Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2010: 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 15:13, 5 January 2010 editKaranacs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,644 edits archive 3← Previous edit Revision as of 17:26, 10 January 2010 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,024 edits archive 4Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
== January 2010 == == January 2010 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Steampunk/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dow Jones Industrial Average/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Randy Johnson/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Killswitch Engage/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sri Lanka/archive2}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sri Lanka/archive2}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Achtung Baby/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Achtung Baby/archive1}}

Revision as of 17:26, 10 January 2010

January 2010

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 17:26, 10 January 2010 .

Steampunk

Nominator(s): IzzyReal (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an excellent article that displays the literary sub-genre/subculture in an understandable and encyclopedic way. IzzyReal (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support I enjoyed reading that. I made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a Wiki. There's a citation needed still to sort out and some of the pictures still need alt text. Also Girl Genius is set in Europe, though not quite our Europe. Some terms might need linking because they have differing meanings in English and American English eg should the coat link to Tail coat or Frock coat? ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name—mainly technical, but I think this machine needs some oil.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Maybe they still need to find more sources, or have some other reason not to feature.
  • Two dab links that should be replaced with specific article links. No dead external links—good.
  • Some images still need alt text, just in case.
  • In "External links": "The Nova Albion Steampunk Exhibition: An annual gathering for steampunks, held in the San Francisco Bay Area. May be the first dedicated Steampunk convention in the United States."—If this is the first such, this should be mentioned in the article with a citation.
  • Magazine refs (like ref 22) should be as specific as possible (volume, month or season, article name and author, etc.). Publishers should be specified for all refs. I'm especially concerned about the etheremporium links—if they are wikis open to outside edits, those edits might not be fact-checked and the info might not be reliable.
  • Ref dates are mainly ISO style. Switch other ref dates to that format. Prose dates appear to be Month Day, Year.

It makes me think of gears, games, and Salma Hayek, so it's not all bad. :) --an odd name 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - References are a mess, bare links, lack of page numbers, some printed sources lacking titles and authors for verifiability, use of unreliable sources (including but not exhaustive list: http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/bp.report.html, http://www.zone-sf.com/difengine.html, http://voyagesextraordinaires.blogspot.com/2008/08/history-of-steampunk.html, http://steampunkworkshop.com/, http://kineticsteamworks.org/) and links to possible copyright violations (http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/bp.report.html). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 10 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 .

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Nominator(s): Fabledd (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... its quite informative and gramatically correct. Fabledd (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdraw by an odd name—thanks for joining Misplaced Pages (and welcome!), but I don't think this is up to the criteria.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Maybe they still need to find more sources, or have some other reason not to feature.
  • "History" needs lots of attention:
    • There's lots of what I and others here call "proseline"—sentences and paragraphs that are just "On date, event." The criteria demand "engaging, even brilliant" prose "of a professional standard", and I bet a lot of the events can be tightened into flowing prose. Point-by-point lists are boring, and people coming here from the Main Page want to be educated, not sedated.
    • What can't be tightened can probably be divided into more sections with headings so readers can get to the main historical ideas.
  • Recently, alternate text has become a requirement for images in featured articles. If the graphs don't load, or readers can't see the image for other reasons, "alt text" gives an idea of the missing visuals. There's none for the graphs here; they may need some.

More comments pertaining to the lead and first section alone, although I still oppose and think the whole page needs more work than the 59-page FAC backlog allows (added on 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)):

  • The first lead paragraph was huge. I tried to rearrange the lead in general, but I think it needs more word-trimming and a third eye.
  • "From a starting point of under 50 in the late 1890s to a high reached above 14,000 in the late 2000s, the Dow rises periodically through the decades with corrections along the way eventually settling in the mid-10,000 range."—Split into more sentences, and replace "correction". Past tense might be better.
  • What makes the graphs' sources reliable?
  • Explain what the Dow is in the body before the company chart. (I would've just moved History if it wasn't bloated.) Pretend that the lead doesn't exist (that's just a short form of the whole article).
  • The index doesn't consist of the companies (the Dow is not a conglomerate itself). It tracks their stock prices. Correct this throughout.

If you still want the Dow to be featured, I suggest you go to the talk pages of the top editors in the "major editors" link, and (if they haven't "retired" or gone on "wikibreak") talk with them about how to improve it. If they aren't available, you can request peer review for more detailed suggestions (I listed a few problems, but there may be many more). Good luck. --an odd name 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've made numerous contributions to this page, and I would say I think the article is a fairly good contender for being featured. I understand what your saying as far as "tightening" certain parts within the History Section; but its not what it seems. Basically, the subject matter may appear to be oversaturated and perhaps dull when mentioning certain timelines and specific dollar closing prices, but thats really just the nature of the subject matter. Alot of people find those additions to the article, interesting. If the Dow closes at a 5-Year low and then within 3 months it goes up 40%, its something that many readers find important and informative to compare the exact pricing and how financially relevant that may be. And as far as summaries within the History Section go; its really something that has to do with readily available information. The section of the 1930s or the 1950s is far smaller than the 1990s and 2000s sections. Basically, we certainly know more and have more verifiable and accurate financial information in the last 10 years than we had 50 years ago. We could just delete alot of the details throughout the 90s and 00s, but it would lessen the integrity of the important information we have documented. The bottom line is, its well written, its informative, the quality of the article is alot higher than others and its really not boring to read about price corrections just like it isn't when you read the wall street journal. I don't think the article should be disqualified for differing points of view surrounding the History Section. Oh and by the way, those graphs are in a constant state of being updated. They are large and take time to formulate. I'm interested in hearing all opinions. RT6543 3:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of information on the DJIA from 50 or even 75 years ago. Newspapers have been tracking it religiously for decades. The sections on recent decades are longer people editors have been using this section of the article for play-by-play updates. Every time there is a significant move in the index someone will add a bullet. With the traffic this article gets, this is not unexpected. The editors need to be doing a better job of summarizing the data that is no longer new. For example, the Feb-2007 correction may have seemed like a big deal at the time, but it didn't turn out to be that big a deal compared to corrections that would come later (or compared to dozens of corrections that preceded it) yet it still is represented by a sizable bullet point.DavidRF (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • RESPONSE I noticed that it is a major problem. Everytime the Dow goes up 220 points or goes down 301 points; we don't need a user to add a daily price bullet update. There's enough examples in the page already. If certain updates look ridiculous, then its justified to delete them. Perhaps you are correct with the information from 50 years ago. However, there are 2 problems with it. Number one, they hard to get a hold of and not necessarily available through on-line sources over the internet. You'd have to go to a public library and dig up a photocopy of a 45-year old newspaper edition to get every fact on a related financial story or political event that influenced the Dow's movement on that day. Problem number 2; the page would be way too long if every decade summary is the same length like the 2000s decade. I think then, we'd be over-doing it. RT6543 5:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My point was we were definitely overdoing it with recent eras, not that we should expand previous eras. I disagree that previous eras would be hard to find, though. Of course, we wouldn't want the daily play-by-play, but see Template:US recessions and see that there's a dip in the DJIA just before at or just before almost every single one of those. On a macro-level, details of bear/bull markets are pretty easy to find. There should be plenty of economics history books out there. But I agree those details are not necessary here. Details should be left for the articles such as those in Template:US recessions. That said, the play-by-play of previous decades in the DJIA article oddly focuses on stuff that had relatively little effect on the market (e.g bay of pigs, columbian war, civil rights movement, etc) and doesn't focus enough on the state of the economy. A ton of obscure wars are mentioned, but the Panic of 1907 isn't mentioned at all. Its the history of the market and not the history of the century. Something we could improve.DavidRF (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


