Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2009: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:52, 10 March 2009 editGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Bot updating FAC archive links← Previous edit Revision as of 05:05, 11 March 2009 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
== March 2009 == == March 2009 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Lucy poems}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Movieland}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive2}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive2}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/National War Memorial (South Australia)/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/National War Memorial (South Australia)/archive1}}

Revision as of 05:05, 11 March 2009

March 2009

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Lucy poems Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Movieland

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 .

International Space Station

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk)

I would like to nominate this article for Featured Article status as I believe it details an important topic in a very interesting and complete manner, meeting all of the FA requirements. Since the last FAC we have dealt with all of the issues raised within it, conducted an A-class review and had two copyedits from members of the Guild of Copyeditors. I believe that, thanks to that, this article is ready for FA. Colds7ream (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Large chunks unreferenced, including statements of opinion such as "This provides experience in maintaining, repairing, and replacing systems on-orbit, which will be essential in operating spacecraft further from Earth, reducing mission risks and advancing the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft." or "The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the US segment of the International Space Station as a national laboratory with a goal to increase the utilisation of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector.""The station had sufficient operating power to carry out its near-term programme with only modest impacts on operations, so to prevent further damage, the joint was locked in place." These are just examples. Numerous unsourced statements throughout, including paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - agree with Ealdgyth that it is too thinly referenced for challengeable material. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - well written article, I'd say that referencing is acceptable for FAC, although there is a small amount of room for improvement. My only concern is over the potentially dated statements, but I don't think this is serious enough to warrant throwing out the FAC, so I am inclined to support. --GW… 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article would benefit from a Peer review; I'm very surprised to see that a WikiProject just passed it as A-class. It has an external link farm, MoS issues throughout, citation issues, and listy prose. I suggest withdrawing and getting an independent peer review, outside of the Project which just passed it A-class, utilizing the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. While FAC is backlogged it cannot serve well in place of a solid peer review. (Please review WP:DASH as well, to understand the difference between hyphens, WP:ENDASHes and WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, the article just had a peer review: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/International Space Station/archive3. It is formatted as an ACR in the article history. -MBK004 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I'm surprised to see it passed as A-class; that Project needs to improve peer reviews, and while FAC is backlogged, it should not be used as peer review. In the absence of editor reviews, I seem to have no choice but to begin pointing this out myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I took this as a hint and undid the A classification. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
External link farm taken care of, dashes taken care of. I'm wondering about the "listy prose", do you have specific sections that you feel are not up to standard ? It would help a lot of we see elements named I think --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. review from Truco (talk · contribs)

Dabs and external links (toolbox) and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose until you can fix factual errors. Distance traveled relative to what? Actual distance traveled should be 0. You can't just say c.2,000,000,000 km and expect someone to know what you are talking about. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Have you found any other errors? The distance travelled parameter is standard across all spacecraft infoboxes. However, it's a little gratuitous and I don't think many would miss it if it were removed from this article. Apollo 8, for example, does not include the parameter even though its infobox supports it. Wronkiew (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    I was thinking the same thing. It's mostly there for the schoolkids (they tend to ask such questions) and it is hardly proper information. I was also wondering why we bother with some of the more technical data. It's too inaccurate to be technically correct, constantly out of date and hard to grasp for laymen. I suggest to scrap: "orbit periode" (technical term, also covered by "orbits per day"), distance travelled (inaccurate, incorrect term, not properly supported by data of NASA), perigee, apogee and orbit inclination (incomplete orbit information unless all 6 orbital elements are specified, too technical, and constantly out of date). I also have little love for atmospheric pressure, since it is specified elsewhere in the article I believe. Then we could simply keep the link to NSSCD and add a link to the NASA orbital data page to the infobox. Seems much simpler and more accurate. People are directed to the proper information, while we still keep useful data for the laymen (average height, orbits per day, orbits since launch) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is not of FA quality yet. I will list some problems that I noted:
  1. The station offers an advantage over spacecraft such as NASA's Space Shuttle because it is a long-term platform in the space environment. The station allows long-term studies to be performed, both on specific experiments and on the human crews that operate them. Redundant sentences. In addition, the second sentence duplicates the first.
  2. Scientific results from station research, in fields from basic science to exploration research, are being published every month. Another redundent sentence. Do readers really need to know that the results are published every month?
  3. I actually came to a conclusion that the 'Overview' section is not necessary. The overview is supposed to be provided by the lead, and the current section is full of vague sentences (see examples above). I suggest removing it, and moving some information to the lead.
    The reviews so far suggested that the lead was too long and that an Overview/Purpose section should be added. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Scientists have several plans to study biology on the ISS. Another redundant sentence.
  5. I do not like 'Areas of research' subsection very much. It is essentially based on just one NASA source, which it closely follows. I think more sources should be found. Many statements are too vague. For instance, Also, because fluids can be combined nearly completely in space regardless of their relative weights, they are interested in investigating the combination of fluids that would not mix well on Earth. It does not say anything specific about planned experiments. I think it will be good to provided examples of fluids that need investigation.
    Wouldn't that make the article much too technical ? Because I doubt we have articles on such fluids. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    One of the problems of the article as a whole and 'Areas of research' subsection in particular is overuse of 'also'.
  6. As a multinational collaborative project, the legal and financial aspects of the ISS are detailed and complex—governing ownership of modules, crewing and utilisation of the station, and responsibilities for station resupply. Redundant sentence.
  7. In the same section the second paragraph (and the assignment of time) is unreferenced.
  8. The last sentence in this section: Giving a precise cost estimate for the ISS is not straightforward, as it is difficult to determine which costs should actually be contributed to the ISS programme, or how the Russian contribution should be measured. is redundant as well.
    But isn't that important ? The fact that something is close to immeasurable ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin says ... actually former NASA administrator.
    good point (Griffin handed over administration effectively half of February officially January 20).
  10. The section 'Future of the ISS' is too heavly focused on US. Do other partners have opnions about the future of ISS?
    Good point. I guess it should be clarified that without US operations, the station basically cannot continue operating. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    You should clarify that without Russian operations, the station cannot continue operating. Wronkiew (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Multi faceted here of course. With the american shuttle retiring, russian services are critical for continued operations of human presence on board the station. Without NASA however, the station (as a piece of technology) can not "fly", because NASA controls the critical elements of the station; power supply, flight control/stabilization, cooling, electronics, communication services (called TDRS). In theory, Zarya/Zvezda can be decoupled, but that section could only survive for 6 months or so. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. In the 'Space station' section: Nine of these components are already in orbit, with ... However in 'Assembly and structure' subsection I read As of July 2008, the station consisted of ten pressurised modules Which number is correct nine or ten?
    Corrected --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. This high-voltage distribution line allows for smaller power lines I do not know what "smaller power lines" mean. Actually it should be "wires with smaller diameter".
  13. Please, check that all abbreviations like CSA are spelled out.
  14. I think one of the problem of the article is lack of a section devoted to the detailed description of pressurized modules. The current 'Scientific modules' subsection fulfills this role only partially. I think it would be beneficial to have 'Modules' section containing a subsection for each module. The 'Scientific modules' can be merged with it.
    One of the problems here would be however that sections don't have dedicated functions. Their role changes over time, There used to be a section describing them, but they were moved, then we had a table, but that basically contained a lot of information that was duplicate with other statements in the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  15. I think the article would benefit from a table where all modules are listed (with launch dates, mass, volume and other information).
    Table restored. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  16. The article is mainly based on NASA/ESA/RKA sources and newspapers. Can publications in peer reviewed journals (or in other reliable third party sources) be cited where appropriate? (especially in sections that deal with science).
    I doubt wether much science results are publicized yet (can take up to 10 years). Perhaps there are science journals on the proposals that were submitted to NASA/ESA/RKA. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The above list of problems is not exhaustive. The article actually needs much work before it becomes featured. Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article ignores the books published on the space station and relies exclusively on web-based research and thus does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", as required by the FA critiera. This Google Books search shows that there are plenty of books available. I would also expect that there are scientific papers available elsewhere. Where there are books, there are papers, since papers come first. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact there are some books cited in the article, the reason for there not being more is the fact that most of them are out-of-date, having been published before or during the post-Columbia assembly halt. Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 .

National War Memorial (South Australia)

Nominator(s): Bilby (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is ready, and I believe it to be complete. I've been working on it for a while now, and have pretty much exhausted the sources. It's been through a peer review and GAN, and since then I let it sit for a bit while I waited for access to the physical site and for any input from other editors. Plus it never hurts to get a bit of distance from your writing. At any rate, I really enjoyed doing the research on this, and I hope that it is at a featured standard - but, if not, it should come out a better article via this process than it was going in. Bilby (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I spotted a contraction "didn't" in there
  • The odd thing is that the dimensions and height of the memorial isn't specified, which I think it needs to be if possible.
  • I wonder why you did not take a photo of the inner chamber. That seems to be missing
  • That was a tad problematic. The memorial has been closed for most of the time I was working on the article, and the public were only recently given full access. I took some pictures inside it, but while I wasn't relly happy with them, one of the bronzes looks ok, so I've added that to the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think in the historical intro, it would be good to add how many SA people and % of SA people served in WWI so that the the significance of the war effort and its impact can be better understood
  • I think the first caption in the main text is not quite accurate as the angle seems to be from the corner of Kintore/NT looking NW into the face rather than directly W from Kintore.
  • Actually, I recall thinking the same on one trip to the site, and promising myself that I would remember to fix it when I got home. I didn't, but I have now. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we know the general number of labourers it took to build it?
  • Unfortunately no. Richardson didn't mention the numbers, and no-one else would have tried. :( Some could theoretically be derived from Tillet's records, which I've been told still exist, but that would only hold for the stonemasons, and would probably be OR. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any information about vandalism/misuse of the war memorial. There are always yobbos there skating on it ... :(
  • I've been over everything I can get access to, and there isn't anything that we can use - there are three newspaper articles about vandalism, but they're individual cases. There was also something in Hansard about improving lighting in the area to cut down on drug use, but I gather that was the surrounding areas, rather than the memorial as such. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Inconsistencies with choice of date format in refs needs to be fixed.
  • I don't agree with the BW caption of North Terrace. The picture is taken from about 50m west of Kintore and maybe 200-250 metres east of King William Road, which is closer to Kintore than KWR.

Overall a great article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the toolbox there are a couple of dabs and broken urls that are waiting for you. Apart from that the sources are all fine and scholarly. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Inglis (2008), p. 281. -- Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Inglis2008p281 -- Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follows:

  • That's who I got it from. :) I'll see them again and inquire about the source. The date mentioned was what they presumed it to be, but I agree there's leeway in this - although on the plus side I've seen a picture of him from the mid 40's, and he certainly looks younger in the picture I've used. I'll push for something more exact. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The architecture museum curator is sure that the picture is prior to 1946, but she doesn't have anything to confirm that (other than the mustache, which he didn't have in 1946), and none of the works we know of in which it has been used include an attribution. However, I tracked down the 1929 issue of "Who's Who in Australia", which included a photo that is definitely safe, so I've swapped them over. (File:Louis Laybourne Smith 1929.jpg). I've got an even more dapper picture from the 1909 "Cyclopedia of South Australia", (handlebar mustache and everything), but the quality is lower and the 1929 pic is the right period for the war memorial. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • File:North Terrace, Adelaide, 1940.jpg is not the postcard the description states it to be. P. 9394 (1940, hence PD-US and AUS) is this one; the vehicles are different, the shot is taken further away, and the weather seems drier. The postcard that is used for this image is this one (H82.289/208), which is circa 1946, hence not PD-US (though PD-AUS).
  • Your link doesn't work, I'm afraid - it seems to be a temporary search result. However, the wrong number was on the postcard, as the correct number is P 9446. I suspect I stuffed up somehow. Presuming that's the one you found, then 1946 may be right. I can't swap the two, as the first one is from the SA Library, and they claim ownership (but not copyright) on the photos. So unless I can get my own copy of the postcard I don't think I can really use it. On the plus side, I should be able to get my own copy, so I'll chase that up in the next couple of days (when my pay clears) and report back. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I tracked down a copy of the 1940 postcard, P. 9394, and replaced the 1946 picture with a scan of the new one. So all should be good. I also added a second picture that I found at the same time - it's an earlier number in the same series, P. 9259, and is similarly dated 1940 (although judging by the state of the vines on the wall, I'd guess that it's pre 1936). - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the postcard should be easy to resolve (a swap would do). Inquiries for the other two images could likely resolve them too. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All images now in the article are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not happy yet—1a. I read only the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence. The whole of the text is at issue; these are mere examples of what I mean. Tendency to long-windedness, inter alia.

  • Second sentence: illogical structuring of ideas. "Opened in 1931, the memorial was first proposed in 1919 and was funded by the Parliament of South Australia." No ... "First proposed in 1919, the memorial was funded by the Parliament of South Australia and was opened in 1931." is getting there. But then we're shunted back into the story in the second para. Hmmm ...
  • "The first competition, conducted in 1924, produced 26 designs"—Remove "conducted", and "which was run" later.
  • "In this, the work is not displaying a material victory, but instead a victory of the spirit." --> "The work is not displaying a victory of the spirit rather than a material victory".
  • "Within the memorial can be found bronzes lining the walls of the inner shrine on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." OK, so names not from WWII. "the Great War" will be understood as WWI, will it? Maybe. It's long-winded; why not: "Bronzes line the walls of the inner shrine, on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." Comma required, since not a subset of such shrines—it's the only one, yes? Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs a good massage if the prose is to be regarded as "of professional standard". We're doing justice to a lot of people who died, so smooth, authoritative writing is the least we can deliver. Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The lead has been rewritten per the above, and restructured: the first part now focuses solely on the big questions - what is it, who is it for, where is it - while the second covers history and design, following the structure of the article proper. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a. I started with "History" and don't have a great feeling about the prose. Some sample issues:
    • "Almost 35,000 South Australians served in the First World War, accounting for ..." To me, this is strangely organized so "accounting for" wants to refer to "First World War" rather than the 35,000.
    • "In response to these deaths, Archibald Peake, the premier of South Australia, declared that he would be asking the state ..." Why not cut the "declared he would be" and just write "asked"?
    • Moving on from there: "... parliament to fund the building of a memorial commemorating" More wordiness; why not just "fund a memorial"? Clearly they are funding its construction.
    • "... it received unanimous support in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council." What is the word "both" doing?
    • "As a result of this decision, the South Australian Government became the first in Australia to elect to build a memorial to the soldiers of the First World War." They didn't "elect" as a result of the "decision"; the election was the decision. Either eliminate the entire opening clause, or eliminate "to elect".
    • "It was decided at the time that the new memorial should be referred to as the 'National War Memorial'" Twisted and wordy passive voice. Solve the problem by making it active and tell us who decided: "<Whoever> decided to refer to the new memorial as ..."
Lots of work needed. --Laser brain (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Those have all been addressed, and I've made a light pass through "History" to fix anything else I can spot in that part. I'll run through the rest and try to tighten the language, as well as making another pass on the History section. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received. - Bilby (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - was granite and marble the only used stone ? A reference I have tells me that Stoneyfell Quartzite (Tea Tree Gully Freestone) from Bundey's quarry was also used. Isn't the main structure this stone ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 .

Water fluoridation

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk)

This became a Good Article after a careful and helpful review from Doc James along with critical and ultimately supportive comments by II. It went through peer review with positive comments by Finetooth and a useful quick comment from Colin. It's ready for a shot at Featured Article status.

