'unsubstantiated material'. (Greeks included). :NikoSilver: 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • changed to neutral. It doesnt look great (except for the maps that are great, it is informative enough, most important in a FA is information).--Pedro 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Closing statement: After extensive attempts to ruin the article towards the direction indicated by Joelito, without real argumentation, or any substantial responses to my arguments, I have decided to revert the article to the version before these attempts. If anyone still thinks this is not an article, then so be it. Let's put it in the Featured Stubs! Raul, feel free to close this, list it in FL, dump it, delete it or... (why not? 30 users emphatically say so!) feature it as it is. I am out. :NikoSilver: 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment A lot of work here has been done. A lot of various things have been tried. The essential problem I see is scope. This isn't a history article, nor is it a geographical article. It isn't an article on linguistics either. It is an article on terminology. The stated purpose of the article is to describe the way that the terminology surrounding Macedonia is used by various groups. Now then, people may say "but why on earth do you need that, and whats with all the lists?", the reason for the lists is simple. The principle that was decided upon on the inception of the page was to use Self identifying terms. So many other articles related to Macedonia have been edit warred into oblivion because of terminology. In fact, you can even see it in the history of this one.

The more prose that was added, the closer we got to edit warring. It really is very difficult to write an article regarding Macedonia that all sides accept. By and large everyone accepts this. Back to the lists! The lists as they are so lovingly called are imperative to keeping the content readable. When we have 6 different meanings for the term Macedonia, how else are we to present them, We have 3 different meanings for the term "Macedonian" relating to linguistics, and 5 relating to "Macedonian" in demographics.

How then should we format this, whilst maintaining self-identifying terms that it wouldn't be entirely opaque? Is it possible to have a featured article on terminology? I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.

I may be naïve, but I think that the article has the potential to improve articles about Macedonia as a whole. When a non-Balkanian comes to a Macedonia related article and sees such a large dispute going on, the first instinct is to hop it, get out of there, it isn't worth the trouble to get involved, those guys will never agree. A top class reference on terminology might help to lessen that, and get a larger number of non-Balkanian editors involved, something that the articles are in serious need of. This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this.

So, my final plea, do not oppose solely on the fact that there are a large number of lists in the article, perhaps oppose because you don't think that is some of Misplaced Pages's best work, or oppose because you don't think it is neutral, or there is a full stop out of place. Just not the lists. - FrancisTyers · 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my reply. Feel free to remove parts you feel are irrelevant in order to keep the page more legible. - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Oppose Neutral - Political tensions on Misplaced Pages is not justification for making this a featured article, Francis. If the article is so great now in easing the flame wars that occur in Balkan-related topics, then it should be a significant help regardless if it is featured or not. Telling someone to look beyond the tangible aspects of the formatting and to support it for its spiritual merits is just wrong. If this was a "Articles that create a paradigm shift and further the cause of togetherness" nomination I would be in favor. But it is not, and so I won't vote in favor until the list issue is resolved. --Sean WI 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has gone through a considerable change since it was first put up for a nomination. I now see the work that has gone into transforming the article into a stable, informative, and interesting read. My prior objections to the format have been aleviated by the endless work that a select few people have accomplished. I now feel that the bullet points are an acceptable way to convey the message, making it easy for the uninformed to digest the material. This article has my support. --Sean WI 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you didn't want to read the whole post, it was pretty long, so I'll direct you to, "This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this." - FrancisTyers · 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should better direct him to: I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.

I second your whole comment 100%. Let it burn, I don't care. I am not ruining a great article because some people cannot justify their opposition. I have presented compelling precedents and arguments in two lengthy posts above and nobody has responded to either. You can't veto something unless you have a solid rationale. Therefore, I consider all 'list' oppositions moot. :NikoSilver: 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys lets stay calm and friendly! The article has improved alot and will continue to do so over the years. I think you should forget about FA for now and wait a couple of months - then relist it and see if time has matured it enough for people to have changed their minds --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No Errant, but thanks. I sincerely believe that all 'list' oppositions are invalid. Reasoning above.:NikoSilver: 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been some recent additions in prose. Mainly, a new 'etymology' section, and several paragraphs in 'history' section, which was also split in two subsections. For more details, refer to my comment above under 'Major additions'. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I'm even less convinced now that this should go to FLC. As an article it is properly referenced and the prose is good. The maps are a great aid in understanding the subject. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, really good and illustrative maps. I didn't understand, very well, the war between Macedonia and Greece because of the name, just by seeing the maps you understand it immediately.--Pedro 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Niko, you do not have any authority to dismiss these arguments as 'moot' or 'invalid'. Okay, the scope of the article is thoroughly explained by the title itself. This is the terminology of the region of Macedonia. Maybe it is easier to make lists when explaining six different points. I understand this, too. But these reasons do not make it alright to ignore the central problem - the formatting does not agree with many people. And because the formatting is so rigid, the entire article does not have a "flowing" quality. A proper featured topic should read like a novel - there is a beginning, middle, and end (though the end is less important). This feels like a grocery list. Now I fear that some people are giving support for all the wrong reasons. You reverted all of your "in history" section (which wasn't satisfactory, anyway) and made it a list again...and this guy above me says the prose are now good? What!? I will vehemently oppose this article and try to convince others to do the same until this is solved. Perhaps this is just one article that can never be featured...or maybe it needs a slight re-write. --Sean WI 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean WI. Here is an article: List of United States mobile phone companies. Now this is what I call a list - a collection of US companies and it does not "read like a novel", as you mention above; but then. But if that is a criterion (and under normal circumstances I would probably agree with you) where will you find a novel accessible to the editorial whims of anyone browsing the net, coming across wikipedia, and wanting to have a go? That is why wikipedia articles are a collection of information, a list of information. So how does anyone draw the line between a list of mobile phone companies, this article in question and an article on windmills or sugar? What are the criteria you espouse? I would have thought that such article would make fascinating reading as a FA; the information races along, it is varied, full of links and dynamic - those are not qualities you will find in a "grocery list". Politis 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sean: No I don't have the authority, but I have a right to express my opinion. My opinion still is that none of the 'list' arguments has a basis in the requirements. Also, opposers have not addressed any point in my rationale above, including the precedents that I listed. So, having both requirements and precedents in my side, I am safe to express that opinion: Any 'list' opposition is moot!
• Speaking about authority, I see a very small minority still complaining about any list within the article. Kindly read User:Jimbo's page, rule #7 for inspiration.
• Still, I have made further additions in prose. So, what about now? :NikoSilver: 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Politis. I must apologize for using the term "grocery list" to explain my position because even I know that it is absurd. I was merely a bit peeved that someone could dismiss the points of myself and others as being not relevant to the discussion. Most of the opposition (including the archived portion) has a problem with the format, and not the information. This article has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Remember, I initially voted in favor of it. However, as trivial as something like formatting seems, it can allow for a powerful voice while reading. If we take a good featured article, say Kolkata, and compare it to this one...the difference is not in the amount of information, but in the way it is presented. If the people who are most active in this article decide that they will not budge, I guess I will change my vote to a neutral like I did in the previous vote.

I ended the paragraph, but when I tried to save, I noticed the new reply, so I will address that, too. Niko, I am withdrawing my vote. You are free to make it a featured article. --Sean WI 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive approach and your frankness. Also thanks to Niko for his relentless work/ Just to point out that though I believe this is, indeed, an article - and a very useful one, I have not voted on the FA issue. Politis 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, of course. It's certainly got enough prose to be an article, and it's most certainly of featured-quality. —Nightstallion (?) 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Change from Support to Object - Sorry to have to do this. First of all, I find the large quote above the image at the top of the article to be obnoxious. Second of all, I am VERY much opposed to wrapping the text around the table of contents.

Additionally though, I've re-looked over the prose/list issue, trying to really get to the heart of the matter, and I've concluded that while there have been leaps and bounds of improvement towards this being an article, it still contains too many lists to be one of our best. If this came up at Featured Lists, I would probably still support it there, as the list content is pretty heavy and still seems to be the focus of the page. Nearly all the information currently contained in lists could be re-written as prose... heck, much of it already has! Why not go all the way with the rest of it, and get rid of all these objections once and for all. Fieari 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fieari, I just inserted those maps for editing/commenting/etc. You don't have to object to the FAC for that. We can solve it in the talk (and it is being discussed as we speak). Now for the prose, we tried to get rid of it all, three times (see above). It doesn't work, because the present format is simply unbeatable! The present format is:

] (as in foo) refers...

This is a hell of a way to illustrate that... we all mouse-over in our brains when we use those terms! :NikoSilver: 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason stability is a FA requirement... for situations like these. Fieari 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Right. Only we're not talking POV reverts here, I just drew some new maps for God's sake! You and others don't like them? Fine! I'll revert. Now if you mean stability vs prose, then I think you're right. The article's prose has multiplied. If it came up at FLC's, I'd dump it because of too much prose! :NikoSilver: 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the article now is exactly as it was before your latest objection, with two minors:

• Changed grey maps to colorful sat-maps. This may be changed back to the originals if you feel they are too colorful.
• Added the (attempted) intro template below in the 'Notes' section to create attention, as this section is quite important. This too may be deleted later if the rest of the editors do not agree.

Please participate in talk and state your opinion for this trivial issue.:NikoSilver: 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, I'd first discuss at the talk page, address these concerns, look for any previous replies and then, if nothing has been done, change my vote. Are you sure these are lists and not bulleted paragraphs (and they're as limited in number as possible now!), because that's what I think they are? I wouldn't ever object because I don't like the TOC and the large quote over the image too, I'd fix and make it look it the way I like it. It's a wiki. And that's just my opinion anyway :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support a Macedonia-related article without any edit wars?? Amazing! :p —Khoikhoi 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The older maps were better, and especially the last map is completely unreadable. I'm also not sure I like the quotes above the pictures. —Nightstallion (?) 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, support, support. This one deserves to be a featured article and I won't ever let it fail because of objections I mostly find silly, childish and ungrounded ("don't like the quote above the image", "it has too many references", "liked the old maps better", "can't stand bullets", etc.) People, just have a look at this thing — it's a thorough, perfectly-referenced, neutral, well-written and informative, extremely useful, unbelievably necessary article on a topic that has puzzled and continues to puzzle Europe and the world. Consider the immense work needed to create this, think about the impact it's going to have on all related articles that are currently packed with bias and confusion, think whether your objections really sound serious compared to the article's overall quality, scale and impact, and then vote. I call upon everyone — let's not be small-minded, but instead appreciate the real value of things. Todor→Bozhinov 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• If editors would stop dismissing the formatting objections (lists) as "ungrounded" then this would be a featured article. Stop trying to convince us that the topic is worthy of featured status and start convincing us that the article is worthy of featured status. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lists or bulleted paragraphs? IMHO the bullets only provide clarity and are actually very useful (you're using them at this very page to separate your comment from the others). The article contains as much prose as possible, but some things are actually worse as lists (for example, ever thought how messy this FAC page would look de-bulleted?). Could you please specifically say which lists exactly you're referring to, and how you would solve the problems you believe there are with them? I'm sure Niko, Francis or whoever else (me including) would be glad to improve the formatting if what you suggest would really be an improvement. Also, perphaps you've got me wrong; I've never meant it's because of the topic that the article should be featured — but its current and future impact on the topic's Misplaced Pages coverage is more than remarkable — take that in consideration. And that impact is because of its undispited pure quality. Todor→Bozhinov 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Joelito, we did our best in three attempts to meet your requirements (, , and ). Your approach is highly unconstructive. None of your comments has contributed anything to the article (unlike the comments of all others). You didn't even respond if you thought the third attempt was in the right path. Can you specify what exactly it is you want? Do you want maybe to push characterise the 'bird lists' as articles as well through this opposition? I see you've created many of them... :NikoSilver: 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Is the following (a) "typical list entry" or (b) "full-fledged paragraph that has been bulleted"?
  • Macedonia (as a province of the Byzantine Empire) was an administrative division which largely occupied the region of Eastern Thrace. It was bordered by the provinces of Constantinople, Thrace, Thessaloniki and Strymon. The Byzantine Empire lasted from the Diocletian split of the Roman Empire to Western and Eastern, c.284–395, and ended in 1453, with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.
• Please respond below...:NikoSilver: 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments/Update:
    • Thanks Todor, I won't say that this is exactly the way I feel, for ...diplomatic reasons.
    • All of Fieari's concerns were dealt with in the present version.
    • Regarding new maps/templates, there are some options discussed in the article's talk. Nightstallion, Fieari, Todor and everybody else with an opinion/idea, is free to state it there. Maybe we'll end up with something even better.
  • Hope that covers it all.:NikoSilver: 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support -- Great article! I agree with Todor. My one comment is this: I think the Etymology section should have three bullets, as it includes one line descriptions of three separate theories. -- Rmrfstar 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha ha! Thanks. However, your proposal would make those one line descriptions look like a 'list' to some people... I'll do the opposite there: I'll join all sentences in one paragraph as it was in the beginning. These sentences were split in order to lengthen the section so that it would align with the TOC, which used to be to the left of the section text. The TOC is now above, so I'll just merge the section back. :NikoSilver: 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I objected during the previous nomination, primarily due to the lack of references and some awkward sentences, but believe that the article is much improved. I don't mind the use of bulleted paragraphs as they add to the clarity of the article. I have a few minor thoughts/comments which i'll post here:
  • Etymology: I'm pleased that you included an etymology section. "Αccording to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians." It would help to provide an inline citation to an online English translation for the appropriate point in Herodotus Histories. Likewise for Homer.
    • Done, and done, and likewise for Aristophanes. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In History: Was there a region or administrative area called Macedonia within the first or second bulgarian empires? It may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that the Macedonia region was incorporated into the Byzantine empire as the thema of Bulgaria?
    • No idea. Probably didn't exist.:NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In Geography: It would be helpful to know the size of Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo, and Gora and Prohor Pchinski, to give an idea of how they compare to the major sub-regions.
    • Done. Kindly tweak my wording. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In Demographics: "Macedo-Romanians" - is there an approximate figure for the number of Macedo-Romanians?
    • Done. Thanks.:NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In Demographics: "As of 2001 the inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia, who in their vast majority self-identify as Bulgarians, are 341,245." It may be worth mentioning the number of people who identified as ethnic macedonians in the 2001 census - 3,117?
    • Done. Referenced in the Bulgarian version of census but not in the English one (!!) Thanks. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In Politics: "The term came to be used following a naming dispute with Greece." It would be helpful to provide the year when the term FYROM came into use (1993?) and the source of the term (the United Nations?).
    • Done. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the remainder of the nomination process. Jazriel 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks Jazriel. All your comments are very specific and very appropriate. We will get into them asap. I especially liked the part where you too point out that "the bulleted paragraphs add to the clarity of the article". :-) :NikoSilver: 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Updated...:NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, as in the old discussion. One tiny suggestion would be to outline somehow the Bulgarian flag in the terminology section, so that the top white stripe doesn't blend into the white background. Another: the Churchill quote isn't really relevant, as the article obviously doesn't deal with the entire Balkan region, just one small part, and the fact that it produces "more history than it can consume" isn't really relevant, as the article isn't (solely) about history. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• ObjectNeutral Incomplete: 2b. Omits the meaning with which the 1911 Britannica begins: a district of European Turkey stretching from Salonica to Üsküb . This contained several Ottoman administrative districts, but the Western usage is clear, and became international in the Mürzsteg Programme. Septentrionalis 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that "Geographical Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No; it was treated as a political entity in 1904; also, the statement is that Macedonia was not used on maps for several centuries is extremely misleading, since it was so used as soon as there began to be maps of the interior of the Balkan Peninsula in English. Septentrionalis 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the main issue. The point about maps may be unintentional ambiguity. If these can be resolved stably, I shall strike this objection. Septentrionalis 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• My initial concerns are dealt with, for now. I see the colored map has been discused before; but who supports it? The present version is

  • a political map, not a geographical one.
  • somewhat overcolored; the boundary of Macedonia, which is the subject, is drowned out.
  • It also a has a long and complex caption, largely repeated in the article, about (Republican) Macedonian irredentism/. This is undue weight. Septentrionalis 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Replaced with a geographical map. Septentrionalis 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the list in the early history section could be better as prose. There is an annoying self-reference in the first caption - "For more details see the boundaries and definitions section in Macedonia (region)." - and there is still at least one "citation needed" tag. If this fac fails I would encourage running again soon at it is a very good article on a touchy subject. RN 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yikes. I supported last time and I guess that means I still do. I still think it looks great, if anything better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. Mieciu K 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, there is simply too much article here for it to ever be able to pass Featured List Candidates, so I do not accept that as ground for exclusion. Beyond that, I think it fulfills all the criteria for FA. Andrew Levine 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I would like to support; my comments are not enough for oppose, but here they are. All pretty minor.

• I'd like to see the tags dealt with.
• I believe the etymology section slightly mis-states one of the hypotheses. The main article linked to says that there is an unattested word form that is hypothesized to be the basis of the name; this is rephrased in this article to be an "unattested hypothesis". This isn't really right. Struck since I went ahead and fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• It would be good to create a stub for Crna hills, to avoid a redlink.