  • Answer. Ok, I did my best to correct that issue with WP:ALT. RT6543 3:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A little too much commentary in the alt-text now, in my opinion. I understand its a tough problem, though. Mainly these plots are just historical traces of the index. The graphs for 1987 and 2001 are zoomed in pretty tight. Hard to say too much else besides "index dropped X%". Then, the 100+ year graph has so much information in it... entire articles are written on each dip in the index. You can't really claim that its "settled" now any more than it was "settled" in the late-60s and 70s. Captions shouldn't be controversial. What do people expect for alt-text captions on images like this?DavidRF (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


  • ADDITIONAL RESPONSE Haha Ha.....Well, I think you summed it up best when you said "A little too much commentary". I understand what you mean on the 100-year pic. Its pretty much impossible to sum up every microscopic detail in a 3 1/2 line paragraph. I tried my best. As far as settling in the 10,000 range; I meant to somehow sum it up within the closing segment of the yearly chart. In the last 12 or so years, we've been around the 10,000 area. But it is also true that perhaps for a 12-year span, between the late 1960s and early 1980s, the Dow settled in the 1,000 range. I just meant were it settled at in recent times. Anyhow, as a whole, I think those segments are much improved from before. For the most part, its fairly concise in describing the movement of those graphs to wiki users who can't see it. RT6543 4:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand the difficulty, but we might want to pare some of the conclusions back a bit and I ask the mods here what they'd reasonably expect to see as alt-text for some of those. Commentary is really best left for the accompanying text. Half of the charts are just "check out the bear market" or "look, market dropped sharply here". There's not much more to be said about them. What the exact values at the top and bottom are usually not the point of the graph.DavidRF (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the alt text should be relatively brief (see WP:ALT#Brevity) and should focus on the gists of the graphs rather than unimportant details (see WP:ALT#Essence; in particular WP:ALT#Diagrams). The previous comments seem to be saying that alt text has been added, but this is incorrect: none of the images currently have alt text. Please see WP:ALT for what alt text is, and how to add it; and please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to check the alt text once it's added. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
They expanded captions instead of adding alt attributes. I moved some text to new alts, but they need work. --an odd name 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose: This article has potential, but FAC should not used as an article development resource. There are other means for this, either talkpage discussion or, specifically, Peer Review. It is the nominator's responsibility to check that an article accords with FA criteria before bringing it here; saying "its quite informative and gramatically correct" is an inadequate reason for nominating. The article should be withdrawn without delay. Should it come to peer review I would highlight two particular areas for attention:

  • Prose: Ambiguous/misleading sentences, e.g. from the lead "It is an index that shows how certain large, publicly-owned companies based in the United States have traded during a standard trading session in the stock market"; jargonistic, e.g. "Within the equities world, asset manager SSgA State Street Global Advisors, offers a family of ETFs the SPDRs...etc"; generally inaccessible prose (too many examples to list)
  • Citations: whole areas of the article are uncited. The Investing section is full of unformatted bare links but no citations at all; the Criticism section has no citations beyond its first short paragraph; elsewhere citations are thin on the ground.

I will be pleased to provide detailed comments and suggestions at Peer Review, should the article be sent there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - most of the article is uncited, there are large sections that are just bulleted lists, not prose, bare links in what references there are, lack of independent sources (most of the few references are to Dow Jones itself), and unreliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Response - Look, were trying to work out all the issues. There are some citations missing, and we've consolidated alot of info. But it still has potential. The article deserves a shot. Let's not discount it because of some small problems. I hope the article makes its way to Peer Review. The subject matter is fairly notable. RT6543 1:07, 11 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 .

Randy Johnson

Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it has length and is very well written. It is well sourced and is about a relevant subject. I believe it meets the necessary guidelines. Alex (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name—I'm not feeling confident on this one.

  • Have you consulted major editors of the article, or checked if they are inactive? See the candidates page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination."
  • No dab links (good) but some dead external links, esp. ref 15 and External Links item 3. Replace them with archives or new sources to keep the article verifiable.
  • Add titles and author and publisher info to citations. Simply calling a citation "1", like at the very first ref, doesn't help us verify the statements and sources if e.g. the website goes down. Sources should be high quality and citation formats should be consistent (see criteria 1c and 2c).
  • Merge one-line paragraphs to bigger ones, or expand on their statements with more sentences. The retirement news might be big, but giving it or anything else its own sentence makes the article look choppy. Go for professional, flowing prose.
  • Images need alt text in case they don't load or the reader can't see them. (added on 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

--an odd name 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, suggest withdrawal – Clearly fails FA criteria, and the problems are so severe that the article needs more time for fixes than an FAC should take. The most severe issue is a lack of references throughout the article. I'm not sure how the nominator can say this is "well sourced" when the vast majority of the article lacks citations. In addition, a few of the existing references strike me as unreliable (RootsWeb in particular), a non-free image with a questionable rationale exists, the prose turns listy toward the end, and there is a clarification tag. I understand that Johnson has been in the news lately due to his retirement, but this isn't close to being a GA, let alone an FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (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 17:26, 10 January 2010 .

Killswitch Engage

Nominator(s): TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because the article is informative and well cited. No edit wars are occurring, and has been a GA for 2 years. Should meet all of the FA criteria TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed(?) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Better, but I'm afraid it still needs improvement. The alt text for the lead image is "Killswitch Engage in 2007", which (1) tells us nothing of what that image looks like (violating WP:ALT#Essence) and (2) contains details like proper names and dates that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (violating WP:ALT#Verifiability). The alt text for the 2nd image File:Howard jones of killswitch engage.jpg is better, but it conveys little about why that image is worth looking at: the massive arm and tattoo, the man shouting into the microphone. The third image File:Killswitch Engage.jpg has no alt text. The fourth image File:Kse-adam-joel.jpg has the alt text "Two men are shown playing guitar on a stage set" is not really adequate either: its "are shown" is one of the WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid, and surely the alt text can say something about what the men and their costumes actually look like. Please take a bit of time to read WP:ALT, look at the examples, think about what a blind user would want to know about the images, and then give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
How are the new ones? I took some time to look at examples on WP:ALT and on The Beatles to get a better idea of what the text should be. File:Kse-adam-joel.jpg 's alt text may need to be changed, as I didn't know a perfect way to word it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Right before I nominated the article I contacted 4 editors that have the most edits on the article that have edited it recently. I was confused at the exact syntax of how to do it (before I nom, after nominated, or whatnot) though. I will contact those editors as well, despite in-activeness. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (suggest withdrawal)—The article presents a reasonable-enough timeline of the band's history, but there is little analysis anywhere in the prose. For eg: I read the entire article and still have no clue what Killswitch Engage sound like. Per present standards for band FAs, you'd need a couple of lines about it in the lead, and section dedicated to musical style and influences in the prose. You also devote far too much text to the band's tours; to be honest, reading that "Killswitch Engage played the <year> <festival> with <support band A>, <support band B> and <support band C>" makes for quite uninteresting reading. Every notable band goes on tour, so concert itenaries really aren't that important to note. On the other hand, concentrate on what makes the band unique—their music, critical response to their work, their influences, bands influenced by them etc.—indopug (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll add a section for Style and lyrical themes within the next two days. Specifically, which sentences should I remove (about tours)? I'm sure there are many that don't show anything about the band, but some are important, especially when a guitarist had back problems and couldn't play. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No specific sentences as such, but this article has sentences which list every single band KSE toured with; these can be cut completely: "36 Crazyfists and Five Pointe O...From Autumn to Ashes, Eighteen Visions, and 36 Crazyfists...DragonForce, Chimaira, and He Is Legend...Iron Maiden, Evanescence, Lamb of God, Linkin Park, Slayer, and Marilyn Manson...Iron Maiden, Children Of Bodom, Carcass, At The Gates, Exodus, Kreator, Opeth, Unearth and As I Lay Dying".—indopug (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the majority (if not all) of those. Started a styles an lyrical themes section, will be added when I have time to put more detail into it. Until then, can this be put  On hold (unless somebody else wishes to add to that section)? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Added the new section. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