Fluoridation is sometimes controversial. The article focuses on technical aspects and briefly summarizes the controversy in its Ethics and politics section, with a subarticle Opposition to water fluoridation (not part of this nomination) that goes into more detail. Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom, images and sources reviewed. (Please avoid the use of caps to hide comments, per WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My concerns regarding article structure have been moved from here to the talk article's talk page, because at approximately 6.5Kb they have been deemed too long for this venue. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of templates to hide long commentary is discouraged at FAC as it causes FAC archives to exceed template limits (see the WP:FAC instructions). Long commentary is better placed on article talk, with a brief example of WP:WIAFA issues placed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia that long and detailed commentary such as the above would be better discussed on the talk page, and have copied it and replied to it in Talk:Water fluoridation #Article structure etc. I suggest to Xasodfuih to remove this long thread from this page, as it sort of gets in the way, but that's up to Xasodfuih of course. Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I intend to re-read the article before posting my opinions. However, it most certainly is not a drug article (and even if it was, WP:MEDMOS only offers suggested headings; it doesn't insist on them.) WF is a public health issue, not a treatment one gets on prescription from a pharmacist. There are medical and bio-chemical aspects to this topic but they sit alongside many others. For example, the safety of WF additionally concerns the implementation at the treatment works, and environmental impact. Neither feature in a drug article's section on side effects. Colin° 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. In general this article conveys the right message. The more egregious issues have been solved during the previous FAC round. It's clear to me that the remaining differences of opinion regarding this article will not be resolved in an editing environment like this, so this is as good as it gets. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposing comments by Peripitus (talk · contribs) - not a comprehensive read as yet but some things stand out.(note I've struck my oppose - reasons later below - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC))
    • There is material in the lead (highlighted by the use of inline references) that is not elsewhere. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and this is instead written more as an introduction. I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article then rewriting the lead. As it stands the lead section is full of statistics and cited details but is lacking an overview of some parts of the article.
    • The article is very US-centric in places and almost totally in others. Much of the lead, almost all of "Implementation" and "History" sections, and quite a few other places are overly focused on this one country. A worldwide perspective is needed.
- Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, every statement in the lead summarizes a corresponding statement (or statements) in the body. Can you please be specific about any problems in this area?
  • Every inline citation in the lead is also cited in the body; surely there's nothing wrong with this style, as it's common in technical Misplaced Pages articles.
  • "I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article" As far as I can see, all the material and citations in the lead are already present in the body.
  • "the lead section ... is lacking an overview of some parts of the article" Which parts are those?
  • "The article is very US-centric in places" The topic has come up before (please see Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 2 #Mechanism and worldwide view, for example) and the consensus has been, on reflection, that the article does not place undue weight on U.S. views. The topic is inherently U.S.-centric, as water fluoridation was first done in the U.S., most water-fluoridation research has been done in the U.S., and about half of the world's fluoridated population lives in the U.S.
  • For reference, here is a list of every source in Water fluoridation that is cited 5 or more times:
Overall these statistics do not indicate a U.S.-centric view; on the contrary, given the topic, if anything the statistics suggest a bit of a bias against the U.S.
Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
An observation. I don't agree with his analysis, but your response is obfuscating as well because a review can be cited for any number of issues, from country specific stuff to scientific info (mechanism etc.) or a metaanalysis of some studies. He's referring to the coverage of the text, whereas you reply with a fairly meaningless argument of how often some sources are cited when that does not correlate at all with what he's talking about. It's discussion like this that made me give up trying to improve this article further. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that counting sources is only a crude approximation; my excuse is that it was the best impartial approximation I could do in a hurry. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to opposition. The implementation section could not possibly focus on countries that have not implemented WF. The cost in the lede is from US, and should be clarified as such. Having said that, costs for Australia are available, and could mentioned. The history section is also by necessity US-centric since the US was the first to fluoridate, and that's where the initial research took place. That section being summarized in the lede (1-2 sentences) does not appear WP:UNDUE to me. The only possible US-centrist stuff in the lede might be the juxtaposition of the percentage of the U.S. population with the one for the rest of the world; percentages for other implementing/English-speaking countries could be mentioned; the last sentence can give the impression that WF is an US-only thing. The map (later in the body) which combines natural and artificial water fluoridation (although the original data source gives them on separate columns) isn't terribly useful at pointing out which other countries implement WF on a significant scale. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, I removed the U.S.-centric juxtaposition from the lead. The original data source gives the total fluoridation as the last (and summary) column, and this seemed to be the best column to use for the map. In the context of the article it'd be misleading to color Gabon white (for no artificial fluoridation) simply because natural fluoridation suffices. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in FAC before restart. Not going to repeat the whole thing. Your last comment, which was confusing:
  • (copied from before restart - complaint that fluoridation redirects to water fluoridation so that anyone searching for fluoridation will be redirected to this article on the controlled addition of fluoride to the public water supply.) This is my main complaint about the article, that it conflates natural and artificial water fluoridation. The very first sentence is the following: Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. I still feel the article would be better off not pretending to just discuss "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" as it really discusses fluoridation in general, and mixes the statistics of natural and the "controlled addition" of fluoride, as well as discussing the effects of fluoridation in toothpaste, salt etc. The article does not remain focused on the "controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" that the lead sentence says is the topic. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (Eubulides - copied - in part - from before restart) The article is supposed to be about water fluoridation, and the vast majority of its text focuses on WF rather than on its alternatives; but it's impossible to cover WF in an encyclopedic way without also briefly discussing related topics (toothpaste, salt fluoridation, dental sealants, etc.), just as it's impossible for Autism to discuss the topic of classic autism in an encyclopedic way without also discussing Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS, epilepsy, etc. Perhaps some of these related topics are discussed in too much detail (and if so, please say exactly where and when), but surely it'd be too much to ask Water fluoridation to not discuss these related topics at all. Eubulides (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (my response before restart regarding conflation of fluoridation natural water fluoridation with artificial fluoridation) This is like a situation in which Autism redirects to Asperger syndrome so Asperger syndrome is now compelled to discuss Autism in general rather than focusing on Asperger syndrome. Bear in mind that anyone who wants to know about fluoridation gets redirected to Water fluoridation which starts out by limiting the article to "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply". However, in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases. Since there is no general article on fluoridation, why not make this one general. Or at the very least, water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural. Then both could be discussed. It would be easy to explain why statistics and maps etc. cannot always separate the two, and the article could discuss the effects of fluoridation in water as well as the alternatives methods of distribution like salt, toothpaste etc. would remedy my major objection to the article which is the conflation, as mentioned many times above.
  • My objections prior to restart remain. Since they have not been addressed, and do not seem to be understood, I will register a formal oppose, which previously I was trying to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Fluoridation should redirect to Fluoride therapy as the fluoridation of toothpaste, water, milk and salt are all delivery methods of that "therapy". The current redirect is perhaps inappropriate as it is to only one type of fluoridation and the reader wouldn't immediately be aware that there are other types. Would that help? Someone would have to check all the "what links here" to ensure they point to water fluoridation where necessary.
Water fluoridation, the article, cannot be changed to generally discuss "fluoride in the water". As mentioned in the previous FAC, "fluoridation" is an active word, not a passive description. Colin° 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay to making the focus strictly narrower to the controlled addition, but in that case the map in the Use around the world section should not conflate the natural and artificial sources given that the data is given separately in the source cited. The lucky guys in Gabon don't seem to spend a dime to fluoridate water. The details on defluoridation implementation could be removed as well. Also details like "In some locations, notably parts of Africa, China, and India, natural fluoridation exceeds recommended levels." appear off-topic as well if assume the narrower focus. The article currently meanders between natural and artificial fluoridation in a way that may confuse readers; it confused Mattisse anyway. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of natural fluoridation should not be removed from the article, as natural fluoridation is essential for understanding the topic of artificial fluoridation. As for meandering and the map, please see the changes discussed (outdented) below. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "... water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural." Reliable sources don't use that terminology. The cited source, CDC 2001 (PMID 11521913), says "Fluoridated drinking water contains a fluoride concentration effective for preventing dental caries; this concentration can occur naturally or be reached through water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply." Following this source's distinction between (artificial) "water fluoridation" and (artificial or natural) "fluoridated water" should alleviate some of the confusion noted above. I did this by inserting the following immediately after the lead sentence:
"Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."
and then went through the rest of the article, systematically using the term "water fluoridation" to refer to artificial fluoridation, and "fluoridated water" to refer to either artificial or natural fluoridation. I hope this change fixes most of the confusion noted above. (Fluoridated water already redirects to Water fluoridation, which justifies emboldening the newly-added "Fluoridated water" in the lead.)
  • "in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases" Can you please mention specifically which statistics have this problem? Effectiveness does contain phrases like "Compared to water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, fluoridation to 1 mg/L ..." which attempt to make it clear that we are comparing fluoridation at recommended levels to fluoridation at natural levels. I did find that the article did not clearly state that fluoridation has a beneficial effect even in the assumed presence of toothpaste, so I added that (citing McDonagh et al. 2000); if you can mention other specific instances of confusing wording, I'd appreciate it.
  • Reliable sources generally assume that Fluoridated water's effectiveness doesn't depend on whether the fluoride is natural or artificial. This assumption has not been well-tested; however, I added to Effectiveness the York Review's comment that no differences between natural and artificial fluoridation was detected in the review, but the evidence was inadequate to reach a conclusion about this.
  • "Perhaps Fluoridation should redirect to Fluoride therapy" That would be less accurate than what we have now, as the popular use of the word "fluoridation" is to refer to community fluoridation, not to individual treatments such as fluoridated toothpaste.
  • "the Use around the world section should not conflate the natural and artificial sources given that the data is given separately" As mentioned above, the source for that section's image gives the data both separately and together, with its rightmost table column giving the bottom-line figures that form the basis of the map.
Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comments from Peripitus (talk · contribs) in response to the question on my opposition. For me at the moment the article fails criteria 1(a) (well written) and 2(a) (lead).
    • In the lead, please see sentence 1, paragraph 2. The statistic is mentioned only once that I can find (not echoed in the article). The last sentence of this paragraph and the "unknown fluoride levels" section in the first paragraph at least do not seem to match what is in the text. While for some facts (and many biographies) some citations in the lead are needed, this over-abundance makes the lead far less attractive and readable. Note that ref in the lead is used to assert that "moderate fluoridation prevents cavities" and yet this precise assertion is not matched by the same reference used in the text. I can't see from this that the lead is the type of summary of the article needed.
    • US-Centric. The issue is not the citations but the text itself. In the "History" section there are 4 1/2 paragraphs about the U.S. and two sentences about other countries. This article is supposed to be about water fluoridation and (if the 5.7% world pop and 60% US pop figures are correct) then most people (67%) who drink fluoridated water live outside the US, many of whom have had it for over 1/2 a century. The article continually and repeatedly mentions "U.S.". Eight paragraphs into the article, about a subject that affects over 300M people outside, the US is mentioned about 1/2 a dozen times before any other country comes into the picture. The article tells me that other countries have had fluoridation for over 50 years but in many sections I would believe that this happens only in one country.

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments. Some thoughts:
  • "sentence 1, paragraph 2. The statistic is mentioned only once that I can find" Thanks, fixed.
  • "The last sentence of this paragraph and the "unknown fluoride levels" section in the first paragraph at least do not seem to match what is in the text." The last sentence of this paragraph:
"Fluoridation may be more justified in the U.S. because of socioeconomic inequalities in dental health and dental care."
summarizes the following text in Effectiveness:
"Fluoridation may be more justified in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride."
The "unknown fluoride levels" section:
"Bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels, and some more-expensive household water filters remove some or all fluoride."
summarizes the following text in Implementation:
"U.S. regulations for bottled water do not require disclosing fluoride content, so the effect of always drinking it is not known.... Pitcher or faucet-mounted water filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride."
  • "While for some facts (and many biographies) some citations in the lead are needed, this over-abundance makes the lead far less attractive and readable." The citations are indeed ugly, but WP:V requires them. The topic of water fluoridation is complex, current, and controversial, and as WP:LEADCITE says, the article's lead therefore needs many citations.
  • "Note that ref in the lead is used to assert that "moderate fluoridation prevents cavities" and yet this precise assertion is not matched by the same reference used in the text." I altered the body to make the precise assertion to mimick the lead. That part of the body is a summary of the rest of that section, so the lead already summarized substantial material in that section ("In the 1930s and early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean ..."), but I suppose it can't hurt to say it one more time so that the citations line up.
  • "I can't see from this that the lead is the type of summary of the article needed." All lead-related problems specifically noted in your comment have been fixed, so I hope the lead is now a reasonable summary.
  • "if the 5.7% world pop and 60% US pop figures are correct) then most people (67%) who drink fluoridated water live outside the US" I don't know where that 67% figure came from, but it's not quite right. The cited source is relying on older fluoridation estimates, I think the 355 million estimate put out by the One in a Million source (PDF); 355 million would have been 5.7% of the world population in 2002, which sounds about right for the date of that 355 million estimate. One in a Million lists 171 million in the U.S, which would mean that when that estimate was made, about 52% of the people who drank artificially fluoridated community water lived outside the U.S.
  • "In the "History" section there are 4 1/2 paragraphs about the U.S. and two sentences about other countries."
  • I added discussion of the Brantford-Sarnia-Stratford study in Canada (1945–1962), the Tiel-Culemborg study in the Netherlands (1953–1969), the Hastings study in New Zealand (1954–1970), and the Department of Health study in the U.K. (1955–1960).
  • That same edit added discussion of the history of fluoridation in Ireland.
  • It also added discussion of the discontinuance of fluoridation in Basle.
  • I added discussion of the history of fluoridation in New Zealand.
  • I added discussion about Africa's developing countries.
  • I added discussion of early proposals in Britain and in Germany to add fluoride to the diet.
  • I added a mention of Australia in the lead. (Later replaced with the World Health Organization, which is even better.)
As a result of the above changes, by my count History contains 301 words (41%) about non-US countries, 63 words (8%) of international material that is not about any country in particular, and 379 words (51%) about the U.S. This should be about right, given the topic.
  • "Eight paragraphs into the article, about a subject that affects over 300M people outside, the US" According to the One in a Million source mentioned above, only 184 million people outside the U.S. use water fluoridation.
  • "the US is mentioned about 1/2 a dozen times before any other country comes into the picture." As a result of the edits I've made recently, Australia the World Health Organization is now mentioned first. In the lead, Australia the World Health Organization is mentioned once, Europe once, and the U.S. 3 times.
  • "The article continually and repeatedly mentions 'U.S.'" A heavy emphasis on the U.S. is required by the topic. The vast majority of reliable sources about water fluoridation are U.S. sources and use U.S. data. "The science justifying fluoridation, like the practice itself, has remained predominantly American." — Sellers C (2004). "The artificial nature of fluoridated water: between nations, knowledge, and material flows". Osiris. 19: 182–200. PMID 15478274. Hmm, maybe that should go into the article?
Eubulides (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No further comment, so I added "Water fluoridation's science and practice are predominantly American" to Use around the world, citing Sellers 2004. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've struck my oppose as, on the face of it, my concertns have either been explained as incorrect or the edits have removed the issue. I can't change to support as I think that, especially given the above debate, this would require a deal more familiarity with the subject that I have at present. I do note something worrying, remove the lead and read the article without it. I get quite a few words in before the article tells me what the subject is in clear terms. I would have thought that a definition of the topic would be rather earlier.- Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 .

The Return of Dr. Octagon

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

This is part of a series of articles, including Kool Keith, Dr. Octagon and Dr. Octagonecologyst. A lot of hard work has been put into this one, and I think that it should require minimal edits for it to be passed as a FA. When this article was nominated as a GA, the reviewer commented on how well-sourced the article is. Text has been written carefully and undergone some copyediting. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose The image in the "Lyrical themes and storyline" section is distorted and badly out of focus. Further, the image has no connection to the caption on the image in the article. Useless image to the context of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment — The image shows Kool Keith rapping in concert. It illustrates text describing his lyrics/raps. Thus, it is not useless. Secondly, it is the best image of Keith that's available under a free license. Actually, it's the only image of Keith on Flickr that's under a free license. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
      • That it's the best image available doesn't mean a better one can't be obtained. The image sucks. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's bad enough to oppose the article's opposition. Readers can see what's going on in the image. It's clear enough to even be used in an album's liner notes, I think. It's only slightly blurred. You act as if it's completely abstract, when most viewers can see a man on stage holding a microphone. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
Oppose by Dweller

Oppose based on finding multiple problems in just the first small chunk of the article. I can only assume that there's lots of other problems thereafter. Suggest thorough copyedit by uninvolved editor, or, preferably, PR.

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/dr-octagon-the-return-of-dr-octagon/ |title=Review of ''The Return of Dr. Octagon'' |accessdate=2009-01-27 |last=Frauenhofer |first=Michael |date=June 29, 2006 |publisher=]}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead''TRUCO 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Further comments by Dweller
  • Partial reuse of wikilinking following Lead. E.g. Thornton/Kool Keith not wikilinked, but Dr. Octagonecologyst is.
  • "The album was produced by Dan "The Automator" Nakamura." Which album? Presumably you mean Dr. Octagonecologyst but that's far from clear. And if so, the relevance of that information in this article is equally unclear.
  • Please ensure ellipses conform to WP:ELLIPSIS.
  • "Fanatik J engaged in a legal battle with CMH over contractual terms that did not give him artistic control over remixes, stating that he wanted to prevent the album's release." Confused and confusing. The "artistic control" clause appears to refer to FanatikJ's opinion, but by the end of the sentence, we appear to be reading the record company's opinion, without any direction from the text that this is the case.
  • "Thornton stated that with Dr. Octagonecologyst, Thornton gave Nakamura his first successful album as a producer" Should be "had given".
  • Per WP:REDLINK, link One-Watt Sun on its first occurrence and then, depending on how you responded above, first mention in body (or not, as the case may be)
  • I still can't see in which countries the record was released.
  • "Although Thornton's vocals were largely constructed without his involvement" how can vocals be done without the vocalist's involvement?

More to come --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm uneasy about the reliability of rapreviews.com. Can you provide some information demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and editorial process? Are there any reliable publications referring to them as being authoritative? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 .