I would support if the citation needed tags are replaced with citations. I should add that I do not see the lists as a problem; they are a good, clean way to present data that is inherently better treated this way than in prose. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, wow!!! However, the points made by Mike Christie above are valid. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. While obviously done by someone with a mission to 'show the facts' with regard to the region and dispute, it is featured-worthy. Extra kudos for its neutrality. michael 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I understand the objections of other users, but I must underscore that this is one of the best-constructed, best-referenced and best-worked articles I've ever seen.--Yannismarou 09:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well, the bullets in this article improves the clarity of the way the article is being presented, which makes it a vety good read. Moreover, the extensive notes and references in this article more than proves its accuracy. It is also written in a NPOV style which is comprehensive as well. This is indeed a great article and I wish to offer my compliments to the respective editors who toiled very hard on this subject. --Siva1979 10:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still think there are too many lists that need to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "early history" does deal with several separate entities, from separate periods. Having them as a list does discourage making them into a history of "Macedonia", which would be off-topic and bring in the controversies now largely restricted to Macedonia (region). Comments? Septentrionalis 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Seems to have been extensively worked on before and during FAC candidacy, and the few lists I see seem to help comprehension. I learned a lot, and it meets the FA criteria. Judgesurreal777 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support and Strongly recommend closure; this FAC is approaching one month now. smurrayinchester 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, and I agree with Smurrayinchester. Job well done, tired of nitpicking the little stuff. Sandy 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to all contributors and to all those who made productive comments. This article has been tremendously improved since nomination. On a lighter note, maybe I should stick to having such long wikibreaks! :NikoSilver: 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Mars

previous FAC

Having read through the article, this article seems to meet all the feature article criteria. Atomic1609 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• If, when, or before all the Planet articles reach FA, should a survey/comparison be done to see how they appear side by side? Is there a general trend, or are the articles on the planets generally done in an individual way? There might not be anything wrong with tailoring each article especially for the planet in question. For a biography article that would be acceptable, but is it acceptable for a Planet article?-BillDeanCarter 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The current FA'd planet articles Mercury (planet), Venus and Jupiter are laid out in a comparable fashion. Mars appears to use a similar arrangement, with just a few differences in section titles. (I've been gently coaxing the Earth article toward a similar layout. :) But there's probably always going to be a few differences between those pages, due to the nature of the planets and their differing history. How close do you think they need to be? — RJH (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know, but there's a featured topic on the Solar System here Solar System topic that addresses what I was getting at. As long as these Planet articles generally cover the same information in the same depth when possible it should be good. The infoboxes serve that purpose well. I just wanted to make sure it was something being considered.-BillDeanCarter 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Astronomical objects would probably have the most interest in this topic. Perhaps you could raise it as an issue on their talk page? They're usually fairly receptive to logical suggestions. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • BillDeanCarter, I've just been taking a look at the Moon article and I begin to see your point, its quite confusing to find my way around now I'm used to the structure of the Mars page - some kind of *gentle* standardisation would be a good thing. sbandrews 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was skimming through and found two external jumps ("history of the observation of mars" and "These maps are now available online at Google Mars.") in the Historical observations of Mars section. Those should probably be converted to footnotes. External links section needs pruning. Gzkn 03:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the two external jumps now fixed sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

external links pruned sbandrews 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object — The page has improved, but I still have some issues that prevent me from supporting it. Sorry.
• Weak Support — Most of my issues have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead section needs work, at least in the form of a reorganization. The second and fourth paragraphs switch their subject abruptly. What does "it was hoped ... that Mars had ample liquid water" mean in the lead section? Ample for what? The first two sentences of the fourth paragraph in the lead section seem more appropriate for the third paragraph. The topic of Mars' moons is less important than any of the information it precedes and I think it should be pushed down.
    • Intro substantially reworked, sbandrews 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Much improved, thanks. — RJH (talk)
  • There is a lot of redundancy between the second and third paragraphs in the "Geology" section and other parts of the article. (The "Magnetosphere" and "Possibility of liquid water" sections.) I'd like to see that information consolidated somehow.
    • Magnetosphere redundancy fixed. Water section more problematic, now split between geology and current missions - would like to see it all put into geology. sbandrews 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC) All water info now in geology section sbandrews 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Missing space: "...light red sand.Despite being closer..." Fixed.
  • There is no discussion of Mars' retrograde motion during opposition with the Earth; nor of the synodic period.
    • Added to the 'Viewing Mars' section sbandrews 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the "Life" section has no references. But it is speculative in nature; describing conditions we think are needed for life. So citations are needed, I believe.
    • Added good text on the subject, more refs are in the main LOM article - At some point the idea of the 'habitable zone' needs putting in a historical context, somewhat 'old-hat' sounding now imo.sbandrews 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there citations for the first paragraph of the "Future plans" section?
    • all three plans are wikilinked and have full referencing there - this is a long article, the reference section is already heavy... sbandrews 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't believe there's a reference quota: Supernova has 110, for example. I think the article should have as many as are needed. But there are an absolutely astonishing number of external links. Couldn't most of those be merged in as references? — RJH
  • Why is there a "Astronomical observations from Mars" section? Only the second paragraph in that section seems of much importance, and that could be covered in the Magnetosphere section.
    • demoted it to subsection of Exploration of Mars - needs pruning sbandrews 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, but that has just moved the text around. I'm wondering why so much text is being spent on "Astronomy on Mars" than the more important "Past missions" section, for example? :-) Also the sentence about the occultation of Mars by Venus is probably more appropriate for the "Viewing Mars" section. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Cropped astronomy section and enhanced exploration section - balance restored? Can't bring myself to delete this section - what to do :) sbandrews 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "In fiction" section has zero references. The "Moons" section has a fiction reference to the moons that I think belongs in the "In fiction" section. Moved punctuation before citation tags, per MoS.
    • references put in, moons moved and referencedsbandrews 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references section needs work. I see one that is just a URL. Many don't have retrieval dates, and I suspect more could list their authors. The "Climate" section has a couple of external links that should be in citation format. Likewise for the linked text, "history of the observation of mars" and "Google Mars".
    • Climate section fixed - likewise linked text problem sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reference section tidied up - only reference 58 (Mars Factsheet) waiting for check or replacement. sbandrews 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - nearly there. I feel it does satisfy criteria apart from the prose. I made a couple of mundane corrections but it still has a clunky feel in places. I'd move the areology sentence from the lead as it is not essential to be there and the lead reads badly with loads of bits of info jammed into it. I do think it is nearly there however. Would you like me to go ahead and tweak a few grammatical/style bits or suggest them here? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you've time, I'd be delighted for the help - but suggestions are appreciated otherwise - and thanks for the encouragement :) kind regards sbandrews 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note — Is there a reason why this article is not receiving more support, but is also not getting any objections? It seems odd. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been through to copyedit a bit but having trouble; there are spots I feel the prose needs tweaking but can't put my finger on how/what to fix. I've had this trouble when working on my own FA candidates that sometimes things seem to go awry and it can be very hard to figure out how to proceed. I am just about ready to support but something looks a bit 'messy' cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah okay. Yes there are a few sections of prose that, while technically correct, struck me as not quite having good "flow". Usually it seems like some skilled editors seem to show up right about now to help with the polish. :-) The only other minor issues that come to mind are the early mention of the Tharsis bulge without further explanation; a sentence about "other classifications" that leaves the reader hanging a little, and the disconnect between the "The image to the right..." paragraph and it's illustration further up the page. — RJH (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • fixed the latter two problems sbandrews 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - there are some comments by marskell in the previous FAC that might help - my prose is poor :( but I'll give it a go... sbandrews 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC) that I have addressed, save for the 'geologically active' bit. If we note here any poor sections of the prose, (i.e. as per Casliber's first offer) it will help to push this FAC forward by combined attack :), kind regards sbandrews 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: This article has greatly improved since the last featured article candidacy. The geography and geology sections have been improved. My only complaint is the third paragraph in the geology section, which still sounds like "Article by Press Release". This section should be incorporated into a "Mars Water" section, and how this result relates to the role of water on the present-day Martian surface, which given the current astrobiology obsession, is an important topic to cover. --Volcanopele 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a hydrology section and toned down the 'press release factor', needs fleshing out into a Hydrology of Mars article some time in the future :) sbandrews 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice work but that last paragraph still sounds rather "press releasy". I wish I knew more about this to edit it myself, but it should first introduce the concept of Martian gullies and what they tell us about the state of water in the Martian near-sub-surface. It can then mention the relatively youthful appearance of the features (few impact craters observed superimposed on the gully aprons for example. THEN, mention that a few gullies may have formed in the last few years, as observed by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. Cut out the date of the announcement, it isn't necessary. --Volcanopele 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • ready for inspection :) sbandrews 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sweet! I've edited it a little bit, but I think this section is much better. Changed my vote to support. --Volcanopele 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "Other: This article also draws on the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles in various other languages" - Using other language Wikipedias as a source isn't verifiable, although if those are properly referenced you can simply add the references here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed - will remove that, it was a hangover from a long time ago.. sbandrews 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — The reference "Peplow, Mark. How Mars got its rust. Retrieved on 2006-04-18" requires a subscription to read. I think a more public reference should be used in its place. References 14, 34, 59, 61, 65 and 68 are missing the date, which are available from the web sites. 22, 59 and 60 are missing the author's name. 72 is missing a year. 17 is from the web site of an acknowledged psychic—how reliable is it? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We Martians have advanced far beyond your primitive earth concept of "sources", :D - fixed sbandrews 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• This article would be improved by the inclusion, with the Keplerian orbital elements, of one or more moments of time for which Mars was at the perihelion of its orbit. (Jerry Abbott)
  • I think they are in the viewing Mars section. Also there is an 'Aspects of Mars' article linked from there - which incidently was flagged for deletion recently as being unencyclopedic - but I rescued it - see its talk page. As for the Keplerian orbital elements I'll take a look.. sbandrews 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - article now qualifies in terms of prose (as well as other criteria).cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as good as the previous FA planet article, Jupiter. And why it is still in the "Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing factual verification"? igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I had an issue with citation #18 that wasn't addressed in a previous comment. The Ellie Crystal's Metaphysical and Science Website belongs to a supposed "Psychic", which raised alarm bells in my head. So I slapped on a {{Verify credibility}} template. I'd prefer that the citation be backed up with another, more-solid reference. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed :) sbandrews (t) 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Big Brother (TV series) Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kernel (computer science)

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:46, 23 September 2008 .

Virus

Nominator(s): Graham Colm

previous FAC

Nomination - A huge subject and a large article. I have been working on this on and off since the last FAC was archived nearly a year ago. It is a technical and often difficult subject and with this in mind, I wrote Introduction to viruses which was promoted to FA earlier this year. Viruses occupy a world unfamiliar to most of us; the sub-microscopic, and they are best described in the language of molecular biology—the language of DNA, RNA and proteins. I am mindful that this language may render the article difficult for some readers, but I hope that the introductory article will help them break this barrier. My on-going project is to improve the coverage of viruses and virology on Misplaced Pages and clearly this article is the keystone. I have used the PubMed database, and four textbooks as sources for the article, three well-established and one that is a newcomer. The images were either created by me or have been taken from Commons. I cannot see any licensing issues. As always, I thank all the other editors who have contributed to this and whose names can be found in the article history but stress that any remaining errors are probably all my own work. Graham Colm 12:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I read this prior to nomination, although I am not a contributor apart from a few minor copy edits. It has undergone further refinements since then, and I believe it is now a highly readable article given the complexity of its subject matter. Assuming no major problems being unearthed by others, I am happy to support this. jimfbleak (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Response Thanks for your pre-FAC comments and support. Graham Colm 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support—I think it is FA-worthy and can only improve during the FAC. Comment—A good article on the topic, but I have a few suggestions and concerns:

• Suggestions:

  • There are many brief, single-paragraph sections which give it a cluttered appearance. (See the second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Layout#Headings_and_paragraphs.) Could some of these be merged so as to shorten the ToC?
  • It seems like HIV is used a number of times as a sole example. Perhaps a broader mix of examples would be beneficial where that occurs?
  • Perhaps "Lifeform question" belongs in the same discussion (as a subsection?) as "Origins"?
  • Do the "Bacteriophages", "Viruses of Archaea" and "Viruses of plants" belong as subsections of a common section? Perhaps on specialization?
  • "Laboratory diagnosis" seems out of place. Doesn't it belong with "Prevention and treatment"?

  Concerns:

  • "When diagnosing Hepatitis B virus infections, it is important to distinguish between acute and chronic infections." Why is this? How is this relevant to the subject matter? It is unclear to me.
  • The first paragraph of "Epidemics and pandemics" seems polemic as it doesn't bother to explain the section title and it is not clear how it relates to viruses. Can this be explained better in the context of the example? Was it an epidemic or a pandemic? Perhaps the section needs an explanatory paragraph first?
  • Why does "Epidemiology" only cover the transmission aspects? If it is also about control, why isn't that covered? Perhaps it should have a different name?
  • The first paragraph of "Life sciences and medicine" is unsourced, and I'm not sure about the second as the ref. is very specialized.
  • In the reference containing "The British, the Indians, and smallpox", could the format of all the entries be brought in line with the other citations (including links)?

I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses from Graham Colm

• Bob, thanks for your very helpful edits, and for these suggestions and comments. I have made these changes to the article based on your review.. I don't think I have overused HIV as an example but I have made good use of it because it's the one virus most people know something about. With regard to the non-animal viruses in one section, I'd rather not. As they stand they can be partially linked to from other articles without having to be fully linked to Virus. Thanks for an useful review; it has kept me busy this morning. Graham Colm 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry: The article is quite homo-centric, is an Influenza "Infection in other animals" type section not appropriate on this page as well? 69.196.145.66 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Response- I agree with you and thank you for this valid comment. Viruses are a very important cause of diseases in other animals. Canine parvovirus and Foot and mouth disease for examples. A section about viral infections of other animals is missing. I will write one. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham Colm 20:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments / borderline object for now minor object for now This is one of Wikipeida 1.0's 150 Core topics, so this article has to be extra exemplary. Certainly up-to Good Article standards but I'm not sure if it is A-class yet content- or organization-wise (I'm not commenting on MoS or minor grammar FA requirements):

• • Lead section: Pretty good; covers the major aspects and is a highly readable to non-specialists. But some inline cites may be needed (figures and facts likely to be disputed need cites). Some short mention of discovery history may be in order, but size of lead is already on the long side, so some reorg/trimming may be needed.
  • History section: May need more. I'd like to see multiple sub-sections on the history of discovery and major advances. As is, the section reads more like a lead section to an unwritten History of... article.
  • Origins section: Good start,but I'd like to see each point expanded on with an evolutionary bent. Any good microbiology textbook should have enough material to use to expand this section. ed: (see below)
  • Structure section: Very good start, but as noted above, is too sub-sectioned. Consider combining similar sections thematically. Then make sure that the newly adjacent paras flow one to the other.
• Also, the sections about viruses that attack bacteria, plants, animals should be discussed under a single section. Some compare and contrast may be in order to introduce the subsections (perhaps discuss the common modes of infection/integration). A clearer organization may be needed; I'd like to see the ==Replication== section expanded to cleanly go through the whole "life cyle" of typical viruses (with some explanation on how animal- vs plant- vs bacterial-infecting viruses differ), from infection, replication, host defense, and re-infection (how do viruses find other hosts?). As a matter of fact, maybe my thoughts in the last two sentences should be combined to reduce repetition. That should be enough for now. --mav (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses from Graham Colm Daniel, thank you for this helpful review. I have incorporated most of your recommendations. I haven't changed the Replication section much because there is little difference between plant and animal viruses in this respect. The bacterophages should have their own diagram really, but this would be too much to put in a general article on viruses and it would be better to improve Bacteriophage. There is not much more I can say about the origins of viruses. All we have is the two or three half-baked theories. I bought yet another book on virology yesterday, (the Dimmock one),but this has been of little help in this respect. In fact it has less to say.I I could expand this section a little but it would get dangerously close to original research. I have tidied the section on structure and added a new diagram. I took on board you concerns about the flow of the prose and merged a few short sections; it's not perfect but it is much better. Oh, and I added some in-line citations to the Lead. Thanks again for your valuable comments. Graham. Graham Colm 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great work so far. But as I note, this is a core article so more work is needed ; but you are certainly on track. I struck some items but left others; I'll have to dust off my biology textbooks to provide more feedback. I know from experience how hard it is to bring vital articles to FA; I can't imagine how hard it would be to bring a core topic to FA. Kudos to you and all the other authors of this article! --mav (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• My microbiology textbooks must still be in storage so I can't look at them (I should buy new ones anyway).
  1. But Campbell's Biology (1996) p. 335 does have a section on evolution of viruses. Sadly, it looks more impressive before one reads it; mostly fluff and it only explains the cellular origin theory. Two interesting bits of info there but not at virus#Origins are a mention of transposons ("jumping genes") as a possible precursor of viruses (along with plasmids) and a plausible-sounding piece of evidence backing-up the theory; that "... a viral genome usually has more in common with the host cell's genome than with the genomes of viruses infecting other hosts." That, along with a sentence or two explaining how plasmids work and are similar to viruses are the type of thing I'm talking about.
  2. Also, I'm a bit surprised that there is no mention of prions or viroids. I'd expect an article on viruses to mention them and have a para or two (I'm not asking for much) that quickly introduces them and explains the most important differences with viruses. The Origins section is probably the best place for that info.
  3. One last thing for tonight: Please quickly explain jargon (linking alone is not enough). For example, "Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis." means next to nothing to somebody not already familiar with biological concepts. Context is needed in the form of an additional phrase or sentence in this article to prevent the reader from loosing interest or breaking the flow of reading by having to click on that link to find out what lysis is and how that relates to the sentence she just read. A better sentence would be "Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis; a process that kills the cell by bursting its membrane." The next sentence is a bit better; "Enveloped viruses (e.g., HIV) typically are released from the host cell by budding." b/c 'enveloped viruses' are explained in a previous section (by that name even) and 'budding' is at least a word also used in a similar context colloquially. But a follow-up sentence would be good to have. Unfortunately, that sentence is rather info-dense and has some more unexplained and, IMO, unnecessary jargon; "During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contains embedded viral glycoproteins." Yikes! This is the first time 'phospholipid' and 'glycoprotein' are mentioned in the article. The sentence really needs to be broken in two and I see no need to even mention phospholipid in this section (that can be done in the section on envelopes): "During this less-fatal process, the virus acquires its envelope by 'stealing' part of the host's cellular membrane. Glycoproteins – proteins that are combined with polymers of carbohydrates – are added to the developing envelope during budding." That is from memory, so the facts may be a bit off, but I hope you get the idea. These are just a couple examples; please look for and fix others.
• I know that Introduction to viruses exists, but all we need at virus to make it more accessible and readable is to add a few extra words here and there to provide enough context and info to explain the extra jargon. Assume intelligence and a desire to learn in readers, but also assume they have no specialized knowledge of the subject area already. --mav (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support For such a complex subject, this is very readable. Well done. One missing small sub-section is Immunoglobulin for prevention of infection within the "Prevention and treatment" section. Do you need the "See also: virology " -- it is linked in the lead? Colin° 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support Colin, I will added a cited sentence or two about passive immunotherapy, although it is used, (in the UK), mainly for Varicella infections during pregnancy. I will delete the See Also to virology. Graham Colm 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This article should be species-neutral. Although viruses are an important topic in medicine and human disease, they are also important in science in relation to other species. Relating to other animal species, they are important in zoology, veterinary science, and genetics (transfection techniques). They are important also in other types of organism (in plants, relating to agriculture and botany; in bacteria, relating to biomedical science). For this reason, I fail to see why the main virus article should be so human-centered. My suggestion is that the article virus describe viruses in a species-neutral fashion (retaining most of the content of the current article) and human-related content should be moved to a human virus article. In the main virus article, a section would deal with viruses relating to different types of organism (each in subsections): animal (with a "Human" subsection), plant, bacterial, fungus, protist). --Oldak Quill 18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• • (If I may) I have to say I disagree. It is only really the disease section that is human specific and the relative importance of that compared to the "in other species" section is appropriate weight for an encyclopaedia read by humans. Colin° 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While the section on virus-caused disease is perhaps a bit on the long side, I don't agree that the article on the whole is overly human-specific. Once that section gets much longer, then it should be spun into a daughter article and a good-sized summary left here; this is the natural growth cycle of larger articles. But we are not there yet. I would like to see the 'Infection in other species' section expanded though. So while I do see a valid oppose here, I don't agree that the article must be strictly species neutral. Some work is needed in this regard, but not to a major extent. --mav (talk)
    • As a way to balance this you could add some plant examples to the text. For example in the Penetration section of the "Replication cycle" section you could mention that plant viruses can spread through plasmodesmata. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Tim, I've made a note of this. I will incorporate this later. I can't face any more editing today. :( Graham. Graham Colm 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I've added this myself, also expanded the bacteria section (did you know there are up to 3x10 bacteriophages/ml in seawater). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Response from Graham Colm Viruses of species other than humans are described in the article. The disease section does concentrate on infections of humans and bearing in mind WP:Weight, I have gone into more detail in this section because this is what most readers will be interested in. Graham Colm 18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Taking account these responses and WP:Weight, I still oppose the article in its current form. Even writing an article with human readers and importance to humans in mind, the article gives undue weight to viruses in humans. The term "virus" is not specific to humans and should be defined as broadly. In terms of the disease section, it is misleading to imply that only humans are affected by virus-caused disease. Virus-caused disease in non-human species is important to humans also. Agriculture is an example that comes to mind (crop yield and livestock). I think the "Disease" (treating humans) and "Other species" (treating non-human species) sections could be merged, with human disease as a shorter subsection of "Viruses in animals". A separate article on "human viruses" could be branched off and would serve those looking for information relating only to humans. As the article stands, it uncomfortably treats the general characteristics of viruses (as they affect all species) and the characteristics of human-specific viruses together and without clear demarcation. This is particularly noticable in the "Viruses and disease" section where humans are solely dealt with and little suggestion that viruses cause disease in all types of organism is given. --Oldak Quill 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• ...and I see that you have changed the heading to Viruses and human disease. This is a good idea. Thanks for this. Graham Colm 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