  • Remove italics from online-only refs and put italics on print publications cited, even when citing their websites.
  • Ensure all Roadrunner cites follow the same nomenclature of publisher. I'm seeing tons of different variations.

RB88 (T) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lambgoat has been online for over 10 years and has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy (Google news has some reliable sites that cite lambgoat as a reference)
We need proof I'm afraid. Otherwise it must be removed. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Was removed per comments below TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Punkrocks.net (now closed) was one of the largest punk rock websites, but closed in 2006. (Though it doesn't show anything about reliability), they had a stage at a major punk rock tour (Vans Warped Tour)
No substantial enough. Needs removal. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Was removed TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Blabbermouth is by far the largest metal website. While I don't consider it the most reliable website (one person runs the site), it is widely regarded as a reliable source here on wikipedia (see Blabbermouth.net and Google News
Removed that cite
Removed that cite as well.
What did you replace the above 2 with? RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
One I just removed (guess the page didn't save before) and replaced with a cite from WWE. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The other I removed entirely, as it was already sourced by blabbermouth. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As for the italics, do you want me to italicize the title (such as a ref from a magazine)?
Yes, print publications must be in italics everywhere, while online-only sources not. RB88 (T) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
How are they now? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixing those now
TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources; lambgoat.com, punkrocks.net, rocknworld.com, ultimate-guitar.com, metalunderground.com are fan-made (therefore non-reliable) sources. Blabbermouth is a widely respected website, can definitely be used for non-controversial topics such as news. Some sources about the site can be found on Blabbermouth.net.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Removing those cites and adding cites from their documentary dvd. For metalunderground I put it on The RS noticeboard to see if it is reliable. Many articles here cite it, so if it isn't reliable I'll remove the cites from other articles. The Ultimate Guitar ref is referencing a professional review by the Ultimate Guitar team, not a random user, so should be considered reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed that one. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:00, 9 January 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 .

Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because this article seems to substantially conform to the requirements of Featured Articles and was nominated more than two years back which failed. It has been improved substantially and I feel that after a few edits it may reach the status this time. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -

  • Half a dozen fact tags, some from over two years ago, plus huge swaths of the article with no citations at all that aren't fact tagged. (Main problem in my view)
  • Many existing references improperly formatted - web references missing titles, publishers and access dates, book references missing page numbers.
  • Excessive bolding throughout the article needs to be removed.
  • External links in body of article should be turned into references or moved to seperate section.
  • Images lacking WP:ALT text.
  • Text sandwiched between images.

The reference issues are the biggest thing at this point, and they are issues that will probably take some time to correct. I didn't look at the references for reliability or quality, and so there may be more issues with the existing references then those I have listed above. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and working on the article outside the pressures at FAC. Peer review may be a better place to start, and also consider a good article nomination, although neither of these two is required for an article to become a featured article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


I accept your auggestions. I don't mind if the article is withdrawn from the current process. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—not meant to "pile on" but I see the problems above and more.

  • There are some dab links and other article links that simply "loopback" to the article. There are some dead external links as well, mainly to gov.lk.
  • In section "Administrative divisions", remove the map's red links (they are supposed to show flag images that are now deleted) or add free flags.
  • Avoid choppy prose: Where there are single-sentence paragraphs (in section "Sports", for example), explain their ideas further or merge them to larger paragraphs. Move similar sentences together to improve flow.
  • (in the lead) "It is home to around twenty million people, about 14% of whom live on less than US$ 1.25 per day"—several problems here:
    • The figure is never mentioned in the article body. The lead should summarize what's already below it.
    • How is "US$ 1.25 per day" economically or psychologically important? Why use that currency in particular (instead of e.g. euros), and without a translation to the local currency? If it is the poverty line, mention that or link there.
    • "14%" doesn't seem too striking. How does it compare to major countries, or others with similar economies? (added on 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Address Dana boomer's points (and mine) and get others to copyedit and look it over for a later nomination. --an odd name 00:09, 4 January 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 .

Achtung Baby

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... it has gone through a peer review and Good Article nomination process with very little trouble, and I feel it is one of the finest articles in the Music category. It has seen the eyes of many different U2 fans with many different sources, so it has information sourced from a great deal of places. I believe the topic is an important one, as well, as it almost spelled the end of U2, but instead brought new life to them, and the prose tells this story. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Two dab links—replace them with more specific ones.
  • Ref 96's external link is dead. Ref 65 goes to a less specific page.
  • Most dates in refs are ISO style; change the rest of the ref dates to that style for consistency. Double-check that prose dates are all Day Month Year (most are).

--an odd name 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments I admit to jumping past the prose of the article completely and straight to the Charts and certifications section, but I have a few comments about just that section. Most of these comments are based on stuff from WP:ALBUM, WP:CHARTS, and MOS:DISCOG:

  • In the first table, what does the Peak position column refer to? Peak position of what?
  • The blank cells should have a dash, like the singles table.
  • Speaking of the dash, it should be an en-dash (–) or an em-dash (—), not a hyphen, which is what you're using now.
  • The Sales column is a slippery slope, since you appear to be basing it on the certifications given. Certifications aren't always based on units sold, sometimes they're based on units shipped, depending on the country, certifying body, sometimes even genre of the release. So, in other words, you should only provide sales figures when you're sure they're correct. So you'd be sure about this only if a) you have a source explicitly saying "100,000 sold" or you have one of the certifying bodies specifying exactly what a "Platinum" certification means (sold vs shipped). It looks like in all the sales figures you've given, you've extrapolated that info from the certifications awarded, which isn't reliable.
  • The ordering of the chart columns seem pretty haphazard. The typical way of doing it is homecountry first (Ireland, in this case), followed by the rest of the countries in english-language alphabetical order. It also seems like there's a huge skew towards the US here (5 of the 8 provided charts are American). Surely U2 has charted all over the world?
  • I also find it hard to believe that the album went Gold and Platinum in Finland and Germany respectively, but didn't chart at all? Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I admit that based on the Charts sourcing I would be inclined to oppose, but having done some sourcing recently for various U2 albums and singles I can perhaps explain some of the format details you noted above:
  • I agree that the majority of the US singles charts should be removed; I do not think that any more than the Hot 100, being the main US singles charts, need be included. U2 may chart all over the world, but per a recent FAC for No Line on the Horizon, it was my understanding that singles charts be limited to just English-language countries, such as Canada, Ireland, the UK, etc. I'm sure that the numerous US charts can be replaced with data from Australia and New Zealand, giving perhaps more of an international focus rather than a North American one. With the website reorganization by Billboard earlier this year many chart data were also either lost or merged; this would probably help to prevent inaccuracies as well.
  • I'm not sure if it's policy that the home country be listed first but the order can be switched relatively easily.
  • It's been a little while since I did work on the chart sourcing for this article, but two possibilities strike me regarding the Finnish and German charts. The first is that their respective IFPI websites do not list chart positions that far back, and so the data was unavailable to users with limited proficency in either language. The second is that, as my browser tends to shrink for some reason when on foreign-language websites, I was not able to undertake a thorough search. If the former is true then the tables will unfortunately have to be replaced until further charts are added (if ever). If the latter, then I would appreciate if people who are able to view foreign-language websites help in the search for that information. The UK position should probably be removed too; neither Billboard nor AllMusic seem to list it, and the British certification sites I have found only list the #1 albums for whatever reason.
  • I agree on the sales numbers; from a brief recollection, I think that only Canada and Finland have properly sourced sales numbers. Until sources can be found, I believe the rest should be removed (though I'm sure that the data must exist somewhere for the US and UK at least in old news reports).
The rest of the details seem to be relatively minor fixes that can be done fairly quickly. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Although I haven't really heard this album, and don't like U2 much, I found the article to be a very good read. I think you've a captured a story very nicely:

  • You overuse the words "band" (replace with "group" and "U2") and "album" (replace with "record" and "Achtung Baby"). If you do a ctrl+F on Firefox and hit 'highlight all', you'll see what I mean.
  • The Zoo TV tour section should be expanded to two paragraphs. It was a very unique tour, and it gives a good idea about where U2 were at the time. Makes for interesting reading too.
  • Are either the non-free cover or the track-listing in the Video section really needed? I don't see how they add anything to the article. I think that single paragraph about the video, is better off in the Release section.
  • Shouldn't the accolades in the table be sorted by Year? Also, centre-align the ranks.
    • I wasn't sure if there were certain guidelines for how to organize material like this. I just as well thought alpha-sorting by the publication/organization was good. But I can change this. I center-aligned the rankings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you remove either the quote box or the review template from the Reception, it isn't recommended to sandwich the text in between like that.
  • The first four paragraphs seem to deal with the packaging and title of the album, so they should be in a Packaging section (as is standard for album articles).
  • The singles don't need a section for themselves. Merge this info with that last para in the Release section. Also, since they have their own articles, there is no need to mention how acclaimed the singles are.—indopug (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I still think there is too much information, esp. chart information, which would be redundant to the chart table at the bottom, and singles' articles. I doubt you need more than a paragraph for all the singles.
      • Also, I wonder if you could rewrite the section to make the discussion of the singles more seamless with the release of the album as a whole. For example, "The Fly" was released a month before Achtung Baby, so you probably should mention the single's release before the album's.
      • Minor thing: per MoS, "#1, #10" should be "number one, number 10" throughout.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this should be taken care of now. I've left in the charting information in the prose, since it doesn't hurt to list the highlights for each song in a sentence... and if we do eliminated the charting table because of reference concerns, this information in the Release section would be all the more important to keep. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for a number of reasons. In a nutshell:

  • The prose needs work (example: "U2 returned to production team of Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno"). Suggest a full review by an uninvolved editor. I'm up for doing it, but you'll have to give me a few days.
  • Too many block quotes. Ascertain if you really need them at all (The Rolling Stone review strikes me as one that can be done without)
    • Removed the Rolling Stone review one. I think the others are of great value, and too long to stick in prose as just normal text. In my opinion, the quote blocks give more insight into the thinking the band/producers had and they help break up what is a lengthy, text-heavy article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As Drewcifer pointed out, the chart and sales situations need to be sorted. I'd advise that you remove the singles chart table, for if your going to create a singles chart table you really should be including charts from non-English-speaking countries, and Achtung Baby had so many singles with such chart success you're best leaving that to U2 discography.
    • As was mentioned above, I'm not very good with charting-type information (MelicansMatkin is much better with that). He also mentioned the point that for English Misplaced Pages, we should mostly be concerned with English speaking countries (per a FAC on another U2 album). Could this point be clarified? It seems we're getting conflicting information for 2 different FAC reviews. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CHARTS doesn't specify whether charts should be focused on English-language countries or a mixture of international charts. We can only go by our own interpretation and what we have been told to do in previous related FACs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Lots of sources don't look to be reliable sources (ex. Bullz-eye.com, everyhit.com, besteveralbums.com, rocklistmusic.co.uk, Acclaimed Music Forums, spin100.blogspot.com). Some citations are incomplete (saw a few missing webpage retrieval dates).
  • Not all major sources have been consulted. For starters, there's an Achtung Baby book in the 33 1/3 book series. There's some indepth articles by the likes of Mojo, Q, and so on that haven't been consulted (I have access to them through Rock's Back Pages). Remember, with an album from 1991, not everything will be available online or be currently in print. This is not helped by the fact that U2 doesn't seem to have the same level of writing or research devoted to their music as, say, the Beatles or R.E.M (Yeah, you have U2 by U2, but this is a primary source, and you should lean towards focusing on secondary sources). You're going to have to really dig for some Achtung Baby-specific sources.
    • Could you share some of the information that may be in these articles? I'd honestly be surprised if there was any new information to turn up, but if they stand out off the top of your head, they must be important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Same as above. This will take time. You also need to review that 33 1/ book, which from what I understand is primairly focused on religious imagery in the album. As of right now, the album is not comprehensive in regards to major sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
        • From what I can tell, it is not necessarily focused on religious imagery so much as it is the author's religious interpretation of the album (and from the reviews I've read, it sounds like religion is a bigger focus than the album, the songs, or the band). But that is a valid point - religious imagery is something that should be touched on. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Critical reception boxes. Firstly, with the advent of the new review template (which is optional, by the way), the idea is to only list reviews with a clear rating metric. This means no longer including reviews that have to be described as "favourable" or "unfavorable". In fact, if you can find a source that summarizes the album's critical reception (essentially, finding a citation to back up the sentence "Upon its release, Achtung Baby received strong reviews from critics"), that should receive priority. Additionally, the "best-of lists" table is cumbersome and distorts the end of the article section. You address much of that in the prose, so it's unnecessary.
    • I understand your concern for the review box, but there doesn't seem to be any guideline that dismisses reviews without a rating. The template's documentation says the following: If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, don't include it in the template. In regards to the "best-of" list, I thought it would be more cumbersome to try and write prose about the album's appearance on a dozen-so-odd lists ("The album was ranked #62 all-time by Rolling Stone. It was also included on Time's 100 All-Time Albums list. It was also...."). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • See the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums for further information about the new review template. Keep in mind we still haven't drawn up proper guidelines for it, but one of the key points is that reviews without any rating metric will not be included in the box, given such terms like "favorable", "unfavorable", "mixed", etc. can only be subjective summaries. As for the accolades, it shouldn't be too hard to cover them in the prose. See Loveless (album) and In Utero for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The "best-of" table has been converted to prose in a new section called "Legacy". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Trival details for the album's context. The sentence "The album's intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as the band placing themselves as peers of the likes of Bob Dylan" is not essential to understanding Achtung Baby.
    • I don't think this is non-essential. It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for. I think both points are important, considering the different direction U2 took leading into Achtung Baby. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • The way it is phrased makes it trivial. You say, "It explains that Rattle and Hum was an exploration of American music and that the perception of the record by many critics was they were trying to enshrine themselves in the rock pantheon, something they were lambasted for", but this is not evident by reading the prose, and the conclusion appears to be original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of sentences need to have their POV attributed.Ffor example, "Compared to the youthful exuberance on much of their 1980s work, Achtung Baby was a more direct and complex examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal". That's not something you can objectively state, that's an opinion. So who said it? Make it clear in the prose.
This specific sentence that you highlight can be tweaked using the sources provided for that sentence - I need to get to them later tonight.
Personally, I'd rather keep away from attributed opinion unless the opinion itself is notable. Thus, I'm thinking to remove "youthful exuberence" whereas, the phrase examination of pain in personal relationships and covered love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, in addition to betrayal seems to stand up pretty well - if one looks at the lyrics that's what it is about (and far more so than previous U2 albums). Of course, if one wanted to nit pick and argue to the extreme that it's all about personal interpretation, then perhaps we do need to remove it to satisfy those it see it as not about love, sexuality, spirituality, and faith, and betrayal, but rather the marshmellow man's experience apple farming on the space shuttle. Personally, I'd prefer the former, and suggest we step out on a fairly sturdy and well-fenced limb, and say the album deals with faith, betrayal, etc.
As I said, I can look at it tonight when I have the sources I used in front of me. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You need to attribute the opinion. Otherwise it comes off as fact, when it isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is an overview of the article's issues. The articles needs some in-depth work to address them. Oh, and Indopug, I'd say this is not only the best U2 album, but an good introductory record for those who don't like U2. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Pshh. Boy and War pooh on this and any other ones they've done apart from The Joshua Tree. RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Wesley, I'd like to see you do that copy edit you suggest. You hit the nail on the head by saying it needs fresh eyes. The article as it stands is essentially a combined effort between krazyjoker and myself, and even I can see some of the clumsiness that he or I can no longer effectively fix - the prose has been jumping back and forth between minor tweaks for a while now with no improvement - parts of it need a completely different approach. I think the structure and content and referencing is excellent, and the basic flow, rather it's a sentence, possibly paragraph, level tweaking that needs doing by someone new. Krazyjoker will probably agree that it's a bit scary offering one's "Baby" (pun not intended, but once noticed, I thought it most apt), up for potential re-write, but it might get us out of the stale-eye prose dead lock. I will also hunt around for other copy editors. --Merbabu (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I can do a copyedit on the 1st of January. Sorry I can't do it sooner, but my time is limited these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

  • All the atU2 links need to be removed. There's so much copyrighted material illegally published that I nearly had a coronary. Cite the works they all came from instead without a link.

RB88 (T) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I created print versions of the citations that attributed the original publications. I didn't have a lot of information, such as if there were specific authors or article titles. But I attributed the publications, the names of their lists, and the approximate publication date. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The copyright issue was a good pick up, but indeed hasn't Y2kcrazyjoker4 now addressed this issue? ie, atu2 links to the sources removed. Futher, between the two of us, we have the majority of these references in hard copies anyway (and most cites didn’t use links to atu2 anyway). And, while I agree with the copyright issue of atu2 and no-one mentioned reliability on this page, it has been mentioned elsewhere so I will pre-empt it if I may. There is no evidence of a reliability issue - for the handful of references I’ve checked, they appear to be accurately reproduced, and there is no evident reason to think that the others aren’t. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Two images. Alt text good for both.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Good. Image is rich in visual information and substantially explicates sourced critical commentary.
  • Rationale: Unacceptable. A few problems here: (1) Sourcing is bad. We're given a link to the U2 home page, which does not show the image. You need to link to exactly where the image came from and provide all available information on publication and authorship. (2) A separate rationale is required for each article in which the image appears. There is currently none at all for this article. (3) The rationale needs to explain not only why the image significantly enhances understanding of the accompanying text, but the importance of the text to the article's subject, which may not be self-evident to editors who might come along in the future to vet the rationale. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and Zoo TV Tour rationale—its content is insufficient for a fair use image in a Featured Article (in addition to failing our image policy per #2 above). Take a look at the following summary/rationales, which are acceptable models: File:StoneSmoking.jpg, File:St1-enterprise and whiplash bolt.png.

Two audio samples:

  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and the unique effect of its introductory passage, sampled here.
  • Rationale: Very good. Unacceptable. Again, a separate fair use rationale is required for each article in which the item appears. There is currently none at all for this article.
  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of first of album's five singles, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and how its specific sound prompted its choice as the album's lead single.
  • Rationale. Very good. Unacceptable. And, for a third time, there is currently no specific rationale at all for this article. Do not simply duplicate the existing U2 and The Fly rationale—you need to explain why the sample is specifically important for the reader's understanding of this article, and you also need to note the length of the original song, so the technical aspects of the sample can be properly judged.—DCGeist (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sound samples' fair use rationales should be OK now. The image I'll revisit in the morning - it isn't on U2.com anymore. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It may just be me but it seems that the image could have been taken from the ZooTV video (the position of the shot looks identical to many of the camera angles from the release), in which case it should be fairly simple to change the source (if that is indeed the cas). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not taken from the video - it looks like it could have been taken as a promo image, but it doesn't compare to screen caps from the actual video. Just looking at Flickr, it doesn't look like there are lots of options for pictures of the full stage. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 .

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy

Nominator(s): OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the required criteria. Fwiw, I am the primary editor of this article. OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Technical check No dabs or deadlinks, but WP:alt missing or inadequate 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Referencing is inadequate, just looking at first four refs. 1 lacks access date, unclear why it is RS, 2 lacks a publisher and looks like one copied from french Misplaced Pages, not actually seen by editor, 3 lacks access date, publisher, unclear why RS. 4 lacks publisher, unclear why RS. Other refs similar faults, some are to tertiary or otherwise dubious sources. Also uses Misplaced Pages as a source including this. Doesn't look ready for FA to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Some of those issues were dealt with in the GA review (here). To be clear and summarise, you want access dates against the online references (and justification that the sources are adequately reputable). Can you be more specific as to which references you do not feel are reputable? Also, where is there a reference that uses fr.wiki as a source? It's quite common for reference sections to mention that foreign-language Misplaced Pages articles have been used; I wasn't aware this prevented FA status. Sorry, not wanting to seem defensive, just not quite sure what specifically you would expect to see changed in order for the article to be FA-worthy, so I know which particular areas to work on over the next few days :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Online versions of books and journals don't need access dates, since the content is unchanging, but web-only content does. Web sites and books need a publisher. As a rule, general encyclopaedias are not considered RS unless the content referenced is verifiably by an expert on the topic. Foreign languages aren't indicated in a consistent fashion. I'll have a more through look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll go through and take another look at those. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I've added access dates to all the Web references. I couldn't see any inconsistent language references. I've added publishers to book references where possible (given some of the books are very old, this isn't always possible, but the disambiguation that providing a publisher provides is surely effected by hyperlinking to the source in question). A few sources are tertiary, as you mention; in the main, that's because there aren't an awful lot of secondary sources for a small state of the Holy Roman Empire. I think it's safe to assume that the Encyclopædia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have suitable editorial policies still to be considered reliable, no? *GRIN* — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
      • This article makes use of the articles Principauté de Stavelot-Malmedy, Abbaye de Stavelot and Malmedy from the French Misplaced Pages and the article Stavelot on the English Misplaced Pages. In what way? If you have read them for ideas, that's fine, if you are using them as references, obviously not. If you are copying across references that you cannot/have not checked, that may be a cause for concern. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
      • File:Stavelot-Malmedy.png needs author death date to verify out of copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
        • It really doesn't — the file is on the Commons, and is from a work (The Historical Atlas) widely used for PD imagery both across the Wikipedias and elsewhere; this should be plenty enough information for a Misplaced Pages. I have added William Robert Shepherd's year of death (1934) to the image page nonetheless. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Agree with Jimfbleak it doesn't look ready. The referencing seems rather a hodge-podge of online sources, with the "Flags of the World" website the most commonly used reference. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Finding alternative references was indeed very challenging; I'm happy to try to look further, but I'm not sure more reliable sources are out there; we are discussing a relatively small state of the HRE, after all :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The prose is often ungainly:"Several sources note that the two abbeys held disputes between themselves, with Stavelot assuming primacy over Malmedy, to the latter's discontent; new abbots were invested in Stavelot on behalf of both abbeys, however." - the two references for this, by the way, date from 1762 and 1788. "The villa's lands occupied the borderland between the bishoprics of Cologne and Tongeren, the territory previously having been part of the Frankish Empire, its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." - what does this mean? It was an "independent" villa? "A rejoiceful procession back to Stavelot paused en route to celebrate Mass on the banks of the Meuse, with a great crowd and further mirables". Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite a plethora of references, the "Art" section is of doubtful accuracy. As far as I can see from the many works I have just used to expand Stavelot Bible, the binding (no doubt originally in precious metal with jewels) is not a "high point of mediæval art" as it has been lost, in the French Revolution if not before; the reference citing the British Library has been misread. Although the question is uncertain, most experts don't seem to think that the metalwork objects produced for the abbey were actually made there. There is no link for Mosan art, the most relevant article here. "The abbey at Stavelot was one of the leading centres of mediæval artistic production" is a near-quote from the EB, but there it refers to a particular region, a particular period, and a particular medium. To expand it to cover "mediæval artistic production" in general is too much. The same might be said for the two plaques from the retable, which is largely famous because there is a 17th century drawing of the whole thing before it was destroyed. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do a draft. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Having said all that the article is interesting and useful, so I hope it will receive the polishing it needs. Stavelot Abbey ought to redirect there rather than the town. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comment Looking around for the art section, it becomes clearer that there are gaps here. This is a fully online 300 history of Ètudes historiques sur l'ancien pays de Stavelot et Malmédy, which is of 1848, but for example mentions a serious sack of Stavelt in 1249, after which (from another source) it appears the abbey was unable to replace treasures important for the pilgrimage business for a century. That & the list of abbots on German WP make it clear that by the end of the Middle Ages the abbacy usually went to bishops of Liege, Tournai or Cologne, themselves usually the offspring of princely families. The Bavarian royal family supplied all the abbots from 1581 to 1657, at which point the Furstenberg's took over, then the Lorraines, taking one to 1731. The principality seems to have been a juicy little tit-bit in the power-politics of the Empire, and this needs coverage. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • First, what exactly did you mean by the reply to Jimfbleak above that "Yes, obviously". Did you mean that you read each reference in the various wikipedias and verified that they said what the article said? Or that you just used the articles for ideas?
    • The latter. The articles formed the basis for the article, to provide a framework for the article. I then researched and expanded the article to form the prose you see now. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Heraldica is cited as a resource in WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. FotW is quite widely used as a reference, to the extent that it has its own template: Template:FOTW, again referenced from WikiProject H&V. "The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (FMG) was established in 2001 by a group of British genealogists and historians with a special interest in the medieval period. In January 2002 we formally registered the FMG as a not-for-profit organisation with the Charity Commission for England and Wales." They all seem like they should meet the requirements to me, no? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because the Heraldry wikiproject says use it doesn't make it reliable for these purposes, nor is a site devoted to Flags going to be reliable for history. I could possibly see the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy being reliable. To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the title is not correct. I would prefer Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy or monastic principality of Stavelot-Malmedy. I personnaly think the prose is often ambiguous. I provide a few examples:
    • "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650 out of what had been a villa." Was this villa a ruin? Was it still active?
    • "its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." The independence of the Abbey or of the villa? What does mean independent at those past times? It was a fiefdom, wasn't it? When? During the reign of Sigebert III.
    • "The monastery of Malmedy is considered by the historians and the hagiographers to be slightly older than the monastery of Stavelot" From the first part of the section, it seems Stavelot was first founded (on the villa's territory). Contadistinction?
    • " The abbey church in Malmedy was dedicated to St Benedict." This sentence appears as an orphan in the section. It provides almost no information.
    • "the abbeys played an important cultural role in Lotharingia, particularly thanks to prince-abbot Christian." Which one? Why in Lotharingia? Why not in Europe? Lotharingia has had a very short lifetime!
    • "Through the seventh and eighth centuries, the two abbeys followed their mission of evangelism, along with forest clearance, but suffered the same decay as elsewhere with the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, with the principality in the custody of lay abbots — temporal guardians — from 844 to 938, including Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, Adalard the Seneschal, Reginar and Giselbert, dukes of Lorraine, and the like." Could you please cut this sentence into two or more? Avoid "and the like". Which decay? "Collapse of the Carolingian Empire" It is not clear whether the Carolingian Empire collapsed!
Vb (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've dealt with all of those except the Prinsenvlag, which is included by {{flagicon}}; looking at the source, I can't see how to alter the alt tag there. I didn't realise that we'd gained the ability to add alt tags in the infobox, though; thanks for pointing me to that! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for doing all that; the alt text is much better now. I fixed File:Prinsenvlag.svg by creating {{Country data United Kingdom of the Netherlands}} and changing the article from "{{flagicon|Dutch Republic}} ]" to "{{flag|United Kingdom of the Netherlands}}", and struck the items that have been fixed. However, the items not crossed out above still need fixing. Also, there's a problem with the newly introduced alt text: it contains many details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. These details include "Coat of arms of Stavelot", "St Remaclus" (twice), "the" (in "the abbey"), "legendary", "along the banks of the Meuse", "Bible" (twice), "St Sebastian", "Byzantine", "each containing portions of the True Cross", "Gabriel", "Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle", and "Holy Roman Empire". Please see WP:ALT#Verifiability for why details must be verifiable directly from the image, and please see WP:ALT #Proper names for why proper names typically should not be in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Foolishly, I'd not read WP:ALT in adequate detail; again, thanks for pointing me to that. I've made all these edits apart from the two from the map in Template:Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle — I'm not convinced the prose makes sense or is useful without those two names, both of which can be derived from the context of the map within the template. I'd like to argue that the context, thus, makes the two names permissible, despite the recommendations of WP:ALT#Proper names. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the changes. As a non-expert looking at that map, I'm afraid I have to disagree: it's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the colored region is the Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle and the white region the Holy Roman Empire: it could just as easily be the other way around. I attempted to fix it by adding a proper caption to the image, and then removing the corresponding info from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Repetition. I also reworded some info in the infobox alt text that I couldn't otherwise verify from the images. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Aaah, I see what you mean. That's much better. Thank you for helping with that! — 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry, but I have to oppose. The article has some serious historical problems. Anachronisms like describeing a 7th century abbot as "prince-abbot" of course the infobox: 651, Holy Roman Empire, successor state, the "Frankish Empire", colored coat of arms, and so on. Also imbalanced ... huge history section, a bit for geography and art, but nothing else. Parts of article uncited, e.g. "In 1659, a Capuchin convent was built in Stavelot.", and most of the sources used are frivolous, outdated or tertiary (e.g. "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650") Article appears to cite primary sources directly or at least only with a non-modern editorial , and (to repeat slightly) many of the sources it uses are 19th and 18th century and thus probably out of date (and this might also explain why the article is so packed with anachronism). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I definitely agree with some of those points; I've corrected the anachronistic references to prince-abbots. The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey, however, was indeed the Frankish Empire, I'm not sure what you would prefer to see here, nor do I understand the problem with a coloured coat of arms. I fail to see why old references are less likely to be accurate, however — we accept Bede as a reference for Anglo-Saxon England, for example. There are very few more-modern references for what was a small state in the Empire, surely it's better to have old references (which, as they're about then-recent history, are likely to be pretty accurate) than none? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, there are quite a number of reasons why old references are less likely to be accurate. I'm afraid that if you don't realise that yourself, you'll just have to take my word on it. And quoting Bede directly, or a similar source, is WP:OR and isn't recommended unless you are a specialist historian.
      • The assertion "The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey ... was indeed the Frankish Empire" is just wrong. The Frankish realm wasn't an Empire until 800, and besides that the abbey was just an abbey that was part of a series of different kingdoms: the notion that it was a state within the best part of a millennium of its foundation is yet another anachronism. Francia was no more a "predecessor" to any of its monasteries than the Kingdom of England was a "predecessor" to Durham Cathedral Priory. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (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 19:46, 2 January 2010 .

John Christie (murderer)

Nominator(s): Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


I nominated this article back in October and addressed most of the issues then. There was one outstanding issue of image use which I was not able to resolve; I believe I have resolved it now. I have linked the previous featured article candidate discussion here. Back then, the main issues were inline citations and copyediting, which I was able to address. Wcp07 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

  • "hanged in 1953 for his wife's murder, after his" you can remove the comma
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Christie had served in World War I" remove the redundant "had"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In the lead, why is rape linked but not "theft" and assault"?
Links included for theft and assault. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the second note cautions against the use of necrophiliac, its inclusion is somewhat POV. Moreover, it's not discussed anywhere in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead.
I've taken out the reference to necrophilia in the lead but I've still included it in the body (under "Later murders"). I think it's important to mention as Christie is commonly held to be a necrophiliac, even if that description might not be particularly accurate. I've pointed out that there is a dispute over whether he is one or isn't, so hopefully that will satisfy POV concerns. Wcp07 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Timothy Evans was charged with both murders, was found guilty of the murder of his daughter and was hanged in 1950" repeats the word "was" three times
Redundant "had's" removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "When Christie's own crimes were uncovered three years" two things: I think "own" is redundant, and "uncovered" isn't the most encyclopedic.
Done; uncovered replaced with discovered. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mr Justice Brabin stated" should lose the "Mr" and have a full name
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove "nevertheless"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "enabled the then Home Secretary to" either should give a name or remove "then"; it's obvious that the then Secretary did it
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "the age of eight" can be simply "age eight"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Is all of the first paragraph of Early life covered by the given reference, or just the sentence about his grandfather?
The reference in the first paragraph is only citing the sentence about Christie grandfather. The rest of the paragraph I felt didn't require citations; I can add some though if they're needed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "was a Boy Scout; upon leaving school" should have a period instead of a semicolon.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "to talk much louder than a whisper, Kennedy argues" can just be "to talk loudly, Kennedy argues" because the detail is previously given.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ethel Simpson Waddington from Sheffield, on 10 May 1920" the comma is splicing
Done; comma removed. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "end his cycle of petty crime" isn't really a cycle, because one crme doesn't lead to another
Done; "cycle" replaced with "course". Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "to Harrow Road police station" seems to need "the"
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "she was on the beat or in a" I think "on the beat" is a bit jargonish
Done, reworded. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Christie impulsively strangled her during" why "impulsively"?
I used "impulsively" to convey the sense that it occurred without warning. I've replaced it with "without warning" to be clearer. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "the husband of the woman with whom he had been having the affair" is a bit wordy. How about "the woman's husband"?
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of First murders needs clarification: which building is being referred to?
Done; specified the building is Christie's residence. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reference 4 has a period at the end while the others don't (pedantic, I know).
It's put in automatically by the cite:book template I used for the reference. That probably means I'm going to have to add a period to all the manual references for consistency. How annoying. Wcp07 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully more comments coming; I'm going to wait a while as I think this needs some more copy-editing, but I'm gonna wait for some other opinions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to put the article through further copyediting. But as you suggest, I'll wait for further comments. Wcp07 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my lack of comments isn't a wait for more comments as much as lack of available time. Mm40 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. I'm not any too happy about the prose, which doesn't flow very well. Getting some fresh eyes in there would probably help. When you've read a text over and over, and tried to please everybody, your feeling for more intangible things in it, like "flow", may end up a little overtaxed. (A phenomenon known as "flow fatigue".) I've done a bit of copyediting (just now), but there remain some sentences in there that sound almost a note of unintentional comedy. At a minimum, please rephrase "Christie resigned as a Special Constable, likely due to emotional conflicts between being a murderer and a member of the police force", and "The tenants were black immigrants from the West Indies with whom the Christies despised living because of racial prejudices". This one, "He also admitted to killing Beryl Evans, with whom Timothy Evans had originally been charged", while it's by no means comical, is an illustration of the kind of syntax difficulties you're likely to find yourself in if you insist, as this text appears to do, on the nonsense "rule" that a sentence mustn't end with a preposition. (See Preposition stranding for the "overzealous avoidance" of prepositions at the end.) Bishonen | talk 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
I've rephrased some of the awkward passages in the text, but it's difficult to spot them when you've read the text over about a hundred times or so. I see what you mean about "overzealous avoidance" of having prepositions at the end, so I've rephrased the glaring ones to make the prose flow better. I'm not sure that it needs more copyediting, though - I actually had the article copyedited by User:Shirik last night before you made your comments, so I can't see what further copyediting it needs. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Spaced en dash required in a full date range, since there's at least one space within the elements.
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Link for "pardon"? Rather common word. Same for "conviction", "probation", "petty crime"
I've delinked many of the common words, most of which were successively linked by anonymous IP users. I'm happy to also delink "pardon" but I've kept it linked so that those not familiar with UK law can find out why the Home Secretary doesn't issue pardons but must recommend them (to the monarch) instead. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Lots of clean-ups required, such as "in spite of having an extensive criminal record" --> "in spite of his extensive criminal record".
Done. Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The relationship between clauses is a real problem.
Not too sure what that means. Are there some specific examples you have in mind? Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Tony (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I'm not sure that it needs further copyediting as it's now been copyedited twice since its peer review prior to the last nomination.Wcp07 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - for now. The main problem is that the prose does not flow well; the sentences are often too detached from each other in style and content. This is often easier to spot than fix, but I have made some suggestions , but other problems remain.

  • Here for example, there are two adjoining sentences both beginning with "after": After initially alleging that Christie had killed his wife in a botched abortion operation, Evans then confessed to murdering his wife and daughter. After he was charged with their deaths, Evans recanted his confession and again accused Christie of being the murderer, this time of both his wife and daughter. and there is "Evans...Evans.
  • This sentence is trying to say too much and has to be read twice, This reaction, together with Christie's exaggeration of the effects of the attack, stemmed from underlying hysteria in Christie; such a condition encouraged him to exaggerate or feign illness as a ploy to get attention and sympathy.
  • This sentence does not make sense, Christie, without warning, strangled her during sex at Rillington Place in August 1943, not long after his assault.
  • Here, both of whom were found in an outside wash-house with Beryl's body additionally parcelled up the "additionally parcelled up" sounds very odd.

The Ladbroke Grove image adds nothing to the article, but the legend does. I suggest deleting the image and incorporating the legend into the body of the article. The plan of Pentonville in Victorian times added nothing at all and I have taken the liberty of deleting it. On reading this, I could not help compare it with Moors murders, an engaging FA that flows beautifully despite the evil it describes.

Lastly, the reader needs to be told that at the time of the murders, homes in the UK were supplied with town gas, which was mostly carbon monoxide, which is poisonous, and not the much less harmfulnatural gas (methane), which we burn now. Graham Colm 17:50, 1 January 2010 (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 19:46, 2 January 2010 .

SMS Blücher

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


I wrote this article back in June and took it through GAN and a MILHIST ACR in July. It's since sat on the back burner while I took the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers through to a complete FT. I feel it's pretty comprehensive, considering the fairly short life-span of the ship (she was in commission for barely more than 5 years). I look forward to any and all comments and suggestions to help me ensure this article is of Featured quality. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical stuff

--an odd name 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • How was the torpedo bulkhead situated in relation to the main armor belt?
  • Were the casemated guns washed out at high speeds or sea states?
  • The Bombardment of Yarmouth section doesn't mention any armored cruisers until Yorck ran onto a minefield. You only mention Blücher, some battlecruisers and light cruisers, but no armored cruisers. Where did she come from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I clarified where the bulkhead was. I haven't seen anything specifically state that Blucher's casemates were wet, but given that practically every warship with casemates had this problem, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that Blucher did too. That said, without having a source state as much, I'm not going to add it to the article. As for Yorck, I haven't been able to find out where the ship was specifically prior to her sinking. It certainly wasn't with Hipper and the BCs, so I'm assuming it was with the main fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a. The text contains too much jargon and vague language—I found it to be a very frustrating read and not at all accessible. Some back-knowledge can be assumed, but average readers should be able to make it through most sentences without clicking off to read definitions and context. Sample issues:
    • The opening line leaves me a bit cold, to be honest. What does "last" mean in this context? Last built? Last surviving?
    • "which were expected to simply be larger" The modifier "simply" seems misplaced or misused here. What are you modifying?
    • "Being only an upgrade of the traditional armored cruisers" In what way? I read on a considerable distance to discover no section detailing the contrast between Blücher and the "traditional armored cruisers". Unclear prose.
    • "One week after the final decision was made" Which decision? The armament decision, or are you speaking of overall design considerations?
    • "Blücher had a draft of 8.84 m forward, but only 8.56 m aft." The word "only" suggests that the contrast should mean something to me... but what?
    • "However, she suffered from severe roll, and at hard rudder, she heeled over up to 10 degrees." This sentence was impossible for me to digest as a non-specialist. "Roll" links to an article that describes "listing".
Good start but it definitely needs tightening up and improved accessibility. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. "Last" does indeed mean "last built;" I've specified that. As for "simply," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The following sentence should make clear what I meant by the assumption that the Invincibles would feature only minor improvements over the armored cruiser type. I added a note comparing Blücher and the preceding Scharnhorst class in terms of number of guns. The "only" was meant to highlight the fact that the ship displaced more water forward; I've reworded that slightly. For the "decision," yes, the latter. I've linked roll to a better article and perhaps clarified what the 10 degrees was referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional comments, through the Design section. I appreciate your looking at my concerns above. I urge you to get some help in here to tighten up the prose so we don't have to have laundry lists at the FAC—we're applying bandaids but it really needs a good run-through.
    • "information from the British Naval Attache about the armament of Invincible class was leaked" By whom? If possible, make active voice and specify who leaked.
    • "The three engines were separated in individual engine rooms." How do you feel about "segregated" instead? "Separated" gives me the impression of being taken apart.
    • "though fuel bunkers were expanded to allow up to 2,510 tons of coal" Unclear. Was this done at design time, or at build time as a last minute modification? Or was it done by the crew? As above, it could benefit from being made active voice to specify when and by whom.
    • Footnote 5 seems to go to the wrong URL, as it is the same as footnote 4. It's about the 21 cm SK L/45 and not the 15 cm. Therefore, I cannot verify the data about the 15 cm presented in the article.
    • How do we know the data presented on navweaps.com is accurate? I noted in the sourcing that the author says some of the data comes from "Tony DiGiulian's personal data files". Who is Tony DiGiulian, and how can we trust his personal data files? I would much prefer this type of technical data be sourced to a published work that's been fact-checked or peer reviewed.
    • "reduced to 80 mm in less important areas of the hull" Which are what?
    • "though this only ran the length of the hull between the forward and rear centerline gun turrets" Confusing. "ran the length of the hull" means the whole hull, but then you qualify the statement. Why not just "ran between the the forward and rear centerline gun turrets"?
    • "The forward conning tower had an armored roof that was 80 mm thick and 250 mm-thick sides." Missing parallel structure, rough to read.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to Navweaps.com, it's been discussed at WP:RS/N in the past (the old discussion has been preserved here). I've fixed everything else you pointed out, with the exception of the first. It's unlikely that the person who leaked the information is known; I haven't come across it in any of the reading I've done. I'll see what I can do as far as getting a read through of the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments: What's wrong with this picture?
    • "approximately 30 mi (48 km) north of the Dogger Bank"
Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you be more specific please? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but it really shouldn't be that hard to see for somebody familiar with the subject matter, once somebody has pointed out that potential problems exist:
  1. Why would anybody be measuring this distance in English statute miles?
  2. In particular, why would this be in English statute miles in a German-ship article?
  3. Even if it really were in statute miles, those strange-to-the-context units would need to be specifically identified as such.
  4. Even if it were statute miles, the precision of the conversion result would be inappropriate for the "approximately" introduction.
That is often the consequence of over-reliance on black boxes such as {{convert}} by people who don't know how to make them work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Tarrant, to whose book the claim is sourced, specifically uses miles: "...in a position about 30 miles north of the Dogger Bank..." I merely repeated the figure from the source. I could see your objection if the convert template resulted in something like "approximately 30 miles (48.280 km)", but 48 is a perfectly fine number with which to use a qualifier like "approximately." Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How can you be so clueless as to still not get it, if you are trying to edit articles about ships? Try statute mile, maybe that will help. Then check out the next main section below it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.