Braid (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM (t)

Braid, an independently developed game, has gained a lot of attention due to not only it's innovations in gameplay (involved time-manipulation), but the overall experience of game, art, and music. There's a heck of a lot of information for a game pretty much made by one person, which I've hoped I've captured well for this. Thanks goes to Drilnoth who helped to also copy edit this while undergoing its GA nomination. MASEM (t) 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's me again, and you can probably guess what I'm going to say. :) Needs serious attention to prose. Examples at random:
    • "Braid tells the story of Tim, the protagonist, attempting to rescue his princess, and has many allusions and interpretations." Two disconnected clauses awkwardly mashed together. Latter clause is puzzling.
    • "requiring the player to use these abilities to collect keys to complete each level and puzzle pieces to fully complete the story." Tiring sentence structure.
    • "Developed over a course of three years on his own money, Blow " Misplaced modifier.
    • "designed the game to reflect on much of the current trends he favored and disliked in current game design efforts." Eh?
    • "Artwork for the game was drawn by David Hellman, with the graphics iterated several times to achieved Blow's desired vision for the game." Redundancies and proofread!
    • "Its release on Xbox Live was very positive " No doubt reaction to its release, no?
    • "While working on the art direction, Blow improved on the puzzles in the game to make sure they could play better." Can't get more unspecific than this. Explain please.
    • "One mechanic that Blow could not develop further was a world with no "arrow of time", requiring the player to get from one end of a level to another in a way which would allow them to retrace their steps back, making things such as a drop from a height higher than what the player could jump would be impossible"
    • "Blow then began adding puzzles that made philosophical points on game design in general, and resulted in dropping some worlds that were not as interesting as the remaining levels in the game"
    • "Blow also specifically avoided using a first- or third-person view for the game like these other title had done as, despite the fact that the time effects are better experienced from those perspectives, some of the puzzles in Braid would have been impossible or more difficult in any other perspective" Try reading this one out loud.
    • etc. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Rather have the input than none :). I've gone through with a fine comb to try to cut apart the longer rambling sentences and remove redundancies. Please give it a second look. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you'll need to spend a couple hours at least on the prose. Problematic sentences are abundant, and the problems are not just limited to simple spelling/grammatical errors (although they're there as well). You'll have to spend some time thinking about the best way to reword them. Think carefully about your audience; assume that readers will not know anything about the game (e.g. "it has been interpreted as an oblique ironic comment about traditional platform game design"...I don't see the irony...explain). More examples at random:
        • "The story is left ambiguous leading to many allusions and interpretations." Still have no idea what the heck this is trying to say.
        • "While the game features traditional aspects of platform games, it incorporates a number of time manipulation features, requiring the player to use these abilities in collecting keys and completing each level and puzzle pieces to fully reveal the game's story." Latter half causes readers to run out of breath.
        • "designed the game to reflect on his opinion of recent trends in current game design efforts." Eh?
        • "As each world was build up using these piece, Blow suggested more changes that reflectd the tone of each world and avoided art that distracted from the gameplay."
        • Audit for "then"; it's a lazy way of trying to achieve narrative flow. Makes articles read like school book reports. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I did a copy-edit on the lead, but I would consider withdrawing the nomination so more extensive work can be done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Points addressed above. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1 (b). The PC version is less than a month from release, and if it has even half the impact of the XBox version, there should be coverage enough to bulk this article out significantly. As it stands, the article is incomplete. If the release was due next year, I'd feel differently. But because it's so close, I don't think the article will meet the comprehensiveness requirement until the dust has settled on the PC release. For context, I'd feel the same way about a film article nominated before its theatrical release was complete, or an article about a sporting competition nominated halfway through the playoffs. On a side note, this article has improved tenfold since I read it last year; back then, I considered working on it myself. But under your supervision, I can't see that FA star's being too far away. All the best, Steve 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand and agree to a point on that, though the transition from Xbox to PC is less significant of a jump than if this were a PC title being ported to the Xbox; I can't see how much this would add beyond "controls suck on the PC". However, I don't discount there could be more, I just haven't seen anything. (eg if Blow was reading a level editor I would have expected to see news about that) --MASEM (t) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi, I'm thinking more along the lines of critical reception, release info., unforeseen problems and further awards, development coverage, and—not meaning to diss the console press, though it appears I am—hopefully some decent coverage that interprets the story and themes in more detail than we've already seen (New Games Journalism—no matter what one might think of the term itself—is something that appears not to be as popular in the console community, but which has provided much insight at the PC end—Braid is ripe for such analyses). Much of this is likely (if at all—I'm not unwilling to discount the possibility it won't) to appear either closer to the release or after it; give it a couple of weeks and I'd be willing to bet on an explosion of coverage. Steve 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1b. I agree with Steve here, surprisingly enough. Seeing little subsections makes me naturally hesitant about it being comprehensive, and the news results suggest that this is going to be more impacting than, say, Halo 2's PC release (which aside from male nudity was released way past relevance, although I still need to add in reception for the PC version and so that's prolly not the best example.) On an unrelated note, is there a better image to replace the shot of Blow, say File:Jonathan blow speaking.jpg or similar? The disembodied hand and long shot is rather disconcerting. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

On the advice of waiting for the PC version to settle out, I'll withdraw this nomination for now. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 .

The Battle (boxing)

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a wonderfully written and illustrated article on one of the most significant boxing matches of 2008. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

I don't follow boxing and know little about the ins and outs of the sport, but the article seems to cover everything that it should. There are some issues I picked up, though:

  • "resulted in a eleventh round technical knockout victory for Antonio Margarito" - no need to use his full name, as he was only introduced in the previous sentence. Just use his surname here
Done.
  • Lead: "Both Cotto and Margarito's victories on April 12" - this seems to pre-suppose that readers know both men fought on that date. Maybe try something like "Both men had previously fought on April 12 and emerged victorious, thus clearing the way....."
Changed the sentence to your suggestion.
  • The full quotations in the lead seem a bit excessive, maybe just state that multiple commentators praised the bout
Done
  • wikilink "mandatory contender", non-boxing fans probably won't know what this term means
Since there is no wikipedia page on this, I've decided to add a sentence that states what a mandatory challenger is.
  • "former three–division champion" - use a hyphen here, not an ndash
Done
  • Danny Perez is not wikilinked - is he not notable?
There is no wikipedia page for him.
  • "en route to a technical knockout victory in the fifth round at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas" - full stop missing from the end of this sentence
Sorry, forgot a period.
  • Talking of full stops, there are a number of places where a sentence ends with a quotation and the full stop is placed inside the quote marks - it should be placed outside
Done
  • "After Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeated Zab Judah on April 8, 2006, He rejected" - no need for capital on "he"
Fixed
  • "both Cotto and Margarito both" - stutter :-)
Fixed
  • "and the fight took place at the MGM Grand" - it seems strange to list this as the very last fact about the fight, giving it almost the feel of an afterthought. I'd have thought the venue where it took place is one of the most important things about a fight, so it should be mentioned more prominently
I agree and I moved it up in the section.
  • "Cotto picked up in the second round where he left off" => "Cotto picked up where he left off in the second round"
Fixed
  • "...but was able to avoid further trouble" - the subject of this sentence is "a left hook" so as it stands it is gramatically incorrect. Change to "but he was able to avoid further trouble"
Fixed
  • The very last two sentences both start "On February xx 2008" - vary the language bit more
I put the february 10 date in the middle of the first sentence. Showtime2009 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article, but with quite a few very minor niggles that need sorting out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - This is the first fight that I've seen at FAC. It's always good to have a unique article come here, but rough edges usually need to be smoothed out when that happens, and there's no exception here. Here are some specific suggestions:

  • First, date links were deprecated a while back, and the Manual of Style discourages their use.
Fixed
  • The poster needs a better fair-use rationale than "To use an image at the top right section of the article." My advice is to look at a wrestling featured article that uses a poster and see what it says.
I read some of the WWE posters and essentially wrote information similar to them.
  • Any chance the photo in Margarito's article could be used somewhere here?
I wasn't aware there was a photo for his article, so I've included it in his part of the Background section.
  • Change the en dashes in the pre-and post-fight headers to plain hyphens.
Done
  • The box by Pre-fight information interests me. Has anyone from the boxing project thought about using that as an infobox? That's not really relevant here, but that's something to consider for the future. In that box, use en dashes in the fighters' records.
Done
  • "It was Cotto's first fight in Las Vegas since December 2004, According to promoter Bob Arum". Change the comma to a period
Fixed
  • Consider hyphens for "third best" and "third highest" in the third paragraph.
Fixed

I'll review more of the prose at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed
  • Miguel Cotto: "If the champion decides not to defend the title against the mandatory challenger, then the boxing organization strips him of his title." The struck word isn't needed.
Done
  • "eventually to the point where Urkal's corner retired after throwing in the towel in the eleventh round." I'm sure the fighter retired after his corner threw in the towel, so this sentence could be improved.
I removed after throwing in the towel
  • "in front of a sellout crowd of 20,658." It's not great to end a sentence with a number; see if this can be tweaked.
Changed sentence to In front of a sellout crowd of 20,658, Cotto defeated Judah by technical knockout in the eleventh round.
  • "the media speculated that the winner of the two fights would likely fight each other next." Check to see if "winner" should be made plural.
Yes it is plural
  • "With the match taking place...". This is a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a difficult-to-find prose error. For more, including information on fixing it, see this.
Fixed
  • Antonio Margarito: A bunch of sentences in the section's first paragraph start with Margarito. See if you can change a couple to offer readers more variety. That would make the prose more compelling.
changed some of the sentences that started with his name to simply he or his
  • "After the fight, Margarito discussed interest in a major fight with Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, or Fernando Vargas." The word "his" seems to be missing.
added his between discussed and interest
  • The second sentence of the section's second paragraph feels like a run-on sentence. I would chop it in two after "unintentional headbutt in round six". Also consider linking headbutt to help those who aren't boxing fans and may not know what it means.
  • "Margarito overwhelmed the less experienced Cintron". Can we cut down on the hyperbole a little bit, please? Even if it isn't exaggerated, it feels like it.
Changed sentence to Margarito defeated the less experienced Cintron...
  • "on February 18, 2006, in which he defeated...". in which→when.
Fixed
  • The $8 million figure needs a non-breaking space, like the one I provided here (click edit page to see it). While I'm on the topic of money, are there reliable sources that say how much Cotto and Margarito made for this bout? That's always a topic of interest when big fights are in the planning stages.
  • "citing a hand injury for the reason on not taking the bout." I recommend a change to "citing a hand injury as the reason he did not take the bout."
Changed
  • Why is Autumn capitalized and linked?
Sorry, it should not have been. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Dabs
  • Need to be fixed, as found with the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.
Fixed Showtime2009 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
...are found up speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ref formatting
External links

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Three of the websites (sweet science, boxing scene and fight news) were listed by the Daily Telegraph in a article titled "Top-ten boxing websites" Doghouse boxing is a boxing website with a collection of interviews of numerous boxers and several articles can be read on the front page. www.f4wonline.com is primarily a wrestling website owned by Figure Four Weekly Online, LLC, it has an archive for past articles and interviews and they also issue their own newsletters. Showtime2009 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is information on how and what information the sources in question collect and how they get it.
The Sweet Science
BoxingScene.com
DoghouseBoxing Information from this source has been reported on ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and Sun.Star .
f4wonline.com
Fightnews.com information from this source has been reported on The Vindicator, Augusta Chronicle, and The Monitor (Uganda) .

Strong oppose - I left comments above, but those are not my main concern at this point. I'm worried about plagarism from this source, which recaps the fight. Here are a few examples:

  • "Margarito kept targeting the body, but drew two seperate warnings for low blows in the span of less than a minute." Copied word-for-word from the source.
  • "A left hook to the body had Cotto on the defensive early in the seventh round". Copied word-for-word except for the addition of "round".
  • "Cotto picked up where he left off in the second round, coming straight at Margarito while easily getting out of harm's way when Margarito attempted to counter. That dynamic changed about a minute into the round, when Margarito landed a right hand that momentarily had Cotto along the ropes." Some copying, and the structure is clearly lifted from the source.

There are other cases where the sentence structure feels too similar to the reference. Plagarising a questionable source is not an indication of our best work, and should never be done, period (the plagarism part, that is, though I'm not fond of bad sources). I refuse to look at any more until the entire section is rewritten, and the rest of the article is checked against the references. Not sure if this can be done while the article is at FAC, but it's for the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:09, 7 March 2009 .

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because – after passing as a GA and getting a helpful peer review – I think it should be ready for FAC. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've had some problems with which template to use to cite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but I guess "cite encyclopedia" is the best option. I've included (subscription required) in the JSTOR links, as well as the ODNB ones. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I use {{cite encyclopedia}} for that myself, and I use it for all the collected conference works also. I don't think {{cite conference}} gives isbn numbers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess you're right, I've always had problems understanding exactly what MOS says on that, but I've changed it now in titles, and also where it says "the earl" to "the Earl" etc. Lampman (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the ahnentafels: two strings of redundant info, all of which should have been converted into prose (if relevant). The ahnentafel is a waste of space, and encourages editors to create colorful (and terribly annoying) sections of large templates instead of good old plain prose. It is also not a standard presence in any encyclopedia, so it is arguably irrelevant here as well. And just who decides which generations of ancestors are the more important? And just who decides that the same can't be done for regular people? We've had this discussion in respect to other articles, and it turned out that the ahnentafels are singularly endorsed by a group of editors who contribute very little other than that, and who make little or no distinction between wikipedia and genealogical sites. If we have to feed into that preference, could you at least make the template collapsible? Dahn (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're talking about the table titled "Ancestors of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick", I didn't put it there, and I dislike it probably just as much as you do. I also feel strongly that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be turned into a genealogy site. If there are no objections, I'd be happy to remove it. Lampman (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I reviewed this at PR, made numerous suggestions most of which had been acted on. I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria; it is well-written, compehensive and informative. I wish I knew what the comment immediately above was about, but I'm sure it is unrelated to my support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to my comment, it's about the huge and awkward ahnentafel at the bottom of the article, which contrasts terribly with the rest of the article and adds little info that can't be turned into prose. Btw, if something in it is relevant, it should be in the text (or else the article is not up to FA standards); if it is trivia, it should be removed (or else the article is not up to FA standards). But, at the very least, if we have to keep these things, can't we make the template collapsible as it is here? Dahn (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verfiable to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments —

  • "He appears to have entered into the service of King Henry VI by 1449, when mention is made of his services in a grant."
Are the tenses here correct?
  • I believe this is common practice, since were talking about his appearance in a historical document that still exists.
  • "This conflict was also a pivotal period in Warwick's career, as it was resolved by his appointment to the captaincy of Calais. The post was to provide him with a vital power base in the years of conflict to ensue; Calais was not only a town of vital strategic importance, it also held what was England's most significant standing army."
Should Calais be mentioned explicitly as a French-land occupied by the English either in or before this sentence. The predominance of English towns before this might lead one with lesser geographic knowledge of the land to think it is in England (unless they follow the link). This could potentially confuse when the next section mentions "Warwick crossed over to England ...".
  • I've added a bit more on Calais.
  • "The promotion of Warwick's brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king ..."
Is the tense here correct?
  • This would be similar to the above case.
  • The Historical assessment section seems a bit short. Are there possibilities to flesh out the qualities of the earl discussed here? For examples, instead of stating "pointed out his deficiencies as a military commander", perhaps a short expoundation on what Oman found lacking in Warwick that made the subject a flawed military man. Furthermore, Weir has pointed out the earl's popularity and influence not just with the people, but within the European diplomatic circle (as illustrated by the Abbeville letter to Louis in the article). This shows the earl's influence as a man. His popularity with the common people at its peak rivaled or exceeded the young Yorkist king, which leads further strength to his "Kingmaker" moniker.
  • I've added some more on Oman's military assessment. As for the other points you mention, I think I've covered this in the lines: "His claim to prominence in national affairs was not a product of illusions of grandeur; it was confirmed by the high standing he enjoyed among the princes on the Continent. Furthermore, Warwick's cause was not considered unjust by contemporaries, which can be seen by the earl's popularity exceeding that of the king at the time of his first rebellion in 1469."

On the whole, it is a strong article that reads generally well. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, hope I've addressed your issues sufficiently! Lampman (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Support, although I still think a greater breakdown of factors into why Oman think Warwick deficient in military ability could be explored (Haig hazarded that Warwick's brilliant exploit of the gap in the First St. Alban's was more to luck, for example). However, that could be too specialized. In any event, the section does present an overview of the major sources' opinions towards the man, so I can assuringly throw in a support. Jappalang (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the prose still needs some work, is unclear in places, and the whole article needs to be checked over again for MoS compliance such as correct use of dashes, and a thorough look over by a good copyeditor.
    • "... he was instrumental to the deposition of two kings ..." "Instrumental to" sounds strange. "Instrumental in"?
    • "From this conflict he gained the valuable post as Captain of Calais ...". Post of Captain of Calais?
    • "At the age of six, the young Richard was betrothed to Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, and Isabel Despenser." So he was betrothed to two women, Anne and Isabel?
    • "When Beauchamp's son Henry died in 1446, and Henry's infant daughter died only three years later, Richard also found himself ...". So when was it he found himself Earl of Warwick? When Beauchamp's son died or three years later?
    • "... it also held what was England's most significant standing army." What does "significant" mean here? Largest? Best-equipped? Best-trained? Something else?
    • "There were some initial disputes, with the garrison and with the royal wool monopoly ...". How could Warwick have had a dispute with a monopoly? Over the monopoly?
    • "... he then embarked on highly successful raids of piracy ..." Not sure who the "pirate" is here. Is Warwick the pirate, or is he leading raids on pirates? Awkwardly written in any event.
    • "... their forces were scattered by the king's army, much due to the defection of Warwick's Calais ...". Awkward "much due".
    • "This act caused great offence to Warwick ...". This doesn't quite fit with the previous sentence, which discusses a revelation of marriage. Presumabl;y it wasn't the revelation that caused offence.
    • "... he sought to build the Woodvilles family into a power base independent of Warwick's influence." Shouldn't this be "Woodville" family? I'm not at all sure what "building a family into a power base" is supposed to mean anyway.
    • "... a fact that would later earn him his epithet of "Kingmaker"." I'm not keen of some of the use of subjunctives, of which this is one example. Why not a simpler "which later earned him"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your suggestions, I've tried to implement them as best I could. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my use of the word "monopoly" though. I am quite confident that this can be both an abstract and concrete noun. In this case it is used in the concrete sense, and specified later on in the sentence. Also, I'm not sure where you believe I have used dashes incorrectly, could you please elaborate on this? Lampman (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is impossible to have a dispute with a monopoly, unless the word is being used as a collecive noun. Is it in this case? On a similar note: "The marriage – made on 1 May ...". I have never before seen anyone "make" a marriage. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments on first two sections
    • Intro
      • "Through fortunes of marriage and inheritance" needs to be followed by a comma.
      • "...led him into collaboration with Richard, Duke of York,..." Suggest "...led him to collaborate with Richard, Duke of York...". When was this collaboration as there is ambiguity with the statement in the Becoming Warwick section that he sided against York in 1452.
      • In what way was the post of Captain of Calais valuable - prestige, power or monetary? Or all of the above?
      • the sentence on Warwick's death at the battle of Barnet is somewhat ambiguous - as it follows on from a sentence about Warwick, the Duke of Clarence and Henry VI - it is not immediately clear which of them Edward killed. Suggest use "Warwick" instead of "he".
      • "Edward initially based his reign on Warwick's support..." seems awkward.
      • Presumably the Salisbury who fell in battle was Warwick's father.
    • Becoming Warwick
      • This is a complicated section. It might help the understanding if more years were added to make the sequence of events more explicit. This would avoid the need for "...Warwick (as he had now become)..."
      • The first use of Richard here is ambiguous - it initially reads as if it is the article's subject rather than his father.
      • Explain how Richard (Ralph's son) became 5th Earl of Salisbury by marrying Alice, the 4th Earl's daughter, as this is not a normal route of inheritance for a peerage. In fact he didn't become Earl on his marriage but when the 4th Earl died, at least seven years after the marriage. Need to mention he held the title jure uxoris as is mentioned later for Warwick's own inheritance of the Warwick title.
      • Might be worth mentioning that Henry de Beauchamp (14th Earl) was married to Warwick's sister Cecily.
      • Should have a link to Anne (15th Countess). She was five when she died, an age not usually described as "infant".
      • Need to expand on the reason for the disputed succession to the estates (by way of his wife).
      • Did Warwick inherit the title of Earl of Salisbury on his father's death (1460) or his mother's (possibly as late as 1462), as it was originally her title?
      • The intro says he sided with York against the King, whereas it says here he sided with the King against York. Clarify that these are different disputes.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your suggestions, I've made some changes and I hope it's to your satisfaction.
  • Oppose, 1a. I chose a section at random (Historical assessment) and I'm not seeing terribly smooth prose. This probably needs time with an independent copy editor to iron out the problems. Examples:
    • "Early sources on Richard Neville fall into two categories: the sympathetic chronicles of the early Yorkist years, or works based on these, such as the Mirror for Magistrates (1559), and chronicles commissioned by Edward IV after Warwick's fall, such as the Historie of the arrivall of Edward IV, that take a more negative view of the earl." Exhausting to get through with all those clauses. By time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning.
  • I've split it up.
    • "In Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy can be found the other perspective" Why twist this so to hide the subject away?
  • Changed
    • A great deal of wordiness (ex. why "This latter view was to predominate." rather than "The latter view predominated."?).
  • Changed
    • Pet peeve: using conditional tense improperly. It's pervasive (ex. "anyone who would impede the development" and "Later writers would be split"). The conditional tense requires an "if" statement when used properly. Otherwise, all such instances should be "anyone who impeded", "writers were split" and so on.
  • I believe you're wrong. This is not conditional tense, but repetition in the past, in which case the use of "would" is perfectly acceptable. I've changed it anyway, since I don't find this matter essential to the article.
  • I probably am wrong in calling it conditional tense in this case; but, I still dislike that wording. To me, there is no difference in meaning between "He would go to the store every day" and "He went to the store every day", except the latter saves a word. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Though Lytton portrayed Warwick as a tragic hero who embodied the ideals of chivalry, he was nevertheless one whose time was past, as the title implies." Not convinced the title implies that; where is your source? The citation is for the book itself.
  • I've removed "as the title implies" and added a secondary source.
--Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 .

Inauguration of Barack Obama

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) . Aaron charles (talk · contribs), Lwalt (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has really turned into a detailed account of an important event. I created this page and nursed it along for several weeks as an article of modest quality and breadth. Lwalt (talk · contribs) joined the fray as the event drew near and after the article hit the main page via WP:ITN it attracted Aaron charles (talk · contribs). These two editors really policed the article and cleaned it up while it was highly trafficked. I was almost AWOL during the main page rush. However, these yeoman editors really helped shape the broad contributions from the public so that the article took shape as a high quality article. As things have quieted down, I have cleaned up the article to take it to WP:GA and done additional cleanup in hopes of WP:FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The following ref name is used more than once for different references.
  • wbz/>

Please review some MOS issues; numbers and units should have hard spaces in between them (10&nbsp;a.m.) and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,"). There are also WP:ACCESS breaches (no images left-aligned directly under third-level headers or below), and WP:DASH fixes needed ($150-170 million should have en dash in the range) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There remains one malplaced image that I don't know how to move it within compliance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I got most of the nbsps with these edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Lwalt (talk · contribs)

  • "...and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,")...."
    • I'm perplexed as to why editors here are still having an ongoing discussion about the proper placement of the comma in quoted passages, something that I also follow as a professional writer. Take a look at the information from the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English here, Online Writing Lab site at Purdue University here and here, in addition to a tutorial from New York University here. A few weeks ago, another editor went through the article and inverted the position of the commas and periods beside the ending quotation mark and placed the comma and period outside the ending quotation mark. I corrected the position in this case by putting the commas and periods inside the quotation mark where it belongs. I'll take a look at the article within the next day or so to determine what needs to be addressed, if anything. →Lwalt 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Per WP:PUNC of the MOS, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. This practice is referred to as logical quotation; it is used by Misplaced Pages both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I will let the professional writer and the WP MOS expert hash out commas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I've already said what I need to about writing. Any primary, reliable source that covers "logical punctuation" in a book or an online source? No mention of logical punctuation in any of my books that I used over the years (Chicago Manual of Style, The Elements of Style by Strunk, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (used this one for graduate school) for starters rather than relying on Misplaced Pages as a primary authority? →Lwalt 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Chicago does indeed mention the alternative style that Misplaced Pages adopts (they say it was established by The Oxford Guide to Style) as perfectly legitimate in "the kind of textual studies where retaining the original placement of a comma in relation to closing quotation marks is essential to the author’s argument and scholarly integrity". But as others state, if you take issue with something in the MOS, discussion belongs on the MOS talk pages. BuddingJournalist 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
              • You are missing the point, Lwalt, which is that we are supposed to use Misplaced Pages's own standard on this and other matters of style - it may be the American standard to have commas and periods inside the quote, but it is not what the Manual of Style here uses, and that's what we follow. In fact I personally prefer the Misplaced Pages "logical punctuation" approach as well - whatever it might be called - because, for example, if the original quote did not have a period or a comma, it should not be inside the quote, as that is misleading. By the way, I believe this idea of always putting punctuation inside quotes wormed its way into American usage manuals because of nineteenth century type-setting concerns, not because it made any sense. And I am a professional editor and writer (and American) too, so I guess we don't all agree - not that my, or your, credentials in this should have any weight in the argument. What we can agree on, however, is that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style, and we should follow it, and/or argue it out over there, not in the individual articles. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
                • What Tvoz said—also, if you have a beef with the Manual of Style, feel free to take it up there, but please don't try to push your point of view here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources issues:

Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. I have concerns about the article's organization. I think there is some missing information and that a lot of what is here is too detailed for inclusion. Image placement is also an issue, and the prose needs a lot of work. I've listed a very few of the prose (and detail) problems that I see - that is by no means comprehensive, and by no means covers all the broad prose issues I see in the article. This needs an excellent copyeditor who is experienced in the FA criteria.

  • Several sections are essentially lists. Where at all possible these need to be in prose.
    • There a quite a few of those, but there is absolutely no reason why an article must be completely in prose. Lists are concise and easy to read. It is much nicer to have a bulleted list of balls than "Obama went to this ball, which was for these people. Then he went to that ball there, which was for people from these states." and so on. Reywas92 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of vague wording. For example, in the lead, The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. - this doesn't tell me who took the train ride or where they went or why (seems like a weird thing to do). Even in the body of the article, the train ride is described for a whole paragraph before it is mentioned that Obama was actually on the train
  • Be aware that prose is generally better when the sections begin with the focus on the article topic, not the section topic. For example, instead of "We Are One," the inaugural concert celebrating the Obama inauguration, was held on January 18, 2009, it is much better prose to provide a good transition from the previous section with focus on the topic of the inauguration - (something like)The day after Obama arrived in Washington, D.C., an inaugural concert, "We are the One", took place at the Lincoln Memorial.
  • the presidential motorcade - is that correct usage, since he wasn't president yet?
  • Use precise wording wherever possible - with troops (and family members) who were recovering from wounds - I doubt the family members were recovering from wounds, but that is how the sentence reads.
  • "Jonas Brothers" needs a "the" in front of it.
  • Lots of potentially unnecessary detail:
    • Do we need to know about the first part of Lincoln's train ride, since that wasn't re-enacted? Do we need to know how many stops Lincoln made, since Obama didn't appear to stop in the same places (or same number of places? Do we need to know that the FAA had restrictions on airspace around the events (isn't that fairly standard now?)? Do we care what exact time the train stopped at the train station?
    • I think it is too much to give a listing of everyone who participated in the We are the One concert - that is just a wall of blue. Can we distill it down to just a few?
  • Are you just hating on us for finding a lot of details. If someone wants to know about the inaugural events, this article tells them. Everyone who partook is a notable person and we are listing them. If it were two hundred people, I might see your point. We are dealing with a couple dozen names of people who readers of this section probably want to know. I could not imagine that a reader would want to read about a concert and not know who performed. If you read the Oscars article you will find the names of each presenter, if you read about an athletic team you will see entire rosters. This section needs the detail that causes the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Do we care what exact time he left Blair House?
    • I think there is too much detail on what people did for the service day - this section could be distilled easily down to one paragraph (maybe two) without losing any meaning, just unnecessary details.
    • is it important on what date the full schedule of the swearing-in ceremonies was announced (and notice that there ought to be a hyphen there)
    • Do we need to know, here, that Cheney was in a wheelchair and why?
  • Lots of repetition within sentences/paragraphs. This makes the prose harder to read. For example, Obama called for a national day of service on this day, and he described the day of service on the holiday as a natural observance: - "day of service" repeated
  • How were the 40 American citizens selected to participate in the events? Who selected them?
  • There are a few too many images. It makes the first 2/3 of the article look way too crowded, and the images thus lose their effect. Also, in the Summary section under Inauguration events, there is a lot of white space between the first two paragraphs, which I suspect is caused by the image placement.
    • There are a lot, but for an article of this size I don't think it's too many. A picture's worth a thousand words, this was a highly publicized event. Reywas92 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • LOTS of repetition within the Inauguration ceremony section. First there is a summary section which tells us everything that the article plans to talk about next. Then the next section is essentially a prose re-telling of the summary. The individual pieces of the events that require more detail are then explained again in their own sections. That's overkill.
  • Need to have a citation after each quotation. Not the case at all in the section on the inaugural address.
  • There is a lot in this article mentioning the theme. Is there any more detail on why this theme was chosen? I suspect there is a lot that could be added for this.
    • As a guy who lives in Obama's Chicago neighborhood and an Illinoisan, I happen to know that this year was Abe Lincoln's 200th birthday. I do not know if there is truly a connection between the Lincoln commemoration the phrase "A New Birth of Freedom" and Obama in the press. I will look it up. BTW, the phrase a new birth of freedom is associated with Lincoln because it is part of the last of the ten sentences of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • other notable balls - what made them notable?
  • Stranded ticket holders with access to radios or cell phones with Internet reception were able to listen to the inaugural ceremony on those devices -is there something special about this that I don't understand? anyone with access to radios or cell phone with internet reception should have been able to listen in, right?
  • May need to review WP:ELLIPSES - I don't think the article is using them correctly
  • Article mentions Of the top 10 media markets in terms of viewership, but then only lists 8 of the markets
  • I don't think the Viewership section needs to be subdivided. The two subsections are both short.
  • Are there any measurements of the television viewership outside the US?
  • How did you choose which countries would be represented in the International section? For example, there is no information on Mexico, nothing in Africa except Kenya. What about reactions in the Middle East/Israel? (and the Europe section is just an unconnected list) What about Australia (a large English-speaking country) and India (extremely populous)?
  • I think it would make more sense to begin the article with a short section on background. This could include the fundraising information (which really needs to be at the beginning), as well as more details on the theme, and possibly some of the information strewn throughout on what is normal during the inauguration ceremonies.
  • The lead does not do an adequate job of summarizing the article. It contains no information on public response
  • There isn't a lot of information on response to the various events. I'd like to see a little more interpretation, or coverage of some of the "big stories" like that Yo-Yo Ma didn't actually play, that Aretha was dissatisfied with her performance, etc. That doesn't need a lot of coverage, but there's not much there now.
  • There's a lot of overlinking. Feinstein is linked way too many times.

Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion on User talk:SandyGeorgia#cite_usage_question regarding publisher. Generally, I include the publisher and link it if it goes to a different article from the work. They obviously give different information if they are different enough to have separate articles. Thus, I include The New York Times Company as the publisher regardless of whether the work is The New York Times or the Boston Globe. There does not seem to be consensus one way or the other on this matter, but that is what I have done. User:Tvoz has been removing such publishers from this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care if the publisher is in there or not, it just needs to be consistent. Sometimes in this article's references it is included, and sometimes not. 2/3 of the references to one newspaper may have it, while the other 1/3 of the references to that newspaper don't. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I had not seen this discussion when I posted on Sandy's talk page - but as I said elsewhere I'm going by Template:Cite news and logic - the fact that there's a separate article on The New York Times Company is not, in my view, a reason to add that parameter to the references. There's no added useful information to be gained by noting that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company. The article on The New York Times undoubtedly goes into that, and it's not particularly relevant to the tens of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles that use Times articles as sources. It's slightly more significant, perhaps, for The Boston Globe to indicate that it's owned by the Times, although I'm not particularly in favor of including it there either. This field is more useful when we're talking about more obscure papers that are a part of a larger network of papers, like McClatchy as the template page mentions or Hearst, etc., which would not be apparent by the name of the paper and is not well-known. I agree that consistency should be the goal, but that doesn't mean we should add publishers to all of the places we don't have it, any more than adding location which is only used when it would otherwise not be obvious. We should, however, be consistent each time we reference a particular paper that we always do it the same way. I asked on the article talk page for some consensus among editors to have some guidelines on how to do it. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference style discussion moved. It is now posted at {{Cent}} at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Reference_style.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I only provide the company name if it is different from the publication name or if the publication is not well known. I agree though that consistency is the most important issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. A whole section devoted to "Missteps in administering the oath" seems a bit UNDUE to me. It should be easy enough to summarize that into a single paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply It is a two-paragraph sub sub section of an event that was widely reported in the press. Given the widespread press coverage of the mistake by leading news agencies it is given a proportional amount of space in the article.
  • Comment — I recall a large amount of controversy about the way ticket-bearing spectators were turned away from the cordoned-off area. I think you really need to mention the problems endured by the crowd at the event in order to give a comprehensive view of the event. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This issue was already covered on the talk page, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Merge purplegate. There is a sentence in the article which states "Amid the massive crowds who arrived at the U.S. Capitol to attend the inaugural ceremony, approximately 4,000 ticket holders were unable to gain attendance to their designated areas because the security gates were closed at the start of the ceremony, leaving many of them outside of the U.S. Capitol grounds."Aaron charles (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very good, well-reference article that I feels has all important information and it presented with images very nicely. Reywas92 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Some of the citations in the Lede can be removed or moved, per WP:LEADCITE
  • Why is "Kids' Inaugural: We Are the Future" in quotes?
  • 7:00 p.m. EST →→ 7:00 p.m. EST makes more sense to me. Mostly all readers will understand p.m. and the 12-hour clock, but not all will get the Time Zones of the United States, or even know that DC is in the ET.
  • The first paragraph of the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: National day of service" section needs rewriting. There are five instances of the word "day", outside of Obama's quote. "The eve of the inauguration day, January 19, 2009, fell on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday recognizing King's birthday." seems fine, but the next sentence, "Obama called for a national day of service on this day, and he described the day, which fell on the date of the King holiday, as a natural observance:" repeats some of the same.
  • "and reflect — it's a" -- WP:DASH There should be no spaces either side of an emdash
  • As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" -- Nope, not according to Refs 48 and 49, anyway.
  • I do not see the alternate explanations in Refs 48 and 49? Ref 54 from CNN is a clear source, even from the title "Obama has asked to say 'so help me God' at swearing-in" Aaron charles (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • They were refs 48 and 49 when I looked. Now they're 53 and 54. 53 doesn't say he asked to say "So help me, God". 54 does, but neither state that he requested Roberts say "So help you God?", which is a question. By my understanding, Obama was supposed to repeat what Roberts said, and Robert's shouldn't have asked, but also stated "So help me God". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where you are going here? Is it a third flub by Roberts for the oath? No. It's not officially part of the oath. He said it like it is often said in court. The blogs had fun with this. Like the Huffington Post: " posed, 'So help you God?' as if he were interrogating Obama about whether he does believe in God. Maybe that was just a nervous outcome of Roberts' earlier gaffes. But the courtroom cross-exam Q-and-A tone of it rang unhappily on the ear." I do not think it is important for this Misplaced Pages article to get into this speculation, but the United States presidential inauguration article would make a good place to note the history of the phrase in presidential oaths. Aaron charles (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The article states. As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" No. He didn't request Roberts ask "so help you, God?". He requested that the phrase "so help me, God" be added to the endo of his oath. "So help me, God" and "So help you, God?" are different. One he requested. One he didn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Got some more. Tvoz/talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah -think I found what you were referring to (at note 137) - should have been part of the text in any case - fixed. Tvoz/talk 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is a newspaper source, although I think the text is kind of insignificant. Tvoz/talk 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all I have for right now. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I noticed many problems in the format of the refs as well and have been working on getting them into better shape - hope others will join in the effort to fix them, especially those who added some of the citations that are being questioned. Tvoz/talk 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'll try to get address some of these myself, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments I have reservations about the prose and what the article chooses to focus on based on what I've read so far (not much).
    • "The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride by the President-elect and a party of family, collegues and guests from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride." Problematic sentence for a few reasons. It's a bit long and awkward, especially with the embedded list with "commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride" tacked on at the end, far removed from what it's modifying. Also, this train ride is left unexplained. We're giving where it starts but not where it ends. People unfamiliar with the inauguration will just wonder if this was just a short, ceremonial train ride that didn't actually go anywhere.
* Revised. Aaron charles (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, I thought this was referring to the section "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln" That's what I revised last night. That other sentence/paragraph does need to be revised. Aaron charles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Official events were held" What does official mean in this context? Was the train ride unofficial?
  • Actually, yes, somewhat unofficial, as the train ride was organized by Obama's team, not the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
    • "On January 17, 2009, Obama began a tribute and partial reenactment of Lincoln's train ride by holding a town hall meeting with a few hundred supporters at the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia before embarking on the train ride. The 2009 inauguration activities began with a train ride to pay tribute to Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States and, like Obama, a former Illinois politician, by partially re-enacting Lincoln's 1861 train ride to Washington, D.C. in commemoration of Lincoln's ride" Lots of needless repetition. Note the orphaned "tribute" at the beginning.
    • Is the detailed description of Lincoln's train ride really necessary?
    • "During the tour, Obama recited his trademark rejoinder "I love you back" in response to enthusiastic crowds." Rather than give unspecific trivia such as this (what crowds are these? along the train route? at stops?), how about describing more substantive happenings? For example, a description of the major topics of his speech "to a crowd of around 40,000 people" might be appropriate, rather than just saying that he spoke.
    • "More than 40 American citizens " This suggests that Obama, his family, his staff, the press, etc. are not. BuddingJournalist 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely we can do better than "The 41 were composed of 16 invited citizens who had special stories and their families." to describe how they were selected. "Special stories"?? And are four separate references really necessary to back up this claim?
  • Well, I wasn't asking for a detailing of the stories if that's what you mean (not sure); a) the sentence is not well-written b) what the heck does "special stories" mean? A concise description of the selection process would do wonders.
  • Also quite concerned that the article does not discuss the preparations for the inaugural (1b). When did planning start, who all was involved, what did the process entail, etc. BuddingJournalist 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1a, 1b. Sorry, but I don't think this is ready. The article does not adequately cover the preparations for the event as I alluded to above. The prose is pedestrian in some places, and overall, it just lacks a narrative flow; the page in many spots reads like a collection of facts rather than a compelling, encyclopedic article. To pick one section at random: Ceremony: "A New Birth of Freedom":
    • There's no flow whatsoever between the first three paragraphs. First paragraph gives exact times of events, so I figured i was in for a chronologically-organized section. Then all of a sudden, the second paragraph addresses the theme (with mountains of repetition and elementary prose). The third leads with "The program by the congressional leaders included"; what the heck is "program by the congressional leaders"?
    • "which was both pre-recorded and performed live synched with the recording by" so confusing. Surely there's a better way of describing this.
    • "Despite the fact that the performance was described as "classical-music equivalent of lip-syncing", NPR described it as "a transporting moment that moved many with its beauty and calm." NPR? No, NPR's Anya Grundmann. "was described as" <- missing a subject. What's notable about her opinion here?
    • Can we please avoid three uses of "the fact that" in two sentences?
    • "Other participants included the " Participants in what? And surely we can organize this section better than just giving a list of participants?
    • "Vice President-elect Biden took his oath first from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens." An artful transition from the previous paragraph that ended with the mention of Rev. Lowery's benediction, which occurred after Biden's oath. No context for "first", so readers unfamiliar with the inauguration will wonder what that means (first from Stevens, and second from whom?).
  • Other random spots for improvement:
    • "Domestically, the inaugural address was received with mixed reviews in which conservatives had reservations about the message of rebuke toward the outgoing administration and liberals had a favorable take." Try breaking up this long un-punctuated sentence: "Domestically, the inaugural address received mixed reviews—conservatives..." Weak use of "has". The rhythm of the sentence is broken by the unbalanced length of the comparison; either flesh out what liberals admired or cut down on the explanatory prose for conservatives.
    • "Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Obama, while Michelle Obama held the Bible that was used in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln at his first inauguration." Think about your audience. Will readers unfamiliar with U.S. Presidential inaugurations have an adequate picture in their minds based on the prose? I'd be willing to bet that many of those readers will be wondering why the Michelle Obama is holding a Bible...
    • "Obama had previously asked to include "so help me God" after the oath." Again, audience. This might make sense for political junkies, but those unfamiliar with the matter will just wonder why this matters.
    • "Obama's address did not have memorable sound bite phrases." Wow. Never knew that "memorable" could be stated as fact.
    • "Instead, he used traditional references to connect his new administration with the nation's history in a speech that was understated deliberately," Can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to say.
    • "The speech reinforced words " how exactly does a speech reinforce words?
    • Interesting that the analysis of the speech is largely one expert's opinion in Tulane University's official news publication. Is this indicative of the scholarly assessment of the speech? Or did editors just choose this one at random to compose this section? BuddingJournalist 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


This article has not had a peer review, and the extensive comments indicate that one is in order: with the backlog at FAC, it should not be used as peer review. I recommend following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate editors you might invite to participate in a peer review to better prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 .

Arular

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requirements. It's my first music-related FAC, so hopefully I haven't made too many egregious errors :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Both those sources are referencing the point that multiple minor music news websites reported the impending release of a single which never actually came out. There didn't seem to be a better reference than a couple of the sites in question. Is that acceptable.....? Foreign language sources have been flagged up too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
After triple-checking, I've now removed it completely. Looking at the sites in question, they all claim to be referencing a news item on XL Recordings' official website, but even using the Wayback Machine I can't find any evidence that such info was ever posted. Given that, and the fact that no "major" music news sites (Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, etc) appear to have reported the info, the legitimacy of the announcement seems decidedly questionable, so I've taken it out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors in references found using WP:REFTOOLS

  • {{cite web | last=Empire|first= Kitty| title= Pop Review of the Year 2005| url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/2005/story/0,,1672054,00.html | work = ]| date=18 December 2005 | dateformat=dmy|accessdate=12 August 2008}} | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Amgmiach | A named reference is used but not defined--TRUCO 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Kitty Empire duplicate refs combined into one. "Angmiach" ref is ref 55 as it currently stands and is defined in its second usage immediately after "Billboard 200", so I don't see what the issue is there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> is used but the original reference formatting is not defined, which is <ref name="Agmiach">(ref content)</ref>. So that's what is the issue with that ref.--TRUCO 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Seems to be resolved now, the problem was that some of the usages of that ref were entered as <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> - note the spacing. Although they displayed OK and internally linked to the right spot in the refs list, the spaces around "Angmiach" were confusing the tool you were using..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh okay, yeah I don't think the tool can pick that up, next time I'll search for things like that manually. Ref formatting is found up to speed.--TRUCO 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps more reviewers will engage with a fresh start in 7 to 10 days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 .

1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): WxGopher
previous FAC (01:29, 22 August 2008)

I nominated this article for Featured Article status last year, and I believe that I've addressed the main concerns from that candidacy. I feel like this is a well-referenced and complete article and am looking forward to your comments. WxGopher (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Some Issues that I notice, hope this helps:
  • Use of unexplained jargon in the lead section: "an F4 that hit the town of Comfrey, Minnesota, an F3 that hit St. Peter, Minnesota, and an F2 that hit Le Center, Minnesota. Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter". You should explain what an F4 or F3 is. When I see F4, I think fighter jet, and that's confusing. Simply saying rated F4 on the Fujita scale would help clarify.
  • Well, F4 is linked to Fujita, and the list is preceded by "was caused by three tornadoes—", so I think the context helps establish what F#'s are referring to (people unfamiliar with the Fujita scale will think some type of tornado, and click on F4 for further information). I think the current wording balances clarity with succinctness; if it's absolutely necessary to explain further, perhaps "one rated F4 that hit..."? BuddingJournalist 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I find some of the wording awkward, and I would probably rewrite the whole lead to make it both more accessible to laymen, and more readable.
  • I'm not sure if it's appropriate to this case, but many featured articles on meteorological events have sections on the preparations.
  • I find the article somewhat Minnesota-centric. The entire Historical perspective section only talks about Minnesota history, what about the tornadoes in Wisconsin? Cool3 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I will take a look at the lead again.
  • The Tropical systems are the articles that have preperation sections, because you know they are coming days ahead of time. Tornadoes are very localized and impossible to predict for any given location more than a few minutes in advance, so there is no notable prepation for them.
  • For it being Minnesota-centric, that's because 99.9% of the impact of this event was felt in Minnesota. At first, the article only mentioned Minnesota, it was only later that I noticed that Wisconsin did have 2 (minimal impact) tornadoes, so I decided to mention those as well. As far as historical context, these tornadoes were not notable for Wisconsin like they were for Minnesota. Between 1950 - 2008, I found that Wisconsin has had about 25 tornadoes in this timeframe, and about 20 of them were stronger than these two. Meanwhile, Minnesota only had I think around 5-6 tornadoes in this timeframe, so the 14 that touched down in this one nearly tripled the previous total. WxGopher (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I did re-word the lead a little bit, let me know if that seems better. WxGopher (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Some type of link for "favorable upper-level dynamics"?
    • "Over $235 million in damage was recorded" This wasn't clear to me whether this referred to the damage caused by the overall tornado outbreak or the supercell discussed in the previous sentence. If the former, perhaps a paragraph break might be helpful?
    • Think about your reader audience. Will non-Americans know what "Twin Cities NWS" means? Introduce abbreviations such as NWS before using them (in the lead, National Weather Service is mentioned). Link Twin Cities.
    • "Early on Sunday March 29" Early = what?
    • "iven strength of vertical shear profile..." Lots of unlinked jargon in this quotation.
    • Prose is OK; at times it's rather pedestrian, and I spotted little errors (especially puzzling was the lack of punctuation for possessives) here and there. Give the article a proofread. BuddingJournalist 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll try to address your comments. The one thing I can make now, is the "g]iven strength of vertical shear profile" is a direct quote that was published by by the Meteorologists issuing the advisories. Here is the text leading up to this: Just before 12:00 pm, the Storm Prediction Center issued a mesoscale discussion stating that "iven strength of vertical shear profiles... When you see it that way; that is it a quote from their advisory, does that make more sense? I don't want to re-write the actual quote, since then it wouldn't be a quote. I thought about putting the the wiki-quotations in but I wasn't sure if such a small amount of text would qualify for that. Otherwise, do you think that there should be some kind of other explanation in there? WxGopher (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I addressed the rest of your concerns, with the exception of upper-level dynamics. I agree that should be linked to something, I'm trying to figure out the best way to do that. Except for the proof-reading. I see that you made a bunch of edits, did you fix what was concerning you, or was there more? Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed what I saw up until the point I stopped reading (I didn't read the entire article). The errors that I encountered made me think that a proofread of the entire article might be helpful. BuddingJournalist 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, most of the technical terms should be linked in some manner. Although a term like upper-level dynamics is kind of an all-encompassing thing, so there is not a direct link for that. I tried to do something that made sense though. WxGopher (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. WxGopher (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comment -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • {{cite web|title = Event Record Details – Lonsdale tornado|publisher = NCDC|date = March 29, 1998|url = http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~325620|accessdate = 2008-05-15}} | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments for now.
    • All damage figures should indicate they are 1998 USD, and they also need a conversion to 2008 (or 2009) USD.
    • I think the Fujita scale should be mentioned in the lede, but that's up to you.
    • You might want to check with someone else, but I'm pretty sure per WP:MOSNUM that the first usage of any numerical units, they should be Wikilinked.
    • I think the meteorological synopsis should be explained better. First, what was the origin of the "surface-based low pressure area" (and what is that - no link?)? I think the acronym "CAPE" should be spelled out, as it makes more sense, to me at least. The last sentence of the met. synopsis is confusing, in regards to the two wind speeds. I think "respectively" should be added somewhere in there.
    • Watch for unit consistency. It looks weird to see "two miles (3 km)". Also, watch out for unit rounding. If one unit is rounded (150 miles), the other unit should be rounded to the nearest ten (241 km).
    • "The F4 tornado that struck Comfrey is also the strongest tornado ever measured" - little quibble, but tornado windspeeds aren't measured. They're estimated, based on damage.
    • Ref #59 says " March 29, 1998", but the event report was from 2005.
    • Why is this link in see also? 2006 Dakota–Minnesota tornado outbreak
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Added the years to the infobox. Is this to where you were referring, or were there other spots?
  • Fujita scale has been mentioned.
  • Low pressure area is linked earlier in the article.
  • For CAPE, I can see that both ways. People who do not know what it is may understand it better if it's spelled out, however, even though it may sound jargony, I don't think I've ever seen it spelled out before, unless I'm looking in a glossary. CAPE is the way to which it's reffered. Does it help that it's linked?
  • The meteorological synopsis is tough. It's difficult to get too in-depth without it becoming just a mass of scientific terms. So what I tried to do is hit on the major points without telling too much. If there are any more examples of parts you think should be cleaned up, I can try to do that.
  • For the F4 tornado, you are correct. I re-worded that to make it more clear.
  • Ref is fixed.
  • The for 2006 tornado outbreak, the reason why I put there in there was because it was another large tornado that was just a couple miles from the tornado that hit St. Peter. I can remove it though if that is too far off-topic.
  • Will look into the rounding, and linking units.
Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed most of your concerns, Hurricanehink. The only thing that I didn't really touch on was the meteorological synopsis, per my reason above. Let me if if there are any other comments. thanks! WxGopher (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 .


Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the required criteria. It is well cited and has been copyedited by User:Michael Devore and User:Finetooth. It has been peerreviewd by User:Ruhrfisch, User:Taxman, user:Michael Devore, User:Kensplanet, user:Finetooth, and User:Redtigerxyz. The article covers an important period in the development of Kannada literature.

Some comments by the primary author seeking advice from constructive reviewers

I am the creator and primary author of the article. I began to expand the article around November 7 2008, and by December 16 2008, the article had expanded sufficiently to cover all the literary aspects I felt was necessary to give the reader the full picture of events. I changed the article's title to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE", which I felt was the appropriate name for the article, a title that did not impose any geographical limitations on the Kannada literature written in this period. However, claiming inconsistancy of the changed name (relative to other literature related FA articles I have written) and that the main article, Kingdom of Mysore was in a FAR (now closed with "keep"), User:Fowler&fowler (the nominator of the FAR), reverted my move, bringing the article's title back to what it is now: "Kananda literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". Fowler's comments are available on the archived PR page and the talk page of this article. Taking advice from two well established administrators, User:YellowAssessmentMonkey and User:Dank55, I decided to bring the issue here, to let the reviewers help choose the best title for this article in a constructive way. On the peer reivew, two well established users, User:Taxman and User:Ruhrfisch suggested a more flexible approach and a sort of compromise. The contents of the article are now balanced, giving the reader full info on the development of each literary genre. So, keeping the content together is vital from the point of view of balance and completeness. I am seeking constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article cited only few references, the article do not cite any information for any other more references.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but I dont understand your comment. If you mean to say 162 citations (with numerous clubbed citations from multiple sources) from some 20 sources are not good enough, then I must say your comment in inactionable. However, if you can point out where you want more citations, I can provide it gladly. Literature is one of those subjects where information after some point become repetitive and adding more and more sources to the article becomes meaningless. Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This opposer hasn't edited much and has only two other nomming contributions to the FAC process, one was completely unreferenced and closed about 0-7, and the other was deleted as a copyright violation so he doesn't seem up to speed with FAC. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm not involved in this FAC on the merits of the article, but now I'm watching the FAC itself for off-topic discussion per SG's nudge. Information on the process of getting an article to FAC has been moved to the discussion page. More may be moved. Please focus on the merits of this article and what can be done to promote this article, or archive it until it can be nominated again. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's Post 1
  • Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are some comments.
    • Poorly written. See my two sets of remarks on the article talk page: F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)
    • Why is the Mysore Palace photograph relevant to an article that is about literature? The palace was built between 1897 and 1912, and its own page says nothing about literature. The lead paragraph in the KLKM article says, "The available writings date from around 1600 CE to the early 20th century." How was a palace that was completed in 1912 relevant to these "available writings?" It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE" and is inviting others to discuss that issue in this FAC.
      • PS Since I made this post here, the primary author has changed the caption of photograph (without informing us here) from "Mysore palace" to "Mysore palace, centre of the court and its literary circle." Who were the members of this literary circle that existed in the narrow window of time between the completion of the palace in 1912 and the end of the "early 20th century" in ... ? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have tagged File:KRWIII.JPG (used in the article) for deletion. The image has no source information. No name of artist or when s/he lived or any documentation that the portrait is whose it is claimed to be, has been provided. (My own personal view is that it is not a painting at all, but rather an old colored-in photograph, which is likely not of KRWIII for reasons I won't go into here.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
F&f's post 2

(Reply to user:DK's post below of 19:00, 22 February 2009) I'm afraid you keep changing your story about why the image is relevant. I have posted a response to your latest rationale in the article talk page section, Mysore palace image As for your response to my criticism of the article's prose (in the article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random), I would like to suggest that you take it seriously if you are interested in improving this article, Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's Post 3

(Reply to user:DK's post of 22:16, 22 February 2009) Citations or no citations, how can a palace whose construction was begun in 1897 and completed in 1912 be home to a theater in 1881, and how can its image then be meaningful in the lead of an article whose scope doesn't extend beyond the "early 20th century?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's Post4

I have moved the post to the talk page subsection: F&f Post 4 from FAC. I note that I made a similar post in the peer-review, but user:DK never responded to it.

I note too that user:DK has not responded to my other posts on the article's talk page (which link to my posts 1 and 2 above). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's post 5

I note again that user:DK had not responded to my posts on the prose and the logic in the first and third lead paragraphs (See article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)) which are linked to my posts 1 and 2 above. After having stated, "Regarding 'poorly written,' feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views," he has done nothing with my posts—neither incorporated any variant of them, nor given reasons for not doing so.

In addition, he has only obliquely responded to my post 4 above (by describing the entire post as "off-topic"). Since the Kingdom of Mysore lasted until 1947, there also seems to be inconsistency in the logic of his arguments: on the one hand he wants to keep the image of the Mysore palace (the latter was completed in 1912) on the grounds that the article's name has not yet been changed to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900;" on the other hand he is restricting the scope of the literature to the early 20th century, as if the change to the new name has already happened. Why shouldn't the scope of the literature be synchronous with the life of the kingdom, i.e. 1600 to the mid-20th century? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's post 6 (note for SandyGeorgia and Moni3)

I note that user:Dineshkannambadi has continued to not respond to my post 4 above, except obliquely by singling out one point in part 4 of that post and holding it up as "off-topic," but not explaining why it is off-topic. user:DK has stated in his introduction, "I am seeing (sic) constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue (i.e. of changing the page name to 'Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE')." However, after having stated that, he has repeatedly ignored my arguments. I have stated that 1600–1900 corresponds to no known periodization of Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change the name of the article, he needs to answer that objection. I would like to request him again (this third time) to answer my objections in posts 4 and 5 above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

F&f post 7
In the various points below, which I will keep adding as and when I find time, I will show that this article involves both synthesis of disparate material and undue weight given to topics that are typically not included in Kannada literature; in addition, the primary author has—over and over again—incorrectly paraphrased the secondary sources. (Later, I will say something about the sources themselves.)
  1. Yakshagana Why is Yakshagana included in an article on Kannada literature? Yakshagana is a folk dance-drama. It is not included in any of the major sources on Kannada literature used in the article: for example, 1) Narasimhacharya's History of Kannada literature, 2) E. P. Rice's Kannada literature, 3) Shiva Prakash's "Medieval Kannada literature," 4) M. Narasimha Murthy's "Modern Kannada literature, or 5) D. R. Nagaraj's "Critical tensions in the history of Kannada literature."
    1. Added after user:DK's response. Four and a half sentence out of 85 pages (Narasimhacharya) and three sentences out of 127 pages (Rice) does not constitute significant mention, and what Narasimhacharya says is not very charitable (see below). Neither work includes "Yakshagana" in its index. How is that a recommendation for two sections in an article on Kannada literature? As for your sources, I'd like to see a modern survey of Kannada literature that describes Yakshagana as a significant literary movement of the period 1600–1947, one deserving its own section. (I'm sure there are some Google links that refer to Yakshagana as literary; however, that is hardly an argument agains WP:UNDUE) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Kannada-speaking region The point is not made anywhere that the Kingdom of Mysore, for all but 40 years between 1600 and 1947, was less than half of the entire Kannada speaking region in Southern India (what later became Karnataka). The map File:Anglo-Mysore War 4.png shown in the lead of the article, is not only out of context, but is also misleading. Between 1600 and 1760, the Kannada-speaking regions of the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about a third of the entire Kannada-speaking region of Southern India, what later became Karnataka (see maps File:MysoreRegion1625b.jpg and File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg); after 1800, the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about half the Kannada-speaking region. A more accurate map for the lead would be File:Mysore1617to1799b.jpg.
  3. Evolution of Yakshagana The section Yakshagana theatre, which has two long paragraphs, mentions the birth of Yakshagana in South Kanara and North Kanara (as do most references on Yakshagana; see, for example, map from the book, Yakshagana). However, neither region was a part of the Kingdom of Mysore except very briefly from 1766 to 1792 under the Muslim Sultans of Mysore, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan (during which no Yakshagana artist is described in the article anyway). Why are two paragraphs being devoted to Yakshagana's birth outside the Kingdom? Is there a single sentence in these two paragraphs—but especially the second—that is relevant to the title of the page: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (with scope 1600–1947)? Why aren't these two paragraphs examples of both synthesis and undue stress?
    1. PS In his reply to the point above, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region." He once again misreads both my post and the book he quotes. The Shimoga district was not a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the period 1600–1763 during which Yakshagana developed; how does it matter if it became a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the years 1799–1947 ? We are talking about the evolution of the folk-art form in that section. The book, Yakshagana, says on pages 21–22, "... one of its feudatories, the Keladi Kingdom (1563–1763) during which the Yaksagana of Andhra and the Yaksagana of Karnataka State might have developed." Fine, for the "well-roundedness of an FA" you could include a sentence or two, but an entire section with two long paragraphs? If that's not undue stress, then I don't know what is.
  4. Inaccurate paraphrasing The second section on Yakshagana, Proliferation of Yakshagana is another example of synthesis used for the creation of "padding," which in this case consists of two paragraphs, the second quite long. The third sentence states, "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, with King Narasaraja Wodeyar II, Nanjaraja and Queen Cheluvambe making important contributions." What are these three references? Well, the first two are to the Bangalore University dissertation in Music (with no ISBN information), Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) by M. Pranesh, and the third is to Narasimhacharya (published in 1934), p. 25 (please see). What does Narasimhacharya, in fact say about Yakshagana and the royal family on that page? Here he is: "These (i.e. Yakshaganas) are opera pieces or rude forms of dramatic presentation suited to rustic audiences. As a rule, they are characterised neither by dramatic skill nor by literary merit. The works are mostly based on some incident or other of that inexhaustible store-house of old stories, the Puranas, and are generally acted in villages to the immense joy of the masses. It is not to be understood that there were no other kinds of literature during this period, though the number of Jaina and Virasaiva authors of any merit is very small." Then Narasimhacharya mentions a lists of some 18th century works, among which is a work of the Queen of the Wodeyar court. How does all this translate into: "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, ..."? This is what I mean by inaccurate paraphrasing (often involving drastically optimistic readings), all this when the three modern surveys of Kannada literature used in the article say nothing about Yakshagana.
    1. PS In his reply to the above post, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Misplaced Pages gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough." I'm afraid I don't understand. Narasimhacharya has been footnoted, 32 times in this article. Why do his views on Yakshagana only become "personal views?" The survey articles on "Medieval Kannada Literature" (1997) by H. H. Shiva Prakash (footnoted 20 times in the article) and on "Modern Kannada literature" (1992) by M. Narasimha Murthy (footnoted 26 times in the article) are both in collections published by India's National Academy of Letters (Sahitya Akademi). Neither mentions Yakshagana. The article, "Critical tensions in the History of Kannada literature" by D. R. Nagaraj, in the book, Literary cultures in history edited by Sheldon Pollock, and footnoted a dozen times, says nothing about Yakshagana. Why do we need "majority" references in this instance, when we didn't in all their other footnotes?
  5. Sarvajna Why is Sarvajna included in an article on Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore? He was born in Northern Karnataka, which was very far away from the Kingdom of Mysore. See map File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg for how far this was in 1704; in Sarvagnya's time, the Kingdom of Mysore was smaller, so the distance was even farther. True, he was a wandering mendicant, but he was never identified with the Kingdom of Mysore in any way. His major influence has been in Norther Karnataka, which was not only far away from Mysore, but the movement he inspired was quite the opposite of the literature popular in the Kingdom of Mysore. Here is D. R. Nagaraj (footnoted 12 times, see above), "... a new brand of writer, in the class of Ratnakaravarni and Sarvajna—one that was unaffiliated with any established monastery—was wandering throughout north Karnataka writing a vital kind of lyric; ... (These writers) composed poetry, remarkable for its style, that served as a curtain raiser to modern Kannada poetry. The class of writers that produced poetry at and for the Mysore court, by contrast, was not only conventional in its literary tastes but also socially conservative. ... (This) privileged class that kept on producing old texts with more archaic themes and ancient tales was left behind in history; to the contemporary reader, at least, they look boring and dull. The centers of textual production in both the court and monasteries had lost their social energy." Moreover, the biography Sarvajna by K. B. Prabhu Prasad and published by Indian National Academy of Letters, regards Sarvajna to be a 16th century poet. With these sorts of uncertainties, how does Sarvajna become included in "Kannada literate in the Kingdom of Mysore?" This, I'm afraid, is quite blatant original research.
  6. Sources. Two books, Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) (a Bangalore University Music dissertation published locally in Bangalore, India, and without an ISBN information) and A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present also published locally in Bangalore and also without ISBN information (and written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist views) have been footnoted 37 times and 27 times respectively. Can user:DK point to any publication (in English) on Kannada literature that cites these books, (let alone cite them 37 and 25 times respectively)?
  7. Reply to user:Ruhrfisch and the page name question I believe we have made some progress. user:Ruhrfisch (and I'm guessing user:Dineshkannambadi) are agreeing with me that this article is not about "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore." Yes, I did oppose the page name change, which took place in the middle of an FAR of the parent article Kingdom of Mysore. Here is the basic problem. You can choose to make the article about Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore or you can make it about Kannada literature in general. If you choose the former option, the literature will be limited by the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Kingdom; if you choose the latter option, you will be limited by the periodizations of the literature in the secondary sources. The problem is that there is no known periodization of Kannada literature that corresponds to 1600–1900. Scholars have unanimously regarded the end of the 18th century to be the end of late-medieval- or early-modern stage of Kannada literature, which means Modern Kannada literature begins around 1800. (See four sources here, including three published by India's National Academy of Letters which are liberally footnoted in this article.) This is in fact the convention adopted in the parent article Kannada literature and sister article Modern Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. The problem with this article is that it was written to be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore," but then towards the end of the writing (likely for many of the reasons I have given) was changed to another name, without significantly altering the content. Unfortunately, we are not free to do this at our own whim; we have to respect scholarly convention. user:Ruhrfisch's proposed title, "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore," has similar problems. For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    1. Reply to user:Dineshkannambadi's objections. This is far from the first time I have raised the issue of periodization. It was raised in this FAC on 24 February in my post 4 (above) and later moved to the talk page with link provided above. See link here. user:DK responded to post 4, with: "Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here." And that itself was not the first time the topic was raised in Misplaced Pages. It was raised in December 2008/January 2009 in the KingFAR. See here, for example. As for my views on what the title of the page should be, they have remained consistent and user:DK has again my misread my comments. When I said that the scope of the literature should be 1600 to 1947, I was addressing the scope within an article with title "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (for the reason that the Kingdom itself continued to exist until 1947). However, when I address the question of article title, I am not bound by any constraints; I choose the best name and scope for the article taking into account the consensus in the scholarly sources. According to this consensus late-medieval Kannada literature ends (and Modern Kannada literature begins) around 1800. To date, I have not seen a single survey article on Kannada literature that has scope 1600 to 1900. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's final assessment and recommendation

The article synthesizes disparate sources (especially, in its inclusion of Yakshagana and Sarvajna). It places undue emphasis on Yakshagana, giving it a primacy it has not hitherto enjoyed in all five existing surveys of Kannada literature (all of which have been liberally footnoted in the article except in the Yakshagana sections). The author—time and time again—inaccurately paraphrases the secondary sources. This remains a major problem. I have already given one example above, however, so confident do I feel about this that I am happy to undertake a similar exercise for any paragraph in the article chosen by any participant in the FAC. Some of the sources themselves remain a problem. The source which has been footnoted most often (37 times), Musical composers under the Wodeyar dynasty, is a Bangalore university Music Department dissertation, which was published locally in Bangalore, and has no ISBN information. To my knowledge, no scholarly article (written in English) on Kannada literature has cited this source. The article remains poorly written. My recommendation: Withdraw the article as an FAC. Re-write it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600–1800, paying especial attention to sources used in scholarly writings about Kannada literature, to accurate paraphrasing of the sources, and to good writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

End of Fowler&fowler's posts
Replies by DK to F &f's post 1,2,3
  • I have cited why the palace image is useful. It is the location of the royal archives, containing manuscripts and records about Mysore poets and composers under royal patronage, covering a period of over a century, their dates of appointments, their salary, promotions etc etc. I dont see any need to name poets.
  • Regarding "poorly written", feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed the image 'KRWIII.JPG' for now. Will add back if it remains undeleted.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Mysore palace image : Comment by Fowler - It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE". The name change is a suggestion I have put forward to reviewers, since Fowler reverted the article name to what it is today. Removing an image before the actual name change happens, is a hypotheical approach. If the name change seems to be popular among the reviewers, then we can revisit the issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


To Sandy Gerogia

Sandy, Fowler has deleted a piece of information I added (with citation from Kamath) calling it "false", that the Palace was the home of Kannada stage called Chandrasala since 1881. I dont want to revert this, but wanted you to know of this. Here is the full quote for your interest if you like: Quote:"Modern drama took shape with the founding of a stage called Chandrasala in the Mysore palace and organising the palace troupe in 1881".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DK's reply to F&f's post 4

Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Shiva Prakash (1997), p. 191 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 167 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 169 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 24 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Sahitya Akademi (1992), p. 3934 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 26 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 168 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I need to club citations calling upon a common referenced page. Will do .Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed commentary from an anonymous IP for not addressing issues in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Moni3 on the direction of this FAC:

  • I removed a comment about the above anonymous IP user and a peacock tag in the article. I'm going to distance myself from this FAC and make its goals very clear. I will remove any commentary that does not specifically address problems or merits of the article.
  • Fowler&fowler and Dineshkannambadi, apparently there is some enmity between both of you that I was only vaguely aware of before jumping into this nomination. If neither of you are unable to see this article as an entity that is unrelated to your past interactions, then I advise you not to participate in this FAC. It can be archived until you are able to discuss the merits of the article unrelated to slights or misbehavior you have suffered in the past. Please do not use FAC as a battleground to score points or get back at each other.
  • Fowler&fowler, I gather you have some experience in the topic. If you could please keep your comments strictly about the points in the article you think would be a detriment to an FA. Be specific, neutral, and please do not use hyperbole in your FAC commentary. Do not make comments about editors involved in the construction of this article, other reviewers, or make reference to issues outside of this FAC, please. I also ask that you keep all of your comments in one location in this nomination, as opposed to spreading them out among other reviewers' comments.
  • Dineshkannambadi, your job here is to overcome objections from reviewers. I see the tag, which is a mis-tag and should be {{peacock term}}. It can be easily rectified by removing the "noted" from in front of the author's name. He is still an author and is inherently notable on the subject. It appears to be inevitable that you and Fowler&fowler will have some issues that may not be overcome. That does not mean that the article will not be promoted. If you come across an objection that you simply feel you are unable to be rectify, explain why please, for SandyGeorgia to read when she closes this nomination, in a simple statement that will read: SandyGeorgia, I am unable to overcome this objection because it is my experience that... Please base your comment on your experience researching the topic, not on Fowler&fowler's behavior. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Moni3. I am in the process of improving the wording for clarity, wherever "vague" tag was added. W.r.t the "sic" tag, which to me means the reviewer found some form of inaccuracy, I am trying to make it more accurate. If I find a tag that I feel is unjustified, I will mention it here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have gone through the list of "vague" and "sic" tags and made the content clearer and and more accurate.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply to F&F's post5
  • Sentence 1: body of literature composed in the Kannada language- Says in what language the literature was written.
  • Sentence 2: Available? Is that needed? - Removed available.
  • Sentence 3: Many of the works of this literature are labeled Veerashaiva or Vaishnava (Fowler wrote-You make it sound that the faiths were charitable foundations). DK reply: I believe this was your input, not mine. Please see this
  • Sentence 4: clarified.
  • Sentence 5: Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on. Fowler wrote: We were never told that V- and V- were sacred writings--Specified the Vaishnava and Veerashaiva writings were religious.
  • Sentence 6:Organised Kannada literature flourished for a short while in the neighbouring kingdom of the Nayakas of Keladi--clarified it was written in the court and hence "organised". Improved wording.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Other comments by Fowler about Lead:

  • Sentence 1:Not only were the court poets prolific writers-- Copied Fowler's example.
  • Sentence 2: Wandering mendicant-poets wrote compositions meant for the country folk--Specified post-Vijayanagara period.
Reply to later part of post5 regarding image and coverage of literature
  • Please read the article before making oblique remarks about author intentions and such. The literature does cover upto 1949. No matter which title is eventually choosen, the period 1600-1947 is covered.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply to F &f's post 7
  • Yakshagana has been touched upon briefly by both Narasimhacharya and Rice. Yakshagana is a folk theatrical literature combining poetry, dance, dialogue and costume, and I have included aleast 4 sources (including a Sahitya Akademi publication) which discusses it as such. I can point you to another dozen reliable sources but they are all available on google search anyway. I don't think there is a rule in wiki that every source book in the article should discuss every topic detailed in the article.
  • I will replace the mapDineshkannambadi (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 1)There are no shortage of books that describe the importance of Yakshagana in the field of South Indian theatre. That is proof enough I think. example (Sahitya Akademi, vol 3):Quote":Yakshagana (Kannada) is a fascinating form of folk theatre now fostered in the coastal and hill tracts of Karnataka...."
  • 3)You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region. A Mysore king was a famous Yakshagana writer, Mysore was very much a hotbed of Yakshagana stage and troupes in the 18-19th century. Do I need to give more context that this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 4)Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Misplaced Pages gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough. I have rephrased that sentence you pointed out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Fowler has it occured to you that these sources you are talking about may be focussing on "classical literature" only and not "folk literature". Any why should we limit ourselves to these sources. You mention that two of the sources whose work is published by Sahitya Akademi (Prabhu Prasad and Shiva Prakash) do not mention Yakshagana, but I have sourced other publications by Sahitya Akademi that dwell at length on Yakshagana. See vol 3 of "Encyclopaedia of Indian literature" I have referenced. Why should we limit ourselves to Narasimhacharya, Pollock and Shiva Prakash when it comes to Yakshagana.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 5)Regarding Sarvajna: Fowler, you finally came to the point I had expected you to. Sarvajna is a drifter. Just every book, including Prabhu Prasad, Shiva Prakash and Naikar call him "poet of Karnataka". Not poet of North Karnataka or Poet of Dharwad. His impact is felt everywhere. Remember, you changed the name of the article which had no geographical limitations. Now you cant say "Gotcha". We come to wikipedia to build articles. Not "gotcha" the author and drown the article. If the article had been called Kannada literature, xyz, you could not have made this an issue. You changed the name of the article to what it was before my expansion of the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 6)Fowler, you have been through this act of condemning my sources in other FAC's too without understanding what information those sources bring to the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
To Sandy

Fowler has moved my response to his post 6 to the talk page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch As noted I peer reviewed this and find that it has improved, but still has some places needing improvement. I am not an expert on India or any of its many cultures and their literatures. These are just points I found on a careful reading of the article that may need to be fixed (or may be my ignorance showing). Because of time constraints I will only comment on the Lead and Overview for now.

Issues resolved (more coming) Ruhrfisch ><>° 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Watch overlinking - Vachana is linked twice in the lead, one time as "Vachana" and once as "vachana" - this should also be consistent, although I do not know which is preferred.
  • The last sentence in the lead also seems to say vachana is free verse (A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic, were popular including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse), vachana (free verse) ...) but the Lit. prior to the 16th Cent. section says they can be in several metres ... pithy poems called Vachanas (lit, "utterance" or "saying") propagated devotion to the god Shiva and were written in the native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem) and free verse metres. I realize in the elad one is capitalized and one not, but both link to the same article and seem to be the same thing
  • In the lead, I do not think of prose as a metre, so perhaps change this A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic, were popular including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse), vachana (free verse) and gadya (prose) metres. to something like ...including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse) and vachana (free verse) metres, and gadya (prose).
  • To provide context to the reader, I think it would be helpful to add an explanatory phrase describing both Veerashaivism and Vaishnavism (not in the lead, but at their first mention in the Literature prior to 16th century section) which explains that they are worshippers primarily of Shiva and Vishnu (I think more than a link is needed). I note that Shiva is mentioned later in this section, but not Vishnu that I can see.
  • Per WP:HEAD, should the section named "Literature prior to 16th century" just be "Prior to 16th century" (already know this is about Literature)?
  • Problem sentence "The early Veerashaiva literature (1150–1200 CE), comprising pithy poems called Vachanas (lit, "utterance" or "saying") propagated devotion to the god Shiva and were written in the native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem) and free verse metres." I think a word is missing and have suggested "which". I also think lit, should be literally or perhaps lit. (full stop or period, not a comma at the end). Italicized "lit" followed by a comma is used again in the artticle, so if it is changed here it should be fixed throughout
  • The capitalization of Kannada words seems inconsistent, although this could be reflecting their transliteration into English (they may be capitalized differently in Kannada). For example why are these lower case: "native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem)" while these are capitalized: "such as the Kirthane (compositions based on rhythm and melody), the Suladi (rhythm-based) and the Ugabhoga (melody-based)."?
  • Although Keladi is linked in the lead, I would link it again in The Kingdom of Keladi was centred at Keladi and near by Ikkeri town in the modern Shivamogga district. I also think it should be "nearby" not "near by"
  • I would also link Karnataka on its first use in the next sentence
  • Would adding a word help here A spurt in Vaishnava writings resulted in renderings of the epics, the Mahabharata, ...?
  • The caption Yakshagana artists preparing for the play is a bit cryptic and makes it sound as if there is only one play they ever perform. Looking at the image information, would something like Yakshagana artists applying makeup to prepare for a play be clearer?
  • I am not clear why some Kannada words are italicized (which seems proper by the MOS) but others are just given in quotations, such as in Yakshagana theatre where the usage is with quotation marks such as this: The "Yakshagana Tenkutittu" (lit, "Yakshagana of the southern style") is popular primarily in the Mangalore region ... why is it not like this: The Yakshagana Tenkutittu (lit, "Yakshagana of the southern style") is popular primarily in the Mangalore region ... ?
  • Unclear what the names Nagachandra and Aggala after the dates in the parentheses are in a term which appears in the 12th century Kannada writings Mallinathapurana (c. 1105, Nagachandra) and the Chandraprabha Purana (c. 1189, Aggala). If they are authors, perhaps ...Mallinathapurana (c. 1105, by Nagachandra)... would be clearer
  • Inconsistent citation in According to the scholar M.M. Bhat (Yakshagana-Stage in Karnataka, 1963), Chattana, a native composition adaptable to singing ... "Yakshagana-Stage in Karnataka, 1963" should be in an inline ref I think
  • Missing word? WOuld this read better as the Vaishnava bhakti (devotion) movement which started with the 6th century Alvars of modern Tamil Nadu and spread northwards, reached peak influence on South Indian devotionalism with the advent of the Haridasas of Karnataka.  ?
  • Any way to avoid using "poets" four times in two sentences in Though some poets, such as Tontada Siddhalingayati (1540), Swatantra Siddhalingeswara (1565), Ganalingideva (1560), Shanmukha Swamy (1700), Kadasiddheswara (1725) and Kadakolu Madivallappa (1780) attempted to re-popularise the tradition with noteworthy poems, they lacked the mastery of the 12th century poets. The most notable of the later day Vachanakaras ("Vachana poets") were undoubtedly the wandering poets, Sarvajna and Sisunala Sherif (late 18th century). ?
  • Would this A new genre of mystic literature, a synthesis of the Veerashaiva and the Advaitha philosophy, called the Kaivalya literature,... be clearer as A new genre of mystic Kaivalya literature, a synthesis of the Veerashaiva and the Advaitha philosophy, ...?
  • Missing an "and" I think English language education, the role of missionaries, their translation of the Bible into Kannada in 1820, the arrival of the printing press, publication of newspapers and periodicals, the earliest Kannada-English and English-Kannada dictionaries helped to modernise Kannada prose.
  • Is the verb tense "has" correct in This was followed by the earliest social plays with similar themes, a trend that has already set roots in the modern literatures of Marathi and Bengali languages.? It seems like it should be "had" .

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>° 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments, on 17th century writings

  • Better wording for From this period, the foundation of an independent state that would influence regional polity and culture was laid. perhaps T he foundation of an independent state that would influence regional polity and culture was laid in this period.
  • Clarify this - is the earliest available ever or just in the Mysore Kingdom or just in the 17th century? The earliest available writings are by Tirumalarya I (or Tirumala Iyengar), ...
  • Can the other works be briefly explained His other writings are the Ashwashastra, Hayasara Samucchaya and Brahmottra Kanda. Are they religious works? Political? Historical?
  • Missing word? Toward the end, impressed with Arjuna's devotion, Shiva bestows him a weapon called Pashuptastra.
  • Last paragraph of "Transition from Vijayanagara" - some works have just title, some have title and year, some have title, year, and brief description - probably should be consistent in terms of information provided for noted works
  • Missing "and"? The king's other works are commentaries on the Bhagavata and the later chapters of the epic Mahabharata, a thirty verse poem called Chikkadevaraya binappa ("Kings Petition"), a collection of devotional poems composed in praise of the god Cheluva Narayanaswamy of Melkote.
  • Problem sentence: Singaraya, a brother of Tirumalarya II, wrote Mitravinda Govinda (1680), the earliest available classical drama in Kannada, a play inspired by the Sanskrit drama Ratnavali ("Pearl necklace" by King Harsha of Kannauj). Among notable women poets, Srirangamma (1685) wrote Padmini Kalyana ("Marriage of Padmini"), and Sanchi Honnamma (lit. "betel bag"), a Vokkaliga from Yelandur ... First are the italics correct for "Sanchi Honnamma"? Second, this is a very long sentence and could be split after (lit. "betel bag"). The Vokkaliga phrase starts oddly as it is. Wait, I think Sanchi Honnanama is the new subject and was a Vokkaliga?? Anyway this is unclear and probably should be split.
  • Would it help to add king before "Chikka Devaraja" a few more times in Golden Age to remind readers who he was?
  • Need a ref for A few of his later poems give more hints about his adulthood, his Guru and a possible unsuccessful marriage.

Looking better, hope this helps, will work through the other sections too, Ruhrfisch ><>° 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet more Ruhrfisch comments (almost all on 18th and 19th and 20th centuries). I have made some copyedits too - please revert if I introduced errors or changed the meaning:

  • One last 17th century comment - do the two poems by Sarvajna need inline refs? Also might need an inline ref for the poem from Giriyamma.
  • Problem sentence - not sure how to fix it Musical instruments the prasanga is rendered to include maddale and chende (types of drums), and a sruti (harmonium-like instrument).
  • Is there a date for the discovery in His fourteen Yakshagana compositions, written in various languages but in the Kannada script, were discovered at the government manuscripts library in Chennai.
  • The regular spelling is "minstrel" - is this correct these itinerant Haridasas made valuable contributions as "ministrals of God". ?
  • Final comment - I have pointed out or corrected all the places needing attention that I could find. I have read and in some cases reviewed the other Kannada literature articles - the ones for a particular period are also organized by a particular kingdom or empire, so I think the title and scope covered here is fine. I also know Jainism experienced a general decline in this time period, so it seems reasonable to me to expect that were fewer notable Jain authors and works in this era. I hope my comments help, Ruhrfisch ><>° 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am leaning towards support, but want to reread the article and perhaps do some more copyedits first. However, I will have to wait until tomorrow to do that. I did look at the lead just now and have two comments. First, could the sentence The writings date from around 1600 CE to the mid-20th century. also talk about the kingdom, so perhaps The writings date from the Kingdom of Mysore, which existed from around 1600 CE to the establishment of modern India in 1947. I think it would tie the literature into the title better. Second, per WP:LEAD a lead is supposed to summarize an article and give an idea of the broad themes and trends in it, without too much detail. I found the four tags which are now in the first paragraph of the lead (ambiguous, vague (twice), and off topic) to be unnecessary and unhelpful. Ruhrfisch ><>° 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Laser brain for the copyedit (I did not do any more copyedits). I find the article is well written and nicely illustrated. There are many references and to my eye they appear to be used correctly and from reliable sources. I take Fowler&fowler's critiques seriously, but it also seems to me that at least part of the problem is different perceptions as to what should and should not be in the article. It seems to me that there are at least two ways to look at Kannada literature: time and space. When I peer reviewed this article, the title was soemthing like "Kannada literature from 1600-1900", which was only limited in time. Fowler&fowler was the loudest voice insisting the title be reverted to the current version. The problem is that doing so can be seem as limiting the scope of the article only to literature composed within the Kingdom (limited to space), which seems to be much of Fowler&fowler's criticism. I see the article as covering all literature written in Kannada, during the time of the Kingdom of Mysore (limited to the time period 1600 to 1947, limited in space only to southern India). If this is correct, it seems to render much of Fowler&fowler's critiques moot. I wonder if both Fowler&fowler Dineshkannambadi could please comment on this? If my understanding is correct, then perhaps if the title were something like "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore" this would be less contentious? If I have understood the article correctly and this title would be better, then there are other places where this emphasis could be made clearer / more explicit. Ruhrfisch ><>° 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Ruhrfisch. Fowler's revert of the article's name is a primary problem here. Though not the author of the article, he reverted the name hence limiting the scope to Mysore only, when the intention of the author (myself) was never to limit the scope of the literature within any geographical constraints. This is why I brought up the issue in the nomination. I agree that the article's name should be moved to a more inclusive one. Misplaced Pages is about concensus and Fowler can't dictate the "title" and the "content".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
DK Reply to Ruhrfisch
Thank you for your review. I will pay close attention to your comments starting tonight. regards Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help - these are pretty nitpicky, one reason why I stopped was so that if a problem can be fixed throughout the article (or if I did not understand something), then I do not have to mention it again in later sections, Ruhrfisch ><>° 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments
  • Removed Vachana since it was mentioned twice in lead. Replaced with Sanskritic Shatpadi metre.
  • Removed Hadugabba (song-poem). This is an ancient native form. Nothing to do with Vachanas though some Vachana poets are known to have popularised singing the Vachanas (which are written as rythemic prose-poems).
  • Seperated Gadya prose from list of metres.
  • Clarified what is Veerashaivism and Vaishnavism
  • Trimmed title of first section after lead per WP:HEAD
  • Added suggested , corrected lit, to lit. Will find other examples and correct them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Made composition styles all lower case for consistancy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilinked and corrected suggested word
  • Wikilinked
  • Added suggsted word
  • Fixed image caption
  • I normally use italics for metres, genres, other composition styles, names of Writings, Honorifics, Titles in vernacular. "Yakshagana Tenkutittu", "Yakshagana Badagatittu Bayalaata" and "Nagamandalam" dont come under any of these categories. They are local names. But I will make it italics any. I will keep Yakshagana as is without italics because it is a borad term like the English word "Stage".
  • Specified poet names

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Created inline note for inconsistant citation.
  • Added missing word
  • Reduced over usage of "poet" in two sentences
  • Fixed sentence on Kaivalya literature
  • Added missing "and"
  • Fixed tense.

I have started to and will continue to read the article for similar errors and make necessary corrections. Thanks again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments on 17th century writings
  • Corrected sentence per example
  • Specified earliest available from Mysore period
  • Ashwashastra, Hayasara Samucchaya and Brahmottra Kanda-- I will try to find more information on these works.
    • Corrected wording. Multiple sources concur that Chamarajokti was written by the king himself, but the the three mentioned above were written "during" his reign but does not say who wrote it and about what it was. I will remove it for now, if it is sticking out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Added missing word
  • Last paragraph of "Transition from Vijayanagara"--I have specified 17th century for works whose exact dates I don't have. Will look for them in more sources though. Same w.r.t brief information on content of writing. If the exact dates are not available, the patron king's ruling years would give the idea.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actully the 30 verse poems is Chikkadevaraya binappa. Improved wording.
  • Problem sentence--Improved sentence. Removed italics for Sanchi to reduce complexity, reworded for clarity. Please see if this reads okay.
  • Added "king" few more times.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Provided citation. Modified to avoid speculation by source.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Improvements based on Ruhrfisch's comments dated March 1st
  • Provided inline refs
  • Simplified sentence regarding musical instruments
  • Will look for a date of discovery at Chennai (in the sentence fourteen Yakshagana compositions)
  • Corrected spelling
  • Thank you for you comment on the decline of Jain literature and the title of the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I am flexible with the title, so long as the content of the article is "intact". Again, thank you for your decent and patient review. Whether this article becomes a FA or not, Kannada will remain a classical language, something the Govt of India has recognised on Nov 1, 2008. It's wealth and contribution to Indian culture can't be diminished by the success or failure of this article at FAC.Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is biased in that there is a deliberate attempt in it to downplay the Jain literary heritage. "Despite a gradual decline in the popularity of Jainism, authors devoted to the faith produced some works of merit." This statement doesn't go well with the rest of the article which mentions many Jain writers as notable and the single author (Bhattakalanka Deva) most elaborated upon in the article is a Jain.

The intro itself is poorly written. "During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse) form of writing." When did this age happen? Throughout the period of several centuries which spans the scope of this article? It is vague. I have added a citation-needed tag in the intro, too.59.91.253.126 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To Sandy and Moni3
Sandy, The above IP appears to be that of a banned user I had mentioned earlier.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) earlier.
Dineshkannambadi, I removed the previous IP comment because it was a vague generalization, barely civil, and not helpful. This is different, and I will allow it to stay. If you cannot overcome the IP's objection, state why so Sandy can take this into account when she closes the FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to IP:No, the article is not biased. It is accepted widely that Jain writings in Kannada declined, a decline that began in the 13-14th century itself. Just claiming bias means nothing. True, I have mentioned some Jain writers, but the number of Veerashaiva and Vaishnava writers is far many more. However, if you can bring reliable citations from scholars to prove that Jain writers were equal in number to the other faiths, I would be glad to accomodate it. I have added a few citations, of which there is no shortage.
  • The earlier period when champu form of writing dominated was 9th-12th century. Some champu's are available from 13th century also, but the decline is clear. Will provide more citations if necessary.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments, leaning toward support. This is quite good, and I think it's close to ready. I don't see any evidence of bias and it appears quite neutral. I did find a lot of minor prose issues, most of which I fixed as I went along. Those I couldn't sort out (or didn't have time) are listed below. Great work - there is an impressive amount of research and writing represented here. I just have to note that I love the Sarvajna verse about the tongue living amongst the teeth.
    • Why are we placing tags in the text instead of commenting here? It is difficult to track feedback in two different places. I simply do not see any reason why these tags are warranted; they should be removed.
    • Normally citations are not required in the lead unless a statement is particularly controversial - why are they present?
    • You are not consistently writing "best-known" and "best known"; there are more of these than I care to look for and fix. Choose one.
    • You aren't consistent with serial commas in lists. I fixed what I saw but please check throughout.
    • "This literature saw a revival in the 18th and 19th centuries." Please revise this... living things "see", literature doesn't.
    • "The work differs from the original in that the god Krishna and his Gopikas' are the protagonists of the play instead of Krishna and his consort Radha." I couldn't sort out why there is an apostrophe after "Gopikas". That's plural, not possessive.
    • When I saw them, I removed the word "town" written after city names. This doesn't seem to be an English-language standard, but please correct me if there is a good reason.
    • "The first half of the 18th century saw Mysore's independence delicately balanced ..." Same comment about "saw" as above.
--Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I will look into your concerns carefully today and address them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to Laser Brain

Oppose. Sorry, this important article needs to be written to high standards because (i) it's an FAC, and (ii) it's on a literary topic. Nothing less than fine writing is required to do justice to Kannada literature.

  • Opening repetitions and winding pathway: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed in the Kannada language, a Dravidian language spoken in the historical Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India and written in the Kannada script." Literature/literature/language/language/written/script. Phew. Rather than circular statements (literature is literature) and redundancies ("composed", "the" and "language"), rationalise it and rob something from the subsequent sentences (time-range?). It's a very unengaging opening for what should be a fascinating topic. "of merit" is POV in this context; anyway, it's damning with faint praise. Leave the judgements until we read about it in greater detail below.
  • "Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on." Clunky sentence, in which there's not much content for the number of words. Ouch.
  • Comma after "Keladi", which is not a person, so "whose" is better avoided.

This needs the attention of copy-editors; it's not an easy task, since just about every sentence needs fixing throughout. Do you know how to find the right assistance? I suggest you "WRR" (withdraw, re-edit and resubmit, probably as a plainer-sailing FAC. Tony (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I will try my best to have it copy edited.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To all reviewers regarding earlier expansion of article

Fowlers claim that the article's name was changed without much addition to the article is false. The expansion began on Nov 7th 2008. On Dec 16th, after significant expansion I changed the name of the article, by which time, the article had virtually doubled in content and citations. Please see the edit summary when I moved the title .. Also, I dont see why the title should cover the period 1600-1800 only, requiring a third of the article to be removed, when Fowler himself had voiced "why not 1600-20th century" multiple times in this FAC. Please see F &f's posts 4 and 5. Why the switch? The intent is to protect well cited content and bring the info to the people.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that description does match the record. On the 13th of December 2008, user:DK was "pondering" changing the name of the article and left this post on user:Michael Devore's talk page, (See talk page post of 13 December, 2008) which began with: "I have been pondering over changing the name of the article to something that is more inclusive of a new section I want to introduce. This new section will deal with poetry written in the Northern Karnataka region, outside the Mysore kingdom, for completeness. But so keep in mind that most of the literary production that is documented and available today is from the Mysore court." Until then, no indication was given anywhere that a page name change was anticipated. The above post, moreover, was made several days after the Kingdom of Mysore FAR (involving KLKM article's parent article) had begun, but only three days before the page name was changed (for which the usual Misplaced Pages protocols for controversial page moves were not observed). I have replied to user:DK's other points in my post 7 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid it does not. Am I supposed to tell everyone on wiki what I have been pondering over, from when and how long?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Some observations on F &f's post7.7

I would like to point out a contradition in Fowler's statement. Fowler wrote:For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India.

  • All along, Fowler insisted that the title of the article should be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". But now Mysore has become a small principality between 1600-1760 whose contribution to Kannada literature is being questioned. How does the area of Mysore matter to literature?. And just above, in the same paragraph, Fowler wrote If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. These are contradictions within contradictions. Let me quote Fowler's favourite author D.R. Nagaraj (page 377) whom he has quoted above with regards to Yakshagana:
  • Quote:"At least two courts have been mentioned earlier, Keladi (1500-1763) and Mysore (1610-1947)—had organised around themselves a cultural intelligentsia capable of writing on diverse subjects". I can provide another 20 quotes easily why Mysore is important.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Regent Spark

My main concern with the article is the excessive number of references. I know that sounds odd, but, when I see an article where almost every sentence is referenced, I have to wonder about the degree of synthesis or original research. However, without reading the citations, I'm not sure I can confidently state that the article is a reasonably accurate representation of what is known about Kannada Literature (in or out of the Kingdom of Mysore) or whether this is a view about that subject that is available only on wikipedia so I'll point out a few obvious examples of this synthesis (perhaps the principal author can fix them), but will leave it to others to decide whether the text is encyclopedic or interesting but original research.

  1. Overview. First para. The article states that Kannada literature was influenced by three important socio-religious developments and cites two different texts as support for the three developments leading me to conclude that the three influences are conclusions drawn by the editor rather than by scholars. If there are three important influences, there should be one clear reference that says that this is so.
  2. Genres. In many cases, it is not clear whether the literature genres are generally accepted ones or whether they are the editor's own groupings. For example, the sections entitled "Court and monastic literature' and 'Folk and didactic literature' do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work that identifies these as historical genres. For an example of what would be ideal, the sub-section Haridasa literature starts with a clear definition of the genre that is properly referenced.
  3. Golden age. The section entitled Golden age makes no reference to any scholar who identifies it as being a golden age. Ideally, the first sentence of the section should read "the period blah-blah has been identified as the golden age for Kannada literature.{cite1, cite 2, cite3}" (BTW, a minor point, but there seem to be two golden ages - one in the 17th/18th centuries, and another in the mid-20th century - see the last para of the article.) (Or, do you mean golden age of the kingdom?)
  4. I'm a little stuck for time these days and can't actually look up the references, but the one that I did has been (mildly) mis-characterized. Para 2 of the article states: During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse), a form of writing that had prevailed in Kannada prior to 13th century. However, the quoted reference (Shipley) identifies this period only as an 'age of revival' (no mention of innovation), mentions this period only briefly and uses the words efforts were made to revive (Campu) without actually saying if these efforts were more or less successful.

(I'll try and add more constructive comments later.--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Other comments
  1. Main article link to Kannada literature in 'prior to 16th century section. 'main article' should be used if the subject of the section is also the subject of another, more detailed, article. In this case, Kannada lit. is much broader. (Perhaps the intention was to place the link under overview?)
  2. I'm not sure what 'contemporary developments' refers to. Contemporary to what? The way I read it, the entire text under contemporary developments provides an overview of the different historical genres of Kannada lit. and covers the entire period that the article covers. In that case, the section title is misleading.
  3. Under 'Court and monastic lit.' the section starts with a reference to the center of Kannada lit moving away from the Vijayanagar empire to the kingdoms. However, there is no prior reference to this. Typically, you want the article to summarize the state of the lit. in the period before the article, describe in detail the state of the lit. during the period of interest, and summarize what went on in the period after. However, you do want connected themes. Perhaps the prior to 16th century section should include a brief description of Kannada lit in the Vijayanagar empire.
  4. Where you say "The Mysore court became the inheritor of the Vijayanagara literary legacy", do you mean inheritor of the Kannada literary legacy or all lit. leg. (incl., Sanskrit, Tamil, etc.)?
  5. Belonged to the 'Pampa' tradition... You should (briefly) tell the reader what this tradition is.

--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regent Spark's responses to Dineshkannambadi's replies
  1. Meaning of literature genres are generally accepted and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. This is fairly straightforward. When writing an encyclopedia article, care must be taken that the editor does not 'create knowledge' but faithfully reports what others have created. If the editor identifies a group of literary works as belonging to 'court and monastic literature' then that grouping should have been done by an established scholar in the field elsewhere first. Thus, for the article to be encyclopedic, the grouping must be anchored with a reference to the established scholarly work that groups the works that way. If no established scholarly work has grouped the works that way, then we should not do so on wikipedia.
  2. Golden age. From your response, I'm afraid this sounds like WP:OR to me. What you're saying is that you've collected information from 9 distinct works to describe a period of work that you've identified as important and, because no scholar has given the same importance to that period, you have to come up with a name for it on your own. Such naming is best left to scholarly work that can be peer reviewed. If a single clear reference exists, you should summarize its contents and not have to resort to using 22 citations from 9 works to describe the period and then have to come up with a name. A good rule of thumb is 'do not use a term that has not been used elsewhere'.
  3. Thanks for fixing the main article, contemporary definition, and vijayanagar reference. All make for better reading. I'll try to reread Shipley tomorrow and see what the appropriate wording should be but, in general, it is better not to put loaded words in the mouths of the referred work and innovation is a loaded word.

--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 03:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will answer your questions and concerns tonight.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Replies to RegensPark concerns

I would like to thank you for dropping in with your concerns.

  • 1)Quote:"Kannada poets may be roughly classified as Jains, Virashaivas and Brahmanas. There are also authors of other sects, but their number is comparatively small. The earliest cultivators of the language for literary purposes were the Jains and down to the 12th century, we have with very few exceptions, only Jain authors. For about three centuries after that period, we have along with them a few Brahmana writers and a pretty large number of Virashaiva authors, and from about the 15th century date numerous brahminical writers and Virashaiva works. There are, however during these later periods, some compositions by Jains, but most of the literature of later times originated from other sects." (Narasimhacharya p. 17).

Some scholars (like E.P. Rice, p 15–16) use Vaishnava in place of Brahamanas. Brahmin is a Hindu caste, they follow the Vaishanva faith. The other citation I have provided, from Shiva Prakash, goes into more detail specifically on Virashaiva (also spelt Veerashaiva) and Vaishanva writings. Sometimes I give multiple citations to provide more information to the interesed reader.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • 2)Genres: Here, in the two sections you mention, "court and monastic" and "Folk and didactic" literature, there are three genres discussed, broadly speaking:Vaishnava, Veerashaiva and Yakshagana. I have referenced eight sources in all, in these two sections. It would help me to better answer your question if you can clarify what you mean by literature genres are generally accepted ones and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. Are you suggesting the genres (one or more) are not historically important, or that the historically important genres are not properly studied, or the referenced scholars are not scholarly enough.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 3)Golden age:Quote:"A remarkable development of literature took place in the latter part of the century during the rule of Chikkadevaraja Odeyar (1672-1704), one of the most distinguished kings of Mysore"..... (Narasimhacharya p.23). Odeyar is an alternate spelling for Wodeyar. Quote:"He was a great patron of poets and scholars.....It was a period of great literary activity in Kannada." (with reference to Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar's reign, Kamath, p. 230);Quote:"Chika Deva Raya's reign (1672-1704) calls for special mention in Kanarese literature." (E.P. Rice, pp. 89-90). I felt titling a section "Remarkable age" or "Great age" or "Special age" would be awkward. So I called it "Golden age". Do you want me to change "Golden age" to something else?. I can go on providing references, ofcourse, but then it could be considered synthesis.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 4)Actually, the innovation part was explained later in 17th century and 18th century sections. I have now added the innovative part to the lead which Shipley describes in the very next sentence. He uses the word "initiated" and I felt it would awkward to say "in a period of revival and initiation". Regarding efforts were made to revive (Campu), he also says "Sadaksari is a Virashaiva poet with extraordinary fancy, and a mastery over classical Kannada". Champu (or Campu) writings fall under "classical Kannada". Sadaksari's (or Shadaksharadeva) three champu classics have been described in 17th century section. I did not write "revivied to the height of glory", just that it was "revivied" during that period. If I had written "attempted to revive", a reviewer may have asked me "did the Mysore poets try to revive and give up half way". Regarding mentions this period only briefly , Shipley describes the whole of 1500 years of Kannada literature (including earliest metrical passages from 500 CE) in 3 1/2 pages. The fact that the period of revivial is even mentioned, goes to show its importance. If you dont like the word "innovation", please give me an alternate word and I will gladly accomodate it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Other responses to RegentsPark
  • Corrected loc of main article
  • Changed contemporary to 17th century
  • Gave context to Vijayanagara empire
  • Gave context to Vijayanagara empire in 16th century section
  • The Pampa tradition is actually explained when I wrote classical. I will add one more word to it for clarity.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be responding to concerns twice a day (morn/night) and try to clean up issues the best I can.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of Regent Spark's post, I have now created a subpage, Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature in KM FAC, where I have collated what I believe is definitive evidence both of the inaccuracy of paraphrasing in the article and of synthesis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1c. I did list some prose issue above and have found more since, but after carefully reviewing Fowler&fowler's points, I have grave concerns about the sourcing. I am particularly troubled by the heavy use of Pranesh, a locally-published dissertation I can't access and whose authority is highly questionable. Since this paper is seemingly not published in any peer-reviewed academic journals, we have no way of knowing its reliability or even its content. I'll need to see examples (that I can verify through a scholarly database) that reliable, academic sources consider Pranesh to be authoritative. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose - the structure is causing me a concern. There are many headings immediately followed by subheadings. Level 5 subheadings? You have left hand images under many of these subheadings which goes against WP:ACCESS. Then your types of charts vary in a large way, which causes a lack of formatting unity. I think you need to unify sections more instead of having a lot of tiny subsections. There are some other problems, as with those mentioned above. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:42, 6 March 2009 .

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I've done several days of searching and have found no further information. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth Cyclonebiskit 15:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane editors should know by now that date ranges are not separated by WP:EMDASHes, rather by WP:ENDASHes. The syntax at {{Infobox Hurricane Small}} is too complicated for me to fix; please address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, there is a faulty hyphen in {{Infobox hurricane season}} that should be an WP:ENDASH; pls get hyphens and dashes sorted in all of the hurricane templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that the one you were thinking of? Potapych (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, there are hyphens that should be WP:ENDASHes in the "Season summary" chart. Please understand the difference between a WP:HYPHEN, WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH; date and number ranges are separated by endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article has an open peer review; peer reviews are supposed to be closed before nominating at FAC. Perhaps the Hurricane and Cyclone Projects should have an in-house peer review process to make sure nominations are prepared before coming to FAC? There are also faulty hyphens throughout the See also section; it is surprising that the Hurricane and Cyclone Projects, having so many FACs, have not prepared this article better for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We do its called FAC :P - Nah all joking aside we do have an A Class Review but it doesnt work as no one really reviews their these days Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are a number of templates that need to be cleaned up by the Projects, as well as issues within this particular article; I suggest a better process for preparing for FAC, as there is such a backlog. Articles should not be at PR and FAC at the same time; pls withdraw this nom until it is prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
They seem to be mostly fixed now, but with all the FAs and FACs that Hurricanes and Cyclones have, it is surprising to see all of those templates get so out of whack. Since FAC is so backlogged, please strive to have articles prepared before coming to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the chart in "Season summary" is still wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to reinstate as soon as basics are in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 .

Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

Nominator(s):  Chzz  ► 

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe, with minimal modification, it can be an exemplary article on a UK town. --  Chzz  ►  06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose First impressions are of an underdeveloped article, with many one or two sentence paragraphs, some list-y section (ie: notable people), an too short a lead. While I commend Chzz's enthusiasm, I do not agree that it would take only minimal modification to get the article up to standard. It is not ready for FAC and would fail a Good Article nomination. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - unreferenced section, short stubby paragraphs, refs missing publishers and other needed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with previous commentators. This article is not yet fully developed and would struggle even at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 .

Overlord (2007 video game)

Nominator(s): Stabby Joe (talk)

As the primary contributor to the article's current shape, I nominate this video game article for Featured Article (FA). The article presents a good deal of information on the game's gameplay, story, development, balanced reception and details on other linked products. Edits made thus far have been stable, without recurring vandalism nor any indication of such in the future. The information is sourced, and the images are appropriate for the text content. The article has gone through a successful Good Article and A-Class article Nomination. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Noted, will look into those. Altough can I quickly ask will it matter when the access date added even if it was accessed before? Stabby Joe (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Doesn't matter when the access date is, as long as the source still is correct for the information in the article and its still a live link. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I should quickly point out that Game Rankings is under maintaince or something right now, just in case it looks like the link isn't working. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • Some refs are duplicates, a name reference should be used.
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.theaudioguys.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=80 | title = Overlord Development Blog - Part One | publisher = The Audio Guys | date = 2007-08-30 | accessdate = 2007-11-12}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • A Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Different references are using the same name.
  • name=dev1 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GR360 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GRPC Multiple references are given the same name
  • DLCnews Multiple references are given the same name
  • PS3 Multiple references are given the same name
  • ignpc Multiple references are given the same name
  • wizardspeech Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could elaberate on this issue please, I'm not sure what the problem is currently. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The text not in italics is the problem that was found, the italics is the suggestion on how to fix it. I explained in the main headers what should be done and the sub headers are the examples.--TRUCO 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. This article needs MoS cleanup; I got some of it and left some sample edits, but there is more. I also saw some British spelling, but US dates; which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Now when you say US dates, is it any certain mention of dates or in general because if its the later then I'm not sure what needs to be done. Its UK spelling BTW. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
She means that even though you use UK spelling, you also US-style dates (i.e. month before day—January 1 instead of 1 January). Consistency is needed, either use UK spellings and date formats or US spellings and date formats. Seems as if it would be easier to convert dates to UK format. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nowhere close to 1a. 1b concerns regarding the Development section. Not impressed when I see sentences like "The game was in development for over a year and a half which began in early 2006 and was first announced in May that same year, with gameplay being unveiled at E3 2006." (third sentence of the article, no less) and "The game features a corruption feature, similar to that of the Fable games, but allowing the player to "be evil... or really evil," where certain actions and choices affect different aspects of the story and gameplay." Since when is "satire" a verb? "Early concept art seemed to show the Overlord, while roughly armoured the same as in the finished product, with a clearly visible human face as opposed to a dark covered shadow with lit up eyes." <-- cited to the screenshots(!); see WP:NOR. Why are the Development sections of video game FACs so often poorly fleshed out? Is this really what passes for GA/A-class nowadays? BuddingJournalist 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 .

Real Madrid C.F.

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's one of the best articles on wikipedia. Hadrianos1990 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments I scanned it and found a few minor things.

  • "The name "Ye-yé" came from the "Yeah, yeah, yeah" chorus in the Beatles' song "She Loves You" after four members of the team posed for Diario Marca dressed in Beatles wigs. The Ye-yé generation was also European Cup runner-up in 1962 and 1964." needs a ref.
  • "Real Madrid ended Manchester United's eight-year reign as the biggest earners in world football." not sure about the wording here, reign seemed an odd word to use since it's not an offical title.
  • A lot of refs not dated. #41, #46, #47, #53 (in fact that has nothing at all), #55-59 and #65. There could be more.
    1. 72 is just a URL
  1. Why is the section with References titled "Footnotes"?
  • "Though Perez's policy resulted in increased financial success based on the exploitation of the club's high marketing potential around the world, especially in Asia, it came under increasing criticism for being focused too much on marketing the Real Madrid brand and not enough on the performances of the team." needs a ref.

Don't really know enough about the club to check ifit covers everything. Prose and images seem fine though. BUC (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, 1c. You simply can't have anything but basic facts sourced to the club's web site (stuff simple enough to be in the infobox). Please withdraw and source the article to reliable, third-party sources. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Forty-one of eighty-three references are to the official site. Not only is that number high, but the history section is sourced almost exclusively to them. It would be one thing if they were only citing statistics, but they aren't. The possibility for bias is just too high. There are also still prose issues (ex. "Real Madrid lead the first edition until the last match, a loss to Athletic Bilbao meant they finished runners-up to Barcelona." Another: "The ye-ye generation was also European Cup runner-up in 1962 and 1964.") Giants2008 (17-14) 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Switched to strong oppose per lack of response to comments. It's been six days since feedback began streaming in, and only a bare link has been fixed (and its reliability has been questioned). At a time when FAC is this busy, I see no reason to keep this article here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. Cite error: The named reference FRWG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Cite error: The named reference kan5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. Cite error: The named reference nanja was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Cite error: The named reference maha was invoked but never defined (see the help page).