*I strongly contest this opposition. The article gives a broad definition of viruses. The first viruses mentioned are those that infect plants. The historical section describes the early research on bacteriophages; the viruses of bacteria. The sections on classification, structure and replication pertain to all viruses of all species. There is a good section on viruses of non-human hosts; other animals, plants, bacteria, and archaea. I agreed to the renaming of the viruses and disease section: this was a good idea. The links are sufficient to aid the readers' finding articles on viruses of non-human hosts. This is an entry in an excellent and respected encyclopedia; written in summary style. Graham Colm 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my opposition. The sections which emphasize humans are more clear that they emphasize humans in particular, and other species are reasonably dealt with in other sections. Thank you for your work on this. My concern that a separate article should focus on viruses which affect humans is unrelated to this featured article candidacy. I do think that this article should be more species-neutral, but that is an opinion tempered by the the quality of the article and by the consensus that the current article reasonably balances human-specific and more general information. --Oldak Quill 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment — This is a pretty good article. I nevertheless have spotted an issue that should be fixed: in the lead, it is said that "Plant viruses are often transmitted from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, which are known as vectors." As I understand it, the use of the word "vector" is not limited to plant virii, as the sentence there implies. This sentence, and/or perhaps those immediately following it, could clearly use some rephrasing. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Response - from Graham Colm Thanks for the praise; it is much appreciated. With regard to your concern about vectors, I don't think the article gives the impression that this term is solely used in the context viral transmission. I could change the "are called" to just "are", but it's linked to a good definition which clearly defines their role in infectious diseases. Graham Colm 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 22 has no publisher or last access date (ICTV list of virus ..)
• Current ref 67 (ICTV Master Species list) has no publisher or last access date

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Response - Thanks Ealdgyth, I have fixed these. Graham Colm 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support—Generally well-written; haven't looked at anything but 1a.

• "Electron M/micrograph"—inconsistent, and the M unnecessary. Is "H/herpes" necessary as H? Tony (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Response —Thanks Tony. I've audited for Herpes: if it's the name of the virus, as in Herpes simplex virus it's upper-case; when it means the disease herpes, it's lower. I think I've got them right. Graham Colm 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Status - from Graham Colm 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I have edited and expanded the article in light of the helpful reviews above. Two of Mav's comments remain unresolved. The difficult one is the Origins section. I cannot give the detail that Mav has suggested—it doesn't exist really. I think if I made an attempt to expand this section further I would be in danger of breaching WP:OR. I experimented with subsections of the History but reverted them; they didn't work. I have broken up the text with two images instead. In contrast, joing-up the Structure section, (as suggested), made it too complicated; I prefer to have smaller digestible sub-sections here. In short, I think all the major issues have been addressed. Graham Colm 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my responses above. A bit more can be added, me thinks, w/o going into OR. Specifically, more context to explain jargon. History is now fine. I'll have to look at the Structure section closely to see what can be done, if anything. --mav (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Response - I have made these changes . I have elaborated the discussion on Origins and described how viroids, transposons and prions support the theories without, I hope, introducing any of my own ideas. I am constantly tweaking the text to clarify jargon but it's often hard for an expert to spot. I have been speaking this crazy language all my adult life ;-) Thanks again for your comments; they have helped to improve the article, so it has been a pleasurable challenge for me. Graham Colm 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great work! I struck-out some more completed items from my comments. I'll have to re-read the whole article and its Encarta and Britannica counterparts a few times before I can consider striking my now minor objection through. Perfection is not needed, but a core topic FA really needs to shine well above our competition. If needed, we can reboot this FAC if it becomes inconclusive. But I'm certain we will get to FA so long as you keep up your excellent work! --mav (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Rotavirus Reconstruction.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (in the case of self-made images, which this presumably is, that just means an explicit assertion of authorship; Image:Hexon.png, also used in this article, is a good example.)
    • Yes this is one of mine and I have tagged it as such. Graham Colm
  • Image:Martinus Willem Beijerinck 1.jpg - source does not provide a date or author. How can we corroborate the copyright tag?
    • We can't it will have to go. Graham Colm

• • • • It can't go on commons, but low-resolution images of famous historical figures are perfectly acceptable under the Misplaced Pages fair-use policy. We can use a local version of this image instead. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Note: I have written to Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands, where the Beijerinck Collection is housed and asked if they could release a free image to the project. Graham Colm 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Rosalind Franklin.jpg - the image's source page does not assert federal authorship; what is the basis for that claim? The {{PD-USGov-NIH}} template (also used on this image) explicitly warns that "NIH frequently uses commercial images which are not public domain" and requires verification of federal authorship.
    • This one will have to go. Graham Colm
      • We can use a local version of this image instead. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Tobacco mosaic virus structure.png - needs a verifiable source
    • ..and this one. Graham Colm
      • I left a message for the uploader on the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Meantime, I have drawn a new one. Graham Colm 17:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Info added to image. But I think Graham's image is better than mine now. See comments in commons for detail. --Y tambe (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Icosahedral Adenoviruses.jpg - appears to be a derivative (combination of "two adenoviruses" and a "cartoon"); are both the background adenoviruses and the cartoon original creations by the stated author, or did the stated author merely combine existing images?
    • They are both mine, I took the original electron micrograph and drew the icosahedron in PowerPoint and combined them using Paint Shop Pro. I have tagged the image to this effect.
  • Image:Influenza geneticshift.jpg - needs a verifiable source
    • I can't help with this one, I took it from Influenza. Presumably if it has to go from here, it has to go from there too. Graham Colm
      • Tim Vickers sent an email per below. Эlcobbola _talk 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Info added to image. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Phage.jpg - needs a verifiable source
    • This is one of mine and I have tagged it as such. Graham Colm 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • This was uploaded and released under the GNU license by the author. Unless you have reason to doubt their statement of authorship (and they have produced a lot of other illustrations) there is no reason not to accept this. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • GrahamColm fixed it. Please read comments critically; I didn't say anything about its acceptability, I said it did not indicate a source. Эlcobbola _talk 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Gene therapy.jpg - needs a verifiable source (a hitherto deleted en.wiki image is not acceptable; how can we verify this is the work of the NIH?)

Эlcobbola _talk 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • This one will have to go. Graham Colm
      • Source is NLM, verified. I'll add this to the image on Commons. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Response - Thanks for the audit, I will delete the dodgey images and I have tagged my own with an explicit assertion of authorship. Can you or someone confirm the status of the image I borrowed from Influenza? Graham Colm 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've e-mailed the author/uploader, hopefully they'll add the appropriate tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Do you think Virophage are too new to be added? Satellite viruses have been known for a while though. Perhaps a section on virus/virus infections in the "other organisms" section? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

We have mentioned satellites, (the delta agent), would it help? I not sure, it might confuse. Graham Colm 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think you're right. The viroids section covers this adequately. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Status - as I see it. Sources and image issues have been resolved. All of Mav's concerns have been addressed, except a concern with some of the jargon. Consensus has been reached with regard to the opposition based on the length of the human disease section compared to diseases in other hosts. There are no issues with the general prose. The was only a minor objection to comprehensiveness, but this was quickly withdrawn. At least one other expert editor has read through the article. With regard to the percieved problem with jargon, I and others are constantly working on this. As Mav said, "perfection is not needed, but a core topic FA really needs to shine well above our competition" — I think Virus does. Graham Colm 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I changed my 'object for now' to a 'minor object for now'. I won't know for sure if virus beats EC and Encarta versions until I thoroughly go over each. But so far, I'm leaning in your direction. --mav (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• ....and I have drawn two new and free-of-charge pretty pictures. Graham. Graham Colm 21:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow - I just realized that you created many of the wonderful images in this article. Those look as good as what I've seen in textbooks. Great work! --mav (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: "The production of interferon is an important host defense mechanism" this needs to be integrated better, preferably near the dsRNA mention. "Viruses are an established cause of malignancy in humans and other species" malignancy is an unnecessarily difficult word. And why the scare quotes around neurotropic viruses? Narayanese (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for spotting these. I have removed the quotation marks, expanded the sentence about interferon and moved it. I have explained malignancy by adding cancer. Graham Colm 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Status:- as I see it on day eight: The article's candidature is well-supported apart from Mav's minor, borderline objection, which will be resolved, one way or the other, after he has checked-out Misplaced Pages's competitors, (are there any :-)? I was very pleased to see that an expert on RNA interference, and an editor of virus, has commented on the article. I am particularly pleased that a consensus has been reached about the emphasis placed on human infections. Graham Colm 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - I have had a reply from Dr L. A. Robertson, Custodian of the Beijerinck Archive in Delft, and she is sending me a copyright-free photograph of Beijerinck to included in the article. I am very grateful to her. Graham Colm 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, please review the two dab links identified in the dabfinder (and reviewers should be checking for that, not me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Atmospheric reentry Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup

Selena

Archive1

Re self-nom This article barely failed it's FAC the first time around, and I'm trying again. Since it failed it went though a copyedit, and reached GA status. I would be around for any concerns you may have. Thanks Secret 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very accurate article; many wikipedians (especially latino music fans) would find the article interesting and relevant; well cited and organized; front page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support My only comments are, with all that stuff about her father steering her career and controlling her love life, I wondered if the sources had anything to say as to whether he was a domineering personality, sometimes to Selena's dismay. Also, a couple paragraphs starting with "Selena released her next album..." seemed a little tedious/repetative to me, although I couldn't think of a way to reword them without making them passive sentences. About.com is referenced, although given that website copies a lot from Misplaced Pages itself, I wouldn't think of it as the greatest source. Other than that, good job. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would object based on the sources, but they can probably be fixed. Very good start, worthy of consideration. The first thing I look at is references, and they cause a problem for me. I should not have to click on a link to see what the reference is. Can you please convert them to a bibliographic style, and use a consistent style? For example, your first reference should be (depending on what reference style you choose) something like, Mitchell, Rick. "Selena". Houston Chronicle, 05/21/95 (with the link to the article as "Selena"). The idea is, if the Chronicle takes down the link, I should still be able to find the article. The problem is created by the use of cite web, when you are really citing a newspaper. I can't tell if most of your references are news media primary sources, or websites put up by fans. I have to click on each one to evaluate their reliability, and would prefer to see what kinds of sources you used without having to click on each one. For example, when I click on the reference for Selena and Coca-cola, I find what appears to be a fan website, which is not a reliable source. If Selena was a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, there must be a reliable source mention of it somewhere. The mention (above) of about.com as a source is a concern, as every article I've ever encountered on about.com had accuracy problems. I'll take another look if you'll improve the references. Sandy 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ok I replaced the Coke ref with a The Handbook of Texas ref, I don't know how to convert them to a bibliographic style though, do you still leave the link, also I didn't see any refs from about.com. Finding credible refs online is very hard and I'm trying my best to look. Thanks Jaranda 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want, I can do a couple for you as a sample. Let me know. I do them manually because I *really* dislike citeweb (it doesn't work well for medical articles), so let me know if you want me to tackle them. I'm sorry to have parroted the comment from above regarding about.com, if there is no about.com reference. Hmmm??? Sandy 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Working my way through the references, mystery solved. I think the editor above meant answers.com rather than about.com. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, so is circular reasoning as a source. Sandy 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the discography section could benefit from a table, similar to the one in the Alison Krauss article. Cheers, --darkliight 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• That's something I don't know how do to, several music FAs don't have them though like Celine Dion. Thanks Jaranda 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be a simple matter of copying from Alison Krauss' article and changing the text accordingly. See:

CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jaranda 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I placed it but the table came out too big I think. Thanks Jaranda 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required.

• • "Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple,..."—Spot the redundant word.
  • "four number one Spanish hits"—hyphen required.
  • The link As of June 2006 takes me to stuff about the German intelligence agency, Iran, and Cape Town. Delink it.
  • "The family soon went bankrupt, and they were evicted from their home." Spot the redundant word.
  • "Taking all their musical equipment and an old bus,..."—"In" would be better than "and".
  • "There they performed whenever they could; at street corners, weddings, quinceañeras, and fairs." No, the semicolon should be a ... (you tell me). Tony 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok fixed all, mostly edits a annon user made not long ago, I don't know how to use an hyphen well so I might have done it wrong thanks Jaranda 00:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The examples were evidence that the whole text needs editing. Can you network on WP to find people who are relatively unfamiliar with the text to improve it? Tony 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to look at the text, but after the article is thoroughly referenced. For now, there are still three personal or fan websites as references, so I have to object based on prose and referencing. Sandy 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Objection removed, article is referenced and prose has been addressed. Sandy 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it all. Thanks Jaranda 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Struck references above as completed: all of the references are now to reliable sources, but you should check that every statement in the article is referenced before we work on the copyedit. Sandy 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking a second look, there are still numerous statements that aren't referenced. A few examples from early on in the article (I didn't go through the entire article):

She continued her education on the road; at age seventeen she earned a high school diploma from The American School of Correspondence in Chicago and was accepted at Louisiana State University.

They initially performed at the Quintanilla family's restaurant, "Papagallos," but the restaurant failed shortly afterwards.

I also saw this in the lead, so wonder about the copy edit that was done: her 1994 album Amor Prohibido produced four number one Spanish' hits. Sandy 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Alot of the info comes from the same refs, might be a bit of an overkill. As for the sentence, that was when I tried to fix Tony1 objection, but as I really never used an hyphen before. Jaranda 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• I ref the family resturant one, but I don't agree with every sentence has to have a ref part, as it's not a contverisal article, and would be an overkill to add the same refs, people just can read the refs. Thabks Jaranda 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for your work, Jaranda, but there's still the need to engage collaborators in the task. Here are examples why, which are from the first part I inspected this time, at random—the opening of the "Legacy" section.
  • "In fact, the Guinness Book of World Records, in 2003 (she had previously graced the book's pages as the "most dominating artist"),..."—Stop-start structure; remove "In fact" to start with, since it adds nothing; perhaps replace it with "In 2003,".
  • "López was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best Actress."—Do you mean for her role in that film?
  • "Over 12,000 people tried out for a role in the film. This film stirred some controversy in the Mexican-American community since López is Puerto Rican and was playing the role of a singer who was of Mexican descent." To qualify as "compelling, even brilliant" prose, it might be something like this: "More than 12,000 people auditioned for a role in Selena. The film stirred controversy in the Mexican-American community, since López is Puerto Rican and played the role of a singer of Mexican descent." And just why that community was upset is not quite clear.

Someone unfamiliar with the text needs to sift through it to make it really good. Nothing less is sufficient. Tony 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok User:Hoopydink did a decent copyedit, even though I had to revert like half of it, but most was useful. Thanks Jaranda 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'd go through the text in order to help, but I think it's still rather incomplete and not quite ready for a thorough going over. Jaranda, I know the woman is idolized, but is there *no* criticism of her anywhere? With bios such as hers, you have to carefully watch that the article doesn't veer into POV fan worship. A little more content addition, and I'll help with the copy edit. Sandy 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a major problem, all the sites I went to has no crticism of her, maybe some older newspapers and magazines have them but they are not in the web, also her career was cut short by the murder before she managed to reach the U.S english market, limiting the critism there. I would look but it will be hard to find. Jaranda 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing that I can't find that is not blogs etc Jaranda 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ok I really need some help in getting older newspapers and magazines. I just removed an unsourced paragraph. Finding this stuff is hard to find in the internet that is not a fan site, as they don't really archive it and when they do, you have to pay like the New York Times articles, or like Billboard which clears it's articles after 3 months :(. Jaranda 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose she sucks, talentless, not notable we already got FAs on crappy singers, we don't need no more 205.188.116.202 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Striking out obvious bad faith vote Jaranda 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Best not to strike out bad-faith comment, but to append a rejoinder to it. Tony 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think in the above one, I think it could be safely to cross it out.
• Support once Tony's objections are met. Overall, there are tiny fixes that should be made, but I pointed these out to Jaranda already. Mostly, I asked him to get page numbers for the book references, like the Guiness world record reference. I like the article, good job. User:Zscout370 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? What book references, and what Guiness reference? Sandy 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the paragraph, I can't find it in a non-fan site any where, maybe if someone has a 1999 or 2003 Guiness Book of World Records laying around. Jaranda 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I went to the main libary in Downtown Miami to look for more refrences, and I couldn't find anything. Thanks Jaranda 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. I've been asked to copyedit the article a bit, so for now I'm going to stay neutral (I'll change my vote later). Right off the bat, however, a citation could be used for the sentence in the lead "She took the award for Female Vocalist of the Year in 1987 at the Tejano Music Awards which helped land her a recording contract with EMI." Not a citation that she won, but a citation that the award was a factor in her contract. If there isn't a citation for the connection both pieces of information still warrant inclusion, but as seperate sentences. Staxringold _talk 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ok I reworded the sentence. Thanks Jaranda 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support now. I agree with Tony, the article has undergone wonderful changes. Staxringold _talk 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The prose is much, much better. Well done; objection removed. Tony 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Four out of five citations checked as part of a citation spot check came up problematic, to varying degrees (results here). Please go through all the citations and make sure that the sources cited contain information directly supporting the statements in the article. --Robth 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ok fixed Jaranda 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear: I'm waiting for confirmation that all the citations, and not just the ones I checked, have been checked and fixed as necessary before I withdraw my objection. --Robth 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Confirmation received on my talk page. Objection withdrawn. --Robth 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I really want this closed soon, I already fixed all the objections and they are crossed out and I'm personally burning out over this fac and a few other reasons. Jaranda 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jaranda is going to take a Wikibreak, so I will watch over this FAC for him. Any concerns should be brought up to me, please. While I need a little bit to catch up on any issues, I will try and get back with yall ASAP. User:Zscout370 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comment on my object: It is better than it was, but if it's going to be promoted, I shouldn't be able to easily find things like this stubby little paragraph with imperfections:

"In October of 1995 a Houston jury convicted Saldívar of first degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in thirty years."—See WP:MOS about the "of" before a year. Comma after "1995" might be nice. AmEng goes easy on hyphens, but US editors would still insist on a hyphenated "first-degree" here.

And the next sentence I saw was:

"Meanwhile, "I Could Fall In Love," while ineligible for the Hot 100 at the time due to it not being released as a commercial single, did reach #12 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart and the top 10 on the Adult Contemporary Chart. To date, "Dreaming of You" has sold approximately four million copies in the USA." Meanwhile ... while. "Due to it not being released is awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. What is the earthly point of writing "to date"? How will our readers know when you're referring to? Just remove it and update when necessary.

And:

"People magazine published a commemorative issue in Selena's honor, this being only the third occasion on which People had released such an issue."—The same grammatical issue, in the second clause. Tiresome repetition ("People" and "issue"). Reword the whole sentence.

And:

"Stern's comments, predictably, outraged the Hispanic community"—Remove "predictably" as POV (if it's not POV, it's unnecessary).

I'm not yet satisfied that this is FA-standard prose. I want to be able to pick out a few sentences without finding these types of problems. Tony 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those above examples were fixed, and fixed a little bit in the last section. User:Zscout370 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I provided the examples at random to show that the entire text needs a final, good run-through if it's to be promoted. Just fixing the examples is not the point. Can you ask someone new to look at it? Do you have a list of good copy-editors? (I do, but I keep it to myself.) Tony 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, what I will do is try and place a tag for copyeditors to come and look at it. After doing a bunch of FAC's, you know that copyediting is not my strongest point, and about 9 times out of 10, I get someone else to do it for me. I'll see what I can do myself, too. User:Zscout370 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, but you know what they're like (rather passive); try active networking with a few—flatter, engage, then ask.Tony 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And since grammar is pretty much the only sticking issue with this FAC, at least we should get this down right. User:Zscout370 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Some copyediting was done by Reimelt recently, the others sections looked fully copyedited to me and is ok. Thanks Jaranda 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Esther (1961)

Self-nomination. I've done quite a bit of work bringing this article back from the dead, and with help, it's gone from start-class to A-class despite not having a lot of information to work with. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up for FAC, which definitely has to count for something. :D Any comments? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) Support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this article is quite short for a featured article. I'm not sure how comprehensive a 15 kB article can be (knowing nothing about hurricanes, I can't suggest much), is there nothing else that could be included? I think you could probably expand most sections (a couple are just a few sentences long). You could add sections detailing aftermath and recovery - did every community recover from the economic and cultural damage done by the hurricane? How did the (inter-)national news cover the story? Have any works of fiction (film, literature, &c.) mentioned/used the hurricane? How did the authorities handle the situation and what did politicians say? --Oldak Quill 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there was little in the way of aftermath. The hurricane did little in terms of impact. What's in the article has about all of the existing information of the hurricane from the Internet. It might be a little short, but it is comprehensive about the topic. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, you have to consider that the storm occured four and a half decades ago, so there isn't as much information about the storm available as for modern storms. Titoxd 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - article is well organized and cited but it is too short and lacking; if it is expanded, it defintely should be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoOdCoNtEnT (talk • contribs)
• Support There isn't a minimum length requirement for featured articles is there? I thought the article seemed very comprehensive for a storm that occurred 45 years ago. --Nebular110 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive. Sections like "Impact" seem underdeveloped. If there isn't any information on the internet, then try and read some books instead. --Maitch 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This objection is too vague to be actionable - what exactly is missing? Raul654 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object This is a "sentence" in the lead: The first, on Nantucket Island, as a rapidly weakening Category 3 hurricane, and the other, in Maine, as it was losing its tropical characteristics. Please identify the subject and predicate: maybe it's just me :-) Sandy 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just fixed that. :) --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I just came by for a second look, saw this: The depression moved northwestward into a region were conditions for development were favorable and began to rapidly intensify, becoming Tropical Storm Esther the next day. Sandy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Also fixed. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Another look today: Hurricane Esther was also one of the first targets of a Navy experiment in modifying or weakening hurricanes by seeding them. On September 16, a Navy plane flew into the eye of Esther about 400 miles (645 km) northeast of Puerto Rico, and began to drop silver iodide crystals into the storm. Is the "also" necessary? Is the "began to" necessary? They both seem redundant. I also saw a very short section (Lack of retirement): does it need a separate section? I hope the text can get a thorough copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the text. Sandy 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support It is very detailed and it covers most hurricane topics (history,preperation,impact and aftermath). It is however not as long as most featured articles or other articles on hurricanes (see Hurricane Ivan. User:wwicki 15 July 2006.
  • It might not be as long as Ivan, which isn't even an FA, but Ivan did a lot more and was more recent. Compare Esther to Irene or John, which are FA's despite not having a very long article. This article covers about everything that Esther did, making it comprehensive despite not being very long. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one can see that that John and Irene are short,recent and detailed. However it is still shorter than the absolute majority of the featured articles.There are no seperate standards for articles about hurricanes to become featured. It says on the featured artcle criteria that the article must be of "appropriate" length. That isn't defined any further. If it isn't defined it is always an option to comparing it and the articles on the other two hurricanes mentioned above to most FA'S which would make them all seem short. I'm just saying we should take this into consideration. You are right about not comparing it to Ivan though. User:wwicki

The below is copied from Irene's FAC, where it was mistakenly placed: —Cuiviénen 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's better-written than most FACs, but still needs a run-through by a copy-editor who has the advantage of unfamiliarity with the text. Here are examples from the top.

• • "Esther spent its lifetime as an offshore storm"—Having just announced that Esther was a storm, here there are three redundant words, not all of them contiguous.
  • "The hurricane caused $6 million (1961 USD, $37.4 million 2005 USD) in damage"—Good to provide the inflationed equivalent, but can it be done more smoothly? What about: "The hurricane caused US$6 million in damage (~ 37.4 million 2005 USD)".
  • "an area with the potential for"—Better as "a potential area for".
  • "Intensification within the tropical storm continued at a quick pace, and Esther reached hurricane strength early on 12 September. Esther then turned westward in response to a high pressure ridge over the central Atlantic. The hurricane continued to intensify rapidly, becoming a major hurricane on 13 September. For the next four days, Esther intensified more slowly". There are three references to intensification here. Can the middle one be removed as assumed in the context? That is, "over the central Atlantic, becoming a major ...".
  • "Another trough pulled Esther northwestward then northward"—Get rid of the two "ward"s?

Tony 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Good points. I'll fix those soon. Titoxd 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This is Irene ;) --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That explains why I couldn't find those sentences... :P Titoxd 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
          • LOL, poor Tito :) --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Would anyone object if I moved the above set of comments up to the Esther nom, where they were clearly meant to be? —Cuiviénen 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Not at all. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Please do. No wonder the edit history on Esther confused me. Sandy 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Done, the only thing I didn't do was to remove the 1961 USD reference, as we do need the years to run the GDP deflator, and it is not always clear if the source we are using for the number is already adjusted for inflation to another year with just a quick glance. What does everyone think? Titoxd 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that references on this were quite good (I had the results of a citation spot check all typed up, but then my power failed and I lost it). So, good work on that. --Robth 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (1999)

Yes, another Hurricane Irene is up for FAC ;) I've worked on this a lot lately, and I just finished. On behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, I think this displays Featured Article status, so I'd like to nominate it. Comments? Support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Good job. --Shane 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through it with a fine comb, and I've fixed everything I could see, which wasn't much. Support. Titoxd 17:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Very nice. There were only two minor things that I found and I fixed both of them. Great job! --Nebular110 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Object Just a tad too many images I think, to be encyclopedic. Think of eliminating those that aren't really, really needed. 63.23.111.36 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones would that be? Titoxd 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Better? The cow one wasn't needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I liked the cow one (it's true). :P íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did too ;) --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - when nominations are made 'on behalf of' a wikiproject, could members of the wikiproject say that they are members when commenting? Worldtraveller 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, ok. Wikiproject members are me, Titoxd, and Icelandic hurricane so far. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Worldtraveller has raised an important point concerning the transparency of this process. Declaring one's membership doesn't for one minute mean that your comments will not be taken as seriously. Tony 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I only laughed because I didn't think it was necessary, no biggie. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just in support of the need for a copy-edit, the version I skimmed had the following lead sentence: "Hurricane Irene was a hurricane that produced moderate damage across southern Florida during the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season." I changed the link, but it made me wonder. -Fsotrain09 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object, will have another look after a copy edit. For example:
  • While moving through the Florida Keys, Irene produced a storm surge of up to (of or up to, pick one, having both is redundant) 2.3 feet (0.7 m) in Key Vaca, while Key West reported a surge of 1.5 feet (0.5 m). The hurricane produced strong winds, peaking at 79 mph (127 km/h) with a gust of 102 mph (164 km/h) at Big Pine Key. The hurricane It also produced heavy rainfall in the Keys, including 12 inches (305 mm) of rain in Key West. The rainfall flooded numerous roads throughout the Keys, prompting officials to close 50 miles (80 km) of U.S. Highway 1. Sandy 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... it wouldn't be a good idea to replace "The hurricane" for "It", as the antecedent of the pronoun would become unclear. I've copyedited the paragraph differently, though, so have a look at it. Titoxd 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I thought I already had. The few issues brought up above have all been remedied. —Cuiviénen 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Federal Bureau of Investigation

Gregorian chant

Self-nominationThis article has been through a major overhaul. The content has been reorganized to give a more comprehensive coverage of the topic. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by several editors, and has gone through a peer review. This is a great demonstration of the advantages to Misplaced Pages not being paper, using both images and sound files to illustrate the essay. Thanks for your consideration! Peirigill 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I'd like to see this promoted, but the prose is not yet good enough. Here are examples.
  • The opening sentence is a long snake that needs splitting. I'd love an en dash for "800–1000"—perhaps "the ninth and tenth centuries" might be safer, or are you sure of those exact boundaries? PS I've learnt a new word: "redaction"—nice.
    • DoneBridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm moving "Catholic Church" per WP:LEAD. The first sentence ought to define the term, and the context of Catholicism is essential to the definition. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "but came to be associated"—are you contradicting the previous statement? If not, use "and" instead.
    • I think this is a valid contradiction of popular belief.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Bridesmill is correct; Gregorian chant didn't arise until a good 200 years after Gregory, but popular lore (both in the middle ages and today) credits Gregory with composing or at least organizing the chant. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Musically, it is organized ..."—I think we've lost sight of what "it" refers to.
    • Does anyone else insist? Unless there is a serious short term memory problem, flows good here to me.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Every use of "it" and "its" in the lede refers to "Gregorian chant." I've reworded the lede slightly to make that more clear.
  • "outside OF"—please no.
    • If you insist

- though I have a bit of a musical problem with that statement...Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I have a bit of a musical problem with your edit here, Bridesmill. The B-flat isn't a "deviation" from the diatonic scale, it's a result of Guido's hexachords. "Deviation" has a negative connotation of "introduced error" that strikes me as incorrect and even POV. Moreover, a very small number of Gregorian chants include E-flats and F-sharps - not enough to dwell on, but enough that your statement "B-flat is the only deviation" is incorrect. If the concern is with the phrase "outside of," a simpler fix is to just say "outside the diatonic scale." Unless you disagree, I'd prefer to use this wording, and revert your edits, Bridesmill. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I had the sense of 'deviation' as 'exception to the rule' rather than 'deviance'. My real problem though it the B flat - my music theory was in 1974 or so, hence I'm quite rusty, but seems to me this would be the case only in key of C; my recollection is that the rule is actually the 6th note rather than specifically B flat. If that's the case, it could read "...hexachords using the diatonic scale and (in solfege notation) Te" ?216.168.114.215 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid your music theory is, in fact, a bit rusty, at least as regards the medieval use. There was no "key of C" during the period when Gregorian chant was being made to conform to the system of modes. The theory involved "hexa"-chords - patterns of six notes - so there was, in fact, neither "ti" nor "te" in Guido's solfège, only ut re mi fa sol la.It was very specifically the B-flat, and no other note, that was allowed. Specifically, the "B" from the the G hexachord was the "hard B," and the "B" from the F hexachord was the "soft B." This latter was drawn as a rounded b, which is the origin of the flat sign. If anything, it was the note beneath the clef marker, not the sixth note, that became linked with the flat. This is why the E-flat was the second "accidental" to be used; there were two "clefs" in common use, one clef where the C was marked and another where the F was marked. The soft-b sign originally placed beneath the C line was eventually stripped of its meaning as a "B," reinterpreted as a flat, and placed on the space beneath the F line to indicate an E-flat. The B-flat was not an "exception to the rule." It was an application of the hexachord pattern (whole tone-whole tone-semitone-whole tone-whole tone, the intervals between ut, re, mi, fa, sol, and la) to the core notes C, F, and G (the Pythagorean tonic, fourth, and fifth of the diatonic scale). But this takes us into territory that isn't germane, and belongs not in the Gregorian chant article but the solfège and music notation articles. The original wording - minus the redundant "of" - is more accurate.Peirigill 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "a vocabulary of particular musical motifs"—Can you clarify "particular"? Either remove it, or disambiguate.
    • I believe this is clarified further down, to do so in lead would make the lead too big, at the same time, the point shouldn't be left out of lead altogether.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Nowhere in the article do I write out these motifs. There are hundreds of them, each consisting of around ten to thirty notes. As the article states, some motifs are used only as incipits, some only as cadences, some only in between. Honestly, I don't believe that writing out the particular musical phrases is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about chant, as opposed to a monograph. Even a representative sample, such as the motifs used for the Iustus ut palma chants, takes several pages in Apel. However, they're not completely absent from the article; a few of these motifs are included in the Tract "De profundis." One cadence motif in particular occurs several times. I could draw the reader's/listener's attention to that more explicitly, if you think it necessary. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "from which the modern five-line staff would develop"—Since you've already located the development of the GC in time, can you specify the century here?
    • Done Bridesmill 16:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Gregorian chant also played an important role in the development of polyphony." "Important"? No, be stronger: "critical" or "crucial".
    • Strong word would be 'nice', but without ref would be hyperbole, reading the article makes it obvious how important it was.Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • How about "fundamental"?That's not hyperbolic... and it's even not a terrible abuse of the musicological meaning of the term. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is the music of the Roman Rite of the Mass, and of the monastic Offices"—"of the" occurs three times.
    • Fixed Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Roman Rite Mass" is problematic; I'm going to change this slightly. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Although it is no longer obligatory, the Catholic Church still officially considers it the music most suitable for worship"—maybe a reference for this? Unsure. And can you go through the whole article to audit the use of "it"; I find the referent unclear sometimes. Here, the first "it" might refer to "the Catholic Church"; although this becomes clearly not the case as you read on, you shouldn't have to be left hanging, even for a few seconds. There are three "its" at the end.
    • One 'it' & ref for Cath.Church opinion done Bridesmill 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you look at the talk page, you'll see that this issue has been raised and addressed.There's a more direct (and less biased) source than the Catholic Encyclopedia cited later in the article.Is it really necessary to cite this in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article, when this exact point is elaborated and given a citation in the main body of the article?Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with Bridesmill's citation for modern notation in the 16th century; per WP:LEAD, the lede isn't supposed to contain information not in the article, and that detail isn't in the article.I'd prefer to move that added phrase about the 16th century down to the section on Medieval and Renaissance music, and use Bridesmill's citation there rather than the lede.Is that acceptable?Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you make a good point, but for me, it seems like the kind of statement that, while true, is immediately called into question and begs for verification. What about a link that just sends you down the page to the appropriate section for more info and your better reference? I was also surprised to find the relevant part ("Vatican II officially allowed worshipers to substitute other music, particularly modern music in the vernacular, in place of Gregorian chant, although it did reaffirm that Gregorian chant was still the official music of the Catholic Church, and the music most suitable for worship.") in the "Texture" section. This doesn't seem appropriate. MarkBuckles 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Good point.I'll relocate it to the history section. Peirigill 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding the use of "it": I'm going through the article, editing the word "it" per your instruction, and I'm finding that this is primarily an issue in the lede.The word occurs hardly at all in the body of the article.I'm revising where I think there's even a slight chance of confusion.In general, I'm not rewriting the impersonal use of "it" in phrases such as "it is believed" or "it is common for" where "it" does not have a specific referent.Please let me know if there are specific cases that you find problematic.Your request for an "audit" is addressed below, in response to your request for better copyediting. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The quote underneath the ogg link starts with quote marks and with a lower-case letter. I'd like the author of this statement in brackets, plus the year, rather than having to hit the reference link for this.
    • Done Bridesmill 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CITE, Misplaced Pages style doesn't prefer one style over the other, but it does require that citation style be consistent throughout the article: "All three are acceptable citation styles for Misplaced Pages. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."With all due respect, Tony, I don't think this particular objection is legitimate.The footnote should stay, and the Harvard reference be removed.Please let me know if this request of mine is unacceptable, and if so, why your instruction overrides WP:CITE.Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Caption for the image: can we have the year or century? Where is "St Henry"? Can you fix the funny angle of the page? (Even my computer will do this.)
    • Done Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
      • I had originally put more information (including the century and nationality) in the caption, but removed it per WP:CAPTION.That information is included in the body of the article, in the Notation section.I'm perfectly happy to put it back in, but the centuries should be spelled out to be consistent with the rest of the article. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough copy-edit; then we'll look at the musical side. Tony 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• The primary copyediting issue that you raised, the use of "it," isn't really an issue in the main body of the article.Prior to Bridesmill's editing, the word "it" occurred only sixteen times in the entire article."Its" occurred five times, and "itself" only once.However, I've cleaned up these cases where corrections seemed merited.If you have other specific copyediting concerns, you would be helping me out a great deal if you could point them out.Having copyedited this article a great deal, I'm less able to identify problems than I would be were I editing someone else's work with a fresh eye.Thanks to you both for your comments! Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx; it's customary not to strike out reviewers' points as you address them. Tony 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Because I'm addressing some of these points, sometimes in opposition to Bridesmill's edits, I'm going to unstrike everything. Peirigill 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comments. Is the performer of the "Alma Redemptoris Mater" a Wikipedian? Nice, but I wonder whether a tiny bit of reverb wouldn't be inappropriate: it's a dry acoustic. I guess it's not mandatory, but there's nothing in the "file info" about the recording—date, recordist, venue, whether it's a private recording.

• Yes, the performer of all the chants is a Wikipedian, namely me working with a broken microphone and recovering from a bout of bronchitis.If someone would like to instruct me how to add reverb using GarageBand, or wants to take it upon themself to add reverb, they're welcome to do so. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then my eyes strayed onto the first para in the first section:

"Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy of the Christian church since its beginnings. The singing of hymns is mentioned in the New Testament, and other ancient witnesses such as Tertullian, Pope Clement I, St. Athanasius, and the abbess Egeria confirm the practice, although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on how music sounded in these first centuries."

Does it change the meaning too much to start with "Unaccompanied singing has been part of the liturgy since the beginnings of the Christian church"? Sorry to be snapping terrier about "it" and "its", but here the pronoun could refer to "unaccompanied singing" or "the Christian church". Of course, after thinking about it for a few milliseconds you realise that it's the latter, but crystal clear prose typically avoids such ambiguities. There's further ambiguity in "although in a poetic or obscure way that sheds little light on ...". Here, "that" could refer to the confirming of the practice by the specified witnesses; it's the way I first comprehended it, only to do a reverse after finishing the sentence (realising that the referent is "a poetic or obscure way"). Have you got a few copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text to collaborate on this job? (Lack of familiarity is an inherent advantage, of course.) Tony 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I spend a few hours making exactly this kind of edit... Unfortunately, that resulted in an edit conflict, so it'll be a little while before I can post all the changes. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Stray, facetious afterthought: Tony, if you object to "outside of," does that mean you eat hors œuvres? Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Certain classes of Gregorian chant have special musical formulae for each mode, allowing one section of the chant to transition smoothly into the next section"—I'm uncertain of the meaning of "special", which is rather broad in meaning. I wonder whether you mean "specific". Or perhaps "particular". Tony 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Technically, we're talking about species of formulae, so "special" is precisely the right word, as opposed to the usual, vaguer meaning of "special."I'll take the surgical solution and just remove "special" altogether, and make the problem go away. Peirigill 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image I can't find where the image is discussed above; Bridesmill has uploaded a straightened-out copy, however to my eye it is not nearly as sharp (can I see some artefacts at the top even in the thumbnail?) Looking at the file sizes it seems to be 85-ish KB vs. 125-ish KB. As it is now I prefer the older image. Mak (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I see what happened - hazards of jpegs - will fix later 2day.Bridesmill 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My preference was for the original, at a large enough size that I could read the music and words clearly enough to sing the chant.Shrinking it made for better page layout, and rotating it made for less awkward composition, but both make it nearly impossible to read the score.I guess the "pretty" outweighs the "musicological" in this case, but it would be nice to have both.Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Peirigill that once the image is restored to its original resolution/filesize it would be nice to make the image large enough to read, making it not simply a pretty picture, but also demonstrate its use as a musical artifact. I have seen instances where images are made larger in the lead in order to increase their encyclopedic and pedagogic value. Mak (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Added a sound file to accompany the lede image, and inserted a slightly larger, cleaner, more aligned copy of the image. Peirigill 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Outside of" and "inside of" have crept into the oral mode, particularly in North America. The preposition is absolutely idle, and professional editors in North America will remove it, solely for that reason; any serious editor will remove redundancies. Same as "she brought along food for the poor". Tony 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • English is a Germanic language, with a rich heritage of compound prepositions.I'm not giving up "in between" regardless of what anyone says.To my ear, "outside of" implies a metaphor ("outside of this group") whereas "outside" implies physical location ("outside the house").Mandating that the only good prose is that which reduces language to its most sparse strikes me as aesthetic as Orwellian Newspeak and as arbitrary as outlawing split infinitives (another fine Germanic linguistic convention) on the grounds that Latin prose didn't allow for it.But you're the one with your name on the style guide, and you're the one with veto power; so be it.I'm not arguing the point - I hope my "hors d'œuvres" comment was understood as a jest; I've already been accused of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN during this FA review, and trust me, I have no desire to repeat that experience - but I don't want you thinking that my position is completely unconsidered. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"In between" is fine in the right context, because it can mean more than "between". I'm unsure that your metaphor argument is substantive; can't "outside" be metaphorical? Sparse, no; plain and elegant, yes. Since you can't split infinitives in other Germanic languages, the concept was specifically English in the first place. It's a long-shot to compare my plea to drop the "of" to the outmoded ban on split infinitives. And thanks for the note about the style guide, but I don't mind being challenged, and my word should count just as much as that of other reviewers. I continue to learn. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Stray afterthought #2... Re: "she brought along," it's not the case that "she brought" and "she brought along" are absolutely identical.Just ask our comrades on the German Misplaced Pages whether "bringen" (to bring) ("sie bringt es," she brings it) and "mitbringen" ("to bring along") ("sie bringt es mit"), she brings it along) are absolutely interchangeable. I'm reminded of an Iowan friend of German blood who would say, "We're going to the store.Come with!"It was a disconcerting phrase, but one that makes sense as German-influenced dialect; "come!" means "get over here!" whereas "come with!" means "join me!"A small but important difference, that implies a personal connection.I don't mean to push this example too far; clearly, in standard English, "she brought along food to the poor" is for all practical purposes equivalent to "she brought food to the poor," and I wouldn't challenge such an edit.But it does seem to me that a trace of that personal connection lingers in the phrase "brings along," which seems to imply that the food was hers to bring, or that she carried it herself.It's not true that the phrases are absolutely equivalent in connotation or even in denotation. Again, I hasten to say, not to challenge your editorial policy.Just food for thought. One thing about being a medievalist is that you start paying attention to the long-lost connections between languages like this.Peirigill 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but only when they're substantive; I'm unsure that your ascription of additional meanings to "along" would strike a chord in others. Tony 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of copyedits of the kind I hope Tony was requesting have been added. Peirigill 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, flows better IMHO; though the "This results in melodies that fall within the diatonic scale, but allow both B-natural and B-flat." in the lead, not sure if its adding anything - the 'Modality' section expands on it in a very clear & understandable fashion, but summarized (as it needs to be) in the lede, to my ears it only confuses - also, it is providing expansion, explanation, or assessment (depending on how you look at it) which is not the place of the lead. Bridesmill 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Phrasing this point has been a thorn for some time (see the talk page).Here's the crux: the lede should mention hexachords, and give a very brief, non-technical description of the word, since hexachords are discussed in detail in the article.The lede should also mention, in some precise but not overly technical language, that Gregorian chants (generally) can be sung using the white notes (including B-natural) and B-flat.In practical terms, that's more important than the hexachords are.The role B-flat and B-natural play in Gregorian tonality comes up in the discussion of modality and of Communions... and it occurs to me that the "soft b" should really be mentioned in the notation section, as well. Now, how to word all of this succinctly in the lede? The B-flat isn't really an accidental.In fact, it's not technically even a B-flat.As you pointed out, Bridesmill, B-flat is a modern term, anachronistic in the context of Gregorian chant, and yet it's the only reasonable way to discuss the note without getting far too technical for the lede.I still prefer my original phrasing, but I tried to incorporate your phrasing into the last edit, and felt I had to split the sentence into two in order to meet Tony's stylistic requirements.I agree that "diatonic - but not really" isn't the best way to say express the situation, but I also think introducing solfège is both overly technical and misleading.Is there a better solution that

• mentions and briefly explains hexachords,
• indicates that Gregorian melodies primarily use the diatonic scale,
• mentions that B-flat is also permitted, and
• makes it clear that the B-flat and B-natural can coexist in the same melody, or at least doesn't imply that one "B" has tonal "priority" over the other?

Peirigill 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Does it really need to mention it any deeper than the brief explain of hexachords, given that as you say (and I agree) the Modality section does a stellar job of explaining how this fits in with our modern understanding? I'm afraid that any more either risks getting too technical for a good lede, or too brief and confusing. You're right about the solfege - that just thows a 3rd monkey into the works.The lengthy version which meets your wishes might be: " Instead of octave scales, six-note patterns called hexachords underlie the modes. These patterns use elements of the modern diatonic scale as well as what would now be called the B-flat " Anyone else with an opinion?Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserted this version, minus one "the." Peirigill 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support (of somewhat involved editor) with all due respect to Tony's copy-edit reservations, I believe the article is well and clearly written , very thorough, covering all important aspects of the topic without too much "cruft" creeping, good solid supporting articles, especially on neumes and other types of chant in the Catholic tradition. The images, although few, are of high quality and free, as well as adding significantly to the article. It is neutral and factual, and well sourced with inline references, using the most important and well respected sources for the topic. The article is not and never has been subject to edit wars, and the number of recent edits are mainly copy-editing, so I would say that the article is stable. In addition it follows the Manual of style. I believe that's all of the criteria. I also feel that, aside from simply meeting the criteria, it is also a very good article on a somewhat difficult topic. Mak (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I know I've been working on tweaking this the last few days, but most of this is very much picking nits among perfectionists rather than being an active contributor. A very good article that explains the subject understandably, links well into background, does not get 'too' absurdly technical, is well documented, in short - better than most FA's currently out there IMHO. Bridesmill 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comments. Here's a jingle I don't know how to fix: "was common practice until the beginning of common-era practice". I'm uncomfortable referring to organum as harmony, which I've always thought of as involving triads, whether sounded or implied. Organum is essentially anti-triadic, isn't it? "Individual composers" is odd if not placed in the context of anonymous composition that characterised the invention of GCs. Tony 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried a fix on that one.Maybe try "usual" or "predominant" instead of "common" -- in general I don't like sticking the two words "common" and "practice" together unless the usual, very specific musical meaning is intended. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Harmony doesn't have to involve triads.(Check out Antandrus' article on bicinia.)The usual definion of harmony is "two or more pitches sounded simultaneously," especially in the context of independently moving lines.Organum qualifies.The difference between chant and organum is the difference between melody and harmony."Harmony" can mean different things in other contexts, but here the broader meaning of harmony should be clear. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Individual composers" is odd.I think it's trying to get at the idea of a deliberate composition of a unified Mass, which you'd expect to be composed by an individual, as opposed to most Gregorian Masses, whose songs are musically unrelated.I'll revise it. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The independent bass line existed in Renaissance times, but it became a standard feature in the baroque.I'll reword the article to split the difference. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support.Well-written, thorough, and informative.I really have to struggle to find nits to pick.A question on content:are there any examples of early, early Christian liturgical music in ancient musical notation?I don't think so, but maybe one of you know better.Ancient musical notation survived until around 300, at least that is the date of the latest scraps of which I'm aware.Isidore of Seville famously mentioned around 600 AD that it was "impossible" to notate music, so there was a gap of around 600 years during which chant was an oral tradition only.Later on in the article, it could be mentioned that the chant made its way into Protestant services as well:for example, Christ lag und Todesbanden is the Victimae paschali laudes, fitted with a D# as the second note, at least in Bach's version, and there's lots more chants that ended up as Protestant hymns.Nice article, excellent work, and thank you to all who helped with the writing and copyedit.Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any notated ancient Christian songs before medieval plainchant.The Ugaritic notation's all pre-Christian, and the Greek songs are all pagan, so far as I know.You got me on the early Protestant stuff.I know that the earliest attested vernacular hymns were German versions based on Gregorian, but that was c. 1100, well before Luther. Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact at least one Greek Christian hymn. You can see it included on this cd (track 16) and this CD (track 17); I think I have both but I'm in the middle of moving and it may be a while until I can find them. I think there is a bit of a discussion in the liner notes about how it is the earliest known notated Christian hymn. It is notated in the same way as other (mostly older) ancient Greek music, which used a letter notation. Rigadoun 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool!Here we go, from Grove:

"There exists only one certain monument of early Christian music, and a possible second. The first is the so-called Oxyrhynchus Hymn, a substantial fragment of a hymn to the Trinity discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Lower Egypt in about 1920 by Grenfell and Hunt (1922); it was copied on the back of a papyrus towards the end of the 3rd century by a Greek-speaking Christian (seeillustration). Its Greek letter notation allows for an accurate transcription. It is a diatonic piece of slightly less than an octave in range, with its final on G, and with most syllables of its text set to one or two notes. Scholars have held widely divergent views on how characteristic of early Christian music this seemingly isolated fragment was. The possibly contemporary example of Christian song is the simple Sanctus melody that is best preserved in the Western medieval Requiem Mass. Kenneth Levy (1958–63) has argued persuasively that this melody, and indeed the entire dialogue between celebrant and congregation of which it forms a part, dates from the 4th century. It is narrower in range than the Oxyrhynchus Hymn, as befits a congregational acclamation, and slightly more syllabic, while its diatonic tonality differs from that of the Hymn in that it has a half-step below its final."

"Even if this Sanctus is accepted as authentic music of the 4th century, and its rough similarity to the Oxyrhynchus Hymn is noted, the two provide little evidence on which to generalize about the character of early Christian song. Only a number of broad reflections on the subject are possible. It can be said with some degree of certainty that early Christian music was largely diatonic. The one or two preserved examples aside, it appears that the music of the entire Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamian area, over a period of many centuries, was basically diatonic, even if sometimes embellished chromatically and microtonally (see Crocker). No doubt Christian music inevitably participated in this tonal environment." (James W. McKinnon: 'Christian Church, music of the early', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 11 July 2006), <http://www.grovemusic.com>)

It doesn't sound like it really fits into the Gregorian chant article, though... would it go under Notation, Modality, or History? Peirigill 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring the early history, following suggestions by Sarabil701, created an obvious and integral place to mention the Oxyrhynchus hymn.Yay! Peirigill 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony's interpolated comment: "!--Is this a reference to neumes? If so, most readers won't have a clue. Refer them to the image above, and specify square noteheads?--" Yes, it's a reference to neumes.Square notation is mentioned at the top of the article (in the lede image caption) and discussed in the Notation section.Should I assume that the reader hasn't read the article up to this point?If not, the reader should have a clue.If so, then I shouldn't assume the reader will know what a "neume" is, either.I was taught to assume an intelligent but uninformed reader: assume they know nothing until you tell them, but you only have to tell them once.... Hm.I'm worried that "the square noteheads of square notation" is going to cause the same problem as "common practice in common-era practice."Peirigill 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the objections have been addressed.Several of us have continued to fine-tune the writing even after Tony withdrew his objection.Still, a week has passed without further comment on this page.Is this a concern?Peirigill 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - text reads well and is comprehensive.--Peta 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why this nomination is still here. The contributors have worked very hard to make it excellent. Tony 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I went over this with a fine-tooth comb and found virtually no problems. Comprehensive, NPOV and excellently referenced. Moreschi 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - In the rhythm section it says Mocquereau's approach was "promulgated" by the Ward system. I had changed it to "popularized" but it's back to "promulgated". For me "promulgated" is a legal term that seems out of place here. Two other nits I puzzled over: the comma after "monophonic" in the lead made me parse it as a noun at first, and I read "significative letters" as "significant letters." Gimmetrow 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The primary meaning of "promulgate" is to officially declare in a public way that a law is in effect; the secondary meaning is to make something widely known.The primary meaning of "propagate" is to cause plants or animals to reproduce; the secondary meaning is to spread ideas to many people.Justine Ward was disseminating a performance style that had just been mandated by Vatican decree, and thus "promulgating" it, but I'm sure she saw herself as sowing musical seeds in the dear little children, and thus "propagating."Neither word is perfect, but both are acceptable.I only included Justine Ward and her impenetrable, moralizing pedagogy under duress, so I'm certainly not going to fight about which 50-cent word has the least objectionable primary connotation.;-)"Propagate" it is.
  • I'm not sure what to tell you about "monophonic" and "significative letters."These are technical terms in musicology.I really think that they're the correct terms to use, and that the opening sentence is grammatical.Would it be less confusing if the opening sentence read "unaccompanied, monophonic" instead of "monophonic, unaccompanied"? Peirigill 11:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Bana

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

• Comment. Is there any critical appraisal of his work? This should be included in a separate section. Otherwise, the article seems to be quite good. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I put critical appraisal within the body of the film career section of the article, so everything about that certain film is all in one section. -- Underneath-it-All 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I'm late. I change my vote to Support. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would definitely suggest a lot more sources throughout. Statements like "The Castle was a critical and financial success, but its humour was not well received by audiences outside of Australia" definitely need a source (or two:)) . Mad Jack 05:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added more sources throughout the entire article. -- Underneath-it-All 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The following sentence is missing some information (which I assume is the $ symbol) but someone who knows should probably add it. The Castle was a surprise critical and financial success, earning 877,621 at the box office in Australia. JenLouise 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the missing dollar sign. -- Underneath-it-All 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Also alot of the phrasing is pretty bad (eg. Dominik had been working on the project for five years and had been having a difficult time finding an actor to portray Read. I'll go through and rephrase where I can, but it needs a serious look at. Specifically, the word had is way overused and sentences containing it could be better articulated.JenLouise 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the line to Dominik had been working on the project for five years, but was unable to find an actor to portray Read. I have also went through the article again and have fixed minor grammer and spelling errors. -- Underneath-it-All 03:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article is not geographically specific. Many financial figures are simply quoted as "$" but apparently at different places "$" means different things. See WP:NUM - I suggest writing ] and ] on first appearances and simply US$ and AU$ thereafter (no redundant wikilinks). TheGrappler 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed this, but what about international money totals? I have stated the international box office gross for Troy but do not know what to put in front of it. Do I just leave it? -- Underneath-it-All 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's actually measured in US$, I think it would be a good idea to say so. Makes things less ambiguous. TheGrappler 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed all the financial figures. -- Underneath-it-All 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object—nice job with the article, but I've got a few questions:

• "for his impressions of his teachers, which he used to get himself out of trouble." Could this be expanded more?

Expanded a bit. Explained why he performed impressions and when he began to do them. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• "supporting himself by clearing tables". Was he not successful as a comedian?

Explained why he had to continue to clear tables. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• "which told the story of a Melbourne-based family's struggles". Not interesting. What kind of struggles? Could this be expanded somehow? If not, take it out.

Expanded the film's plot and why the family is stuggling. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Although the film received a limited release outside of Australia, Bana's performance was met with positive reviews." Not sure what this is trying to convey—is "limited release" a good thing or bad thing? How is it related to the type of reviews he received?

Reworded sentence to just say it was given a limited release outside of Australia. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The subsections in "Personal life" are rather short. Can they be expanded at all?

I have expanded the interests section, but cannot really expand the section on his family life as he is a private man and not much is published about his personal life. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Replace or remove the "Newspaper unknown" reference; that's scary.

I have replaced it with a reference with a magazine name. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• How were the three general references used? I'm a little confused about those.

The general references were for used in place of articles I could not source (ex. these articles did not have the newspaper they were published in etc.). These general sources are pretty reliable, as they have been used as his biographies on web sites such as IMDB and All Movie Guide. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do any books exist that could be used as sources? Any biographies of this guy yet?

Bana is not really well known outside of Australia and as far as I know, there hasn't been any biographies published about him. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't far from FA status, just needs a few more touches. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting now. I don't suppose there's any way to get a free image. Thanks for making the fixes. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can try and see if I can find one. Thanks for your suggestions. I think they have improved the article greatly! -- Underneath-it-All 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: The whole this needs a copyedit. A few specific comments:

1. His most popular films include Hulk, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005). -- how can that be the case is Hulk was a box office disaster?
2. What is an "audition tape"?

--ppm 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article. While Bana did gain a lot of media exposure for Hulk and he is well known for his role, you are right in the fact that it was not one of his most popular films. I have changed this to Black Hawk Down. As for the last sentence, I have reworded it. -- Underneath-it-All 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A citation spot check found issues(of varying severity) with 4 out of 5 footnotes checked (Results here). There seems to be a problem with statements being cited to sources related to but not directly supporting the statements in the article. --Robth 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have now gone through the article and have checked every reference, fixing them and in some cases removing or reworking sentences. I have also addressed your concerns on the article's talk page. -- Underneath-it-All 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Looks much better. --Robth 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it important to have info on his children? Anyway, support, good article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Other biographies that were featured articles talked briefly about the subjects children, so that's why I included a bit on his children. -- Underneath-it-All 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—I'm sorry to have entered this page late. The entire text—not just the following examples—needs a run-through to weed out bad prose.
  • "featured skits, stand-up and celebrity guests but failed to attract a substantial audience and was cancelled due to low ratings after only eight episodes."—Comma required before "but" (more commas throughout the article would improve readability). Don't you mean that it "was cancelled after only eight episodes due to low ratings"?
  • "Bana was invited to perform on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live, making his television debut."—Better prose is required by the FA criterion 2a: "Bana was invited to make his television debut on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live."
  • "he was persuaded to try stand-up comedy while working as a barman at Melbourne's Castle Hotel."—What, he did the stand-up comedy act at the bar? Make it clear.
  • "Bana performs predominantly in leading roles in a variety of low-budget and major studio films, ranging from romantic comedies and drama to science fiction and action thrillers. His most popular films include Black Hawk Down, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005)."—Why not plain and simple: "Bana mostly performs"? Pick the group of three redundant words (and as well, we have "ranging from" in the subsequent clause). Can you possibly replace "include" with "are"? You're implying that there are other "most popular films" that you're not listing here.
  • "The two were married in 1997, after Bana proposed to her"—Not three? Just make it "They were married ...".

A copy-editor who is relatively unfamiliar with the text is needed—it will take about an hour. Please network to identify such a person. Tony 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Haha! I'm about to do the unthinkable and suggest that Tony's suggestion still contains redundant words: instead of "Bana was invited to make his television debut", why not "Bana made his television debut"? ;-) I'm working on doing a more thorough copyedit—I did the first level two section, and will hit the others tomorrow. Hopefully I'll catch the important stuff. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, Spangineer. Tony 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it took longer than an hour, but I went through the whole thing and fixed it up a bit. One thing: "He recently finished filming Romulus, My Father in Australia." sounds like an afterthought. Hope the changes were helpful. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Obection withdrawn, but it makes you wonder why the nominator didn't organise help before nomination. Thanks to Spangineer. Tony 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Seperating the "early life" and "personal life" sections at each end of the article makes the article flow poorly. It also contains very little about his comedy career, including only one sentence on his time as Full Frontal, which was the break that first brought him to nationwide fame. Rebecca 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is a brief summary of Bana's career. Everything cannot be mentioned. How would you suggest expanding this section? Also, other Featured Articles on performers such as Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman and Katie Holmes have seperate sections on the performer's "early life" and "personal life". -- Underneath-it-All 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've crossed out my former objection, as while it is bad practice, I can't hold it against you for following earlier precedent. That said, it really does need more about his time on Full Frontal. This series launched him to national fame, and paved the way for his entire later career, and it is given only one sentence in this article - compared to his fleeting bit role in The Castle, which is given an entire paragraph. There should be plenty around from the time, although it may require some searching of newspaper archives (as, being in 1994-95, there probably isn't much online). Rebecca 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a small bit on where he got his character inspirations from, but other than that I am lacking info on this time in his life. Most biographies only include one quick sentence about his time on Full Frontal (such as his official bio on his managements website). Other articles (which I have looked up on http://www.ericbana-archives.com/ spend very little time discussing this period. -- Underneath-it-All 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Three "fair use" images in only 21k of text is two too many. User:Angr 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed an image. Now there are only two. -- Underneath-it-All 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alison Krauss

The old nomination drew a numbner of objections, which the nominator had addressed (or so he says), but had trouble getting follow up critques. As such, I have restarted this nomiation. (Old nom here). Raul654 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Old nominator here I'll continue to strive to fix any issues anyone may have with this article. Staxringold _talk 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Looks generally good.
  • Per summary style, put some content under all section headings. For example, under "Biography" put a paragraph or two giving a quick overview pointing out the encyclopedic highlights over her life.

• I could remove the "Early life" sub-tag, but I was following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey (and basically Kylie Minogue, though it's called "Recording and performing career" there). Would removing the early life tag be sufficient (as that seems like a decent lead in for a bio).
  • It's not really supposed to be a lead-in. It's supposed to be a stand-alone section that summarizes what comes next. Tuf-Kat

• Summary style is used for split-off articles, not for completely in article sections. What is the point in essentially regurgitating the lead to lead-in to more detailed text? The only place I've ever seen the kind of lead-in you are talking about is maybe something single sentence where an entire section is a table (The following table summarizes ____ or what have you). What are you looking for, outside of essentially a thinner rewrite of the lead directly below it? Staxringold _talk 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Summary style is how Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be organization. If one of the main topics of "Alison Krauss" is "Biography", then there should be a summary of that topic. If necessary, more detail can be added in subsections, and more beyond that in subarticles. In any case, there's still supposed to be that brief summary. The reason is because the point of Summary Style is to provide different layers of coverage, and a brief summary of a major part of a topic is a useful layer. Someone who just wants the highlights of her career could then read a one or two paragraph summary of it, then go on to read the details if needed. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Then I will simply point to Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey once again as two already featured current musical artists who don't follow that style at all. Summaries provide a quick explanation of the included material, and the lead does that for the article. Furhter summaries are used for split-off material. Staxringold _talk 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • "Artistry" seems somewhat inappropriate as a section heading (it's kind of vague). Change to "Reception" or maybe "Reception and historical influence"?

• Again, following the style of the already featured Mariah Carey, but renamed to "Reception and influences".

• • Some more substantive references may be nice. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but it should be possible to find some more scholarly sources. I think I've got at least one I'll be able to track down in the next few days.

• If you can find one, great, but I the references are all reliable and I'd say the article is pretty well-sourced.
  • I disagree. There's nothing wrong with the references used, but she's probably the most notable bluegrass performer of the last decade. I think a featured article on her requires more substantive referencing - the entire section and subsections on reception and influences is cited from a few web bios, reviews, interviews and other promotional literature, except for a single pointer to a Dirty Linen article. That's not enough to adequately place her in a historical context. Tuf-Kat 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• First, the article cites numerous printed sources like the NY Times, Billboard, and Country weekly along with a few very solid televised refs from Great American Country and some interviews (which are about as pure a source as you can get). What would you add? What issues do you have with the citations? A preference for a different kind of source is fine but not a piece of WIAFA, and if you believe a source is providing faulty information I will find additional sources to back up the statement or remove it. She has no biography, official or otherwise, and most bluegrass books I have found deal with the generation before her while country books completely ignore her (and focus on drek like the Dixie Chicks. What could I change to satisfy this issue (I thank you for not making it a formal objection). Just as an example, a lot of the biography section was also covered in her interviews on the Great American Country interviews, but I sourced them with net versions that sourced the specific statement (and were easily accessed by other users). As for influences, there is no heavy information included in album notes, she has no biography to provide really juicy meat, and what is wrong with using interviews with Alison Krauss to cite the musical influences and style of Alison Krauss? Staxringold _talk 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked for "substantive" references, not necessarily print. I'm not concerned about the biography section, but rather the Reception and influences section. As an example, "Some credit Krauss and Union Station, at least partially, with a recent revival of interest in bluegrass music in the United States" -- I know this to be true, but it's cited to her agent, which is not independent. As I've said, the sources used are fine, but they are not sufficient; Krauss is a good source for her musical style, but she is not a sufficient source to be comprehensive because she is not independent. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for. If you feel something needs further or better referencing just tell me what it is. I'll go find another ref for that right now. Staxringold _talk 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Other than that, it looks pretty good on a cursory glance. Tuf-Kat 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Staxringold _talk 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I think Tuf-Kat is right on the money. However, this article is very good, I would supoort in a heartbeat once his concerns have been addressed. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Errr, what would you have me do though? I'm following, to the letter, the pattern laid out by another featured article for a currently active American musician. Staxringold _talk 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok then, you do have me. I did support the Mariah Carey article, so I guess this one gets a similarly strong Support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support; my objections were taken care of in the previous nom. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support; it's a good article, but the images are really bad. Especially the lead image; that looks like it was taken with a cameraphone, or worse a Fuji Finepix, from a distance and then blown up. Surely for someone as notable as Krauss we can get some better non-copyvio images? No other objections, though. Suntiger 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl

Some months ago this article underwent a previous FAC nomination. It was at a much earlier stage then, and it is now replete with references. Subject was a senior government Minister in Rhodesia during the time it had unilaterally declared independence. It is largely a self-nom, although many others have worked on it. David | Talk 10:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I corrected some minor issues while reading the article, but have some concerns about the abundance of fair use images. I suppose that can't be helped considering the subject is dead, but not dead long enough. I am also slightly bothered by the use of "op cit" repeatedly in the references section. This stems from a lack of use of the "name" atribute in the <ref> tags. The article is well written and well referenced; good job. —D-Rock 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone named all the refs. Looks cleaner now, thanks. —D-Rock 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Supportive Comment. I cannot formally Support this article since I contributed significantly to it when it was first created. Although, my earlier writings are now largely submerged. I feel that the article satisfies the requirements for FA status. It is comprehensive on its subject, well written, well referenced, well illustrated and stable. The subject is an interesting character of some historical significance. PK's life and times offer major insights into the de-colonisation process in Africa. This should make a readable and useful FA. Bob BScar23625 13:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I added names to the references to remove the "op cit" all over the place, as Dbiv pointed out. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg lacks a fair use rationale; frankly, I don't think we should include it, it would probably stretch fair use too far. Generally, many of the images lack fair use rationales, but with the others, I think they could be provided. Will support if that is addressed. Well written and thoroughly sourced. Mangojuice 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Response : I have expanded the rationales for the two images of PK that I am responsible for. There is no copyright issue with either. I think it extremely unlikely that there could ever be an issue with Udi2-rho. That picture was circulated by the government press office and has been used in many articles and books worldwide. Any copyright involved has long gone. Bob BScar23625 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me retract part of what I said. As a signatory to the unilateral declaration, it's reasonable to include that picture to illustrate the event. I changed the caption to fix the tone. Mangojuice 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that a fair use claim is appropriate (the historical nature of the event is particularly helpful in this respect). However, "Any copyright involved has long gone" is plain wrong - there are images over 90 years old with their copyright well and truly intact and extant. The fact that a photograph is widely used doesn't mean that it's copyright has expired. What more troubling is the lack of source information. TheGrappler 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support now, fair use image issue is resolved. Mangojuice 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object Introduction seems way too short. Also, there seems to be almost no information on the last ten years of his life. QuizQuick 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'll have a look at the intro to see if it can be improved. The reason there is little info on his last decade is that P.K. was essentially a private citizen during it, having no political or public role and just living out his retirement in South Africa and Britain with his friends and family. David | Talk 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Support. Intro is much better, and I see your point about the end of his life. QuizQuick 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could persondata be added to this article? TheGrappler 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can, and I have just added it. David | Talk 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice additions, thanks. TheGrappler 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now - images absolutely must identify sources (the uploader ought to know where the image was found; it's even better if they can identify the original source), and, if clearly under copyright, a thorough effort should be made to identify copyright holders. Sometimes it is true that a photograph is so obscure that all source information has been lost. Official photographs, though, really ought to have their status made clear. Similarly, it's worth thinking twice before claiming that an image is "promotional". Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos is an interesting read. "Unique historic event" may be worth claiming for the signing of UDI; this seems far far more appropriate than "publicity". TheGrappler 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Continue to object. One of the images lacks a copyright tag. As described on the fair use tag for the cartoon, "the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above" - currently it's neither on the description nor the caption. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg lacks an image tag. Image:PK2.jpg states it's coming from a government press information kit - is it? Is there a way to cite which particular kit, when it was issued or somesuch? Similarly, is Image:Pk1.JPG really from a political poster? These two designations look pretty arbitrary. Using a crop from a political poster to illustrate a politician is something of a no-no, like using a crop from a magazine to illustrate a person then claiming "it's okay, it's a magazine cover", or using a crop from an album cover and saying "it's okay, album covers are fair use". You're claiming fair use of a political poster but what you're actually using is a photo of the politician. My suggestion is, if you want to use Image:Pk1.JPG, upload an uncropped version.TheGrappler 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What's under consideration is the article and not the images. As far as the cartoon, the publication name is Umbowo and it is on the image - you will see it in the top left. Image:Udi2-rho.jpg now has copyright tags. David | Talk 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. It's not nearly as bad as last time (then, it was amateurish), but still needs improvement. Here are examples from the top.
  • "van der Byl opposed attempts to settle with African nationalists in order to prolong the period of white rule"—Ambiguous: opposing or settling would have prolonged white rule? (I genuinely can't tell.)
  • "Nevertheless" in the lead is wrong: it doesn't announce a contradiction with the previous text. The same for "However," in the subsequent sentence.
  • "... he so offended Rhodesia's closest ally South Africa that his powers had to be reduced." This begs too many questions, such as by whom, and in what way. Better to relocate this to the body of the article, where the details can be provided on the spot.
    • Since you're being pernickety about correct use of English, you don't mean "beg the question", you mean "raise the question". To "beg the question" is to assume the answer to some undecided issue. David | Talk 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Third class degree"—shouldn't this be "third-class degree", with hyphen and lower-case initial?
  • "He went on from Cambridge to Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration in 1947-1948, and is counted in the Class of 1949 although he did not obtain a degree, and also studied at the University of Witwatersrand." "and is counted in the Class of 1949" is unclear; readers will be confused by the "1947–48" that comes just before this, and the present tense may be awkward. A few more commas would make for easier reading, for example, before "although". I suppose Witwatersrand is in South Africa, but I wouldn't expect most readers to know that. The sentence is just a little long; can you split it?
  • "He was usually known, by friends and opponents, as "PK"." Remove "usually" and the commas for a crisper sentence. Do we need to be told about the upper-class accent yet again? "Upper-class" is hyphenated as a double epithet (unless this is American English).

Can you find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text to iron it all out? Tony 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've interpolated further responses.

• • Taking these points in order:

• • • Is it not fairly obvious that the African nationalists were not white, and therefore settling with them would hardly be the best way of continuing white minority rule? I really can't say.

What is obvious to you may not be so to many of our readers. In any case, we don't want to have to disambiguate any of the meanings, whether one meaning is more likely than another. That's basic to clear prose.

• • • I'm working on a revised opening.

• • • This is a 'teaser' for when the subject is discussed later in the article. Per WP:LEAD this sort of thing is allowed, and excessive detail in the opening paragraphs is not a good thing.

While we don't want excessive detail in the lead, neither do we want vagueness.

• • • "Third class degree" is rarely hyphenated.

I accept this.

• • • The situation itself is unclear. The Harvard members' list counts him in the class of 1949 but says he did not get a degree. My reading of it is that 1947-1948 marks the time he was physically present at Harvard.

Whatever the truth, there's a problem if your meaning is unclear.

• • • Witwatersrand is indeed in SA, as any reader following the link would find out.

Our readers shouldn't have to hit links to work out what you mean.

• • • The unusual accent which PK had was such a significant part of his public perception that it does merit a mention both in the lead and in the text. David | Talk 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be told twice about the accent, especially so soon after the lead, and given that no further detail is provided on the second occurrence.

A few snakes to chop up so that they're not as hard to read:

• "The Ministry had links through the government which ensured that anyone who asked awkward questions could be subject to detention or expulsion, and such action was taken against several foreign journalists (for example, John Worrall, correspondent for The Guardian, was expelled in January 1969)."
• "Van der Byl's exploits as a big-game hunter (he shot his first lion in a garden in Northern Rhodesia at the age of 15), a womaniser and a patron of the arts helped to reinforce his standing and many in the Rhodesian Front believed him to be "a 19th century-style connoisseur, a man of culture and an aristocrat-statesman" in the words of Michael Hartnack, a South African journalist."
• "In April 1972, van der Byl insisted that Rhodesia would not implement any part of an agreement made with the United Kingdom in November 1971 unless Rhodesia's independence was acknowledged, regardless of the answer from the Pearce Commission who were then investigating whether the settlement proposals would be approved by the people of Rhodesia."

Then I'll withdraw my objection. Tony 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Have had a go, as suggested. Please let me know what you think. David | Talk 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support As this is looking finely balanced, I will switch from Supportive Comment to outright Support.I feel that the subject matter is interesting and the presentation is at least as good as other FAs. I feel that TheGrappler is being too sensitive over issues of image copyright. Bob BScar23625 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A little ingenuous to announce this when you're one of the main contributors to the article. Tony 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony. My early contributions to this article have long been submerged. That said, I have declared my interest above and you are free to strike my Support if you feel it appropriate. Bob BScar23625 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you mean "disingenuous" (?). Bob has been perfectly fair about all this - see this edit to my talk page. David | Talk 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob has been utterly fair and I have no complaints about his conduct. I hope I never get labelled a prickly editor, so it's with a little regret that I'm replying to this at all. I certainly hold high standards, and one of the standards from WP:WIAFA is precisely this: It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. The images in this article have changed significantly during the nomination period. Each time I have objected and reobjected because new problems have turned up or I've noticed existing ones. Part of my most recent objection was that an image did't even have a copyright tag! That's far from being oversensitive, it's just pointing out that otherwise the image will have to be speedy deleted in 7 days! Similarly, the newspaper cartoon could really do with the newspaper name being listed explicitly in the caption. That license tag is mostly used for front covers where there's no need to caption the title, since it's in big letters anyway. Here it's tucked away in a corner, and it's not obvious whether it's the title or name of cartoonist. Quibble or not, good textbooks almost invariably caption the source when they include cartoons like that, even if copyright issues have expired. Currently, and in obvious violation of the instructions on the license tag (look at the bit in bold text labelled 'To the uploader) there's no fair use rationale given for that image's use in this article. Same goes for the Rhodesia Herald image. Image:Pk1.JPG has no source information and should by rights be deleted with 7 days (if I had been really sensitive I'd have {{nsd}}'d it); if it really is an election poster it's like none I've ever seen before and I am within my rights (at FAC of all places!) to point out that it looks a bit dodgy. If I was being sensitive, I'd be arguing that "this fair use claim is not a strong one and we're pushing our luck by using it" - but all I'm asking is that, in line with WIAFA 4, our basic and established copyright policies are followed in what is our "very best work". I don't want to make people jump through hoop after hoop but our image use policies give a very basic set of steps to be followed and in this case they clearly still haven't been. This shouldn't, ideally, even be an issue at FAC, because it should have been caught and corrected long before it was nominated. Unfortunately it hasn't, but I don't blame the editors in particular because I appreciate WP's practice as a whole has been sloppy. WIAFA 4 makes it clear that it ought to be sorted out before this passes FA, just like citation and copy-editing issues should be.TheGrappler 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TheGrappler. Your comments re Image:Pk1.JPG are accepted and the Copyright status and Free Use rationale have been updated. Bob BScar23625 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent, that's a great improvement. I'm impressed that the copyright holder has been identified. TheGrappler 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are several wikiguidelines applicable to this article. These are tested by a simple peerreviewer script, of which I have put the output on the talkpage. I would strongly suggest to follow these guidelines. Most is simple technical edit-work, deploying specific ways for quotations, notes, etc. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

• Support. TheGrappler is absolutely right that images need to be fully squared away before this is promoted; as far as I can tell, however, that point has now been reached. (If someone else turns up a problem, don't treat this as a disagreement with their objection--I may have missed something.) This is a well researched, well written, and informative article. --Robth 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the following is confusing: "His propaganda strategy became increasingly unsuccessful abroad, where PK alienated many of the foreign journalists and politicians that he came into contact with." What or who is PK? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've fixed this myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very informative, even though the man was so terrible. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - A very interesting, detailed and well refrenced article. Bravo to those who put the effort into it. michael 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mandy Moore Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

Countdown (game show)

previous FAC

Duke University

I think this is an excellent article, with many in-line citations, references, etc. QuizQuick 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article! I couldn't find even one red link. Unbelievable work... NCurse _work 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, easy to read. K-UNIT 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Misplaced Pages as an inline citation for a Wiki article? Sandy 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sandy 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think QuizQuick meant just citations, not inline. You were probably being sarcastic, though. I can't tell. In any event, I am a biased voter since I have contributed significantly to the article, but I would Support it. So maybe my vote doesn't count. This was not a self-nomination, so it surprised me that it was nominated. -Bluedog423 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The final citation is a link back to another Wiki article, which is circular reasoning. The statement should be referenced, or just linked, but not cited with a Wiki link. Sandy 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry I just meant citations. Anyway, I'm a Dukie so I too, am a little biased toward this article. :) :)QuizQuick 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just a purely aesthetic recommendation: could you put an image in the big white space before the History section? Either move a sufficiently broad image up from below, find a new one, lengthen the Duke template, or shorten the TOC a little bit... that white space hurts my eyes. ;-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed - This seems to be a common issue with most university articles. For example, Featured Article Michigan State University had just as much white space (or more) as the Duke article did. Except for the fact that on the TOC one line "Residential College in Arts and Humanities" juts out more so that reduces the white space, I suppose. So, theoretically, lengthening one of the names of the sections would work. In any event, I lengthened the Duke template considerably (and found new acreage info), so the white space is significantly reduced now :) -Bluedog423 04:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Circular references back to Misplaced Pages can never be justified. Now, you can link to a wiki article in a note, that doesn't serve the role as a reference (e.g. a footnote that gives extra information, that can't fit in the main body of the article). But, this article is actually using Misplaced Pages as a reference to prove facts are true, which is not ok. What happens if those articles cite this article, as their reference? Ideally, we should use third party sources. For non-contested facts, we can use Duke University. We must never use ourselves though. Also, while it's ok to use Duke as a reference for uncontested facts, we aught to state in the footnote that we're citing Duke. Some notes give the title of the page, but don't name the organization that is the source (namely Duke, or a unit within it). --Rob 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed problem. Found new, primary sources. -Bluedog423 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I fixed references and added "Duke" when it was from a Duke source, but was not noted (e.g. "Residence Life and Housing Services" was changed to "Duke Residence Life and Housing Services") in order to address your second point. -Bluedog423 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, alumnus names should be listed in the alumni section along with their companies or accomplishments, not alluded to. This was something brought up and fixed for the recent FAC for Cornell, and I think it should be applied to all such sections. —mercuryboard 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed problem. All alumni listed now. -Bluedog423 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - While I tend to agree that alumni should be listed, FA University of Michigan does not list any of its alumni when talking about founders of companies; probably because the names are not entirely recognizable on their own. So it seems as this is not entirely vital. In any event, maybe times have changed and standards have increased, so I included all names anyways. -Bluedog423 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The first dollar sign should be the only one linked. An automated peer reviewer came up with some further suggestions:

Fixed dollar sign issue. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

Fixed - 13+ words/phrases clarified -Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.

Fixed - added   between all numbers and units-Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

Didn't see this problem anywhere. Am I missing something? -Bluedog423 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

Problem not evident. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

Fixed - one recently added cat out of order, one lang out of order -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

Don't see this as an issue. University articles usually quite long. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

Fixed a few - don't see as issue anymore. But could still be some -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.

Fixed - eliminated 20 additive terms. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

Fixed - clarified 12+ vague terms of size. -Bluedog423 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”

Fixed - eliminated 5 such temporal terms

• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah . to blah blah.

Fixed - didn't see as major issue but there were around 5 that were blah blah. (i.e. extra space before footnote)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Andy _t 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'll try to go through the automated issues and correct any mistakes. However, I have doubts about some of them. For example, it says, "headings generally do not start with the word 'The,' " but this article clearly has no heading that starts with "The." I had seen that javascript before and made sure of that particular facet in the past. This mistake (which seems like one of the easier things that it checks in the script) puts further doubt on the other issues. Another example is the footnote issue. I don't notice a single footnate that is in the form blah blah . I supposed it is possible that there may be one with an extra space afterwards as in blah blah. so maybe it caught that. But not sure. I guess that's why it says they "may or may not be accurate." In any event, I'm sure there are some that are certainly reliable and will check up on everything. -Bluedog423 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Watch out for present tense. What if I were reading this article 50 years from now? Indicate when facts were reported. Not the major ones like that there's two undergraduate schools... I'm talking about statistics that change from year to year, such as acceptance rate, class composition, etc. Is it necessary to list all the fraternity chapters? How relevent is this for a main article? A summary of the system and some of its criticisms may be more appropriate. I'd like to see Notable alumni changed to just Alumni and perhaps mention how alumni can keep in touch with the university. More importantly, a quick find resulted in many instances of "about" and other approximations. When the actual number is available, give it, cite it, and specify when it was accurate if necessary. Is it necessary to devote an entire section to construction? Could that information be merged into the other parts of campus, and linked to the main article with a See Also: at the top of the section? —mercuryboard 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's some good advice. I have made several corrections. 1) I deleted the specific fraternity/sorority chapters; 2) changed "Notable alumni" to "alumni" (I had originally changed it to alumni when the article was overhauled a couple of weeks ago but somebody else changed it back); 3) Added a mention of how alumni are active, including alumni giving rate. I'm not sure a mention of Reunion weekend and Homecoming is appropriate, though, since these are mundane events that every university takes part in. I'll keep them for now though; 4) Combined several sub-sections in the Campus section (including construction projects and individual campuses); 5) Minor edits. I still haven't closely looked at present tense or approximation terms, so that's the next thing to do. -Bluedog423 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed vague terms of approximation - Eliminated many (16+) terms of vague approximations such as "about". As of now, I can only spot six of these terms that refer to size/numbers (there are more "abouts" in the text, but not in reference to size). These 6 are as follows (two of them say the same thing, I guess I will delete one of them): 1) "20- to 50-year overhaul of Central Campus, wherein the first phase (scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2008) will cost roughly $240-million." Construction costs can never be given exactly since they don't know until it's completed. 2) "West Campus, the heart of Duke University, houses all the sophomores, along with some juniors and seniors" The exact number is not published anywhere and changes drastically from year-to-year depending on sophomore class size, number of people studying abroad, etc. (e.g. this year's sophomore class is about 125 students larger than the previous class); 3) "Central Campus, consisting of 122 acres between East and West campuses, houses around 850 juniors and seniors and about 200 professional students in apartments." Exact numbers cannot be found. Also, I think it is appropriate to approximate since the number changes from year to year and the approximate number is more informative as it gives an average of sorts. 4) "Epworth is only about one-third its original size after a fire." I don't think anybody measured the square footage of the building in the early 1900s to compare it. 5) "Lastly, Central Campus provides housing for approximately 1,050 students (of which about 850 are undergraduate juniors or seniors)." Same as before. 6) "Approximately 400 student clubs and organizations run on Duke’s campus." Exact number cannot be found. If you have any suggestions to help these particular instances, please say so or correct them yourself. Thanks! -Bluedog423 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed present tense problems - At least, I think so. There could be more instances. Gave exact year when it could be noted, especially in academic profile part. -Bluedog423 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Support - This should go through a peer review first then if all works out it should be ok. Also, on the talk page there are still some stuff to do from the to do list. I think maybe this was nominated in haste. -ScotchMB 14:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with what you all said. It seems as if nobody has any organizational or structural issues, so that's good. While I personally would not have nominated this for featured article before going through peer review, I don't think that this itself is reason to oppose it. Rather, it is just more likely that an article that hasn't had a peer review will have flaws. However, it is still possible to be a Featured Article without peer reviews and has happened several times in the past. So, instead of saying, "peer review first," it would be much more helpful if you cited specific flaws/problems in the article. Thus far, there seem to be only two, minor, easily fixable issues. 1) Don't use wikipedia as a source. Find new ones. OK, new ones can be easily found. 2) List the specific names of alumni in alumni section instead of just position. That's it. Easily done. After those two small fixes, would it be eligible for FA? I don't really have time to go through future opposes and it seems like nobody else (including the nominator) is really looking at these, so future issues might just have to wait. Although I'll try. But it's good to hear what everybody has to say. Thanks! -Bluedog423 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I can explain my comment and process, if that helps. A long list of references and citations doesn't impress me: I check them to make sure they're valid and reliable sources. That's my first pass. If the article isn't well referenced, I don't move on to checking prose and other issues. Not enough hours in a day to do it all :-) So, I haven't opposed or supported, because as soon as I see a minor problem with the references in an otherwise potential FA article, I wait to see if that is resolved. A peer review would help make sure the basics are in place. :-)) Sandy 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • After reading Bluedog's comment and reviewing the article, I feel it is good enough to be on the FA. Thanks Bluedog for helping me realize what is right. -ScotchMB 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Summary - 6 supports; 1 oppose that has not been crossed out, but has been already addressed and fixed. 3 supports, 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose (Mercuryboard also opposed but striked through reasoning for opposition); other "oppose" reasoning has been fixed; "weak oppose" reasoning was lack of peer review/nominated in haste. -Bluedog423 04:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • FAC isn't a vote; just worry about addressing objections and you'll be fine. --Robth 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, sounds good. I don't really understand the final decision. Who has the final say of if it is promoted to FA status? A certain administrator? It says much reach "consensus." I guess that doesn't imply unanimous? Thanks. -Bluedog423 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The FA director, Raul654, judges whether all valid and actionable objections have been addressed; if they have been, the article gets promoted. --Robth 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object. A citation spot check found two problems out of five footnotes tested (results here). Both problems involved statements in the article being related to, but not actually directly supported by, the sources given; please go through the footnotes looking for issues of this sort and fix any you find. Thanks, --Robth 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Will try to fix the two problems, although one is challenging since it's a colloquial term and not officially recognized. -Bluedog423 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed problems - footnote 49 fixed by adding a reference that states it directly. Gothic Wonderland issue fixed from here: . See talk page for details. Will also try to go through others. -Bluedog423 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Objection withdrawn. --Robth 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Withdrew my previous objection. Still, I'd like to see this go through a thorough copy-edit from somebody unfamiliar with the text. Tony1 is very good. —mercuryboard 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok.....Will try to find someone to do a thorough copyedit.-Bluedog423 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have requested a copyedit from three four different people. One declined, and two three have yet to respond, although I asked two of them at least three days ago. I will continue to search...-Bluedog423 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone will look it over tomorrow. -Bluedog423 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Misplaced Pages may not be used as a source. There's at least one left (for the Rhodes Scholarship) that's got to be changed. —mercuryboard 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, that one was vestigial. The other Rhodes cites were replaced by the Bloomberg source and the Rhodes Trust source, but apparently forgot to delete that last one. Fixed now. No other ones evident. -Bluedog423 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Object: I just did a copyedit; here are problems I couldn't solve:

• "Construction projects have transformed", but there's no mention of the difference between the old and the new.

• There is mention of the difference between the old and the new in the Campus section. It seemed notable enough to mention that construction has taken over the campus the last five years in the lead without going into much detail. I feel like if details were mentioned that would take up far too much space in the lead. Am I wrong about this? Is one more sentence/phrase appropriate saying that "more than blah number of buildings have been constructed" or "more than $835 million has been spent since 2001." Or saying that the science and engineering departments, the medical center and other professional schools (business, law, divinity) have been majorly renovated/upgraded? I'm not sure what should be included/what is the best way to resolve this issue. -Bluedog423 05:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not mentioning all the changes is fine, but if you don't, I feel a different verb would be better. I've switched it to update, though I'm not sure that's the best choice. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• "because of support from the church" -- which church?

• Clarified that it was the Methodist Church. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "The university grew up quickly." Doesn't connect at all--how is this related to the topic sentence (trust fund/endowment)

• It was meant to suggest that the $40 million gift allowed for many construction projects in a short period of time. Maybe it's not clear enough that a large chunk of the money went to Duke and it wasn't just a random trust fund. Clarified paragraph. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Duke researchers mapped the final human chromosome"--this appears twice. Also, the Rhodes scholar thing appears twice; I deleted the number the second time.

• I deleted the first mention of the mapping. -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Duke's endowment was valued at $3.8 billion in 2005 making it the sixteenth-largest endowment in the U.S."--Why is this stuck at the end of an off-topic category?

• I thought saying how the endowment ranks among U.S. institutions was a significant enough piece of information to add in the article, but did not know exactly where to place it. Looking at FA University of Michigan as a guide, they place "research" and "endowment" in the same section (suggesting a similarity), but name it "Research and Endowment" instead of just "Research." That article, however, has a lot more to say about the endowment than just the one simple sentence used here. I guess I just was not sure an appropriate place to put it. What would make the most sense? Renaming the section "Research and Endowment," putting the sentence in the second paragraph in the lead, or putting it under the "Profile" section? Or another option all together? -Bluedog423 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• I decided to move the endowment sentence to the profile section, which seems to be where the majority of facts and figures are presented. -Bluedog423 05:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Duke Chapel, the center of religion at Duke,"--seems misplaced, and what does "center of religion" mean?

• Agree wholeheartedly. I was confused by that phrase before, but never took action to do anything about it. Deleted "center of religion." Knowing that it is centrally located on campus, is frequently used as an icon for the university, and is one of the most visited attractions at Duke should be sufficient. -Bluedog423 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Duke initiated a five year strategic plan"--The quote following this should be paraphrased somehow; there's nothing special about this quote.

• Paraphrased quote to the best of my ability. It was difficult to a certain extent since the source just names buildings and it is hard to rename them. Would it be better to reduce the number of buildings mentioned? I think every project mentioned is quite major and thus I would not like to see any of them deleted. There are numerous other more minor projects mentioned in Construction projects at Duke University that didn't make the cut. In any event, I paraphrased the quote. -Bluedog423 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "calling the lighter powder blue "Carolina blue" and the darker blue "Duke blue"" Could we get a citation for this?

• Found citation for it. I wasn't sure if it'd be more appropriate to cite a link that briefly mentions someone wearing Carolina Blue or Duke Blue in a reputable newspaper article (e.g. Herald Sun or Raleigh News & Observer), or using an article that clearly distinguishes the two colors in a more extensive manner. The article I chose is written by a website that uses the different blue shades as its main premise, so I decided that was the best choice. -Bluedog423 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad; doesn't seem to be missing anything. Some places feel like a jumble of university trivia. Other than that, nice job. Fix up these issues and I think I'm ready to support. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Great, thanks for the extensive copyedit! I will attempt to fix the points you brought up now. Another user who has contributed significantly to seven different FAs said he would also "take a look" at some point. I am going out of town tomorrow morning and will not be back until July 19, so if I don't fix all of these tonight, please keep the nomination up and will get to all the points as soon as possible. Thanks. -Bluedog423 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fixed all your points except for the first one. See potential options mentioned above. -Bluedog423 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Switching to support. Nice work. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support' good article, and has come a long way since an earlier GA nomination. I think that the lacrosse team should be on the main page, as to someone such as myself who is not from the east coast, the Basketball and Lacrosse teams are what the schools athletic department is known for. Football is not. Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I'd have to say that I disagree that Duke is more well-known for its lacrosse program than football, however. Lacrosse might be more well-known now due to the current rape scandal, but basing the popularity on the number of people that follow the programs' on-the-field results, football is far more well-known. I would suggest that Duke is more well-known for its women's basketball team than men's lacrosse team as well. In regard to revenue, a quote here states, "Men's basketball earned the most for the university, with revenues of $7.8 million and expenses of $2.9 million. Football generated $8.2 million and spent $5.8 million. Women's basketball produced $124,905 in revenue and spent $1.2 million." It does not mention lacrosse, but can be found in the report, I assume. In any event, I think those are the top three, but I'm not sure. Attendance could be another measure of popularity. The football team averages nearly 20,000 people a game . Football is by far the most popular/largest revenue generated sport in college athletics, and it is for this reason, that Duke football is more well-known. Men's lacrosse, at its home stadium, I believe, had a record attendance of around 6,000 people vs UVA two years ago. That is nowhere near the numbers football generates as its average. Women's basketball has been sold out (9,314 people) about 6 times in its history (all in the last 4 years). If you want to take it by on-the-field success, then lacrosse is far superior to football in the last 10 years. However, this measure is not proportional to how "well-known" it is. Seveal other sports have been even more successful. Women's golf has won the most national championships (four) and does not have its own section. Women's basketball, likewise, has probably been more successful in recent years than men's lacrosse. Looking at it even another way, you can track television appearances. Women's basketball probably gets around 4-5 national televised games a year excluding the NCAA tournament, which they make every year (and usually do well in). Football gets about 2 regionally televised games a year. Men's lacrosse gets no tv coverage except for HUGE games such as at #1 Johns Hopkins last year, which was televised on ESPN. Also, the national semis and finals are televised if they make it that far, which hasn't happened very often. So, in regard to attendance, revenue, money spent, and national presence on television, I'd have to say football and women's basketball beat out lacrosse. Additionally, football has far more history than lacrosse (e.g. Duke hosted the 1942 Rose Bowl and the famous Iron Dukes are the subject of several books, whereas the entire lacrosse history involves making the national championship game last year and the current scandal which is already linked to). -Bluedog423 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers about generated income and attendance are skewed due to the fact that regardless of the success of the Football team, it will outsell a Lacrosse game. Lacrosse in general doesn't get much tv coverage. I would agree that Women's Basketball is bigger, but I disagree about football. The Arizona Cardinals had the worst home attendance last year, but I'm sure it out sold many other sporting events in other sports in the area. The Lacrosse team was known for becomming a good team up untill the scandal. Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me petition 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• All actionable objections have been addressed - 7 supports -Bluedog423 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Tagora

The article went through an internal WikiProject Automobiles and general peer review, and I guess the issues raised during these were resolved. This article covers probably close to all that can be said about the subject, and every bit of information is referenced. Please see whether you find that it meets the FA criteria. This is a self-nomination by Bravada, talk - 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article might just be the best referenced of all the Automobile articles, is free of any POV and rather comprehesive. The only problems are that the sections seem rather short and choppy which makes the article somewhat unactractive in terms of layout. Overall, however, it seems to meet the FA criteria. Signature 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Work on finding non-fair-use photo or add fair use rationale; and as another user has pointed out, ensure references point to supporting source. Outriggr 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Weak" object Neutral. I agree that it is a very good article, but I am objecting mostly on the grounds that it is hard for me to consider an article on the failed launch of a not-especially-notable vehicle as "Misplaced Pages's very best work" (criterion #1). Areas for improvement:

1. PSA is not spelled out in full nor disambiguated in the intro paragraph, and is linked numerous times in the article;
2. image does not have fair use rationale;
3. the sentence "These were deemed too extravagant by American Chrysler management and were later changed to more conventional - both front and rear wheelarches were changed to squarish and the license plate was placed on the front bumper as in most cars." regards, Outriggr 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Outriggr, thanks for your review of the article! I let myself number your points to be able to answer them in a more convenient manner:

1. OMG, thanks a lot for pointing that one out. I don't know how it got away through all those peer reviews. Anyway, corrected now.
2. If you click on the image, it's description says "...promotional photograph (...) uploaded to illustrate the article on the subject..." - I take it is not a FU rationale then. I am clearly confused as to what is an FU rationale and would be most grateful if you could expand on that.
3. I am too involved with the article now and a non-native English speaker to add to that, so I really don't see at the first glance what is wrong with the sentence. If you could please bear with me and explain it in more detail, or even propose how it could be amended (not to mention being bold and actually editing it), I would be most grateful again.

As regards your major concern, well, we do have featured articles on computer game characters and an "an open-source OpenGL multiplayer 3D tank battle game", on a guy who claimed to be ""Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico" and on a constructed langauge with not more than 2500 speakers. I believe what should take precedence is the quality of the article, not one's perception of the "notability" or importance of the subject. If this article became FA, it could show that even some lesser topics can be covered in a really good way, and it could also serve as a good example for all articles on "ordinary" car models. This was my rationale for putting it up here. Bravada, talk - 09:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bravada. To respond to your points,

1. I am no expert on what constitutes fair use rationale, but have seen this subject brought up in FA reviews before, and I am not sure whether the sentence accompanying your image constitutes this "rationale".
2. The sentence has a dash in it that seems misplaced. How about, "These were deemed too extravagant by American Chrysler management, so were changed to have a more conventional style: both front and rear wheel arches were changed to a squarer shape, and the license plate was placed on the front bumper as in most cars."
3. I guess my unstated point is that for articles that are on very narrow topics, like computer game characters, etc., "brilliant prose" is (or should be) a real necessity in making the article feature-worthy. Such prose would be hard to achieve in this article and I hope you won't hold it against me that I don't think the article has that shining prose. Outriggr 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Outriggr. I will change the sentence following your suggestions in due course, or if you can do it first, I would be most obliged. As concerns FU rationale, you left me totally confused now - can you give an example of a proper FU rationale then? Coming to your third point - I can say that this article surely can't be accused of featuring "brilliant prose", as I wrote the overwhelming majority of it (though thanks to suggestions from other users it is far more bearable now). Nevertheless, I believe that FAs should be judged by the same standards REGARDLESS of the topic. This means that an article on the USA and on Talbot Tagora should be up to the same standard when they are FAs. If "brilliant prose" is required from the USA article, it should be required from the Talbot Tagora one. However, if there are FAs passed not displaying "brilliant prose", no other article should required to do so. Bravada, talk - 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am certainly not the arbiter of what makes a good FA; just trying to contribute to the community. Regarding fair use rationale, here is an image I found from an FA that illustrates that: Image:Arrested_Development_cast_promo_photo.jpg. Let's see what other people have to say about your nomination! I will change my vote to neutral, as I admit that I can't spell out my opposition in a way that semantic police will not describe as against the spirit of the FA criteria. Outriggr 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The image in Arrested development is more likely to be 'fair use' because it's VERY difficult to find photos of cast members that are under an open license. Pictures of cars (even very specific car models) are two a penny. It's not a comparable situation.SteveBaker 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From the introduction: "It suffered a rather miserable fate, falling far short of sales expectations, which ended with an untimely demise as soon as in 1983." -- This seems a bit NPOV, was its demise 'untimely' or was it 'richly deserved'? That's a value judgement (and judging from the "What Car" review you quoted, it seems like 'richly deserved' is closer to the mark...but I don't think these kinds of judgement calls belong in the article. The quote from the reviewer is plenty damning. As for the Fair Use of the image - I have to say that there is no way you can consider this fair use - the copyright notice on that very image says "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose;" - so are you telling me that there are NO free images of a Talbot Tagora?! How hard have you tried? Someone told me a week ago that there were no free images of an AMC Matador. I went to eBay - found a car for sale - emailed the owner and asked nicely if I could use his photo for Misplaced Pages - and not only was he happy to provide it under any license I would name - he was actually flattered to be asked...and that was the very first person I asked! I've done the exact same thing to get photos for Mini and Mini Moke - I've NEVER been turned down by anyone I ever asked for permission to use their photos. So - no - there is no conceivable circumstance under which that image can be used under 'Fair use' unless maybe you are discussing the advertising brochure itself! SteveBaker 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thanks a lot for your review! Apart from those issues, what is your opinion of the article in general? As concerns images, finding a good image of Talbot Tagora that is not a manufacturer's or press photo is not that easy as it might seem, but I will do my best to do so as fast as I can. The sentence you mentioned is a clear example of what happens when an article has too little editors - I clearly got carried away and nobody noticed later on. The demise might be deemed "untimely", as no car that gets killed after only 3 model years and was made in less than 1/3 of planned annual production volume can be said to have departed timely IMHO, but I absolutely agree this is far from what one would expect from a good WikiPedia article. I'll try to improve that myself, but I would also appreciate that if you, as a native speaker and author of Featured Articles, give me a suggestion on how it could be done. Thanks a lot again! Bravada, talk - 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. BTW, I think you meant POV, not NPOV, or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Sorry - yes - I did mean 'POV'. There are currently no Talbot Tagora's on sale on eBay - but there are about 150 images showing up in response to that search term on Google images. (That's an amazingly low number! People must be embarassed to own these things!) There is also a Simca/Talbot owner's club: - which says that 'Club Simca France' has members with good examples of the car. Anyway - shooting off an email to the web site owners of the half dozen nicest photos ought to produce some results. Members of car clubs are fantastically vain about their cars and the idea that THEIR car would be the one that everyone sees as the idealised perfect car shown at the head of the Misplaced Pages article is absolutely irresistable to them! SteveBaker 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. In a citation spot check, four out of five references checked came up problematic (results here. That definitely needs to be addressed. Second, this needs a copyedit. --Robth 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (Responding to a post on my talk page.)Citations look good now, although I haven't checked every single one; given how many were problematic in the ones I checked, it would be good if the nominator would check to make sure all the rest point right to a page containing the cited information. As to a copyedit: the problems here are varied; some outright grammatical errors, a substantial number of cases of choosing a vaguely wrong word (e.g. "Following the Horizon and Alpine experiences"--"following the model used for the production of the Horizon and Alpine" would be better there), a few clauses that just don't make sense (e.g. "which was now obviously available."--what does it mean to be 'obviously available?'). A number of sentences and paragraphs need to be rewritten. From the lead, for example, "The car was first presented in 1980 and ultimately launched commercially in 1981. It fell far short of sales expectations, which ended with it being cancelled as soon as in 1983." would be better as "The car was first presented in 1980 and launched commercially in 1981. Its sales fell far short of expectations, and the model was discontinued in 1983.", or something similar. A good copyeditor needs to go through this. It shouldn't take too long, since this is a short article, but it needs to be done. --Robth 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty good, though another picture or too would be welcomed. Karrmann 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Enta Da Stage

Self nomination/Support I think the page is thorough enough to be included on the featured articles list, though it might need minor editing. Only one Hip Hop article is on the featured list, and we need some more. And considering that there's very limited info on the album (unlike Illmatic), I'd say I did a good job. --PDTantisocial 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no official Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how a article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support abstaining. Please see the discussions ] and ] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. --Jayzel 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object References seem a bit thin. For example, the sections Album singles as well as the sections Tracklisting and below have no stated references. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Objection withdrawn. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's what I was sayin' when I said there wasn't much info on the album. Plus, why would you need references for a tracklisting? It comes with the CD, you want me to scan the tracklisting from the album notes and use it as a reference? --PDTantisocial 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• You could cite the CD, though I'm not sure what the standards for citing CDs are. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The album singles section, I got the info from the liner notes of the Diggin' in Dah Vaults album, I can't find anything about it online, so I don't know what to put for a reference. The chart positions I wouldn't think need a reference, Illmatic is a featured article and it doesn't reference the chart positions, anybody can find that shit. --PDTantisocial 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Threw in references for the chart positions, album singles and the samples. --PDTantisocial 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I doubt that the tracklist needs to be referenced, seeing as Illmatic is a Featured article and contains no such thing Chubdub 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per nom Chubdub 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per nom 69.116.150.174 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Neutral no fair use rationales Highway 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you kindly exlpain this. I am a new member of Misplaced Pages, and therefore, don't understand how the images within this article fall under copyright infringement. P.O.N.Y. 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackmoonr.jpg is fair use because it is an album cover, Blackmoonstayreal.jpg is fair use because it from the music video "Stay Real," Blackmoonhowmanymcs.jpg is fair use because it from the music video "How Many MCs...," and Blackmoonpic2.jpg is fair use because it is part of an advertisement. I could not find a rationale for Beatminerz.jpg. 69.116.150.174 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Beatminerz picture is promotional. --PDTantisocial 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But still fair use. Highway 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• First, this did quite well on a citation spot check (results here). I have to object, however for two reasons. First, this needs a copyedit. A sampling of a few sentences from the lead shows a number of issues:
  • "features the debut from popular underground duo": 'from' is wrong; should be 'of'.
  • "...Dru-Ha, Duck Down Records co-founder.": 'Dru Ha, the co-founder of Duck Down Records', or 'Duck Down Records co-founder Dru-Ha' would be correct.
  • "Though critically acclaimed, the album was unable to produce significant sales,": "was unable to produce sales" is a bad phrasing; perhaps "sold relatively few copies"?
  • "despite of two Billboard Hot 100 hits": 'of' is wrong.' 'despite having', perhaps?
  • "Nonetheless, Enta Da Stage preceded the aforementioned releases": Why is this "nonetheless"?
• These and similar issues throughout need to be fixed. Second, a number of statements that need citations do not have them. Examples:
  • "Though not as widely heralded as similar groundbreaking New York albums of the mid-'90s like Nas' Illmatic, The Notorious B.I.G.'s Ready to Die, Wu-Tang Clan's Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) and Mobb Deep's The Infamous, Enta Da Stage was critically on a similar plateau." (What exactly does it mean to be "critically on a similar plateau, by the way?)
  • "...was one of the pioneering releases during the return of New York's street hip hop resurgence of the mid '90s, after the West Coast's reign of the early '90s."
• Someone needs to go through this and work on both of these issues. --Robth 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed your objections. 69.116.150.174 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So far so good, but my point was that not just those specific cases but a number of similar cases throughout the article need to be fixed. Go through, look for unsourced statements that a reader might want a source for, and pick over the language to make sure every sentence works. --Robth 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Looks fine to me. ...._(Complain) 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good job wwith this one. —Cuiviénen 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured content