Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2005

S-mine

[edit]

Self Nomination. This article has been under peer review for a while. It has been expanded into a detailed description of one of the most influential landmines in history, featuring historical information, research from period field manuals, and extensive images and a complete overview of the information available. Great images and diagrams as well (one has been nominated as a featured picture).--Primalchaos 05:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—Interesting and well written. Well done! (I'm running through it to tweak the language.) Tony 06:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would add interest to the pictures if you could state when and where the they were taken in the captions.
    • As well as metric equivalents, please spell out numbers that are less than 10 (unless both categories are paired). Since the subject of the article was a German invention, it would be more logical to give the metric measurement first, with the US equivalent in parentheses.
    • Subsequent comment. Now that I've run through it thoroughly, I'm struck by one aspect of the article—the absence of the human element. It's a cold, technical description of a device that did horrible things to people. Without flinching, as it were, you've pointed out the ways in which it achieved this, as though describing the inside of a photocopy machine. I wonder whether it would be possible to include just a few sentences giving the human, social, and political contexts. For example, you could inform the reader that (1) this device was an early example of a class of weapons that are still killing and maiming people in places such as Cambodia and Afghanistan, (2) later generations of the device are still being produced in the UK and the US, among other countries, as a highly profitable export, and (3) there have been international moves—promoted by the Diana, Princess of Wales, among others—to ban mines, and that these moves have been resisted by powerful interests. Then I'd feel that the article had a heart and soul, and not only explained the S-mine, but put it in a useful context beyond its technical description. Do you think that mentioning all or some of these facts would fatally compromise your objectives in writing the article? Tony 14:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments:
    • Metric equivalents absent
    • Use the non breaking space   between the number and its unit. 5 inches, 22 mm etc.
    • Are they still in use around the world, or have newer types of mines replaced them?
    • ...used the term Bouncing Betty... ---> Bouncing Betty in italics

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support with reservations. Since this is indeed the first widely used example of a landmine (am I right in that?), some reference to the contrversy should be made -- if only in a paragraph pointing people to other articles. More formally, I am sure the S-mine would have been mentioned in various pacifist or generally anti-war documents written after the war; these should be included. Sdedeo 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, the S-mine didn't enter the national or international consciousness until after the war. And landmines were in use for over a hundred years before the introduction of the S-mine, and were widely used during World War 1.--Primalchaos 01:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi PC -- sorry, I was mistaken in that! I fully support the article as it stands now, with or without a mention of later controversy. I did a brief check to see if the S-mine is mentioned explicitly in treaties and came up blank. I think it is very well written and excellently diagrammed. Congrats. Sdedeo 02:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Object. 1) Appears to lack the depth of research expected from FA's. Two references is just not enough, and there are no inline citations I could see. If some of the external links are high quality and were used as references, they can be formatted as such according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources. But even then that is pretty minimal if it really is one of the most influential mines in history. 2) The lead is too short, Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2-3 paragraphs. The lead doesn't clearly ease us into the subject and summarize all of the most important points of the topic. It could use a summary of how important the mine was and how widespread its use, and what it's influence was. 3) Many short paragraphs break up the prose and cause poor flow. They should be either merged with related material or expanded. I've made some copyedits trying to fix things I saw, so please make sure I haven't made anything worse. - Taxman Talk 14:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) A single landmine is a limited area of study. Research included two period field manuals (German and America), 3 mine history sites and the reference work on the subject of landmines. 2) The lead section was edited down from several paragraphs by a supporter of the FA. Someone needs to make up their mind. 3) Will edit in regards to the short paragraphs (mainly added to appease supporters).
      • Like I mentioned, if those were used and are high quality, format them as references also. 2) Well Tony was wrong there, he should check the Lead section guidelines and look at the FA criteria again and the established FA's. A great lead section summarizes all of the most important facets of a topic, the who, what, when, importance, etc. Now what was there before he started editing was clearly too long too. Again, 2-3 full paragraphs. I don't mean to be harsh, it's just FA's have an established standard, and if anyone told you it would be easy to pass, they misled you. :) - Taxman Talk 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) In-line references added and expanded. 2) I've written an additional 'flow in' paragraph for the lead-in, to give a better overview of the mine and flow better into the rest of the article. 3) Removed/merged/rearranged short paragraphs.--Primalchaos 01:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Impressive improvements. And I must state, I was wrong, it wasn't Tony that chopped the lead down too much. In any case the lead is much better formed as is the rest of the article. I'd still like another good mine reference text, but since you have used some primary source documents, that does go a long way. And based on your statments it seems the research for the article included the three mine history sites, so I'm not sure if you're reluctant to place them in the reference section or just haven't gotten to it. There's also a bit too much editorial voice for NPOV sake in "There is no information as to the exact fate of what happened to remaining stockpiles of the mine, but it can be assumed a majority were destroyed...". Do you really know there is no information, or do you assume because you've looked everywhere you know and didn't find it? Try to state more factually with what leads you to believe no information is available, not what your beliefs are. Let the reader decide. Finally it's just too short, leading me to believe it must not be comprehensive, but I certainly don't know anything that is missing, so I could be wrong. But since what is there is very good and I may not be able to respond further, I'll go neutral, which won't keep it from being promoted. - Taxman Talk 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's nice to see the under-represented field of Nazi Germany and its awesome military arsenal represented on Wikipedia. This particular example has wider relevance, however, because the basic design was highly influential; I believe there are grenades and mortar shells which also use the bounding principle. There's an example here, [[1] produced by one of the other countries which Tony1 mentions obliquely above. Perhaps he holds the UK and the USA to a higher standard than other countries, or perhaps he doesn't like to imagine other countries in a negative context.
As for the article itself, rather than the subject, I vote for a weak support. A lot of it is directly unsourced, particularly the section about French soldiers in 1939, which I presume is taken from the external references. As I have mentioned elsewhere, in the FAC on BBC television drama, if the editorial voice is strong and trustworthy I am prepared to go along with the writer, but in this case the writing and grammar is sometimes sloppy, and so it needs reinforcement. I don't picture Max Hastings or Martin Gilbert or Richard Holmes when I read this article, I picture the kind of people who write for websites.
Why Bouncing Betty? Was it a reference to somebody called Betty? A cartoon character, an actress. "The S-mine was no longer produced after the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945" is clearly the work of an expert on this mine. I would like the person who wrote that line to answer the following questions; did the post-war German armed forces discontinue the mine? Did they actually purge surviving examples from their inventory? Does the German army use these mines today? Clearly the basic design continued. Whoever wrote that sentence presumably is an authority on these mines. Otherwise he or she... he would not have written it. Wikipedia seems to be blessed with hundreds of people who are top experts on weapons, guns and munitions.
On a tangent, and this is probably more for the bounding mines article, but wasn't there a Yugoslavian film from a few years ago about some people trapped in a shell crater by something similar to an S-mine? They couldn't get away because it would detonate and kill them all, and so they had to patch up their differences and hug etc. Oh, ah, Google's result for 'film trapped bouncing mine' reveals it was No Man's Land by Danis Tanovic, [2] which won an Academy Award in 2002. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Bouncing Betty, I did search high and low for some source of this particular, and strangely morbid, piece of slang - both for the article and because I'm an amateur etymologist. There seems to be none to be found, and is simply an example of the vaguely sexual slang found amongst military forces throughout the world. Who the original 'Betty' was could not be said conclusively. As for the remaining stockpiles of S-mines, the military reserves of Germany were gathered and destroyed as part of the terms of surrender. No data explicitly points out the destruction of the S-mine, but one can assume whatever examples were left over were destroyed along with the hundreds of other shells, mines and other ammunition. Those that were not taken back home to be analyzed, of course. And the German army, being a signer to the landmine ban, does not produce or use the S-mine today.

--Primalchaos 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - mostly because I feel the article is definitly FA-worthy, but also because I like reading about weapons =) WegianWarrior 07:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reads like a text book, which is entirely to its credit --PopUpPirate 12:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

object - no mention of the level of civilian casualties caused by the device; no mention of expected / maximum lifetime if left in field / level of mine clearance in Germany after the war. Will go to neutral if convinced that this information can't be recovered. Mozzerati 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civilian casualties of any sort during World War 2 have long been more a matter of speculation than actual fact, due to poor records kept during the war and records being destroyed. Also, civilian casualties would not have been reported by landmine model. Allied casualties are similarly missing because the Allies did not report a death by type of weapon used, but only by whether the death occured in the course of battle or not. Added section on postwar mine-clearing operations in Europe and expected lifetime.--Primalchaos 00:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Law

[edit]

Self-nom. This article spent the full four weeks on peer review (link) and was on FAC in August (link). It failed for two reasons: not enough votes were cast (2 support, 1 object), and User:Carnildo objected to the images not having fair use rationales. I've added the rationales now so I consider all previous objections to have been dealt with. Please have a look at the article if you've got time. It would be a pity if it failed solely through a lack of votes.

Thanks, CTOAGN 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very mild object, the Return home and After football sections should be merged as the first is terribly short. Will support if changed. -- Elisson • Talk 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite support, lots of good information here. Phoenix2 16:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • my concerns have been addressed, support vote a couple of paragraphs down. Neutral for now - I like the article but I want to read it through a couple more times. Could you please reload the images with the black bands cropped from them? It detracts from overall look of the article. I love the first photo though - the two blokes on the left look like they're ready to snatch the contract out of his hands the moment he signs. Rossrs 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Jiy has got rid of the bands. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy with the image, and I think the article is better off without that second one. I'll wait to see how User:Nichalp's comments are addressed, but I think the article is developing very well. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the only objections left from Nichalp are the references and the right-alignment of the table columns. I'll do the alignment as soon as I find out how (unless someone beats me to it - should only take a few seconds I think?). I don't think the references are a valid objection, but if you disagree let me know. I'd give it a bit more thought if I thought it was a majority opinion (although I'd still find it highly perplexing). CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support I've right aligned the columns. I don't object to the references as you've done them, although I prefer Nichalp's suggestion. Nichalp frequently comments on FAs and as such has an excellent knowledge of what the standard is. Although I agree with his viewpoint, the type of references to be used are not part of policy, and are guidelines only. The referencing style you've used is one of several acceptable formats - not my favourite, but it's a valid choice in my opinion. Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- One comment I do have, though, is that "squint" may be a little confusing to American readers--I've never heard "squint" used in the U.S. to refer to the condition indicated in the article you link to. I have no objection to the article's being in British English, but is there a more universally understood term you could use for his condition? Other than that, I cleaned up some of the prose that was a little bit funky. The article is nicely organized and well-researched. As a fan of the sport, I'm glad to see it have another well-written article.Kevin M Marshall 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what term is commonly used for 'squint' outside the UK, but will be happy to put something in a footnote if you let me know what it's called where you live (I like footnotes...). 'Strabismus' might be too formal for a football bio imo. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand what you're describing, I think we'd call it "lazy eye" (if one eye wanders around) or "cross-eyed" (if the eyes both point in) in the U.S. The problem isn't really one of terminology; the problem is that strabismus is so vague and talks about so many things I can't figure out exactly what "squint" means. I'd never heard of the word "strabismus" either, so perhaps I'm just more ignorant than I should be when it comes to eye disorders. But I like to think that if it's a problem for me, it's a problem for a large number of US readers. All that being said, however, it's more of a problem for the strabismus article than for this one. If the average Brit knows exactly what you mean by squint, just leave it as is and let the editors of strabismus fix that page.Kevin M Marshall 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well researched article. In my opinion, it would read a bit better if each footnote were moved to the end of the sentence it occurs in. Pburka 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The model Wikipedia article. Ruennsheng 02:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive and well-researched - well done! Brisvegas 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article – I remember doing some clean-up work on it ages ago, right after it was first created. It's grown a fair bit since then! Great piece. Angmering 20:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I might just have ADD, but the article is quite boring for a FA. Very good article if you're interested in that sort of thing, but people want to really see interesting things on FA. Maybe some more pics too. Spawn Man 05:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's not my fault... Also, we are voting on which articles should be put on the main page, not what we should do to make them better!?! If you all want to vote on what to do to enhance the article, I suggest you move this article to the Peer Review page. As I said, people don't want boring topics on the main page, and I think this is a boring topic. I'm changing my vote to object. (unsigned. added by User:Spawn Man)
    • Your vote is still unactionable. Have you read the guidelines for voting at the top of the page? Objections need to state a specific rationale that can be addressed, otherwise they may be ignored. Your boredom is unfortunate, but it's something only you can deal with. Rossrs 09:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - The images in this article are woeful. Both suffer from pixelation, the second suffers from gross colour distortion and is poorly cropped. I rarely object to articles based on images but these are exceptionally bad images. Cedars 06:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been sorted out now. The first has been cleaned up and cropped by User:Jiy (I only wish I'd noticed before I downloaded GIMP and made the same changes myself). The second has been removed, partly because its quality was poor and partly because someone seems to have introduced a new 'one screenshot per article' rule and it came from the same DVD as the first image. If there's still anything that you object to, please let me know. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first image is still fairly pixelated. It would be really desirable to get a better quality picture, preferably one of him actually playing football. Cedars 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, and I'd like to. The problem is that all of Law's career took place in the last fifty years, so all the images I'd like to include are copyrighted. I don't know how familiar you are with the rules of fair use/copyrighted images on Wikipedia but they really make life difficult for subjects where a copyright-free image is unavailable. Knowing this, I originally submitted this article as a featured-article-without-pictures (see /archive1) but PopUpPirate objected because he felt the article would really benefit from a picture (and I agree with him). If I upload anything here that even might be less than 100% ok, it will be objected to and that objection will be upheld. IIRC, at one stage recently something like half of FACs were being rejected on this basis. Promotional images are at best a grey area - there are people trying to get them removed from Wikipedia altoghether (this possibly includes Jimbo, although I can't remember off the top of my head), and even when a copyright holder gives their permission for an article to be used on WP, this is still not enough (whether someone's trying to get the article featured or not) - someone will remove the image as all mirrors need to be able to reuse the images for any purpose. Given that, the only copyright-acceptable images I've been able to find of Law's career have been screenshots uploaded under fair use. There is now a one-screenshot-per-article limit on WP, and I think the one image we need above all is one with Law's face in it from some point in his playing career. I don't have access to television archives so this one is the only one available (and as you can see, it's black and white footage from the early 60s). I might be able to tidy it up with GIMP (although I'm no expert with this - anyone else think they could have a go?) but can't promise I'll be able to make it any better. In any case, while I accept it's not perfect, and I'll happily upload a better image if I can find one with an acceptable copyright status, I really don't think it's so bad that it spoils the article to the point of turning it from featurable to not featurable, now that jiy has tidied it up, especially given Rossrs' comment above. CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short. 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned. 3) Parents names? 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone. 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino 6) Goal image is terrible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short.
      • I disagree. His childhood wasn't notable and putting more about it would unbalance the article IMO. The 1974 World Cup was two weeks of Law's eighteen year career during which he played in one match, which as World Cup matches go wasn't that notable. Please conver
    • 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned.
      • Good idea. Done.
    • 3) Parents names?
      • Didn't seem relevant to me, but I had a look through the FA log and noticed the last featured bio had them, so I've put them in.
    • 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone.
      • Didn't look that bad (I know I've seen worse in recent FAs), but I've reworded it.
    • 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino
      • Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs in the world. The article points out that he's in Italy at that time, and IMO it would be superflous to put something like 'the Italian club Internazionale', a bit like writing 'the English club Manchester United'. People can always click the link if they want to know more.
    • 6) Goal image is terrible.
      • I've removed it, for the reasons given in my response to Cedars' objection above.
    • CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short. 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes. 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football. 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there. 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to {{inote}}? They aren't useful and are highly distracting. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short.
        • Merging it that way would be illogical, so I've merged =World Cup 1974= with =Back to Manchester City= instead. I think there's as much info on his childhood as there needs to be - it wasn't notable at all - but could have another look in his bios and see if there's anything I can add. Do you know of a link to anything saying what the minimum size for a section should be or how many paragraphs should be in one? I've looked but haven't been able to find one.
        • I found something to add, so the section's now a little longer and — wait for it — in two paragraphs! How good is that?
      • 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes.
        • Can't agree with this. It would make the sentences too clunky, and with this being in the introduction, that's a real no-no. I've added the values for £55k and £110k in footnotes though.
      • 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football.
        • I've put something in along these lines.
      • 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there.
        • Good idea about right-aligning the figures, but I don't know how to do it. If you or anyone else reading this would like to make the change, please do. (done! Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)) Where would you rather the table went? Above the Career Summary? I don't think that would improve anything. It definitely doesn't belong in the body of the article text.[reply]
      • 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to {{inote}}? They aren't useful and are highly distracting.
        • No, I don't know of any requirement to do this and believe it would spoil the article rather than improve it. It's well known that a lot of people don't trust Wikipedia articles because they can be edited by anyone and you don't know where they got their information (or even if they just made it up themselves.) Citing sources properly goes a long way towards meeting this objection, and I think we'd really benefit if a lot more articles were had their sources shown in this way. Inotes are only useful to people who hit the edit button - people who are reading a 'mirror' of Wikipedia won't be able to see them and lot of people on Wikipedia won't know that they're there. See Template talk:Inote#Reasons not to use inote. While the number of citations in this article is somewhat high, I've tried to keep them to less well-known or more contentious facts. So "Denis Law scored in the 1963 cup final" isn't cited because it's easy to look up and few people would question it, while "Liverpool wanted to sign him but couldn't afford to" is, for the opposite reasons. It's also worth noting jiy's comment below.
        • Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Object. Nichalp has good reasons to question the reference style. The requirement is the "appropriate use of inline citations" as per our FAC criteria. Using "Ibid" to refer to the same obvious source over and over in an online article is not making the article that much more verifiable; it's just adding a lot of fairly pointless footnotes for very obvious facts. Just look at notes 4, 7, 9-10, 12 and 17-27 (28-30 are so easily verified that I question using more than one source or even any source at all) and to a lesser extent 13, 16, 18. They all refer to quotes that aren't even full sentences or things like Law being refered to as the King which is going to be disputed by no one except people who are too sloppy to actually check out even the most basic of references before demanding footnotes. You don't need to refer to specific pages in a written source just to make people believe that someone used a rather bland experession like "very disappointed", for example. Footnotes are intended for comments that don't fit in the prose or to refer to complex or highly disputed facts, not just quote snippets and minor factoids. Otherwise they become mere eyecandy that needlessly disrupt the flow of the text. The reference section also isn't complete, since only two of the written sources are actually listed there. Also, several sections consist of almost only single-sentence paragraphs which is not an appropriate style of prose for any article. / Peter Isotalo 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A suggestion - I think Nichalp makes valid points, but I don't think adding another paragraph about Law's childhood necessarily adds to the article. The short paragraph "Growing up" is a bit too brief. The other way you could deal with this, is to merge the "Growing up" and "Huddersfield Town" sections into one, such as "Early years" (I don't think it's the best title but I can't think of anything better). That way his early life is wrapped up in 3 paragraphs, the reader is taken to the beginning of his career without really going into it, and at this point he's still only 18 years old. That would make the article look a lot better if you can't significantly add to discussion of his childhood. Perhaps you could also merge the short paragraphs towards the end of the article "World Cup 1974" etc, into a larger section. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merging the first two sections doesn't make sense to me as there's no obvious reason why the two subjects belong in a single section. He's 22 and an international footballer at the end of the Huddersfield section. I could move the first paragraph of Huddersfield into Early years, but then Nichalp would complain that Huddersfield was too short. I took your point about merging the world cup in with his last season at city - not sure it was necessary but if both of you think so then you've probably got a point. Anything else you think I could add? Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expansion looks ok, but I still would prefer the inotes. Use of inotes does not mean that it is less referenced. See the Economy of India, where we've made good use of inotes and refs together. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work - nice job sorting all the image palaver out too!!! --PopUpPirate 19:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object On reflection, the colour screencap of his goal for Man City is beneath the quality a FAC should have. A better-quality version (i.e. > 256 colours), correctly cropped, is needed. Qwghlm 20:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely referenced. —jiy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
  1. One sentence paragraph in intro
  2. Growing up Sentences short - and section is in whole quite short as compared to rest of articletoo. Either make a good-size paragraph or expand the current ones (actually on second look it doesn't look that bad)
  3. Paragraphs in general are quite short (does not effect objection, just a comment)
  4. No external links (will not affect objection)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal

[edit]

Self nom – worked on it recently. Copyedited by Tony, and reviewed by Saroj. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarised the history and dumped the older version there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and needs to be addressed, but I think I'm right in assuming that daughter articles are outside the criteria that apply here. Thx. Tony 06:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. No, contents of linked articles should not pull down the article on display here. The vote is for this particular article, not others. In the past there have been objections to red links in the article etc., but that has been shot down. While you do have a valid point, that can be easily mitigated by copying the contents from the main article to the sub articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This is a good article on a wonderful country, good job done! Ruennsheng 08:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neat effort. Pamri • Talk 05:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I collaborated in this rewrite, my vote probably shouldn't count; all the same, I support the nomination. Tony 09:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My comment is only about the section history. I think it is too detailed on some part of history and simply zero for some others. This seems to reflect some POV. The article jump from 1482 to "after decades" to mid-18th century. It is a big hole indeed. On the other hand many royalties and not so important characters appear like "king Jayasthitimalla" for example. Such characters should not appear in such an article except if they are world known like Gandhi or Napoleon. The same remark about historical fact, dates and battles like Kot Massacre or Sepoy Rebellion in 1857. About the 20th century, it seems more or less nothing happened in Nepal from 1950 to 1996. The comments on the events of 2005 should be put in politics section: they are current events! I personaly think the history section should be divided in subsections which would help the reader very much for example in order to recognize which are the major eras in the Nepali history and which ones are interesting to her. Not everybody is interested in prehistory. All in all the history section is far to detailed and not enough structured to be easily read by someone with few knowledge on Nepal Vb 08:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vb thank you for your comments:

Now the history section is much more readable. However some points are still unclear to me and I think they should be addressed. It is not clear whether Nepal was a region, a nation or a state in history. It is not clear when one began to speak about Nepal and the Nepalese and how. In particular, in the sentence

By 250 BCE, Nepal came under the influence of the Mauryan empire in northern India, and later became a puppet state under the Gupta Dynasty in the fourth century CE

It is not clear whether Nepal was then a politically united region. Was it some kind of federation? Confederation? Did this unification appear after military invasion? Civil uprising? Or just simply by inheritance? In the whole paragraph following the above mentioned sentence, it is not clear who ruled the country and even whether the country existed (as a province, a region, a nation?) For instance:

The Licchavi dynasty went into decline in the late eighth century and was followed by a Newari era, from 879, although the extent of their control over the entire country is uncertain.

The entire country? The country as it is now? Maybe here an historical map of the country would be helpful. Vb 09:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. No, my sources (www.loc.gov) just say that a "certain ruler of Nepal was supposed to have paid taxes to Samudragupta". The encarta site has a map which indicates that the region was under Gupta influence. I've made some cosmetic changes to the text though. Its hard to say the extent of Nepal in those days; and as mentioned in the lead, Nepal went through centuries of Balkanization.
Nepal, as a cohesive and modern nation came about in 1768. I've added a line on that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one should be more detailed on this point. How did Prithvi Narayan Shah manage to unify the country? After years of war? After a peaceful agreement? If this event lead to the modern nation of Nepal, I think this could be more discussed. It seems to be very difficult to find sources about Nepal before this date. I think this should be said and references should be provided. One could begin the first paragraph by a sentence like Not much is known about the area corresponding to the modern Nepal before... Moreover the sentence In 1846, a plot to overthrow Jang Bahadur, a fast-rising military leader by the queen led to several hundred princes and chieftains executed after an armed clash between military personnel and administrators loyal to the queen. is a bit too complicated for me: Who executed who? It is difficult to understand this from this sentence. From the sentences The Treaty of Sugauli was signed ceding parts of the Terrai and Sikkim to the British in exchange for Nepalese autonomy. and In 1923 the Britain and Nepal formally signed an agreement of friendship, in which Nepal's independence was recognised by the British. I have some difficulty to understand how far was Nepal autonomous from the British empire. From a first reading I thought Nepal has been independent since 1816 but the second sentence seems to contradict this. Vb 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another important point, the sentence In 2005, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba resigned and King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament, declared martial law and restricted the freedom of the press. is misleading. From this I had the feeling the king dissolved the parlament as can often be the case in constitutional monarchies. Surfing a bit on internet taught me the Prime Minister is now in prison and some analysts believe the king is trying to re-install an absolute monarchy. I think one should put already those facts in the head. Vb 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a look at the culture section and was surprised not to find anything about literature. I thought maybe there is no author in Nepal. Surfing a bit told me the opposite: Bairagi Kainla and Daulat Bikram Bista seem to be well-known authors and I guess they are not the only ones. In the same register I looked for modern nepalese painters and found many. This article should at least provide an overview of artistic production in Nepal. Vb 14:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to your latest posts:
    • Expanded info on the making of Nepal in 1768
    • Not much is known about the area corresponding to the modern Nepal before... actually information is known, but the extent is unclear. The sources do not say if the information strictly pertains to the current boundaries of Nepal or not.
    • I've simplified the Kot Massacre sentence.
    • 1816 & 1923. Well in 1816, it was the British East India Company that signed the treaty. The treaty spelled the following: "cede Sikkim; pay us for the damages caused, lets be friends now and not attack each other, keep a British resident". The 1923 agreement was different. It was essentially by the United Kingdom (the UK took over the role of the EIC in 1857) and in a nutshell: "thanks for great help in supporting us through WW1, we now recognise u as an independent nation." Note this recognition was not extended to other kingdoms which made up 40% of India in 1947 which were mostly regarded as subjugate kingdoms of the British Empire. I've made some changes to the text.
    • In 2005, Prime Minister Sher No, the king plans to restore democracy, this was declared a two days back. I've added some info in the =History= and =Government=.
    • I know there's hardly anything on literature, I too found some names but can't gauge the importance of these authors since none of them have won any international awards AFAIK. I would prefer including well known works. I've emailed Saroj (see nom above) to ascertain if there are any novelists worth adding here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think you did a good job and you have addressed correctly most of my comments. However I am a bit surprised the article is already featured before our discussion is finished. Nevertheless I think the article is still in need for improvements. From my point of view this article needs review from people knowing the culture of Nepal better. I think the points you list provide the impression that the country's culture is mostly traditional and folkoristic what seems to be untrue from a rapid google. No modern painter, writer or musician is listed (it is told about pop music but no artist or movement is listed). Your point about the kings's declaration is not really an argument. There are so many dictators promising free elections around the globe! The article gives the impression the constitutional monarchy declared in 1990 will be there forever. Articles on the BBC site seem to underline this is not an utterly NPOV. In the head it is written the insurgents, who now control about seventy percent of the country. Which 70%? What is still the effective power of the king/government? Vb 07:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article that is well written. -- Hottentot
  • Support. One slight comment, however.
Nepal has the distinction of being the world's only Hindu state, with over eighty percent of the people following this faith.
Shouldn't "state" perhaps be "kingdom" as India also has >80% Hindus, or is Hinduism Nepal's "state" religion? Sortan 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hinduism is the state religion. Added a line in demographics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vb, let's continue this discussion on the Talk page for Nepal. With respect to literature, it's not easy to determine who is worth mentioning—many (most?) country articles don't attempt this. Tony 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Pitti

[edit]

This is not a complete self nom. A very good article on the subject by Jnc provided an excellent foundation for the page in its present form. Palazzo Pitti is one of Florence's principal art galleries and buildings. As a palazzo it has witnessed a sizeable chunk of Italian history. Its separate galleries and museums could each be a Featured article in themselves. Hence the page is more descriptive of the Palazzo as a complex rather than dwelling on any one important artefact in its contents. Bishonen has kindly corrected my English, and tidied up the writing and grammar. Giano | talk 12:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Palazzo Pitti, Pitti Palace both are technically correct, I say Palazzo Pitti because that's how I think of it. However landmarks in Florence do tend (for some reason to retain their Italian name for example the Ponte Vecchio, is never called the "Old Bridge". where as in Venice one has the Rialto Bridge and Doge's Palace, but conversely Ca' Rezzonico - never the Rezzonico Palace. I don't know the reasoning, but to my ears Pitti Palace sounds like a casino in Las Vegas, so or these reasons, I've used the Florentine name. Giano | talk 18:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: Quick, put some references in before anyone notices that they're missing. Can you make the spaces between sentences consistently one, not a mixture of one and two? It will need a bit of a run through for minor clean ups. I presume that you've checked the copyright status of the images. I'd reduce the colour saturation on the first one—it's kind of ... pink. Tony 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the votes of support. I assumed the photograph is supposed to be pink. It is at least a hundred years old, quite possible more. so is in fact a genuine "rose tinted" photo. The palazzo has pinkish reddish stone, so I expect the hand tinter (if that's what they are called) was trying to express that effect with a sunset. I used that one in the lead, as (IMO) it is not the world's most beautiful building, and needed a little rose-tint, the last picture tells the unadulterated truth. Anyway no problem rose, pink whatever it looks fine to me whatever you've done to it. I'm unsure about the comment on references. There is a reference section. Giano | talk 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved two of the external links to references as they support the article and did provide some information to the article. I can't manufacture any further proper written references, because the three I have listed are the one's I used. In a noncontroversial subject, like this on an historic building, books tend to differ only on how in depth they take the subject, or in their illustrations (most of which are always copyright). Facts and dates tend to stay constant. I prefer to use written books as they in turn provide their own references and sources, whereas an internet site often does not, or can disappear over night. As far as references go, that's as far as I can go. Giano | talk 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that non-controversial history doesn't require inline citation, but the few value judgements in the article would benefit from it, or better direct quotes, rather than the 'some experts say' style. --zippedmartin 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's fine. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lovely page, and a masterful summary of much material. Disclosure: I merely did a superficial copyedit. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Good balance of graphics and text; definitely an FA. Brisvegas 08:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a very pleasing article. A couple of picky comments, but nothing substantial. I find the use of "today" in an encyclopedia article a bit vague - or is that only me? - eg change the modern photo's caption to "The palazzo in 2005…" - I've done this. In fact, the whole section The Palazzo today could be recast - the title isn't relevant to the section's first paragraph which is about its timeless architectural merit, and the second paragraph might fit better under Palazzo Pitti galleries, subtitle Administration. The modern photo is attractive, but would it be improved by cropping out the foreground railing? The positioning of images in the sections Early history and The Medici seems to me not ideal, although I can't work out how it could be improved. No reason not to support, though. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I delayed coming back on your points, in order to have a think, but while I see where you are coming from, to be honest I don't know the answers. "Palazzo Today", or "Palazzo 2005" - do we update it after Christmas to 2006? Basically when writing an article like this until the last minute I always call the final section "conclusion" but people don't like that on FA - so what does one call "summing up" - I don't know. I don't like the sub-section idea of "Administration". I think by putting all the present day admin. stuff in the "conclusion" it drags the whole page up to present and thus the end. Regarding placing of pictures, I don't know how to do them properly, I just shove them in and hope for the best, so I am always delighted when someone like SimonP comes along and does them properly, I think he's done a good job, and I am very hesitant to start playing about with them - a bit like touching one's own plumbing! Regarding the final picture being edited - besides the fact I don't know how, as the first is obviously "rose tinted" perhaps it's best if the last is "warts and all". Thanks for the support Giano | talk 20:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object One sentence paragraph in Palazzo Pitti galleries - fix this and I'll withdraw my objection. Another thing (although will not effect objection) is that there are a lot of sections/subsections with only one paragraph.... consider expanding or combining. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It now contains three sentences and a link to an exiting new page. The subsections of one paragraph, I did think long and hard about; at one stage I had all the museums and galleries in one section. However, my final reasoning (rightly or wrongly) was that as an individual section standing alone they were more likely to be, and more easily, expanded. Either by me or hopefully some-one else. It may be that one day each can stand alone as a sub-page, this is certainly the case with the Palatine Gallery. Hope this convinces you to change you're vote. Giano | talk 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kammerlader

[edit]

Another self-nom. One of the first, if not the first, breach loading rifles to see widespread service in an armed force. I do believe that this is one of the most comprehensive articles avilable on the subject of these interesting weapons. Peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kammerlader/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Kammerlader/archive2. I've attempted to fix all the issues that cropped up in the peer reviews, but are happy for any suggestions on how to improve the article further. All images in the article at this point has been taken by me. WegianWarrior 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've not written anything about that simply because no reference could be found apart from the rate of fire being higher than with a muzzleloading musket. I could (and have in my notes) make a guestimate, but it would probaly not be accurate, and it would be original research. WegianWarrior 09:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I'd think that for a gun where the selling point is a higher fire rate, the rate of fire would be well-advertised. Are there similar guns this could be conmpared to? Is there a normal rate of fire for breechloading guns using paper cartridges? --Carnildo 18:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this day and age it would be widely advertised I'm sure - however, in the 1840's, it was probaly considered a state secret (and a nasty surprice for an attacker). Anotehr early military breach loader was the german Needle gun, which according to the source given for it's article had a rate of fire of "ten or twelve times in a minute;[3]". However, the kammerlader has a more labourious loading process, so it can't be that quick. My guestimate is between 6 and 8, but I can't find anything to back this up neither online or in the books avilable to me. I'll rack my brain to see if I can't come up with a way to put words on the article on the rate of fire. WegianWarrior 06:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find rate-of-fire information on similar rifles, then a sentence such as "The rate of fire of the Kammerlader is unknown, but the contemporary Needle gun, which used a simpler loading mechanism, could be fired 10-12 times per minute, while the..." --Carnildo 19:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added words to that effect - which hasn't stopped me from looking for more hard info. WegianWarrior 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Current wording looks good. --Carnildo 18:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS

[edit]

Kind-of-self-nom. Been working on this and other Doctor Who articles for over a year with other editors from the Doctor Who WikiProject. Both Doctor Who and Dalek have made FA status, and I think TARDIS has enough "real world" connections and impact to do the same. This has been through peer review once, and comments there were addressed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll support--from the perspective of someone who knows little about Doctor Who, this is well-written and appears comprehensive. Meelar (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very complete as far as I can determine, but didn't the doctor's niece/first companion claim they invented the name TARDIS? I couldn't find any mention of her in the article. Also, I think the lead could be a little larger. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Susan Foreman, the First Doctor's (and all the subsequent ones too, of course) granddaughter said as much in the fist serial 100,000 BC -check the last sentence before The Doctor's TARDIS section and footnote 3. Sean 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Needs thorough copy editing. Here's a sentence taken at random from the opening:

'It is larger on the inside than it appears from outside due to the TARDIS occupying multidimensional space.'

Four problems: better as 'Because the Tardis occupies multidimensional space, it is significantly larger on the inside than the outside.' Or you might extend it thus: '... than the outside; not surprisingly, this typically results in a shocked disbelief on the part of those who step inside for the first time.'

Call it a 'time machine', not a 'time travelling machine', and lose the upper-case, which shouts out at the reader. The copyright justification for the first image should say 'I believe' rather than 'It is believed'. It's your assertion. Tony 14:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been rephrased. A further note as to the reaction of people has been added in a later section. I am keeping TARDIS in all caps because that's the proper form. The copyright justification is boilerplate, so it won't be changed, either. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Husein Gradaščević

[edit]

Self-nom. By far the most comprehensive biography of Husein Gradaščević on the internet in either language. Live Forever 01:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
    1. The image Image:Gradascevic2.PNG is claimed as "public domain". However, it's a postage stamp from 1995, so unless Bosnian and Herzegovinian postage stamps are not subject to copyright, it's not in the public domain.
    2. The image Image:Gradacac.JPG is claimed as "fair use". However, since it's quite possible for a Wikipedian with a camera to make a replacement, it can't be used here under "fair use".
    --Carnildo 02:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first image. About the second image, what about it being used for informational purposes? Live Forever 02:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be considered "fair use" under the law. But under Wikipedia rules, "fair use" images can only be used when it's impossible to get anything else. --Carnildo 03:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I've removed both of the above mentioned images. Live Forever 06:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; This is really an interesting article about a Bosniak general, an Europian and a muslim from Bosnia. The European history is well known in general, but some parts about the Balkans, expecially Bosnia and Herzegovina are not. People should introduce some historical figures, generals and leaders, that belong to Europe, but were ignored for a long time.Emir Arven 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, once again an intersting topic, but it needs a good copyedit. The phrasing is odd. tense changes where it shouldn't and there are too many commas, here are a few examples picked at random:
An impressive statue and monument are also expected to be built in Gradačac in the near future, and talk of the possible return of Gradaščević's remains to his homeland has come up again, though significant progress has yet to come of it.
Due to historical differences between the Bašagić and Gradaščević families, however, Safvet-beg's view of Husein-kapetan is somewhat opinionated, in line with his family's view.

--nixie 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes; what do you think now? I think this article is essentially a featured article except for some minor grammatical errors like you pointed out. It would be a sahme if it failed to make it just because of something that could be easily resolved with a few minutes worth of editing. Live Forever 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the text too, bt I think it could use another once over by someone else.--nixie 01:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dado has just done another copyedit on the article. He found some minor mistakes and fixed them. Live Forever 04:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One full date needs wikifying for the auto-format function to work, and a few are half-wikified. Please spell out numbers less than 10. Some paragraphing is itty-bitty, thus weakening the flow. 'However,' normally at the start of a sentence or clause. It's not 'compelling, even brilliant' prose yet, although not the worst I've seen in this room. Tony 09:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had english speaking professional editor proof read the article who found it to be good enough quality to be featured even for newspapers. I see no reason for futher objections --Dado 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Belarus

[edit]

Self-renom Not much changes took place since the last FAC [4], since I corrected everything there. And I added some SVG images, though I kept some other images since I either cannot draw Coat of arms and also cannot use cyrillic in Inkscape. I also wish to point out that one of my sources was put on the meta spam list, so if you wish to see the website, check my invisible notes at the references section. Zach (Sound Off) 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katamari Damacy

[edit]

Self-nomination. It looks better than a lot of the featured articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Three out of six sections are only one section paragraph (sorry for the confusion) -- this is indicative of either poor sectioning, lack of comprehensive coverage, or both. Also, let me suggest that in the future you not try to elevate your nominations by putting down articles which have actually passed FAC votes. - Bantman 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I merged settings into gameplay, and description into the lead. How now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sectioning is still a little funny... the gameplay section seems like it would break naturally into subsections, which should be done. Also, there are some grammar issues, mainly with singular/plural agreement ("the player" is he or she, not they). A few more screenshots would be nice; it is easy to go overboard, but I think that this is such a strange game concept that a couple more well selected ones could be informative. Questions I'd like to see answered: Is the game easy or hard? Is it targeted toward kids or adults? How long is the gameplay? Aside from saying it was well-received by professional reviewers, could we get an idea of what they liked about it? Maybe a couple of illustrative quotes from influential reviewers? Also, a question rather than a suggestion - would it make sense to merge this article and We Love Katamari? The content seems similar enough that it might make sense to do so (I vaguely recall other video game series being covered in one comprehensive article). Also, while I commend the authors for the excellent price and sales data (all articles on commercial products should have this information), it begs the question of whether the product made a profit for Namco (one would certainly assume so seeing as it made a sequel). The numbers also suggest production and sales have stopped; is this true? Looking at the definition of meme, the phrasing of "The 'cult/underground hit' status of Katamari Damacy has made it become a popular internet meme on websites such as YTMND and 4chan" seems incorrect and misleading. Would it be possible to get a short, characteristic sound clip from the soundtrack (not sure of the copyright issues on this)? - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address most of your objections, with the following exceptions: I couldn't add any new screenshots (anyone?), I don't agree that We Love Katamari should be merged with this article, and I think that adding a short clip of the soundtrack would be stretching the idea of fair use. In any case, the gameplay video linked at the bottom gives an impression of the soundtrack as well. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good job... relatively small changes, but they make the article much stronger. If it is the consensus opinion to not merge with We Love Katamari, which is fine by me (I just wanted to make sure it was considered), then the sequels section should probably briefly discuss the actual content of the existing sequel, rather than just mentioning it exists. Does anyone else know about the sound clip copyright issue? I thought I saw it done somewhere else on WP, but I could be wrong. - Bantman 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit on We Love Katamari, and I've found Wikipedia:Fair_use#Audio_clips: "Brief song clips may be used for identification of a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by critical or historical commentary and when attributed to the copyright holder.". I don't think that applies here. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That seems definitive enough on the sound clip issue. Just waiting on a couple more (well selected) screenshots then, before changing to a support vote. - Bantman 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading it, the lead section mentions that a number of Japanese cultural references exist, unexplained. Perhaps we should give examples, and explain them? - Bantman 20:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said below, I've taken that out because it's hard to explain what is the special Japanese weirdness about it, and the general weirdness is a lot more important. And there are twice as many images on the article now - what do you say? -- grm_wnr Esc 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with taking out something that is hard to explain is that it proves the point of anyone claiming lack of comprehensive coverage. Nonetheless, I am withdrawing my object vote because I have reached my limit of tolerance in dealing with some of the less polite participants in this discussion, and do not wish to burden myself further with the task of interacting with them. For the same reason, my further participation in the improvement of the article is curtailed, and therefore I cannot cast a support vote either. - Bantman 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take offense to the idea that I am putting articles down because I think this one is better than a lot of them. If I can't say it is better than a lot of them, then that would spread to objections; it's basically saying that people can't think an FA is bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One, it is unneccessary and potentially inflammatory. Two, you represented your statement as fact, not as your opinion. Three, it flies in the face of humility; humility is required to accept others' suggestions and improve the article in the spirit of Wikipedia. Four, articles are judged on their own merit, not on whether they are "better" than others. Five, it invites the counter-argument "such and such article is worse than this other one that failed FAC," which would be an unproductive and hurtful conversation. So, I suggest again, don't do that in the future. - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, Bantman... --Phroziac (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you supposed to identify yourself as a member of WP:FAD when voting for each other's nominations? - Bantman 19:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only when the article is involved with WP:FAD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not been involved in any part of the FAD process thus far. This is therefore to be considered Link's individual nomination. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the article has been worked on or not, if FAD participants are going to participate in bloc voting for each other's articles, it should be made known. - Bantman 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. It has NOTHING to do with the FAD whatsoever. I mean, literally, 0% of this FAC has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the FAD. Why should we have to point our statuses out? I don't see every CVG participant pointing out that they are a part of the CVG WikiProject everytime two or more people vote on the same video game FAC, do you? This kind of attitude towards FAD members is counter-productive; at no time has there ever been cabal in articles (in fact, FAD members have often objected to FAD-sponsored articles). This has nothing to do with FAD, so no mention of FAD should be here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; this is a larger issue and probably shouldn't be discussed here. I will bring it up on the talk page. - Bantman 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually pointing out that you are telling Phro he needs to point out that he's in FAD when voting on any FAC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a FAD member. --Phroziac (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have played the game and I currently own it, and I see that this article has many things that can give a non-gamer a chance to understand what the game is about, and no, I am not a FAD member. Zach (Sound Off) 22:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article. Meelar (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is a good article, and not far off from being a FA, but it still has some problems. I have never played this game, or heard of it before, and after reading the intro I still had no idea what the game is about. A proper lead should give brief summary of the topic, the current one focuses on trivia and meta commentary on its place in the video game pantheon. Some assertions also need more explanation. The articles states that it is "a radical departure from traditional video game concepts; ... it also does not fall into the familiar mold of a "puzzle game" like Tetris," but never explains how it is not a puzzle game. Also why only one screenshot? There are many other aspects of the game that could be illustrated. - SimonP 04:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My objections have largely been dealt with. As mentioned I know nothing about the topic, so I don't feel I can vouch for its accuracy or completeness, but the article does now certainly meet the FA criteria for formatting and quality. - SimonP 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I agree with SimonP. For such a unique game, more of how it actually works should be discussed. Andre (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reads like a fine article. As for ""the player" is he or she, not they", Shakepeare, among others, used "they" as a third person singular pronoun of indeterminate gender so I think Wikipedia should be allowed to as well. — Phil Welch 23:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Shakespeare's English usage and grammar (not to mention spelling) would be considered strange, arcane, or just plain wrong in the context of modern writing. While great, Shakespeare is not the modern archetype of perfect writing in the English language, and should not be invoked as such. - Bantman 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While true, Shakespeare's usage belies the implicit argument that the use of "they" in this fashion is a contemporary permutation of the language. "They" is a perfectly acceptable word for a third person pronoun of indeterminate gender, by both the standards of contemporary usage and the fact that it's been established usage for centuries. While other Shakesperian constructions did not survive into contemporary usage (and thus cannot be seen as correct in that context), those constructions that have survived into modern usage are undoubtedly still legitimate. — Phil Welch 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read the featured article candidates section often, and I had to admit, when I saw this up for nomination I didn't think it was ready. I was major contributer to this article, but when I left it to pursue other things (i.e, the start of the new school year), I didn't think it was ready. I hadn't anticipated the major changes since having last edited the article, but now, having read the article again, I must support. RyanGerbil10 04:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (comment moved here from the main FAC page by  grm_wnr Esc 15:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object reluctantly. I love this game, but the article needs more work.
    1. The grammar in the introduction is quite awkward:
      1. Break the first sentence up. It's too long.
      2. the Prince (of All Cosmos) -- the parantheses are unnecessary.
      3. the stars, constellations and the Moon. Inconsistent use of the definite article.
    2. Additional copyediting is required throughout:
      1. …follows the Hoshino family: The mother… -- incorrect capitalization.
    3. Some information is incomplete. The game was also released in Canada. It is explicitly stated that it wasn't released in Australia or Europe. What about the rest of the world (i.e. Africa, South America, most of Asia)?
    4. The article would benefit from a pronounciation key. Better yet, add a sound clip of the correct pronounciation.
Pburka 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything except for the pronunciation key and the rest of the world. North America, Japan and Europe are the main gaming areas. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more comments:
    1. Is the game quite reminiscent of the early days of computer gaming, or a radical departure from traditional video game concepts?
    2. Other Constellation levels have a more specific goal. -- Constellation shouldn't be capitalized. Goal should be pluralized.
    3. The player's goal in the level is to get the katamari to exactly 10 meters -- this doesn't sound quite formal enough. Perhaps "The player's goal for the level is to build a katamari of exactly 10 meters"?
    4. In the Eternal levels, there is no goal, and no time. The player is free to roam around the level getting as big as possible, until they decide to quit. -- no time? Eternal shouldn't be capitalized. I also dislike seeing "they" used with for a singular subject (the player) (but others disagree)
    5. Most retailers underestimated the demand for such a quirky game, and only purchased a few copies; it rapidly sold out nationwide, its sales passing the 120,000 units mark in North America. -- it's not clear what nation is referred to in this sentence.
    6. In We Love Katamari, the King can be picked up, if your Katamari is at least 3223m in diameter. -- elsewhere the sequel is called We ♥ Katamari. Does this info belong in this article at all?
    7. Katamari Damacy is an unusual game, and it was originally presumed that it would have limited appeal and this would prevent a release outside of Japan -- run on sentence.
    8. featured sidebar in the May 23rd edition of Time magazine. Time continued to praise the game in its November 22 -- what year? The last year referenced in the paragraph was 2005, but it's not November yet, so this must refer to 2004.
    9. The black bars around some of the screen caps should be cropped out.
Pburka 03:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo

[edit]

I wrote this page at first in April, and it was leaps and bounds above its previous versions, thrice deleted and copyvio. Since then I have made many, many small edits to the page, beefing up the prose, adding references galore, and taking it through Peer Review. As it is an article on a fictional foodstuff, the images are limited to fair use; however, I have provided detailed explinations of each image's qualifications and their relevance to the article at hand. I would not bother nominating this if it did not meet the criteria - it is accurate and very comprehensive, with nearly all references accessible online for easy further reading and verification, plus plenty of wikilinks; it is extremely stable and decidedly uncontroversial. It is shorter than many FA's, but it is longer than others - even sans the reference section it is still longer than the recently Main Page'd AEJ Collins. And, yeah, its a bit crufty, but that should not be a roadblock if one looks at other FA's such as Wario. Even if you don't vote, I hope you, kind reader, enjoy the read.

Scott's concerns:

In regards the second person sentence, are you referring to "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: one needs only to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." ? If so, I have changed it thusly: "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: the only requirement is to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." Are there others?
As far as "Big style errors"... I would appreciate specific examples so that any error can be rectified. As it stands now, the article is consistent with the MoS: italicization of book titles, words as words, and the television series; quotations for episode names, etc. The only possible faux pas may be my JMS quote in the etymology section. The quote italicization may have been brought up in peer review, but the user refused/failed to/forgot to clarify her comments so that I could fix it. To be safe, I've changed it. Let me know of any specific errors so that I may fix it accordingly. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to constructions like this: "Spoo, as we now know, it first appeared in the first episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5, when it was briefly mentioned by the Narn Ambassador, G'Kar[1]" - that sentence is screwy in several ways and for some reason makes me feel like it resembles the annoying wrong answers on standardized tests. Avoid use of "we", for instance, and make sure you have subject-verb agreement. Also, move footnotes to the end of the sentece, as they get quite jarring in the middle breaking up commas and such. Scott Ritchie 21:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, OK. I've ditched as we first know it. I've gone through and made sure the subject-verb agreement is OK. I've also moved all the footnotes to the end of all the sentences, and after punctuation as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still some annoyances. EG: "The creatures are raised on ranches on planets with moist and chilly climates, not really because the creatures thrive in such environs, but because it produces the best level of paleness in the creatures' skin." - "not really" in explanatory prose is far too casual a tone for an encyclopedia article. I don't quite have the time to find every single error in the article and point it out to you, but in general the speech style of the article is far too casual and reads almost like a conversation in slang. Scott Ritchie 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I asking to have every single error pointed out. Though I disaggree with the characterization that it is written as a "conversation in slang," I'm going to try to tweak the prose a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe (I hope) I have illiminated the "annoyances", (adverbs=bad, right?). Let me know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, here are the differences between the version to which you were referring and the article now, encompassing edits by Tony and me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are there more than "deserving" articles? Certainly there are subjects of greater importance running the gammot from science to politics to history and everything in between. Personally, I'd be absolutely elated to see B5 and JMS FAs - but I've run into the problem that I know so much about these subjects that I never know where to start. Yeah, Spoo is whimsical, but it's not like there is no precedent for this. Ultimately, every subject deserving an article is deserving a featured article, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy discussion nor an objection, so there's no need to point out precedents. It's an attempt to make people concentrate on articles that actually matter even to those who aren't die-hard fans or perhaps don't even like sci-fi to begin with. This is a good example of an article that is'nt particularly helpful when you don't possess prior knowledge of the subject. / Peter Isotalo 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an "attempt" at anything. I wrote the article, felt it fit the criteria, and nominated it. And I vehemently disaggree with your assertion that prior knowledge is needed to understand the article - its text and language are clear enough so that anyone may read and understand what is going on. Everything that needs explaining is taken care of in the text, and there are numerous pipe links to aid those who wish to explore facets of the Babylon 5 story further. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making the attempt, not you. It's a reference to my comment, not the article. As for prior knowledge, you're not in any way contradicting me. If the first thing a user without prior knowledge of the series has to is to click a link, then it's pretty obvious that Babylon 5 is the priority article. / Peter Isotalo 06:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's concerns:

Stongly oppose—Superficial and poorly written. Tony 15:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to "poorly written," can you elaborate? Are you referring to possible technical flaws which may have been overlooked, errors in syntax, grammar, spelling? And how is it superficial? Is this in reference the nature of the subject, or is it (somehow) not comprehensive enough? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, unless Tony1 can tell us why. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; here are a few examples of poor writing at the opening. Long snake that needs breaking up: 'The show's creator and executive producer, J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote the episode in question (as well as most of the series), was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated (such as GEnie, CompuServe, and USENET).' Overall, the number of parenthetical phrases makes the article hard to read.

"J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of the episode in question, was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated."
I also cut back on the parentheticals throughout the text.

Opening sentence, 'fictional Babylon 5 universe'—tell us what it is: TV, film, novel?

Added to the intro.

Commas missing, e.g., 'Spoo as we now know it first appeared ...'

Fixed.

'among' better than 'amongst'.

Fixed.

'Derived from the alien worm-like creatures of the same name, spoo is generally considered'—What, it comes out of their bodies?

Derived -> Made.

Get rid of 'generally'.

Though the generally is actually part of the canon per the JMS post referenced, I have removed it.

'... spoo has taken on various meanings outside of the Babylon 5 universe and fan community as a neologism, from day trading jargon to computer programming.' The status of the last phrase is unclear (you can work it out, I guess, but readers shouldn't have to backtrack and ponder over the text. 'outside OF'—get rid of the redundant 'of'.

I've ditched the superfluous of. I'm not entirely sure how to clarify the sentence. There's a term for what may have happened with spoo. I think its called divergent etymology or some such, but for the life of me I cannot find the exact term. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole text needs thorough editing. But beyond that, the topic is inconsequential compared with 'the best that Wikipedia has to offer'. If it had been written in a cleverly humorous way, maybe; but there's nothing special about it. Wikipedians want to display their FAs with pride. Tony 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-

Your efforts at improving the article are appreciated, but in answer to your question, yes, there are still many improvements required before the prose is of FA standard. Everywhere I look, there are things like: 'exorbitantly ridiculous volatility' (this is meant to be written in an authoritative register; this phrase is inappropriate unless, for example, it's trying to be cleverly humorous, which it's not);

It is meant to be "cleverly humorous." That you do not find it so does not deligitamize it as at least two others here seem to think it is humorous.

'two hundred spoo'—now we suddenly learn that it's a discreet thing as well as a substance; this should be made clear earlier, and by the way, please use numerals for 10 and above;

From the intro: "Although it is a universally loved foodstuff that is an actively traded commodity, the creature itself is regarded with contempt by the races that consume it." (Emphasis added) From the section called "The Creatures" (emphasis added), the first sentence starts "Spoo, the creature" (emphasis added). Based on that, I don't know how one can "suddenly learn that it is a discrete thing as well as a substance."
Re: numerals, "two hundred" -> "200"

'Unlike other products, not only is the product itself'—can you avoid the repetition so close after?

the product itself -> spoo

Why is 'very' italicised?

Hmm. Fixed.

Can we have a metric equivalent for non-US readers?

Ummm... a metric equivalent... of what, exactly? The only thing that goes into spoo units is "It is never explicitly stated what the price of spoo is and what unit of measurement is used in its trading."

'like the flavor (whatever that is), but will not openly admit to such,'—the parenthetical phrase is unclear in status and meaning; 'such' is a problem.

Yes, that is unclear. Fixed: "'like the flavor, but will not openly admit to it."

'cannot block the sheer volume (and volume) of sighs'—hello?

Volume as in quantity and volume as in loudness, which is clarified through the pipelinks. Another cleverly humorous passage. I will change it to "sheer quantity and loudness," if it presents a huge problem.
Scratch that. I have fixed it. Now, simply, cannot block the sheer volume of sighs. -JOG 9/15

'to to'—fresh eyes needed to pick out slips like tat.

Fixed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are only examples; you really need to find someone who's good at cleaning up text. It's a relatively superficial topic for featured article, and thus needs to compesate by being well written. I'd love a bit of clever humour in this article, if it can be achieved smoothly. (It would have to be done wryly, and bring a smile to the reader's face, but here I'm probably asking for something that I probably couldn't do myself, I realise.) Life's a spoo sandwich, eh. Tony 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-

It's considerably improved, but I've just gone through the first few paragraphs, down to Kill 'em, and made about a dozen alterations. The pictures could do with some brightening, but that's less important. Tony 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC) PS Jeffey, when you write 'There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article ...', I think you mean 'There are no spelling OR grammaTICAL mistakes in the article'.[reply]

Re:"Grammar": Heh, yeah, thanks. More evidence that I ain't the best writer in the world! ;) -JOG 9/14
Tony, you said it wasn't very important, but I've gone ahead and made the lead images brighter and considerably clearer. Comparing the various versions, they were murky before (something I didn't know how to fix until today). Now it makes the whole article look better. As usual, excellent suggestion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The top pic was still murky—have a look now, and either remove the new image or complete the info and copyright stuff on the image page.
Copy-left info added to your upload; I've also fixed the tags on the second and third images from {{screenshot}} to {{film-screenshot}} (I just noticed the old tag was obsolete)
Can you delink the red links?
I've delinked two of the red links (Zappa), leaving just one (Babylon Park), as I may still create an article for it once this is complete.
Dude, how can you misspell 'misspelt'? You did.
(I'd probably misspell my name if it wasn't at the top of the screen...)
It's better than it was, but I still don't think it's crash hot; in view of the persistence, hard work, and bona fides of the author, I'll reluctantly change my vote to neutral. Next time, if there is a next time, please dish up something that's polished before it gets onto this list. Tony 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said on your talk page, it's all about the Peer Review. Thanks for your work on Spoo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Your objection was written, referring to Tony's initial objection (which was clarified and answered after your objection), and Scott's objection, which I have answered (though I'm still awaiting a reply). Do to the unspecific nature of the objections you pointed to at the time of your objection, as it stands your objection is not actionable. Do you have any specific actionable objections to the article, as it stands now? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, support. I was referring to the inproper grammar and styling, but it seems to be fixed. It's a fun read! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I have no problems with the idea of a featured article on this topic, but there are a couple problems. It needs a longer lead, I think -- two paragraphs would be good. The Spam picture needs to be either explained or removed (one could photoshop the word spoo onto pretty much anything; I guess I understand the point of using spam -- because spoo is like a science-fiction version of spam, I guess -- but not everyone will get that). Tuf-Kat 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've got a pretty thorough justification and explination on the image's page, however, in hindsight the image should have a more direct connection, and it has been appropriately excised.
The lead has been beefed up a bit and split up. Not significantly longer, but it does contain more info going into the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! support Tuf-Kat 04:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Page is brief for an FA. Most of its references are to Usenet and blog posts, so the same as with GNAA applies - there's a distinct lack of reliable sources. Still isn't well written - and I'm damned sick of people practically asking the objectors to fix the objections for them in this area. For one, there are basic spelling and grammar errors still in the article. Ambi 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Length is not an issue for FA's. As noted, it is longer than more than a few FA's.
2) Two USENET posts and two Compuserve posts are referenced - these posts were by the creator of B5 and Spoo, and are entirely relevant. Two other USENET posts go towards usage and the etymological history of the word. Also referenced are six websites, two books, and six episodes of B5. And there are no references to any "blog posts." Most of the content on the creature / food is from the show and one of the canon posts. The comparison to GNAA is painfully innapropriate - while GNAA may not actually exist as stated, spoo actually exists within the television series just as reported (just like Daleks exist in Dr. Who or Felix the Cat exists in cartoons - both FA, by the way.) I'm sorry, but all the references are reliable.
3) There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article as it now stands. I don't see how this objection is actionable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Length is most certainly a reason to object to FA status, particularly when it is as short as this. Remember, they're supposed to be our best work - and this is way too short to be so. You state that there's shorter FAs in existence - I'd like to see proof of this, and I'd be tempted to put any such FA on WP:FARC instantly.
Look at my intro here - AEJ Collins (recently-ish promoted, recently main page'd) is the first thing I mention in reference to length. Spoo's longer than Battle of Aljubarrota, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (survived FARC), England expects that every man will do his duty, Franklin B. Gowen, John Day (printer)... and of comparable length to many more. Length is not an issue, comprehensivity is, and Spoo is decidedly comprehensive, whether or not you believe that the legit references are legit.
Secondly, I stand by the objection about the quality of the references, and thirdly, I strongly suggest you run the article through a spellchecker (as I just did) before calling my objection unactionable, else you look foolish. Ambi 13:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, I have run this through the spell checker in Word - here is what it caught:
-Spoo - this is painfully obvious
-Straczynski, Zappa, and Capp - proper names
-G'Kar, Londo, Skeletor, Mac and Bo - Characters' proper names
-Fandom - See here
-wanna, em and Jello - Both from direct quotes which I will not modify to preserve their accuracy, Jello also being a proper brand name
-Narn, Centauri, Technomage, and Pak'ma'ra - Fictional races from B5
-Boxtree - Proper name of British publishing firm
-Spoohunter - title
-Blogger - one who maintains a 'blog - occurs 45 times in Blog
-Syndicomm Python Offline Orchestrator - that's what they want to call it
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ALoan has fixed the headdings. (Thanks). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling either page crufty was by no means intended as an isult. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never said as such. But cruft is not synonymous with a fictional event/character/area/item/etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A great article on an obscure topic. Comprehensiveness , not size, is the correct FA criteria to cite. As far as I can tell, this article is comprehensive, so it's small size is not an issue. Size really only comes into play when there isn't enough to write about a topic that it would be better dealt with as part of a larger article, or at the other end of the spectrum when reading time is adversely impacted. --mav 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read my lips: no new taxes

[edit]

Self nom. Has been through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. My one quibble is I would prefer a larger version of Image:Read my lips.jpeg.jpg, though it is a good size for the main page. - SimonP 22:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpatch USA

[edit]

This article has been nominted before and gone through two peer reviews. All issues brought up in both have been adressed and fixed. The article has also gone through exstensive exspansion since then. --The_stuart 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that since these images are promotional material being used solely for educational purposes not comercial, that they fall under the status of fair use under United States copyright law. Otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place. --The_stuart 21:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are being used under "fair use", then the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale need to be followed. In particular, the creator and current copyright holder need to be indicated, and a fair use rationale needs to be provided for each image. --Carnildo 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status of many of these images is going to be almost impossible to determine. Naturally, some of the artwork within the images would be from Al Capp, but the rest of it is from a defunct amusement park, and I would be amazed if the copyright on that portion of it is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we don't have to attribute the artwork to Al Capp because it was created while the characters were under linsense to the park. So should we attribute the copyright to which ever company likely owned the park during the year that the brochure was likely created?--The_stuart 13:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well laid out. --PopUpPirate 11:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. This is an example of an article that can only be found on Wikipedia. When this article first came up a while back, I reluctantly voted against it. I'm glad to see it's now been totally updated and revised and I'm happy to support it.--Alabamaboy 23:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Al Capp's artwork itself is almost certainly still under copyright, and can be used only insofar as it constitutes fair use. Brochures and the like put out by a now-defunct park, when they do not include Al Capp's artwork, are not under copyright. At any rate, I do support this piece; it's quite good. Hydriotaphia 21:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright doesn't work that way. Just because the original owner of the copyright has gone bankrupt doesn't mean the copyrights have evaporated. Copyrights are business assets just like land, machinery, and employees, and are transferred when a business is sold, or auctioned off if the business is broken up. --Carnildo 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct. However, fair use will cover reprinting decades old brochure from a defunct theme park. I would hate to remove these brochures from the article b/c they are of historic value. --Alabamaboy 23:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. The article stands on its own merits. Let's just dump all the graphics, because the issue of copyright is not likely to be resolved aside from the rationale that has been discussed here on this page. The article is rooted in the well-documented research of Russell Johnson, and expanded to include first-person accounts by the many people who were involved at some time in the park's history. It's a factual account, and a pleasure to read, without the disputed graphics. RogerK 03:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A featured article needs images. --69.152.205.238 15:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the anonymous user. I also don't see anything about the images that means they can't be used under fair use. While I do agree that some article use fair use far too much, in this case fair use is sufficient. We are talking about a theme park that has been defunct for more than a decade. As someone who works in advertising, I can testify that ancient brochures are worthless to any business, let alone a defunct one. To say that the brochures are "business assets" is silly. Use all of these images under fair use.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Plan

[edit]

Self nom. I originally launched a major expansion of this article a couple of years ago, after I was assigned a project on the subject in Margaret Macmillan's Cold War history seminar, if I may be permitted some low level name dropping. I recently returned to it and feel that I have brought it up to FA standards. It has gone through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 20:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This one is worth voting from vacation for. I was very impressed upon first seeing it on peer review. I don't know the subject well enough to vouch for that, but it is clearly well researched and written. Incidentally have you asked if Prof Macmillan would review the article? - Taxman Talk 21:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The map at the top immediately raises the question: what was the rationale behind the unequal distribution of funds? Why, for example, did Ireland receive a pittance, and the UK the most, despite the relatively weak position of the Irish economy? The text needs a run-through to fix up many minor aspects of the language. Tony 01:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disbursement is explained in the Expenditures section. It notes that "the Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states on a roughly per capita basis. A larger amount was given to the major industrial powers, as the prevailing opinion was that their resuscitation was essential for a general European revival. Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed towards the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral." These factors would explain the relatively small amount given to Ireland. - SimonP 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Few points:
    • Benelux countries -- the three countries should be mentioned
    • Dean Acheson and Jean Monnet -- no introduction to who they were.
    • Congress is a proper noun
    • What sort of unacceptable offer was made to the Soviets that they had to refuse?
    • Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Liech'ein; did they benefit?
    • Under ==Expenditures== shouldn't that be West Germany?
    • ...country was enjoying a robust economy. This economy was dependent on trade, however... 1. How did the economy grow so fast (ie. fast enough to sponsor such large amounts of cash in the two years after the War); especially since the economy was dependent on trade between US and Europe? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extra special support. This is among the best history articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and a good choice for a subject). / Peter Isotalo 11:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now, generally a decent article but not comprehensive. The article mentions criticism from a historical viewpoint, but could it address any contemporary criticism that may have come from US isolationists? From the tactics mentioned surrounding Marshall's speech, it appears this perspective existed, but it is largely missing from the article. --Michael Snow 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a bit on this in the Negotiations sections, I have added some more. - SimonP 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I overlooked that because the Negotiations section began with an international rather than intranational focus. The added material is good as well, but I think the organization could still be reconsidered. Part of the problem is that the section on the speech comes a bit earlier, and thus ends up alluding to an issue that hasn't been explained yet. However, my concern is now more stylistic than substantive, and you can address it as you see fit. Objection withdrawn. --Michael Snow 20:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I prefer to keep the narrative in mainly chronological order, but I have added an opening sentence to the Negotiations section that hopefully makes clear that it covers both the international and American debates. - SimonP 01:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A pretty good article that flows good. Definite support. Falphin 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as mentioned in the PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible to modify the colors used on the lead image map, something less bold? The red is rather hard to see (for me, at least). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some niggles: could it be made clear that the columns in the first image are per capita (I assume that is what "relative amount of total aid per nation" means - relative to population, no?) Also, what is the blue flag with white fleur-de-lys in the image in section 8, Effects? Is there a reason for aggregateing Belguim and Luxembourg in teh table in section 7, Expenditures? -- ALoan (Talk) 07:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simon, your rejoinder (starting 'The disbursement')—sorry, I should have seen this in the Expenditure section. It does, however, raise the question of why you start that section with 'The Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states on a roughly per capita basis', when clearly the allocation per capita was very unequal, as shown in the table and the map at the top. Can you remove that sentence? Is it possible, in a NPOV way, to point out explicitly that the Plan saw through a set of geopolitical agendas? Nowadays, we might look back dispassionately and accept the existence of these agendas. They're an important part of understanding the Plan, aren't they? Tony 08:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well researched. Congrats, It seems set to be the first Economic history related FA.

Pamri • Talk 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Nigeria

[edit]

old nominations and peer review. I've expanded this considerably since the last nom, including a section on music festivals and holidays; I've also added inline citations and a few more references for various things. I also added three GFDL photos and some sound samples. I think the only previous concerns that I haven't addressed fully are 1) too many red links, some of which have been filled in, and 2) problems with the lack of a coherent explanation of what characterizes Nigerian music, which I've attempted to address but decided it's impossible -- Nigeria is a modern creation without anything particularly tying the various peoples together culturally. There is instead some info on more general West African and African characteristics. Thank you for your consideration. Tuf-Kat 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a request - would it be possible to get any copyleft music on there [esp. full length songs]? There are sections for traditional instruments, Children's music and theatrical music, 'etc where it would be possible (albeit not easy) to find people willing to make their work available under a copyleft license. →Raul654 05:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not yet had much luck finding folk music recordings of any kind, much less copylefted. A couple messages to various likely organizations has also not turned up any takers; the Library of Congress has some recordings, but they're not PD and if IIRC, the LoC doesn't even know what the copyright status on them is (and even if I did get permission, it would be $100+ to get a copy since they're not on the web) -- I've been turned down by UNESCO, the University of Ohio, a couple other universities with musicology departments, and some other organizations. The best I've been able to do is find two copyrighted recordings I could upload a sample of, but they're .ram files and I haven't yet found a way to convert them to ogg. (I left a message at the VP asking for help, but no one has replied -- if anyone here knows how to do that, I'm using a Mac, but could e-mail them to someone with Windows if it's easier). I could still hear back from a couple musicological groups I contacted, but I'm not anticipating much at this point; especially over the last few years, I think such groups have become wary of being criticized for exploiting native performers. They don't want to freely license a folk recording and then be criticized for a "Return to Innocence" or Deep Forest-style fiasco (i.e. an elderly Taiwanese couple is recorded, then the recording is used in a major international hit, for which they are not compensated). If anyone has any further ideas on who to contact, let me know and I'll do the grunt work. Tuf-Kat 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. All the current sound clips are claimed as "fair use", but none of them has a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 07:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I spent several hours editing this during its peer review, so I hope that doesn't weaken my opinion here (through conflict of interest). I think this is a rich and exciting topic that represents a summary of more detailed information in numerous daughter articles (which I haven't looked at, regrettably). Non-western musical styles often find it hard to compete in the global maelstrom—even in their original country—so making this body of information freely available on the Internet is a very welcome step, for Nigerians, other Africans, and worldwide. The author has brought to bear his considerable knowledge and experience in preparing this text, and has worked hard to improve it with images and sound excerpts, no easy task in this area. Without wishing to pre-empt further improvements that other reviewers may suggest, I congratulate him. I have a few comments:
    • It certainly wouldn't want to be any longer, particularly given the existence of daughter articles. After the start, it's a little like one long list, although adorned with examples and commentary in places. This is not uncommon in Wikipedia articles, and is probably inevitable in dealing with many topics. It's just something to keep in mind when assessing the readability and length.
    • The numerical references are separated by a space from the sentence they follow, which occasionally results in overhang on the next line. One way around this would be to replace the normal space with a non-breaking space—' '—which is a little tedious to do. Another way would be to remove the space. Or you could put the numeral immediately after the full stop, a very common method.
I changed to non-breaking spaces. Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note the more explicit justification of fair use that you've inserted on the info pages of the excerpts. If you don't mind, I'll copy this to the Wikiproject:Composer page, where there's a section on using fair-use excerpts. You might remove the first sentence 'This is from a recording' as redundant, or you could add 'commercial' before 'recording'. Tony 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this looks really good, certainly much better than when I commented on its first FAC. But there are a couple of things that I think need to be fixed before I would support.
    • First is the large number of redlinks - they make a lot of the article look unfinished, and if they were still there when the article appeared on the main page they would invite vandalism - hard to detect as no-one would be watching them. In particular, there are several redlinks in Main article subheaders, which seems redundant.
      • Filled in stubs for the main article subheaders. Regarding the rest, I could just fill them in with stubs, but I don't think that would be particularly useful. If vandalism is too great a concern, I don't care if this is ever on the main page. Tuf-Kat
        • Well, I'd probably say that if a stub would not be very useful then they shouldn't be linked at all. But a lot of the redlinks look like they would make for interesting and useful stubs.Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what I'm saying. I don't have any, or very little, info to add that doesn't already appear in this article. An article on Segun Adewale would be very useful, a stub that repeats what music of Nigeria already says would be redundant. I've already done that in a few egregious cases, but I don't want to for individual performers and minor styles. Tuf-Kat
    • Second is some of the structuring, for example Fela Kuti's section being separated by several paragraphs from the Afrobeat section.
    • Third, I think the reference style is a bit overwhelming. You have a massive 64 notes, of which 40 refer to Graham and 13 to Afropop. I think it would make more sense for the refs in the text to direct the reader to the appropriate reference listing, rather than to a note which then gives the reference. Some of the notes should be retained, though, where they qualify or explain the reference. I think you have some facts sourced perhaps unnecessarily, while others are not sourced at all. For example, I think reference 22 is superfluous, while the claim that children make music using a live pufferfish could definitely do with a source. Some sections seem overwhelmed by references, others lack them entirely. Worldtraveller 10:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note #22 is a source for there being Brazilian influences on Nigerian popular music -- how is this superfluous? It's certainly not intuitive. I agree that some sections sections would be better with citations, but the article I used to write the bulk of the folk music section is no longer on the web, so I can't reference it. My understanding was that it isn't possible for multiple text references to refer to the same source, so they each link to their own note that gives the source. Can you give me an example article that uses the method you'd prefer? Tuf-Kat 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, there seems to be a numbering problem. #22 links to a ref that's #21. I don't have time to fix it now, but I'll see if I can figure it out tonight. Tuf-Kat 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, fixed the ref numbering, there were two stray pipes in the note templates and an unused reference. The 22 I meant was a reference to Nigeria's history of political strife, which seems superfluous for a music article.
            As for multiple references to the same source, you can just re-use {{ref|xxx}} each time you want to indicate that something came from reference xxx. An example of where you could cut down on the number of individual citations is in the intro, where you have three separate superscripts pointing the reader to Graham - one superscript at the end of the paragraph would be sufficient. Worldtraveller 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, down to 45 notes at the end and 48 total, meaning three link straight to Graham's work in the references section -- I conflated a number of individual citations together, as long as they were in the same paragraph and there was nothing extremely opinionated or potentially disputable involved; the ones that couldn't be easily conflated became identical citations to the references section. I kept the individual citations to the book by Karolyi because it's a whole book with no specific section on Nigeria, whereas Graham is a relatively short essay; a reader checking in Graham could find a reference fairly easily because there's only a few pages to look through, but Karolyi's got 277 pages. I guess I'll see about changing some of the Afropop and African Chorus references. Is this better? Tuf-Kat 21:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • 49 citations with 23 specific notes. Tuf-Kat

Support. A few more photographs or images might be nice, but not necessary to reach featured article status. I am impressed by this article's comprehensiveness on a topic that might otherwise fall victim to systemic bias. Hydriotaphia 21:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, lots of content, great work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- section on Igbo music is much shorther than Yoruba and Hausa music, and Igbo music doesn't have a main article, but this is just a minor issue. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree this is not ideal, though I note that the Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo are the three largest ethnic groups in Nigeria, in that order (29, 21 and 15% respectively, according to demographics of Nigeria), and also that the highlife section under popular music is basically Igbo-specific, since highlife in Nigeria is mostly an Igbo thing, so this small difference in coverage is perhaps not as egregious as it may appear. Thanks for the kind words though!Tuf-Kat 07:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note for full disclosure. I'm going to alert people who voted on previous nominations that this article is nominated again. This will include both people who supported and opposed. Tuf-Kat 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, well, a goodly number of both supports and opposes are no longer active, so I won't bother with them. Tuf-Kat
      • Holy crap! Out of 5, Cgorman, Ambi, Taxman, and Ta bu are all on break! →Raul654 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cgorman and Ambi appear to have some activity, so I left them messages. The first nominator, User:Guido Dimicelli, is also inactive and has been for awhile (looks like he never got much past noob). That is quite a coincidence -- I wonder if this article carries some sort of anti-wiki disease... that only Michael Snow and myself are immune to... Spooky... Tuf-Kat 07:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since that didn't really work, garnering only two neutrals, I'm going to try leaving a message at the countering systemic bias page to see if anyone there would like to comment. I realize that that may look like trolling for votes from people who will support on the principle of wanting a featured article on Nigerian music irregardless of the quality of the article, so I will explicitly mention the FA standards and suggest that they carefully read the entire article and give suggestions for improvement even if they support. Tuf-Kat
  • Neutral. This seems to cover brilliantly all the different predominant forms of Nigerian music. What it seems to lack, however, is much of a combined historical narrative for those wanting to know how Nigerian music has evolved - there are sections for most of this, but they are spread through the article, which makes it somewhat hard to follow. Ambi 07:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sort of share Ambi's concerns that the article lacks a narrative flow (whether organized along a historical theme or otherwise). The nature of the topic makes this rather challenging to accomplish, I concede. For me, the frequent section breaks do as much to interrupt the structure of the article as they do to organize it. I understand their use, but it always seems quite abrupt, like a bunch of jumbled-up stub articles with little to tie them together. However, I recognize that much good work has gone into the article and it is significantly better than it was previously. My comments are hopes for further improvement, not outright objection. --Michael Snow 17:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't really understand either of your (Snow or Ambi) comments. There really isn't much that ties together Nigerian music (unlike American music, for example, where most everything's a derivative of the blues one way or another). The country's a recent construct and not a coherent nation-state like say France or Sweden. I can't just make up a "combined historical narrative" because it would look nice. Would having a separate music history of Nigeria help? Tuf-Kat 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Myself, I don't quite see how the nation-state issue matters that much, other than the obvious fact that the article isn't going to focus on the music of Cameroon, for example. Sure, "Nigerians" don't have a unitary history, musical or otherwise, but I don't think we're asking for one to be invented or forced into the article. Hence my point that a pure historical or chronological organization is not necessarily the way to go.
      • What I'd like to see more of is how the different aspects interact or relate to each other. The article already covers this in places, but could use still more, and I think this would help with what we're looking for. Even if the ethnic groups in Nigeria have only shared a country in recent times, they've lived in some geographic proximity for longer, and a certain level of cultural influence presumably shows in various directions. To take one of your counter-examples, in writing an article on French music you couldn't properly ignore the influence of German, Italian, or Spanish music (thought: writing Music of Nigeria is akin to writing Music of the EU). I understand that we can't trace things back using neat musical genealogies to a common origin in some Nigerian Eden, but the level of musical cross-fertilization can still be explored. When direct information isn't available, a compare-and-contrast approach to the subject is a possible alternative. --Michael Snow 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I now understand your concern, I don't know how to resolve it. While the ethnic groups in and near Nigeria have undoubtedly influenced each other, that doesn't really have anything to do with Nigeria itself -- the Yoruba may have music similar to the Ashante of Ghana and unlike the Temne of Sierra Leone, but then the Yoruba exist outside of Nigeria, as do the Ashante and Temne in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and there is much variation within each of those groupings anyway. In other words, it's possible to divide the West African ethnic groups into various interrelated music areas, but those music areas are completely independent of the countries' borders, so that's really a topic better suited for music of West Africa in a general sense, and Yoruba music more specifically. It's not really like a hypothetical "music of the EU" article since that can be subdivided into regions that share identifiable characteristics (i.e. Germanic music) and exist entirely or almost so within the EU itself. It'd be like writing music of France if all the ethnic groups in Europe were randomly redistributed while the national borders were randomly redrawn -- there would still be connections between the ethnic groups, but those would have nothing to do with the national boundaries. Tuf-Kat 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lakitu

[edit]

Self-nomination. I'd say it's reached a certain standard of quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yat-sen

[edit]

As the collaborated result of wikipedians all around the world, Sun Yat-sen went through PR and copyright identification, this article is well-written, suits much of the FAS and has lots of picture. Therefore, I'm now nominating it to FAC here. Any comments and criticism are welcome. Deryck C. 06:52:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Hmm...just to speak from a Singaporean viewpoint, I do wonder why the entire article makes practically no mention about his work amongst the Overseas Chinese around the world.--Huaiwei 09:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because the article is done nearly completely by people from PRC (HK MO inc.), so add those details into it if you see fit, thanks. Deryck C. 09:28:51, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Ok. Pity I didnt note this earlier, especially during the RFC phase. Anyway, there is a memorial hall dedicated to him in Singapore, which has since been gazetted as a national monument, and the hall's official site [5] does contain quite alot of info on his legacy and his work in Singapore and Malaysia. If I were to add this info, however, it would probably cause the amount of content to be geographically lopsided. What do you think of this matter?--Huaiwei 09:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Place a support vote, and add a section about Sun legacy to Singapore about the size of Sun's posthumous popularity on Mainland section if you find suitable. Deryck C. 09:36:32, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Will try to add the information tomorrow or the day after as I need to scram now. ;) --Huaiwei 09:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope you'll support after you give your own efforts into the article. Deryck C. 09:57:01, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
The wanqingyuan stuff is in the references, I used it for its biography. The stuff about the overseas chinese didn't seem that significant, so I didn't put it in. He had supporters in Nanyang, that's all. (I'm Malaysian btw)Borisblue 13:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I think we should at least mention the hall. Can a singaporean hop over there and take a GFDL photo of it?Borisblue 13:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Huaiwei should be able to do that. Singapore, in my knowledge, is smaller than Hong Kong. Deryck C. 14:43:28, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
I will try my best to snap that photo, although it can be difficult to fit it into my schedule (despite the small overall physical size of Singapore, its urbanised area is still much bigger than HK's. :D) for the next few days. I will work on the article only when I have a few hours to spare for this site about 15 hours or more from now, so I do beg your pardon in this delay.--Huaiwei 01:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are we getting into a 'my country is bigger than your country' argument now? Well, Malaysia trumps both HK and Singapore in terms of physical size and urbanized area :) Borisblue 03:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's stupid for anybody to talk about urbanised area to respond. When somebody is talking about the physical size of a certain area, she/he's probably meaning it doesn't take long to get from one place to another within that area. (If it's more urbanised I guess it's gonna be even more convenient to do so ;-) ) — Instantnood 08:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that was just a casual remark in response to the assumption that I could get to that site as easily as implied. I would think it is just as "stupid" for anybody to read too much into it. ;) --Huaiwei 15:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to add the info moments earlier. Please look through it and improve on it. In particular, it lacks much information beyond Singapore, and I am left wondering just how big was his following in Malaysia in particular. I would not be too surprised if there are memorials to commemorate him in other countries too? Whatever the case, take it that my vote of support is there! :D--Huaiwei 20:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Malaysia didn't exist before 1963, so I'm changing all the rendering into "Malaya". I'm concerned about all the red links this new section has created- we should create stubs at least for all of them. Borisblue 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And a photo of the WanQingYian would be great the next time you pop over thre, Huaiwei. Borisblue 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to make a quite detour to that location on Monday...if the weather holds up. As for the red links, I am actually quite surprised that we dont have articles or any references to the Revolutionary Alliance, or that of the various uprisings which are considered more significant. I dont mind helping to create articles for the three Singaporean revolutionaries in the meantime.--Huaiwei 22:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops..just realised its writtern as the Tongmenghui thats why! :D--Huaiwei 22:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Sun is also remembered by Chinese in Los Angeles; that's even a sculpture of him at Chinatown, [6]. Yes, that's in the United States! I will snap a photo of it tomorrow for the article. :D --Vsion 08:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Excellent article! Whoopee!~ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work and its pretty innovative and interesting in the way his various names are described. pamri 16:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. While I was not able to help on the Peer Review, it looks like yall did a good job without me :D. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the photo near the top of the page, below the family pic is hideous. Really needs to be cropped, i don't see why the lamp-post has to be there.Borisblue 18:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The use of kanjis throughout the article is unnecessary and extremely distracting. This is not the chinese wikipedia. Also, a third of the article talks about the various names given to him (!). This is rather unbalanced. →Raul654 18:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
The names problem had been going on for a while. I've decided to be bold and pare it down and create a subarticle. Hope it's OK now. For the kanji problem, I can't help much, 'cause I don't know chinese. I'm sure Deryck will be able to deal with it. Borisblue 23:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not exactly "Kanji" (one of the two Japanese scripts), but hanzi (Chinese script), although the former tends to take on the later. I would think they are not exactly excessive considering the context of their usage, esp considering they are often used with pinyin, a romanisation standard which dosent exactly apply outside the Chinese mainland and Singapore.--Huaiwei 01:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. Give the romanization only. If someone is important, link to his/her article, and give the hanzi equivalent of his/her name on the first line of that article, per the manual of style. It makes no sense to use it on other articles. →Raul654 03:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Borisblue 14:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hanzis are cut down wherever wikilinks are given. The names section is also further shortened. Deryck C. 08:26:03, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
Finish! Everything are done according to your requirements. Deryck C. 12:07:27, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, thorough article. The Chinese characters are not a detriment; they are part of an accurate representation. They do not overwhelm the article but rather elucidate the Anglicized names with which they are used. More Wikipedia articles on non-Western people and cultures should include native languages and names. --FOo 02:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FOo, and I do not think the Chinese characters are misplaced or overwelm it. Anyone familiar with Pinyin or read English texts on Chinese topics will note that Chinese characters are often included in the first instances whereby Pinyin is used because dissimilar and unrelated words and phrases often shares the same romanised form.--Huaiwei 15:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to accept this small amount of Hanzis. Deryck C. 08:37:45, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Use lower case in titles consistently. Some of the sections are very short, and might be merged. Remove the Chinese characters unless they would be useful to Chinese readers of this English-lanuage article. I doubt it, but please make a case here. Otherwise, they look pretentious. Tony 06:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Titles were made lower-case wherever possible. The remaining upper-cases such as Wuchang Uprising were kept upper-case because they're proper nouns. Chinese words are removed whenever the name was linked to another article with the Chinese name specified. Deryck C. 08:24:19, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, there are an awful lot of single sentence paragraphs, please condense them where appropriate.--nixie 08:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! Sentences are lengthened wherever contents are available and condensed wherever they can't be improved.

Deryck C. 08:57:41, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

  • Support - CrossTimer 10:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Instantnood 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - HenryLi 12:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. All instances of Chinese characters, whether in Chinese or Japanese, should be removed with the exception of those that describe the various names given to Sun. They're only relevant to a very specific crowd; namely Chinese and Japanese speakers and English-speaking hobby sinologists like myself. Keep in mind that in a lot of computer configs, especially Windows machines, these characters show up as nothing but white boxes, making them utterly mystifying to a large number of readers. Otherwise a good article about a very appropriate and encyclopedic subject. / Peter Isotalo 16:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: All chinese characters, except for Sun's names have been nuked. I would want to see standard romanization given for all the names, though. Some of the names in the article have just Hanji withou Hanyu Pinyin, which isn't good for non-chinese speakers. Borisblue 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most satisfying. Object stricken and changed to support. / Peter Isotalo 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support. Lots of tiny paragraphs (one/two sentences/lines). Merge/expand for better reading. Also, too few ilinks. I just went over lead, but looking through article I see many terms that should be linked, for example: Zhongshan dialect, Nanlang, Xiangshan, Cuiheng, Hawai, various dates, English, Mathematics and Science... mixed with few cases of overlinking (for example prefecture-level city linked several times in first section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your reference, there are no such articles as Zhongshan dialect, Nanlang etc. However, short paragraphs are now joined up. Other terms such as Mathematics are linked. Deryck C. 04:42:12, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
  • object (I apologize for coming here so late into the nomination since my comments were solicited a while ago. I just never got to looking at the article until now.) I think the article *nearly* makes the threshhold for fa status, but there are some major gaps that need to be filled in: 1) the name of Sun Yat-sen's mother should be given 2) Sun's family was unique among Chinese families at the time in that it did not oppose his non-conventional activities. The fact that Sun Mei financially supported Sun Yat-sen all this time, thus making him financially independent and allowing him to conduct his revolution, must be mentioned. 3) It must be mentioned that Sun had already been greatly influcenced by Christianity in Hawaii (in fact, his brother had imposed his return for fear of full conversion) before he damaged the village idols. It must also be mentioned that Lu Haodong was his co-conspirator in this act and both had to flee their village because of this. The sentence "Sun Yat-sen left Cuiheng village for Hong Kong" does not convey the circumstances under which Sun left. 4) There is absolutely no mention of Sun's ties to the secret societies and Triads, which he established to recruit mercenaries for the revolution. 5) Sun's role in the 1895 uprising must be more clearly explained 6) Sun's major western contacts (eg Dr Cantlie) and connections should be mentioned. also of note was Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion in london (which led the English media to propel him into fame) 7) Regarding the Wuchang Uprising, the statement "Sun had no direct involvement" is too light a characterization. In fact, Sun had opposed an uprising in the Chinese interior in favor of one in coastal Guangdong province. This uprising was carried by an opposing faction in the Revolutionary Alliance and Sun would have opposed it in its planning. 8) Sun's political theory must be traced from the beginning and deserved greater coverage. The section "Western ideology and Sun Yat-sen" assumes that Sun's thinking was the same from the start and remained unwavering. In fact, Sun revised his ideas many times (he was leaning towards reform rather than revolution at the very beginning and changed from being anti-Manchu, pro-West to being anti-Western imperialism after the revolution) and made a bunch of semi-conflicting statements to please the factions he was trying to unite. The Lincoln quote does not adequately explain his position on democracy (he did not believe in mass elections by an uneducated populace and followed the Chinese line of supporting democracy only as a means to strengthen the state). There also needs to be mention of Sun support of nationalism (very very important here, and what he meant by minzu zhuyi needs to be explained too) and communism and socialism (which he tied with Confucian harmony). Lincoln and Hamilton should not be mentioned. Maurice William and Henry George should. 9) tied in with the earlier part of the Sun's revolution is his inability to be accepted by the reformists and gentry (because he lacked a classical education). His being rebuffed by Li Hongzhang and Kang Youwei (who not only refused to follow Sun but pulled Liang Qichao away from him) should be mentioned. 10) The overseas Chinese section does not belong under "legacy". It belongs in an earlier section that should include Sun's many contacts with some very diverse groups (westerners, Japanese, secret societies, bandits, outlaws, etc). these contacts, and the ability to forge alliances, was a large part of what made Sun Yat-sen. --Jiang 05:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, as the nominator, admit that it's impossible to include all information required about the article as said by jiang above. If those information are SO necessary that this article can never pass FA without them, I'll withdraw the application. However, in my opinion, those information is not quite important for the article (at least I was never taught about them in my history lessons). Therefore, would somebody judge that for me... Deryck C. 07:04:48, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
      • I don't expect that *everything* I brought up to be included for this article to attain FA status, but *almost everything* I brought up is also mentioned in the Enclopedias Encarta and Britannica. Wikipedia articles (especially featured articles) should not be inferior to that of illustrious competitor Britannica. Given that we are in a digitized format, they should really be the ones leaving out information. Based on what I've read in both, this article has to many gaps and is slanted towards the Chinese version of events, which has been greatly muddled by both the KMT and CPC trying to capitalize on Sun's legacy. Most importantly, this article neglects to point out Sun's diverse and extensive personal contacts and ability to forge alliances with opposing parties (and the flex his own ideology to suit these alliances).--Jiang 07:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be frank, I know nothing and have no idea about those trivial details you told me in the above passage, nor how to improve the article using your ideas... Deryck C. 08:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those "trivial details" (yes, a couple points are trivial, a bunch of others are fundamental) can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Any article on Sun with no mention of secret societies and nationalism is unacceptable. This article by Spence scrapes on the issue of Sun's ideology/image as well as his underground/overseas activities (in about the same detail we would like). In the interests of being comprehensive and NPOV, we cannot rely solely on Chinese history books. The References are another place to start. Everything I mentioned can be found there too. for ezample, from this page (parts of which have been copied vertabim into wikipedia, but warning, there is some Chinese POV) there is a section devoted to his kidnapping.--Jiang 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm....the website I mentioned [above similarly devotes much literature on the kidnapping episode. I do believe we should add this to the article? The other lapses in information appears rather worrisome, to be honest.--Huaiwei 09:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, so you people have the materials, why don't you just update them by yourself? (I admit that you absolutely know more than me about those stuff) Deryck C. 07:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- well-written, though it could still be improved (for example, making a sub-article for biography). Also, some of the red links are a bit distracting, but... that shows how much work is left to be done. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner

[edit]

Third nomination. 1st and 2nd nominations. After a few peer reviews and debates, a lot of additions and moves I think this article is ready for prime time. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Wow. Amazing work on an amazing film. I just wish they'd work out the legal issues over the new director's cut and release the dang thing on DVD. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A long time coming. I supported it last time, too, I think. A little obsessive, but deservedly so, and I'm happy to see that whole side track of "Deckard was so a replicant!" and "Nyunh-unh! Was not!" gone. Geogre 04:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article. Covers every detail. Phoenix2 04:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Object'—I've run through the opening and made numerous corrections and improvements to the prose; I've also left a few invisible queries. I'll probably support this when the authors clean it up. Tony 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can you link the previous nominations to this page? (thanks)-- Samuel Wantman 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (I hate objecting to such a good article but ...)
1. All the images are claimed as "fair use" however none of them have fair use rationales on the image description pages with the exception of Image:BladeRunner Bradbury.jpg and that is claiming fair use for Cyberpunk, not Blade Runner. Please read through Wikipedia:Image description page and have a look at the image description pages for current FA candidate KaDee Strickland which, I think, satisfy the requirement quite well. ie Each Strickland image states 1. the source, 2. the copyright owner and 3. several points addressing fair use claim. I'm also concerned that there is perhaps a surplus of images - part of the requirement of the fair use rationale is to demonstrate that each image is in fact required, and is pertinent to the accompanying text. The captions for the cast images should describe the actor and the role, rather than just the role. They are examples where I think the fair use rationale is going to be hard to establish based on the way the images are used. Why for example illustrate Olmos, Hauer and Turkel under "cast" and then leave the two main stars Ford and Young for the "Criticism" section, where the image serves no purpose at all, and then totally omit Daryl Hannah? To me it makes the fair use claim harder to justify - some thought needs to be given not only to which images should be used, but where they should be placed. I think the first series of images are appropriately placed (the first one does call to mind Metropolis). I think what you need to do is ensure that the image and the text support each other in each case, ie that it genuinely is "fair use", and frame the rationale to address specifically what each image is adding the article. Another example - images that I included for Sunset Boulevard (film) specifically address why each image is unique and what exactly it illustrates in the article.
2. Mostly well cited but there are some exceptions. Example - from "Popular culture" section: the music is the most sampled film music of the 20th Century. It's a great factoid but needs to be either cited or removed. If it's something other than fairly generic information, it must be cited. Rossrs 09:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I conceed Daryl Hannah is overlooked, but that has more to do with the number of images already in the article than missing her. I could justify the images in my sleep, as I could use the overarching excuse Blade Runner's visual style is praised, so it is notable to show it in all its aspects. (re: Deckard and Rachael, since the criticism section mentions their relationship, I felt it appropriate to put an image of them, moreover an intimate image.) The images and placement of Gaff & Roy/Tyrell in cast is a bit arbitrary, but has the obvious purpose of presenting the cast... placing a third and larger image of Daryl would be my pleasure. (perhaps two images, one from the film and one where she recently dressed up to reprise her role as Pris) The popular music factoid is cited in the influence section, and I just decided not to re-reference it; I'll put it in now. I appreciate your relunctance to object, but I see little cause to do so (except for prose fixes Tony mentioned, which may be necessary). Admitedly I'm lax at my fair use explanations... but I'm a creative guy when in the mood. Off to work for the time being. - RoyBoy 800 15:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not suggesting that you add images of Daryl Hannah. I was trying to say that as fair use, it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of Gaff/Roy/Tyrell while omitting Hannah who is at least equal in importance. You described the use of those images as "arbitrary" and that's the correct word. "Arbitrary" and "fair use" don't go hand in hand - they are almost opposite. Rossrs 21:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to specify their location in cast is arbitrary; I intend all starring roles to have at least one picture. Tyrell isn't necessary, but Pris is. - RoyBoy 800 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I want to watch it now! Immensely readable, which is my main criteria.--PopUpPirate 22:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A compliment without equal, many thanks. - RoyBoy 800 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! --PopUpPirate 00:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. pamri 02:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support A lot of great work has been put in this article and it's almost there, just a few minor problems. The sentence, "partly due to the film's ability to reward repeated viewing" doesn't explain what that means. The sentence "A possible stylistic and conceptual inspiration for the film (apart from the novel) may have been Godard's Alphaville." needs a souce, and Popular culture needs to be rewritten into prose. -MechBrowman 15:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Removed Alphaville as I haven't come across that, although Alphaville is mentioned in the BFI book as being part of the sci-fi genre pre-Star Wars. Not sure what the problem is for "reward repeated viewing", as I consider it common shorthand (at least for native english speakers) for saying one learns/discovers/thinks new things on every viewing... just as for great literature and the like. As for Popular Culture, not sure if that is as yet necessary since the section is pretty small; and to implement prose could read/look awkward. - RoyBoy 800 17:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by Popular culture into prose, all it needs is a simple paragraph or two, that explains how Blade Runner's popularity and cult status has made it referenced and homaged in various other media, and give the examples you have already listed. -MechBrowman 00:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object extremely poor treatment of the critical reception of the film, thematics and summary (not the Siskel and Ebert "thumbs up, thumbs down" critics). No consideration of differences with novel to specify where the film adaption departs. Specifically:
  1. No treatment of the role of "life", "real", animal, human, or synthetic, including fertility, and sterility
  2. No treatment of the significance of empathy: what does empathy mean in the film, given that it is apparently a key term
  3. Fails to note that religion and media play an important part of the novel but not the screenplay
  4. Fails to note test audience issues which led to voice-overs and change of ending
  5. Fails to note that novel forces reader to contemplate whether Decker is himself human, which may be given treatment at the ending of the film, depending on the version
  6. No treatment of the symbolic use made of eyes, just a brief mention
I'll try to dig out the book of criticism I have on the film. Buffyg 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your passion is noted, but many of your objections are premature. This is not an article on the novel, but rather on the film which ended up being being loosely based on the novel. The lack of comparisons to the novel was conscious, not an oversight... well actually it can be both. :"D
  1. Fertility/Sterility not in BR, the rest is covered in the Themes overview with the exception of animal, which can certainly be added.
  2. Empathy is mentioned in themes, and can certainly be expanded upon in the sub Themes article. I tweaked themes to say it is the "essential" indicator of the humanity.
  3. Religion and media and other themes in the novel are irrelevant to this film. You may yet convince me section comparing the novel to the film is called for; I admit I've been involved with this subject for so long I've gotten use to treating them as seperate works; but I guess why that's the case needs to be explained to others.
  4. Did you read the article or not? Test screenings are noted in the Documentaries section, but that should be in version as well. Thanks for the suggestion, and done.
  5. Again, the novel doesn't matter here; and the Deck-a-rep debate is referenced and linked to.
  6. The themes section is simply a lead to the main article, which you can read at your leisure... and can expand all you want on eyes in there, but I think you'll find the treatment there is not too bad.
-RoyBoy 800 02:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Novel section to clarify the differences between the film and the novel. Also I added mentions of animals in themes. - RoyBoy 800 19:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Simply amazing. igordebraga ≠ 21:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic article well done RoyBoy.Yakuzai 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs of Johannesburg

[edit]

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Previous nomination can be seen here. Thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the significant discussion lives at the appropriate place, Government of Johannesburg. And no, the city, its regions, and its suburbs are completely independent entities. Its like asking why there should be an aritlce on New York City, on the boroughs of New York, and the different neighbourhoods of New York. They're related, but completely independent of each other so far as articles on Wikipedia are concerned. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But there aren't separate articles on New York City, boroughs of NYC, and neighborhoods of NYC. There may be heirarchies of articles like NYC > Manhattan > Greenwich Village. But Johannesburg isn't part of a heirarchy; it's just part of a set of overlapping overviews. And if the suburbs and regions are as distinct as you say, there should be articles on Govt of suburbs of JBrg and Govt of regions of Jburg. The article you cite doesn't explain how subdivisions of Jbrg are governed; it just says the subdivisions have "operational responsiblity for some govtal functions. Monicasdude 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing there, its just for the fact that it hasn't yet been written. I don't see these articles as overlapping in any way. And there are articles on the government of Regions of Johannesburg, see Regions of Johannesburg. That articles discusses the government structure of the regions. The reason there is no articles on the government of the suburbs is because there is none, although a few suburbs such as the City Centre have elected to create Ambassadors to the region that are neither police officers nor tourist officials. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan

[edit]

Self nom: A landlocked and isolated country in the Himalayas. I've compiled it from various sources. Disclaimer: Never been to Bhutan but seen it from a distance. (My first 100% non-India article). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - a comprehensive article on a country that is less likely to be represented well in Wikipedia. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. pamri 07:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But I do have some minor quabbles. I would like to see words like "promulgation", "fiefdoms" and others not in common use by regular English speakers explained shortly, or at the very least linked to another article as I've done to the two above.
After his death in 1652, Bhutan fell under anarchy and eventually civil war.
I think this is grammatically incorrect, because you're trying to say too much in one sentence. As it is written now it means "Bhutan fell under anarchy and eventually fell under civil war", but you probably mean the kingdom fell because of the anarchy and the anarchy or lack of leadership resulted in the civil war. Please expand that sentence to something less ambiguous. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've modified the sentence and wikified some terms. Hope I can catch some more terms to be wikified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It's an excellent article (although needed a copy-edit, which I'm half-way through). The topic will be attractive to many users; the text treats all of the major aspects of this extraordinary little nation (although the section on the economy needs serious massaging), and the photos are beautiful. I think that the overall density of links is too high. I wonder whether the low-value years, such as '1710', can be delinked; they are too unfocused to be of any use to readers, and make the text a little harder to read. In addition, the likelihood that readers will follow up high-value links is significantly reduced when they are diluted by so many low-value links. Please consider using a more common word than 'gellid'. I think that 'fiefdom' and 'promulgation' are OK, but while 'fiefdom' is a specialised term that is useful to gloss by link, I'd prefer that 'promulgation' not be linked. Readers are welcome to look it up in Wiktionary if they wish; those who know what it means will think that the link will lead to something related to the topic, which it doesn't. Tony 11:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promulgation is not a regular English word, and the article should be accessible to people unfamiliar with such terms. Linking it, provides easy the access to the definition in the article. The other option would be explaining the word in prose or choosing something easier altogether. Don't assume people know how to find Wiktionary. - 131.211.210.12 11:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced gelid with another word. As for the years, the usual practice is to wikify the first instance of its appearance. Was the MGM not logged in? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that IP was me. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • For dates, the formatting is at issue, of course, but can you inform me of a good reason for linking low-value years? I have to say that I think Wikipedia should reconsider this practice, which appears to neglect the disadvantages of a high density of links (harder to read, dilutes the more valuable, topic-focused links). I have encouraged contributors to go easy on low-value links, usually without their objection. For example, the article on the United States was heaving with links; no one seeemed to mind when I delinked the years, decades and centuries (except for one year at the start that seemed highly relevant), and now the text is more black than blue. Much better. Tony 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, but I'd prefer to go with the current wikipedia guidelines. Personally, after all these months on wikipedia, large sections of black text would look odd to me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Black text like ... this page? Perhaps take a look at Australia and the United States, which are now relatively free of low-value links. See what you think. Tony 13:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. I'm definitely reluctant to support an article with only six references and only one citation. Maybe I'm in the minority so I'll comment instead of object. In many ways the article is very good. It has great, and very interesting information that seems neutral and balanced in the coverage. The only big problem I see in the style is there are way too many short paragraphs that make the prose choppy and flow poorly. Either expand them or merge smoothly with related material. Also there is the offhand reference "...China, though a border dispute remains unresolved." in the military section that is not explained any further. I think that should go in the Geography section with a bit more detail. Also the economy section mentions India pays 40% of the government expenditure. Not only is that the type of thing that could use citation to a reliable source, but explanation of why in the world they would pay that would be good. - Taxman Talk 15:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case (IMO) the number is not so important as the quality of the sources mentioned. The CIA factbook, LoC and Bhutan's official site all are classified primary sources. Throw in Encarta for crosschecking purposes, and I doubt there's too big a problem in having six really good references. I'll explain where all I've sourced them: 1. History, Geography, Culture from the Library of Congress. Economy, Demographics from CIAF, government and politics from the Bhutanese govt site, and I've used Encarta to crosscheck if they all fall in line. If you would click the LoC site, you'd find a wealth of information in sub pages. However these links are dynamic, in the sense that you cannot bookmark them, so that's the reason for fewer links. I've also reinforced that note so that it is clear that all figures are taken from the CIA site, instead of using footnotes all over the section to point to the exact same page. I hope I have provided you with a satisfactory explaination for the above; would you still require more references? I'll try and take care of your other concerns now. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the China dispute+referenced, that Indian aid is sourced from the CIA factbook, used inote, added some more inline references and inotes. Why they would pay? I'd have my own guesses, but I'll have to search for concrete reasons tomorrow. I'm not sure if I've addressed all those staggered paragraphs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • All good fixes, and you're right, the LOC information is impressive. I have expanded or merged every short paragraph left except one in the history section and the one heading the districts. As for the history, the LOC site under Chapter 6, Origins and Early Settlement, A.D. 600-1600 has great information that could add 3-4 more sentences to expand the second history paragraph to fill the 1000yr time gap between the first and third paragraphs. I didn't feel remotely competent enough about the material to do that myself. As for the districts section, the LOC site mentions this "Four administrative zones (dzongdey)..." along with a few otehr bits that could expand that a bit, but I also didn't feel competent to do. Other than that it does look great and is a very interesting article. I do see quite a few inotes throughout also, so that looks good. I've changed to support, but please still expand those two paragraphs just a bit. - Taxman Talk 20:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • Taxman: 1. I've summarised & added the missing history part. 2) added the divisions part -- dzongdey. 3) Added a footnote+reference on the clause/rationale (or whatever one wishes to call it) on India's support to Bhutan's finances. Also thanks for being bold and fixing the existing glitches. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support whole heartedly Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promulgation is not a regular English word? What English are you speaking? This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an academic environment, and promulgation is a common English word, as, by the way, is fiefdom. Gellid, on the other hand... perhaps not. Nevertheless, I'm against too much dumbing down. And, good article. Support. Exploding Boy 06:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • They may be common for the people in the field, but it should also be accessible to people with little knowledge of the jargon. I'm an academic (chemistry) myself and if I don't get it, I'm sure there's scores of other Wikipedians who won't either. Wikipedia should be accessible to its readers. Not just an academic environment. If the words can't be "dumbed down" or explained within the text, they should be linked so explanation is easily accessible. By the way, I'm against dumbing down too, but a reasonable amount of explanation of jargon isn't all that unreasonable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should explain jargon--that's always a good policy--but "promulgate" and "feifdom" are not specialized vocabulary or jargon, they're just words! Exploding Boy 16:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice article. Usually I don't like reading entries on countries, as I find them dull... but this one was interesting! As for the words mentioned... why not just link them to either their own article or the wiktionary? Fieari 21:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In the necessary debate on the boundary between common and specialised words, I have to come down on Exploding Boy's side: I think both 'promulgate' and 'fiefdom' are common enough not to be linked, and are quite OK to include in the first place. Also, let's take care distinguishing between plain, crisp language (always desirable), and dumbed-down text. Tony 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor object. In the first paragraph it says Druk Yul is pronounced "dru ü". I really don't know what that is supposed to mean. What does the "ü" represent? A long English "oo" sound, or the sound of German "ü" or what? I'd like to see it replaced by IPA or removed. Apart from that it looks good. I've always wanted to go to Bhutan, it's really a fascinating place and would be a great topic to see featured. On the vocabulary issue I think promulgated and fiefdom are perfectly valid words to include, and shouldn't be linked. It's a little patronising to the reader to link a word on the assumption that they don't know what it means, unless it's a technical term (which these are not) or the article linked to is actually a related topic in the usual wiki-way of linking to things. In these days of online dictionaries it's really trivial to look up words. I didn't know what gelid meant, so: highlight, right-click, "Search Web for 'gelid'", flick the mouse wheel to the next tab and click on the word for the definition. Less than five seconds I think. I would rather an article used a word like gelid and forced me to look it up than had to be dumbed-down to cater to gaps in my vocabulary. — Trilobite 21:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that I agree with what Tribolite says about vocabulary, except that I'd use 'bitterly cold' in the first place—much more engaging, and everyone knows what it means. Tony 00:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't give a reader the option of learning a new word. The word gelid is used in context, so a person not familiar with the word can easily assume that it has something to do with the word cold. If we link to wiktionary, the meaning is just a click away. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

'Gelid' could very happily be relegated to the dustbin in English .... There are quite enough more common words that do duty for it. :-) Tony 08:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have an 'extremely cold' dustbin somewhere. :D =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Mark1 05:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa class battleship

[edit]

Self-nomination. This article has evolved quite a bit since it was first created, and I believe that it now has what it takes to become featured; to that end I have decided to place it here and see what the community thinks. This is a self-nom TomStar81 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: The University of Texas at El Paso recently started their fall semester, and while I love Wikipedia I also love school, and in all fairness to Wikipedia school was here first. To that end, a little community help in fixing upcoming issues would be apreciated. TomStar81 02:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - good stuff, but (i) the infobox should be (html2)wikified; (ii) the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections; (iii) the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox? (iv) the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the infobox should be (html2)wikified
    I have no idea what that means, but I decided to gamble on a hunch to see if I was right
  2. the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections
    They have now been consolidated into a paragraph in the intro.
  3. the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox?
    It is now ;)
  4. the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential
    Its been rearanged according to your suggestions. Does this work, or should I try again? TomStar81 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the jargon - I meant using something like html2wiki to turn the HTML into wiki code. I think you have addressed all of those objections very well. The infobox is now a bit of a monster, but I think the detail is better there than littering the article. I've hacked the article about a bit - the lead section had become a bit top-heavy, and I also meant to mention the units, which should be wikified when first mentioned, as I have done, I hope. Please feel free to change back things you don't like (I hope i have not undone too many of your recent edits). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go and the infobox is hogging too much of the article. Consider scaling down the picture and definetly remove the armament information. It's not only well-covered in the "Armament"-section, but actually also briedly summarized (by me) in that very section. / Peter Isotalo 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go
    I think I got them all now.
  2. the infobox is hogging too much of the article
    Per your suggestion, the infobox no longer contains armament details. TomStar81 20:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor, Michigan

[edit]

I got the ball rolling towards improving this article, and since then other users, notably fellow Ann Arborites, helped with its expansion and improvement. The question now becomes: is this article ready for featured status? Pentawing 22:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but I have one concern - if "popularly known as" names are given, why leave out "West Ypsilanti"? Sure, it's meant as an insult, but it's only only "other" name I ever heard for the city. Guettarda 23:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, from my time here, I have never heard of Ann Arbor ever being referred to as "West Ypsilanti." I'll try to reword this, though the passage concerns well-known nicknames for the city. Pentawing 23:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, in my seven years in Michigan I never heard the other nicknames. Of course, it isn't what Ann Arborites call their city, it's what other people who think that Ann Arborites are too full of themselves call it (yeah, I was at the other Michigan school). Guettarda 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We'll keep it with officially recognized nicknames, or nicknames that locals call the city (in tune to most city articles). Pentawing 00:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tlogmer 00:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Minor note: If the first set of nicknames is in italics, should "Ace Deuce" and "The Deuce" also be italicized rather than in quotes? Or is this different for a reason?) Ropcat 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I standardized the font formats for all nicknames in the introduction. Pentawing 00:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Pentawing. Another very tiny anomaly is that in the demographics section, the Imperial measures are in parentheses, while in the rest of the article the metric measures are in parentheses. I'll take another glance at this tomorrow. Ropcat 05:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've addressed the measurement unit issue, though I should note that the information was inserted by Rambot, a script which was designed to place (and update) such information. Pentawing 23:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks Pentawing! Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was blaming you for the incongruity. This article would never be in such good shape without all your hard and meticulous work. Ropcat 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pentawing and others did a fine job improving this article, and I only wish I could've been involved with it more. Fully support, it's among the finest of the city articles on the 'pedia. One thing: Image:Annarbor_southU_winter.jpg doesn't show much except the asphalt and a washed-out sky. It also does not show us what should be the main focus of this image: the shops along South U. Sure, they're there, but you can barely see them. Although the area is popular and an image of South U. would be great, this images' removal would improve the article. Right now it just seems distracting. I would've cropped the image myself but I don't want to tamper with the original creator's work. This is, of course, a very minor qualm that I have with this exceedingly comprehensive article. Gsgeorge 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support – I've put Pentawing through the grind, and he has been kind enough to execute all my suggestions. Good luck! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor oppose on a few little points, I question some more of the image choices like Image:Annarbor tree.jpg which is artsy but doesn't demonstrate anything about the city and Image:DSCN4776 annarbormhouse e.jpg which would be better replaced by a more general pic of the campus. I think in the economy section should come before the education section. I'm working on an article similar to this myself and I really question the use of ===h3's=== for very short paragraph, like the sister cities section. The sister cities section wouldn't look as bad if this section was expanded by a few sentences to include cultural activites that arise in the city from the relationships. --nixie 06:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the two images in question with images that I have taken recently (with the aim of getting a more general overview of the city). I also moved the economy section up and expanded some short paragraphs. As for the sister cities, I moved it into the government section (based on what I have seen at the San Jose, California article). Pentawing 21:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - nice article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article, it flows very nicely, great work Pentawing! -- PRueda29 11:21 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But disclaimer, I've lived in AA and I've contributed a little to the article. I'd be more concerned about the low number of book and other high quality references if I couldn't personally verify most of the material. I'll try to pick up a book this weekend and use that to improve anything possible. I'd say we should add that AA generally thinks of itself as the nicer town and looks down on Ypsi if that could be done in any reasonably NPOV way. I'll see what I can find. - Taxman Talk 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: your addition: "This is the first google result for a blog, and does more to speak of AA's status than any pro-AA site could." Yeah, the "Ann Arbor is Overrated" blog was on there for most of this article's life. I think it got pulled only recently when an "outside" peer reviewer recommended pulling all the blogs from the "External Links" in order to advance to FAC. Pentawing, what do you think? Ropcat 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is probably best to only list official and other "established" websites (e.g. municipal websites, area guides). Blogs, in my opinion, do not really fall under that category. Also, this is to set a precedent since if any website is listed, every website imaginable will be listed (which is best left to a search engine). Pentawing 21:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm sympathetic to that problem. We could end that with a top 20 google result criteria though. An I also like that one for balancing the POV. But if the blogs are yanked, yank all of them. Another thing I thought of is we should mention more than just in the lead the city as a draw to the restaraunts. I think the quoted stat is AA has one of the highest restaraunt per capita in the US. I'll try to dig up something if you can't. - Taxman Talk 22:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • See article talk for more on this. Pentawing 22:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments. There are no 'notable natives' to mention? No bodies of water other than Huron River worth mentioning? Ann Arbor is never mentioned in fiction/literature/song/whatever? Might want to see if there are any other ideas at Talk:Seattle,_Washington#Comparison_of_topics_and_size_with_other_city_Featured_Articles and/or AA's 'what links here'. Niteowlneils 04:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice list. This article compares against it very favorably actually. Most notable people and literature/film etc are associated with the university, not native Ann Arborites. Though I hope not to offend anyone if I'm uninformed. Bob Seger's Main Street, is based on Ann Arbor, but I'm not sure that's important enough to mention. He's not from AA. There is really no other body of water, unless you count pools. A quick look at a map or satelite view would confirm that. I suppose crime should be mentioned. The libraries are good, but just your average small town variety, not sure they're notable enough to mention. Finally there are no towns generally considered suburbs. Saline and Dexter are called that once in a while, but I don't think that's standard. - Taxman Talk 17:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Niteownneils - The "Ann Arbor in Literature" section was moved to the separate "Culture in Ann Arbor" article a few weeks ago, since the main article is getting pretty long. Taxman's Main Street song reference should probably go in that article, too. I agree with Taxman that the libraries probably shouldn't get mention in the main article; but I think they're a bit better than the "average small town variety": the AA District Library did win the national Library of the Year Award for 1997-98; and various other national awards (for example, the 2004 diversity award from the American Library Association, etc.). Thanks, Niteowlneils, for suggesting doing a "What Links Here" search. I've been searching "Ann Arbor" as a key word on and off, and I've added a bunch of stuff to the "Ann Arbor, Michigan" category (though not the actual article) based on this. Ropcat 19:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Seminoles

[edit]

I am nominating this relatively new article because it is so well-done. The author requested a peer review, but I think it's good enough for featured article status already. Well-written, well-illustrated and well-sourced all the way around. --Kitch 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, I support the nomination. --Kitch 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this article looks really great...but the Peer Review on it is still open. --maclean25 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Solid article on a lesser-known group in American history. This is the kind of knowledge that Wikipedia needs to be promoting. --FOo 02:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. I am familiar with the group and still learned a lot from this article.--Alabamaboy 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a rather excellent article. The only quibble is that I'm not very fond of the map at the end, but it's not a major issue. Shimgray 23:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. pamri 03:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - it's always a pleasure to see a writer just create a good article, and publish it here. Good work, good article, lets get it promoted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Extraordinary work. Hydriotaphia 21:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - An interesting and well-written article on a subject of which I previously had no knowledge. User:Austinbirdman deserves a medal. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whats there is very good, but the article is almost entirely focused on events, and not much on the Black Seminoles as a group. Pretty much the only thing purely about them is the culture section, and that is pretty short. So the culture could use expansion as well as how they organized, etc. Some of that is in limited bits mixed in with other sections, so part of the problem is organization. The organization of the article focuses on events. Anything you would cover about another people or ethnic group should be covered in this article too. - Taxman Talk 15:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

History of Alaska

[edit]

I paid attention to the tips given in the previous tips in the FACs and Peer Reviews my previous state history articles have gone through. I think all the comments at peer review have been addressed and this article meets all the criteria for FA-ship now. The people in #wikipedia majorly helped me out with the pictures, and I thank them for that. Toothpaste 07:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks. Toothpaste 08:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain | Object per nixie; I didn't check the history. Its too new. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC) See below:
  • Comment, I think the article is great, but it was only created on the 25th of last month, I can think of one article that was passed over recently due to "freshness", should that criteria also be applied here?--nixie 08:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the age of an article isn't an actionable objection. We have several featured articles that have spent very little time being edited before they were nominated and promoted. However, while I don't consider an article's age a valid objection, an article's stability is a valid objection (but I don't see that being a problem here like it was for the Papal progression earlier this year). slambo 16:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • If its a collaboration, then there shouldn't be a problem with the time period. But in this case, the bulk of the material was added on 30-Aug, and submitted here two days later. And a huge chunk of the material was added by Toothpaste. If I can get an assurance from a resident of Alaska that this is fine, I'll withdraw my objection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Quite good, but I have a few open questions and points I think could be improved: Support; it's now good enough for me. The "contemporary" section could still profit from some more work, and I still don't know whether Cook "bought pelts in Alaska at relatively expensive prices" or "sold pelts in Canton at relatively expensive prices" (or maybe both?). On the Bering Land Bridge and the "original" location of settlement: did you mean "initially" instead of "originally"? Also, there is now some duplication between the sub-section on "the transfer" and the beginning of the section "department & district". Lupo 10:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    1. "Lead": Intro is too "choppy"; third sentence mentions "this route", which refers to the Bering Land Bridge, but the intervening mention of eventual settlement breaks the connection. Vitus Bering appears out of nowhere. Last sentence is a jumble of assorted factoids. Exxon Valdez mentioned in an unrelated run-on sentence, should be a separate sentence, if anything. "spilling ... over 1,100 miles"—"of coastline"? Or surface? But then it would need to be an area measure... Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    2. "Pre-history": should be titled "prehistory". If the Coastal indians had originally settled in Canada, how could they have come over the Bering Land Bridge? (Where in Canada anyway?) Does the migration of the Tsimishian in the 1800s really belong into a section on prehistory? (Darn, that's back!) Do the descriptions of the society of these people really belong here or rather into articles on these tribes? The mention of capitalist society strikes me as very strange (I'm not saying it's wrong, but I connect the word "capitalism" with 19th century and later theory of economics, not exactly with anthropology). Word choice: "existed in temperatures of -50°F"; I would use "persisted" or "survived". Who settled the Aleutian Islands? (I know about the Aleuts, but are they connected to some other mainland tribe, and where did they come from?) Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    3. "Russian Alaska": when did the first Russians arrive? It wasn't Vitus Bering! Did Cook sell or buy the pelt for "unusually high prices"? Who is this Shelikof character, and is "Grigor" indeed the accepted transliteration? Normalize spelling to "-ov": Shelikov, Baranov. (Other articles use that spelling.) Rezanov gets one mention and even an image, but the article makes Baranov appear far more important. "The Aleut population began to increase"—"again", I suppose. What happened to the settlements of Mikhailovsk and New Archangel? Do they still exist, and if so, what's their name now? Were there any non-Russian settlers during that period? Did all Russians leave when the U.S. bought Alaska? What was the population during the Russian settlement? Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Much better now! Lupo 10:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    4. "Department and District": "between 1867 and 1884 the name was changed to the Department of Alaska", and later "between 1884 and 1912 was renamed the district of Alaska"—is it unknown when exactly these name changes took place? Why is "the Interior" capitalized? Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    5. "Alaska Territory": why did the bowhead whale population rebound? Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    6. "World War II": could use an introductory sentence, it currently jumps right in. What is a "banzai charge"? How many people died at Attu? Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    7. "Good Friday Earthquake": needs a better title, half of it is about completely unrelated stuff. What does this mean: "an Alaska Steamship Company was lifted by a huge wave over the docks and out to sea, but most hands survived"—a company was lifted? Can we get rid of the red tint in Image:GoodFridaySeaLevelChange-NOAA.jpg? (Fixed that last one myself.) Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    8. "Contemporary": as always, writing about the recent history is the most difficult. Nothing of interest in the political world of Alaska after 1980? Some parts of this read a bit out-of-place (USS Alaska, Iditarod race). I think the Exxon Valdez oil spill is over-emphasized, more interesting than the clean-up would have been its political effects. What did politicians and legislators do to try to avoid such an incident in the future? Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    9. "Endnotes" should be renamed to "references".
  • Lupo 08:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you use any books to write this article? If so, they should be given in the "references" section. Lupo 07:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing in the article is bad, few complaints remaining other than the age of the article (would it appease the objector if we travelled to the past in order to create this earlier?). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Phroziac (talk) 21:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great pictures and an overall great article. The fact that the article was created recently shouldn't even matter. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Toothpaste has done good work on past articles, and I see nothing but what makes Toothpaste a great of a Wikipedian. As for time, I am not worried about that, since I felt the same way as Toothpaste did when I created Belarusian Republican Youth Union and nominated it for FAC days later. It does not matter how much time the article has spent on here, if it meets WP:WIAFA, it deserves to be a FA. Time is not of the essence, and nor it is a requirement to be a FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely great article. -- AlexR 13:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lead section is poorly written. No mention of Alaska's system of political subdivisions, which is unique in the United States. Insufficient references (must use something other than websites), and the ones that are there [references] are poorly formatted (I want to see what the source is without mousing over the links). Statehood and an earthquake have nothing to do with each other, they should not share a section title. This is indicative of a fundamental problem with this (and similar) articles -- the article suffers because historical eras and historical events are mishmashed together. I also object to the apparent bloc voting going on here. - Bantman 01:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it up based on your objections. What do you think now? Toothpaste 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that the period from statehood on is poorly organized, and that the lead section could be much better written. Sorry for the delay in response. - Bantman 03:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and well-written. Disclaimer: I am a member of WP:FAD. Andre (talk) 02:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Coincidental, or is The History Channel watching Wikipedia? Today the History Channel ran a 3-hour long special on the history of Alaska prior to statehood. I turned it just as they had finished the Russian Era, seeing it on TVGuide.com. I added it as a video reference to the article. By the way, Lupo, the article already did have book references, even before I added the four extra ones. They're in the notes section. Toothpaste 01:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—I can't agree with Toothpaste's view that it's well written. Let's take an example of the prose:

'The coastal Indians believed that fish and animals gave themselves willingly to humans, and strove to honor their sacrifice. The believed that the bones of a consumed salmon should be returned to the river where they had been caught, to allow for reincarnation, or else the fish would return deformed. They lived in a capitalist society that allowed private ownership. Each household owned anything they had made themselves, while the clan owned religious titles and objects, such as the right to practice a certain dance or profession.'

The fish and animals strove to honor their sacrifice? Whose sacrifice? If 'The believed' is meant to be 'They believed', the referent is still unclear, and of course there's another 'they' later in the sentence to confuse matters. There should be no doubt about the referent of pronouns. 'or else the fish would return deformed'—I presume you mean that if the bones were returned to another river, this would be the case. It's unclear.

The prose is OK in parts, but too often looks like an unthinking first draft. Fix it all thoroughly and it won't be an embarrassment as a FA. Tony 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article based on your suggestions, but is there anything else now? Toothpaste 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes; the whole text needs a good edit. I've done another section, and inserted a few invisible queries. I'll work through it over the next few days. Tony 01:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC) PS It's very densely linked, which makes it harder to read, especially for children and non-native speakers. Many of the links are dictionary stuff, and should be delinked. The page should not be 'covered in blue' to the extent that it is. Make the valuable links stand out, and readers are more likely to hit them. Tony 01:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Providing that the first paragraph is fixed up (it seems too much like a cold start into the topic. Even something like "The History of Alaska goes back to when it was settled by humans in blah..." Toothpaste assures me that this will be fixed.
    • This was me...erm, I'm an idiot. Ral315 23:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations: The article currently waffles between saying "Eskimo" and "Inuit", terms which are part of a P.C. controversy. Canadians object to "Eskimo" because they feel it is a racist slur. Alaskans object to "Inuit" because they feel it refers to the Canadian Arctic peoples, not to Alaskans. The article should pick one, probably "Eskimo" since it's about Alaska, and stick to it everywhere. If Canadian or other non-Alaskan people object simply point out that it's about Alaska, where the term "Eskimo" is considered appropriate and non-denigratory. I will make some edits to the parts about the Coastal Indians. There are various minor inaccuracies that are easier to fix than to explain. Other than that I think the article is very well written and accurate for a short historical summary. — Jéioosh 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed all mentions of Inuit to Eskimo, as you have requested. Thanks for helping out with the article. Toothpaste 19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to work through it, adding queries here and there as invisible text. Nice pics have been added, but it's not ready yet for FA status. Give it another 10 days? Tony 09:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. While clearly superior to the prior state history FAC candidates, this still seems to depend on too narrow a range of sources and has conspicuous omissions -- most notably, Seward's motive(s) for buying Alaska and the reasons the purchase was controversial; for recent years, the original pipeline controversy needs development, and Hickel merits some mention. User:Tony's comments about prose quality remain well taken. The "Contemporary Alaska" section is a collection of information that doesn't fit into other sections; some of it isn't historical, and the rest indicates the historical framework needs further work. And one detail seems particularly incorrect: "the first military campaign on U.S. soil since the War of 1812." There were quite a few military campaigns on U.S. soil between 1861 and 1865, for example, and G.A. Custer wasn't part of a territorial police force . . . . Monicasdude 02:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought "the first military campaign on U.S. soil since the War of 1812" alluded to a foreign military campaign. I fixed this and will continue to work on your other reasons for objecting tomorrow. Will you please continue to check this article to see if it becomes supportable for you? Thanks. Toothpaste 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – The page size is on the higher side. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. The History of Arizona article is much more readable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with Comments from an Alaskan Resident. Very fine article. The prehistory seems a little New Agey. The British Presence section is a little odd. It says Cook found the Bering Straits impassable, but that Cook "left the Northwest Passage." Wouldn't it be more correct to say he left the straits? RPellessier | (Talk) 06:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I've changed to support (post its promotion) Reasons:
    • Sufficient collaboration has gone into improving this article
    • The length has been shortened and sections have been summarised
    • All my concerns have been addressed by Toothpaste.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways

[edit]

Though it might appear to be a short time since this article was taken off the FAC page, but I have decided to renominate it. In the first attempt, the article got only one comment, which I addressed to the best of my abilities, and one support vote. I am hoping that this article will receive more votes and comments on the second try. Pentawing 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • First FAC listing
  • Refer to peer review. No matter how the nominator feels the article was treated in its first FAC, it is very inappropriate to re-nominate an article only a day after the previous one failed. Without wanting to sound too angry, this screams of WP:POINT. Accept the decision and work to improve the article further with the help of others. Harro5 00:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • From the first FAC listing, the article was only on the nomination page for six days (it was removed on August 26), with the responses happening only on the first two days the article was listed (and no responses afterwards). I should note that the article has gone through peer review twice, and that I have attempted to address your concerns and was waiting for a reply. I am not trying to prove a point; instead, I am trying to get more feedback given that the article didn't get much on the first try (nor has it been noticed much since). Pentawing 16:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • The nominator has kindly explained to me their reasoning for this swift re-nomination, and I accept that they are right to feel the first FAC received a poor hearing. I have had a good look at the article, and am prepared to support this FA nomination. I am especially impressed that the timeline stuff doesn't just read like a timeline, and that all the photographs are well tagged - even the copyright images have explanations on their description pages as to why they are needed - Carnildo would be ecstatic. Well done Pentawing, and I'm sorry if I seemed brash in my reaction to this second listing. Harro5 04:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a well researched, well written article. I always wondered what happened to PanAm, and now I know. One thing that struck me, however, and this is very minor, is that the article perhaps does not quite capture how big and everpresent PanAm was during its heyday, and how such a seeming titan came to basically disappear. This may be due a bit to the style of the writing, but I can't think of any way to improve it. I really enjoyed the article and give it my full support as a FA. Nrets 00:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to meet the standards enough after thinking about it. I'll always want more and better references though. There were a few supports and no objects in past FAC noms if I recall. Comments. It looks pretty good and I can see supporting with some improvements :). Specific remarks: 1) Six references is a bit light, do you have access to any other general aviation books that speak to Pan Am's importance in aviation or perhaps shed light on any more negative aspects? Not that there needs to be mention of anything unimportant, but 5 of the 6 sources are focused on Pan Am which could result in favoritism. Also the three external links listed as references need to be formatted as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. And the citation is pretty good, but I'd always like to see more, particularly for any of the most important points in the article. 2) The focus is pretty tilted. Is the historical company really 5 times as important as the recent incarnations? You've given it 5 times as much coverage, and well over half the article. It seems like it's possible that's justified but also possible the recent incarnations should be covered a bit more. You'd know, so just as long as you can justify it. 3) The lead is short, especially the second paragraph, and should be expanded a bit. It summarizes the article reasonably well, so maybe pick out a few of the most important points from the article that aren't in the lead already and cover them. Three full paragraphs wouldn't be too much, but it's up to you. Two full ones is fine too. 4) There are a number of one and two sentence paragraphs which hurt the flow and show areas that should either be expanded or merged with related material. 5) There is still some airline jargon and things that could be made more clear, like parastatal that I fixed. If you want me to point them out I can, but just look to add contextual definitions or explanation of most things the average reader wouldn't know. 6) Last, the history section makes reference to things that I can never see if they are later explained. For ex in the clipper era, "Pan Am also procured an airmail contract from Boston to Halifax, preparing for North Atlantic flights in the future." Were there ever such flights? That's all for now. :) - Taxman Talk 02:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I went through the article once more:
1. I found some more relevent sources and listed them. Though I only glanced through them, they did talk about Pan Am in some way.
Well that's not really what I meant. To be listed as sources they have to have been actually used to add or fact check material in the article. Listing them without that isn't a good idea. Does the coverage those sources have agree factually and in POV with the article? - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
2. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped. The reason is that much has occurred with the original airline than with the latter incarnations, and that the original airline was more of a pioneering airline. When I looked at the latter incarnations of Pan Am, there isn't much worth mentioning about since the history of those two entities is similar to the history of other modern airline startups, though in this case these startups used the Pan Am name (one example I could easily think of whose history is similar is the recent incarnation of National Airlines, which folded a few years ago).
That is what I was getting at. If it really is just that much more important then the extra focus in the article is appropriate. I was just asking you to explicitly confirm that, since often articles have details out of proportion to importance. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
3. I tried to expand the lead to two full paragraphs.
Looks good. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
4. Went through and fixed them.
Also looks good. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
5. I am trying to address this, though I would appreciate your pointing out exactly which sections have the problem.
Well after fixing just a few it looks good, so I see now I assumed there were more than there were, sorry. I can't find any obvious ones now. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
6. I believed that I have addressed this issue, but I need a second look. Thanks.
Pentawing 21:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's probably fine. Good fixes, which hopefully weren't terribly difficult, but I do think the article is better now. The only remaining problem is the references. If you can spend a little more time with those two new ones to fact check and/or correct or adjust anything needed based on them that would be a lot better. Oh, and the accidents section seems a little mis-titled. Terrorist acts are done on purpose to an extent, so is there a more inclusive way of covering that? I won't be too much a stickler on this one since I can't think of anything better myself, besides 'accidents and terrorism'. Paragraphs in that section could probably still also use a bit of expansion. - Taxman Talk 18:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I addressed the issues concerning the accident section. In the meantime, I am looking over the new sources and would be finished soon. Pentawing 21:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I checked the new sources, and was able to confirm information that is currently in the article. Pentawing 23:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
There were seriously no corrections or new important facts from those sources, and nothing worth citing. I don't see how that is possible. - Taxman Talk 23:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this data accurate in the article? Do you have some reference to support it? Where did it come from?
The airline also participated in several notable humanitarian flights. Pan Am operated 650 flights a week between West Germany and West Berlin, first with the DC-6B and, in 1966, with the Boeing 727
650 flights a week, that is about 93 flights a day, almost 4 flights an hour. That in 1966... Just checking if the data is accurate. Thanks. nacul19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • The information is indeed correct. I placed a footnote pointing to where the information had come from. Pentawing 23:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild concern at the faulty prose. A quick look revealed two clumsy instances of the possessive apostrophe at the opening, and numerous instances of 'aircrafts', which is incorrent. It's not too bad, but not yet "brilliant, as Wikipedia requires. Tony 16:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some more copyediting. Is there any other problems? Pentawing 22:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone through it up to 1962; please go through the rest and ensure that there's one space consistently after the stops; remove 'in order' to; check commas—some required for precision of meaning, a few are excess. Then my opinion will be neutral. Tony 01:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went through the rest of the article - I believe that I have corrected the problems, but I need a second look. Pentawing 03:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball

[edit]

Self-nom and re-nom. Good all around article on Fleming's novel, the comic strip, the film, as well as the major impact the novel/film had on the James Bond series, spy fiction, and "spymania" during the 1960s. Very comprehensive. 2005 also marks the 40th anniversary of the film. K1Bond007 19:38, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on updating the description pages and thanks for acting so promptly. Could you have a look at Image:Ian Fleming.jpg which is still missing info, everything else is fine. Will support when Fleming image is sorted out. Rossrs 01:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Yeah, I started to look into it, but apparently forgot to fix it with the others. Should be good now. K1Bond007 02:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think so too. Well contructed article, very happy to support it. Rossrs 10:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. pamri 02:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, good overview of all the media, professionally written. --Primalchaos 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Many unclear statements, partly because of poor syntax and underuse of commas. Take the opening sentence as an example: 'Thunderball is the ninth James Bond novel written by Ian Fleming, based on a screen treatment by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming.' So, James Bond novels were written by other authors? (This is the implication.) Is Ian Fleming based on a screen treatment? What is a screen treatment, anyway? 'The book is the first chapter'—That's a little confusing. The prose is way too poor for a FA. Tony 06:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The screen treatment bit is specifically explained in the article. The wording "screen treatment" is not mine, but that of the courts specifically used to give credit to other authors who were involved in the development of the story while it was being created as a screenplay. I added quotes around the line, but I can't add any more information on the matter in the intro because there is a giant section of the article devoted to why it says that. I suppose I could make a footnote on this; however, that would be redundant.
Please feel free to copyedit the article to better the prose. I did what I could and attempted to cleanup the two examples you gave, but I don't know what all your objections are. K1Bond007 16:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
have linked "screen treatment" to film treatment which gives a brief, clear definition. Rossrs 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tinkered with this. The opening now says Thunderball is the ninth of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, which is clearer. It's also Fleming's ninth novel, but that's probably too much information in one space.-Ashley Pomeroy 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good work; am I interested enough in the topic to edit the rest? If I get time; don't you have collaborators who could go through it? It needs a thorough job. Tony 01:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I have made substantial contributions to this article in the past, however a lot of recent work has been done on it by other parties and I think it holds together quite well. 23skidoo 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. I'm a bit of a Bond fan myself. As I walk through the supermarket I like to imagine myself shooting the other shoppers in cold blood, and then kissing them. I am British, just like James Bond. I have been involved in a fight on a train. And I have played golf. But as for the article, and apart from some odd grammar, I believe it is detailed, it covers all the various media including the comic strips, and I enjoy looking at drawings of women in old-fashioned bikinis, and there is one at the top of the article, and that pleases me. On a tangent, I am impressed with the way that the woman on the book cover, drawn in 2003, nonetheless looks like a woman from 1961; women looked different back then, I assume because standards of beauty were different. Couple of things, though. "At the last minute, a reference to a then-recent, famous Great British Train Robbery was inserted into the S.P.E.C.T.R.E meeting near the beginning of the film" - firstly, "a then-recent, famous" is clumsy and secondly what is the reference? Don't answer me here, put it in the article. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makuria

[edit]

Self-nom. A product of my CSB efforts to fill some of the African history gaps, this is a somewhat obscure topic. Also a bit of a difficult one to write about, as so much is not known about this period of history. It has been through peer review and all concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 15:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I made some minor copy edits, mostly to avoid using the same or similar words in too close proximity to one another (period, period, period ==> period, time, era; etc.). Please go over it and make sure I didn't change any meaning by accident. At any rate, a good article. While my support isn't contingent on it, I think it might be a good idea to define the Cataracts and Meroe in the introduction -- A good number of people who might see this article on the main page may not be familiar with the terms. Also, under "Economy", the sentence "The methods used were generally the same that have been used for millennia" should be expanded -- assume the reader doesn't know what these methods are, and define them succinctly. But most of all: Good work! BrianSmithson 17:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very informative. --Michael Snow 20:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While it's annoying that so much information is unavaillable about this kingdom (The words "it is unclear", "scholars disagree about" "modern historians don't know" etc. appear too often) I think this article is pretty comprehensive, considering the limitations of archaelogical knowledge about this kingdom. It's also a bit of a dry read IMHO, but I guess that's because this isn't my field.Borisblue 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-researched and well-written; fascinating stuff. — mark ✎ 08:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very well constructed, comprehensive, interesting. I like seeing "obscure" topics made somewhat less obscure. Rossrs 13:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am impressed, it seems quite comprehensive. History of Africa is definetly on of the less known historical periods, and it's great to see parts of it getting the recognition they deserve. I'd love to see the article on my favourite Kingdom of Aksum expanded like this one day. Keep up the good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great stuff. I fixed one link, I suspect that there may be other minor issues like that in the article, but such things are easily fixed. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written, referenced, and noted. I hope this article intrests someone to fill in those redlinks. Good job. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 21:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One

[edit]

Accurate, well-written, well-organized, and comprehensive. This is a partial self-nom. The concerns raised in its last nomination have been thoroughly addressed. — Dan | Talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
    1. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but no fair use rationale is given.
    2. The image Image:Rntbrm3litergp.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but is not directly related to the article. Any fair use claim is doubtful, and the image should probably be removed.
    3. The image Image:BAR pitstop.jpg is under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
    --Carnildo 06:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This sport is catching popularity in the USA due to Danika Patrick, but this gives newbies a taste of what F1 is like. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object (but almost a support) - Can you please look at the first paragraph in the section "The Future of Formula One" - "Rule changes". Such phrases as "Many within Formula One believe", "have also recently been in doubt" and particularly, "it is said that even..." are all rather weaselish terms. One would be ok, but three in one paragraph makes me think "well who is saying these things?". I'm sure it's well founded but it reads like unsubstantiated speculation, so it's really the tone of it that isn't quite right, rather than the substance. Some old circuits "have to go" and "not safe from the chop" - very colloquial. Could you reword them? I've made some very minor copyedits elsewhere in the article, but I didn't want to fiddle with that paragraph because I think the whole paragraph should be rewritten, and I'm not sure how to best rewrite it. That is my only criticism. I think everything else is excellent. If you can rework that paragraph, I'll definately support. Rossrs 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Object: Some additions needed:
  1. =Modern F1= is too short in comparison to the other history sections. Please increase the length.
  2. ...a qualifying session determines..., I think this should be more specific. Fastest lap time?
  3. Giuseppe Farina won the first... The person is not introduced. It should go like this: "Italian driver GF..."
  4. Cooper is linked to a dab page
  5. Similarly, the nationality of Sterling Moss and others should be mentioned
  6. Please use the wikipedia:footnote3 style of referencing instead of placing the inline link in the current fashion. (see Australia)
  7. How are the points distributed? Is there a page on WP?
  8. Please do not use editable subsections under =external links=, use the ; (semi-colon) to create a heading. (See Economy of India)
  9. Does Geoff Crammond & MicroProse merit an inclusion under =See also=? Hardly anything to do with the core topic.

Otherwise a good article worthy of joining the few FAs we have. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

    • I think we've taken care of every problem except the one with referencing. That page explaining how it works made my head spin. Might it be possible to follow the old way of just collating every source in the references section? Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed the referencing. There's now a very brief summary of the points system under "racing and strategy", but that section's main article, Formula One racing, addresses it in much more depth. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good work, but the ==Reference= section is not done correctly. See Geography of India. The =notes= section handles {{note}}. While all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a =References= section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Read more here as clarified by User:Paul August. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • support but shouldn't the official F1 logo be near the top of the page rather than somewhere in the middle? Borisblue 15:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact it used to be at the top, but someone pointed out that this might appear as though we were using it as a logo for our coverage of the sport, which would be a trademark infringement. I re-inserted a paragraph which used to be under "modern F1" which explains the corporatization of F1 (a very recent phenomenon) and the relevance of the logo at that location. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; there seem to be no more troubling issues with this article. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With this as a featured article, we might be able to court some of the NASCAR dads. . One last thought, I agree with Rdsmith on the F1 logo, but it also seems a bit out of place in its current location. Perhaps just moving it above the "safety is a paramont concern" image would make it seem more in place, or moving it to the left side, so as not to have the pictures stacked -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the logo is a very recent development (pioneered by Bernie Ecclestone as a part of his attempt to build the sport a corporate identity several years ago), I placed it in "modern F1" alongside a description of said corporatization. I feel that the image is still most relevant there. — Dan | Talk 23:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for responding, but I'm asking about something else; the placement of the logo below the "Safety" image looks odd, and I thought it might have been better if it was moved to the left side, or perhaps just above the safety image. I read your comment to the user above, and I realize the reason for the placement so low down, but I don't see why it is so oddly stacked. With your approval, I'll move it. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some quibbles remain:
    Having been an F1 follower for 15 years, the introductory paragraph to this Wiki is very confusing.
    "Formula One, abbreviated to F1, is a type of Grand Prix motor racing."
    (Grand Prix racing IS F1, there are no other types of Grand Prix. Other classes are GP2, F3, etc).
    "It is regarded as the highest class of single-seat open-wheel formula racing and consists of two annual World Championships, one for drivers and one for constructors (teams)."
    Very confusing, as it implies that there are two annnual parallel run series. It is infact a single series where manufacturers and drivers compete for separate championships. 213.84.241.121 (talk · contribs)
Doctorvee has corrected these. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the moment - I am a big fan of the sport, but this article just doesn't grip me at the moment.
    • The intro says F1 is also known as Grand Prix Racing - why, then, do they have separate articles?
    • There are quite a lot of very short paragraphs, which give the prose a choppy feel, and some sections are too heavily abridged from main articles.
    • The history from 1950 to 1980, 1980 to 2000, and 2000 to 2005 each have about the same amount of text - a history should give a bit more detail about the early years I think.
    • The description of the evolution of the sport is a bit confusing in places, eg para 2 of 'The early years' talks about how Jack Brabham demonstrated the superiority of mid-engine designs, then says everyone switched to rear engines in 1961.
    • Some things I think are factually wrong - eg Williams, Ferrari and McLaren being described as 'The Big Three': as long as I've been following F1, those three plus Benetton/Renault have been known as 'The Big Four'.
    • The 'Racing and strategy' section doesn't contain any details of strategies.
    • There is some odd phrasing, such as 'A typical circuit usually...'. Worldtraveller 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Prix motor racing article covers Grand Prix racing from the turn of the century until 1950, when the name Formula One was first used and became the more popular of the two. I'll work on addressing the other objections. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KaDee Strickland

[edit]

Self-nomination. Was on peer review here for a time, and only one objection was raised, which I felt I couldn't address without compromising the verifiability guidelines. I believe it meets the featured article criteria, as well as the standards set by other featured articles about actors and actresses on Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 02:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Looks good. Rather overwhelming list of references, though. --Carnildo 03:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, like Mgm and Rossrs said, that it is better to err on the side of caution when it comes to references. Since there hasn't been a great deal written about her by the media, I had to look in many places to find information on her films. Extraordinary Machine 13:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really liked the article, which is very comprehensive. Carioca 04:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer comprehensive references over something "less overwhelming". They're in a small font to save as much space as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I've never even heard of her, but this is one of the strongest celebrity articles I've seen here. Well done on the image description pages and rationales. I think you justified the large number of references on peer review. Better too many, than not enough. Rossrs 10:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great work. pamri 16:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Never heard of her, but well done all the same. Many celebrity articles (ahem) suffer from a rather fan-ish tone. This one reads as a balanced piece of research. Well done! TreveXtalk 18:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a superb work that needs to be acknowledged by more Wikipedia visitors. PMLF 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice to see a bit of totty on these pages! ;) (thats not my reason for support btw!!) Great article, well done, everything it should be. --PopUpPirate 23:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. That's a heck of a lot of references! Good use and positioning of the pictures, good NPOV, well-written. I believe that the list of roles is not overwhelming, even if they are mostly small parts, but maybe the references section (which is almost longer than the article) needs to be cut down, or moved to something like list of references for KaDee Strickland article (joking...). Congrats on such a nice article -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 22:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC television drama

[edit]

Self-nomination. Something of a labour of love for me this article as it's about a strong particular interest of mine. I appreciate that the subject is quite broad and not one that necessarily stands out as a natural one-article topic, but I felt that the area could do with a decent overview piece. It's been up on peer review for the past week, attracting only one comment which I've dealt with as best I can. (The comment was that BBC children's drama wasn't addressed - I've added a small section, but that's really a topic big enough for its own article, and children's drama was almost always done by the children's rather than the drama department anyway). Angmering 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - I'll add source info and copyright holder. I appreciate that there are a lot of fair use images, but there's little else other than screenshots you can really use to illustrate an article of this type. Angmering 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added rationale and source information to the pictures. I hope this meets the requirements. Angmering 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think fair use screenshots in a BBC Television article rule it out from being a featured article -- otherwise you may as well get rid of the whole fair use provision on wikipedia. Having said that, the fair use rationale procedure mentioned above should be gone through, along with noting the source and copyright holder. The article is informative and well-written... every bit fa material. - Motor (talk) 11:46:12, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead section to try and summarise the article more - any better? Angmering 11:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot better. Could you also make a propper list of the html links given in text using one of the footnoting systems or add them to the reference list, external links should be properly referenced for the reader and for future reference.--nixie 00:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this too. Hope the format's okay. Angmering 10:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I fully support--nixie 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hastle me; I happen to think that BBC Drama is shit, but I'm still gonna' abstain due 2 NPOV. Erwin
While you're of course entitled to your opinion, what you think of the subject matter of the article isn't really relevant - it's what you think of the actual article itself and its suitability or not for featured status that's important here. Angmering 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is a constructive process and is unlike other fora on Wikipedia. It depends upon votes of support or objection. With any objection, it is necessary to explain what it is about the article that precludes support. This allows for the article to be improved accordingly. Un-elaborated objections are inactionable. It is really quite pointless to abstain here - one must either support or object or, of course, comment. Sorry for hassling you, but I found your comments counter-productive.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wanted to abstain. The only good recent drama was "The Alan Clark Diaries", and that's not even in the article. There's your suggestion. Erwin
You're right, mention of the Fictionlab output was missing. I've added a paragraph on their output for the digital channels to the The Modern Era section, including a mention of The Alan Clark Diaries. Angmering 11:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still don't know enough about it to vouch for the material, but it looks well researched and it reads well. Comments. Not ready to support yet. I have specific suggestions which I'll detail, but also I don't know enough about the topic to judge if it is factually correct or NPOV. Also it has been written by primarily one contributor so it doesn't have the benefit of being discussed back and forth by people with different opinions. The language does seem pretty neutral so the article is likely not egregiously POV. Specifc suggestions/concerns: 1) A number of one and two sentence paragraphs (even in the lead) interupt the flow of the prose. They highlight areas that need to be either expanded or merged with related material. 2) How were the book references used in creating or fact checking the article? None of them are cited anywhere in the text from what I can see. Any of the most important facts in the article could stand to cite them to improve the verifiability of the article. Also the references are inconsistent (only the third list is numbered), and the web references don't contain any author, publisher or date information as a full reference listing should if that information is available. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for how to format them. 3) The children's drama being done primarily by another department doesn't seem a good reason to give it such short coverage. Is the article about the BBC drama department or BBC television drama in general? If the latter (which I submit it should be, based on the title), the article should cover the childrens drama in relation to its importance in order to be properly balanced. - Taxman Talk 17:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I hadn't really thought about the issues rising from the fact that it's mostly the work of one editor, i.e. me, but of course you're quite right. Not a lot I can do about that one at the moment though, of course. I've done what I can about the references - hopefully they're now more correctly formatted. As for directly citing the books in the text, that could be problematic at the moment as I don't have the books with me where I'm living at the moment. Some of them I can access copies of at the local library, but getting the direct page notes etc for some of the others might not be possible for a while. The children's drama issue is s sticking point, I agree - but it's *so* big a subject that covering it with any justice would necessitate making an article twice as long as it already is. I thought the better idea would be to leave it until it's well enough researched to have it's own linked piece at BBC children's television drama or similar. Angmering 18:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No you can't entirely fix that, but a number of articles get promoted that are entirely the work of one author. For me, it's just a matter of how clear it is that a lot of research has been done in order to combat the potential negatives as much as possible. After that, I still prefer collaboration, but certainly wouldn't object to a great article only for that. For the book references, more citations would be ideal for points that need it, and please do so for the books you can access. For the ones you can't I was more looking for a confirmation of how and how much you used them. The reference formatting fixes look fine. As for the childrens drama I don't know that it needs to be a major sticking point. It depends on how important it is to the whole subject. If it should be 50/50, yeah that is a major problem, but I'm thinking it is less than that. If it should be 25% of the article for proper balance of the relative importance, then write the appropriate summary of the subject and shorten some of the other sections by summarizing and moving less important details to daughter articles ala Wikipedia:Summary style to make room without making the article too long. You'll have to decide how important the children's drama is to the overall subject, I can't really help with that. Finally still a few more too short paragraphs that could use merging or expanding as per above. - Taxman Talk 19:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone through and merged shorter paragraphs into larger ones where it seems appropriate - I've also bulked up that short paragraph at the end of the lead section, so hopefully that's better. As for the children's drama issue, it's something I'd need to research more as it's not an area I know nearly as much about as adult drama, but doubtless something can be done. Angmering 19:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now expanded the children's drama section as much as I'm able to for the time being, and had a good stab at tying-in the book references to the text which was researched from them. Angmering 13:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Terrific, indeed the quality of this generally one-man effort makes me doubt the wisdom of a collaborative approach for anything more significant than formatting, indexes, layout, research and other mechanical tasks. The only potential fault is that there are a lot of assertions which are not directly tied to a reference - show X was 'incredibly popular' or a 'landmark' or 'innovative' etc - but this isn't really a problem because, in the case of this particular article, I trust the editorial voice. That's one advantage that traditional encyclopaedias and non-fiction books have over Wikipedia, although the flip side is that Wikipedia generally has to try doubly hard to be convincing, and be twice as transparent with its references, and so could potentially be doubly more impressive, because there isn't the reputation of a reputable historian or trustworthy organisation on the chopping-block. Wikipedia needs more people like this Angmering chap, and a bunch of trustworthy policemen to stop vandals from perverting this kind of quality work. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish allotment system

[edit]

Self-nom, text mostly written by me, copyedited and refined mostly by User:Bishonen who has also improved the article in several other ways. User:Karmosin also provided me with some comments on how to improve the article. It also had a peer review which wasn't very comprehensive, but I believe that the thorough check by Bishonen has been even more than you would expect to get from a peer review. :) The article subject itself is interresting as it deals with a unique historical system of recruiting soldiers, a system not (to my knowledge) used anywhere else. -- Elisson • Talk 23:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Object – =background=, =navy= and =officers= sections are too short. Merge with another section or expand. I've revied part of the article (full review later) but this sentence caught my eye: Nobles and farms on land owned by nobles were exempted and did not need to provide soldiers to the system. Its not framed correctly and not mentioned why they were exempted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • All mentioned sections expanded in one way or another. =background= is hard to expand much more without having to describe the older "systems" in detail, which is not covered by the scope of this particular article. None the less, I think the background should have its own section (and it is currently longer than many first level sections in other featured articles). The sections expanded (may) need some copyediting. How would you rephrase the sentence? Something along the lines of: Farms on land owned by nobles and the estates of nobles were exempted and did not need to provide soldiers to the system.? They were exempted because they were nobles or owned by nobles. Easy as that. Don't know how to clarify that, got any ideas? -- Elisson • Talk 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its an interensting subject but it definately needs to be copyedited. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it would need a more thorough copyedit. The article does not flow smoothly and has some odd sentences here and there. For example the forced conscription was disliked and the reasons for the dislike are given later instead of alongside. Also the =new syste= should begin with the drawbacks of the old system, then discuss about what was done and when. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Article has now been copyedited (by User:Denelson83). "Later", in the case about the disliking, means the next sentence in the following paragraph, a paragraph which deals entirely with reasons why the system was disliked. I don't think I can solve that in a better way. Suggestions? The drawbacks of the old system are mentioned in the section about the old system because they relate to the old system. ;) You want the drawbacks closer to the mention that the system was disliked, but at the same time want them moved to the next section? Doesn't make sense. ;) I'd like you to clarify even more about the things you think I need to fix, or even edit the article yourself to show how you'd like it. -- Elisson • Talk 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That copyedit has done wonders to the readability. Thanks Denelson!
  • Support, interesting and unusual article. I've only done a bit of an EAL copyedit, in spite of Johan's kind words, so I feel quite righteous about voting. The article seems comprehensive to me, I can't think of anything missing. OTOH, the author is going into uncharted territory, without any model page to follow, so I have a bit of a feeling others may be able to suggest further interesting perspectives. (Pending that, my support is a little tentative.) It's well-referenced, although both print and online sources are all in Swedish. That's positive in a sense (=Wikipedia is yet again unique on the web in bringing a subject to Anglophone readers), but of course also frustrating for non-Swedish speakers wanting to check out the information. It looks good to me, though. While the online sources are maintained by seriously-addicted hobbyists (nothing wrong with them on that level, either) rather than published military historians, the authors of the two print sources are widely published and clearly very reputable. I'd give links to the quite impressive searches for them in the Swedish LIBRIS database, except that those would soon only lead to timed-out sessions. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems fine to me. Many references. Andre (talk) 22:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The subject matter is interesting and Elisson has made a good job of incorporating exactly what I asked for in the PR. One quibble, though. Even if Image:Pikemen musketeers.jpg is very nice and informative, I have doubts about calling it "fair use". Doesn't the article have to be about the book to merit inclusion? / Peter Isotalo 09:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had some concerns about that. The image can be removed without ruining the article, so that isn't any problem, but I'd like to keep it there. I do however not believe that the image has to be about the book in this case, as the drawing might even not have been drawn for that specific book? It is not the cover of the book. -- Elisson • Talk 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport

[edit]

--Self nom: The 'Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport', (better known as the BEST) is the public transport company and electricity provider of Mumbai, India. It has a very interesting history from horse drawn trams to electric trams, electricity generation and later buses. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Another great effort by Nichalp. pamri 15:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done Nichalp!! Great work. Meets all the requirements of FA - interesting, factually accurate, NPoV, images and references.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well written, informative and a good read. Deserves to be a FA in my opinion. WegianWarrior 06:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, another good article on a lesser known subject. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting, well written/illustrated/referenced. Rossrs 13:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, for the following reasons:
    • The Finance section still needs more details.
      • Is the company subsidised by the government?
      • Is the company expected to maximize profit?
      • What were the "new management techniques" that reduced losses?
      • Why can't the company hike (increase) utility and transport prices? Do they need government/parliamentary approval? Or is it just that they are expected to keep prices at the lowest posssible value that is sustainable for their business?
      • Does the company pay the government dividends?
    • Some corporate information such as the company's vision, mission statement and goals would be helpful. There's no need to be too detailed a couple of sentences will do.
    • The article states "with a consumption of 3,216 million units" but what are the units? Are they kilowatt-hours?
    • The MERC pdf is not properly linked.
    • The New Oxford American dictionary defines a public company as "a company whose shares are traded freely on a stock exchange." The infobox is therefore misleading to those who interpret it this way.
    • The "Bombay Omnibus Service" is not explained try something like "Bombay Omnibus Service, an existing transport company,"
    • "The bus service served as the common mode of transport for the middle and upper middle classes, while the trams were relegated as the poor man's transport." Why? It need only be a short explaination for example, "Due to higher-priced fares, the bus service..."
    • "cr." in the infobox should be linked to crore and try using "$... USD" instead of "... US$"
    • "This astute move" is POV, try "This move"
    • "Alternating current" and "Direct current" are not proper nouns.
    • "resulting in the BEST securing a complete monopoly over bus services in the Greater Bombay area." Why?
    • "These buses have a capacity of 110, and were introduced in 1997." - no need for the comma.
    • "Expresses buses" is grammatically incorrect, try "Express buses".
    • Does BEST generate any power? From the sound of the article they are involved strictly in power distribution. If this is so, this point needs to be made clear.
    • Volt is typically denoted by a capital "V" making a kilovolt "kV"
    • "bifurcated into two regions" is a tautology. Consider replacing "bifurcated" with a simpler word such as "divided".
    • Something describing the quantity of power the company distributes is necessary.
Good article though. I may have a few more comments soon. As I said for In-N-Out further insights into business strategy are always welcome. Cedars 16:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I've replaced Public by "Private (govt. owned)". I hope this is acceptable.
      2. As far as the Bombay Omnibus Service goes, there's no report of its prior existance or if it was newly formed back them. Source Any suggestions what to do here?
      3. Modified to: The trams meanwhile, due to its lower fares were relegated as the poor man's transport.
      4. cr. in the infobox linked, $--USD done.
      5. astute removed. (Thanks for noticing it)
      6. AC and DC made common nouns
      7. Court issue: modified the paragraph.
      8. comma removed
      9. Expressess buses was a genuine typo. Corrected.
      10. That is mentioned in the history section, just above the =advent= section. I've reinforced this in the =Power= section.
      11. kv corrected to kV
      12. bifurcated --> divided
      13. Quantity in MW? I'm not sure. I have the Tata figures (2.7 GW) with me, but part of this figure is also supplied to other companies. I've emailed the TATA site. Will add once I get a reply. (PS I do have some exact figures, but those are dated.)
      14. 1) Its not subsidised by the government (inote+link ref added), 2) Not sure about maximizing profits. 3) Added some info on new techniques.

Thanks for the suggestions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  1. I have no references stating that the Bombay Omnibus Company existed or was a proposed company then. If I modify the text to "an existing company", it may be incorrect. I would prefer not to modify.
I realize I misread your response, the objection was a minor one so I've now crossed it out.
  1. resulting in the BEST securing a complete monopoly over bus services in the Greater Bombay area has been modified to That year the Undertaking and private operators went to court with the BEST asking for a complete closure of the private companies. The case dragged on for four years before the Supreme Court of India granted the organisation a complete monopoly over bus services in the Greater Bombay area. Is this Ok, or should is there somthing you still want addressed?
I'm guessing some specific piece of legislation was central in that decision. What was the name of that legislation?
  1. Quantity of power. I'm waiting for a reply email. If I don't get one in time, would a dated (1998 exact, or 2002 approx) figure do?
Dated figures are fine.
  1. Is the company expected to maximize profit. I think all companies would like to maximize profits, please let me know what is meant by that.
A related question is does the company pay dividends to the government? Australia Post does but the Australian Broadcasting Corporation doesn't. One of the aims of Australia Post is profitbility but not so with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation whose main aim is to engage their audience. As a result of this, the ABC continues to forego advertising despite the way this obviously hurts their profitability. The thing with a state-owned enterprise is that it may not actually aim to make a profit but rather to provide the best, most affordable service to the public it can. For example rather than charging 8c/kWh the company may instead charge 5c/kWh even though the 8c/kWh may be more profitable. This may be because the company's aim is to serve the community and only turn as much profit as is necessary for infrastructure expansion.
Good work! Cedars 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've added information on the company not maximising its profits as it is a public utility company. 2) I can't find any additional information on the BEST website on the supreme court ruling. Its a long time back, to additional online references are non-existant. 3) Added power in MW (dated 2000). =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
1) The company can hike the fares, but BMC approval is needed. It was already mentioned, but I've reinforced this in =Finances=. 2) There's no clear cut vision statement. Its embedded here and there in the text. eg. GPS in =transport=, solar power in =electricity=. I have added a note on its 'digitisation project' in =organisation=. I think it qualifies as a major goal. 3) pdf link corrected 4) KWH added to units. 5) Dividends.: It would have to make a tidy profit first :) There's nothing mentioned on the site about this: [7]. I don't suppose govt owned companies do, but since I have no references, I can't add. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Krag-Petersson

[edit]

Selfnomination. The article has been throught a peer review, a (failed) FAC, and another peer review. I feel the article as it now is ready for FA-status - much more so than last time it went on FAC - and that all the issues raised have been adressed.

I truely do feel that this is a very comprehensive article avilable on the Krag-Petersson rifle; one of the first (if not the first) repeating rifles adopted by any armed force. I also believe it follows all the guidelines for a FA. However, if you do spot somethign that needs improving, I'm more than happy to fix it.

WegianWarrior 08:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – would prefer {{inote}} to {{ref}} in this case. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 05:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good. Seems to meet all criteria. Rossrs 13:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Looks good to me. — RJH 14:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, interesting read. Phoenix2 16:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just remove those 18 footnotes to Norske Militærgeværer etter 1867 and settle for the entry in the reference section. Those very, very few who can get a hold of the book (and also happen to speak Norwegian) will know what to look for and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references. / Peter Isotalo 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no value to removing them. They serve to help verifiability. Convert them to inotes if you like, but the criteria specifically call for inline citations. - Taxman Talk 11:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no value in keeping them. They're overly pedantic and letting them be encourages people to keep on misusing footnotes. The criteria says "...enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations". "Inline citation" doesn't mean "footnote" to begin with and intepreting "appropriate" as "mandatory" requires a good deal of imagination. Referencing things like uncontroversial historical dates and effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose. I do appreciate that you want articles to be well-referenced, but it's very obviously going too far in a lot of articles. Try not to defend references for their own sake or we'll get even more footnote-disasasters like names of the Greeks. Notes 10-12 and the one refering to the New Testament are among the prime examples of how to never, ever use a footnote. / Peter Isotalo 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taxman, are you sure you're not going on automatic in opposing Peter Isotalo here, just because the two of you are already at loggerheads about referencing? I don't always agree with Peter in that debate, but here he's just, well, right. Wegan Warrior, I'm sorry if I seem to be jumping on you, and I'm sorry I wasn't around to catch this detail on Peer review. It's not the case that verifiability becomes fuller, or more exact, the more notes you have. Sometimes it does, here it doesn't. First, having so many notes that say "ibid" is an obsolete way of doing things—a relic of a leisurely era—modern style sheets recommend much leaner and meaner systems. Also, I can't tell what information they're references for, from the way they're placed in the text. It sort of looks like statements like "The function of the extractor was particularly praised in the official reports" are referenced by a mere entry in column--I don't have the source, but it seems surprising. WW, is that it, or are the notes meant merely to indicate where in a column some particular model (or, uh, part of a model...? a measurement..?) appears? If so, don't do it; the reader can locate it easily, just tell him/her, once, what book to look in. Replace all these notes with a single reference that says something like "Unless otherwise indicated, the models (ranges...?) discussed are tabulated in this work". These footnotes are purely decorative. There is value to removing something that distracts/intimidates the reader without adding actual information. I'd do it myself if I could tell a gun from a hole in the ground, i. e., if I could tell how to phrase the single reference. And, no, please don't just make them invisible, where's the sense in that? If they were useful, they should be visible. If, as is the case, they're not useful, they should go. And in case the notes stay nevertheless, some technicalities: 21 and 24 don't work, 3 and 4 are reversed (I don't know how that's possible, since the numbering is supposed to be automatic--a bug?), and there's some sort of mixup with 15 to 17 that I can't rightly sort out. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but you're both wrong. I'm not knee jerk reacting to Peter, he is simply going against what the criteria call for. Appropriate clearly means they have to be there, but doesn't specify how many or what form. Appropriate cannot mean none. And there was long and involved discussions in a number of places to solidify the consensus around the way the criteria read now. If you have preferences that are counter to the criteria, I'm fine with that, but discuss it in the proper place, don't give incorrect comments to a nomination. We apply the criteria, not our whims, and the criteria call for inline citations. Peter, you're right, they don't specify footnotes as the way to go, any format is fine. And Bishonen, if the primary objection is they look bad, then making them invisible is perfectly valid way to avoid that, but still aid verifiability. I can still edit the source and see the citation information. Again, have the conversation in the right place, and don't give wrong advice here. - Taxman Talk 15:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
            • That's what you got out of that—my primary objection is they look bad? Don't worry, I'm done, I won't offer any more whims and preferences. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh come now, I wasn't meaning to be offensive, and I'm sorry if I was. I just had a very limited time to make that edit. I was using "look bad" to stand for all the arguments of them being distracting, etc. As I mentioned inotes solves that part of the problem anyway, without much loss of verifiability. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
          • Taxman, what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC. Countering by (somewhat erroneously) claiming that they're mandatory is not the least bit relevant. You're also insisting on a very narrow interpretation of the criteria despite the fact that they're ambiguously worded. What bish and I are saying is that citations and footnotes should be used with moderation and common sense (and perhaps advice from people who have proper experience of using them). If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article "...enhanced by appropriate usage..." might just as well be interpreted as "none" (though not in this particular case). To claim that they have to be mandatory is informal instruction creep and seems a bit like an attempt to supress differing opinions. You're right that this is not really the right forum for this discussion, but since you're clearly misrepresenting our objections and trying to make this into some sort of policy violation, it's hardly prudent to demand that we take it elsewhere. / Peter Isotalo 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's quite different. See below. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'm confundled - not about the broken notes, which I fixed (fingertrouble on my part, and forgetting to shuffle the notes after shuffling sections of the article around), but about what is really required of citations. When I placed Jarmann M1884 on FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jarmann M1884), I was told that all historical information should be referenced with footnotes. Now I'm being told that items at least I consider significant, like the details of the official reports, shouldn't be cited. And to top it off, it seeems like there has broken out a small fight over various systems for doing it - I'm not keen on the {{inote}} myself, because it hides things from the casuall reader, but I have made a test of it in my user-space. Now, On one hand we have the need for inline citations of historical information, on the other the need to 'reduse clutter'. Could the version with the {{inote}}'s be a solution people can agree on? WegianWarrior 07:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS: Same goes for when I had the Krag-Jørgensen on FAC, inline citations and footnotes of historical information was apparantly important in the article. I'm still confundled as to whats the proper way to do that apperantly. WegianWarrior 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your frustration, Wegian. The problem is simply that people haven't really given much thought to how and why citations and notes should be used, only that they have to be used. I hate to say it, but anyone who claims that you have to precisely reference every historical fact clearly has little or no pre-wiki experience of footnotes. / Peter Isotalo 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually people have given a lot of thought to it and there have been extensive discussions about it. Clearly, you're just not aware of those discussions, but don't claim they didn't occur when you don't know. Numerous nominations have also helped evolve the consensus and that came to the fact that the criteria call for them to be used, and that appropriate specifically does not mean none. It does represent a strengthening of the criteria, and we were all well aware of that when the discussion was going on. So, I'm not misrepresenting, you are clearly calling for something different from what the criteria do. Again, if you would like to influence or change policy, please do it at the talk pages Wikipedia:Cite sources and or Wikipedia:What is a featured article where most of the consensus for this part of the criteria was built. And please go read the discussions there before you claim I'm misrepresenting. After that, and in the proper place I would welcome any input you may bring with your additional experience. To WW, yes, inotes would meet my criteria since they still help verifiability, and still avoid the clutter that other people find distracting, etc. It's not ideal, but we don't have an ideal system yet. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
              • So let's sum this up, then. I'm going against an undeniable and undisputeable previous consensus decision that apparantly was so unanimous that it didn't even require the polcy documents to clearly show its intents. I think you're the one who needs to go lobby for a policy change. / Peter Isotalo 08:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • WW, I'm sorry my input was unhelpful. Please note that I haven't objected, and I don't have anything more to say, so don't be concerned about my comment. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. Such heat, so little light! The fact is that all disciplines, all professors, all editors (the kind who work at academic presses, not the kind who contribute to Wikipedia) have preferences in how much is cited. However, Bishonen is quite correct in saying that the style sheets used by most in the humanities (including therefore History and its children, military history and cultural history) shy away from noting every fact. We're not quite at the "cite only if it's controversial" stage, but we're not trying to "show your work" by establishing every place that an author learned a thing, either. The critical axes, it seems to me, are readability and reproducibility. (Footnotes are, in act, our version of scientific method.) If the punctuation of the text by note breaks up readability, then the thing should be rewritten to make the notes less necessary. If the author is switching between sources for unavailable facts, citation is necessary. Otherwise, it's easy to put a note up saying, "Material on the easing of the spring taken from Bob and Robert 4-15": that note lodges the discussion without puncturing the prose. Unreadable because overly cited is bad. Geogre 19:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, I hope no one has bad feelings over making me a bit confused - after all, I'm not angry or upset. My goal is to write the best articles I can, and to that end I do try to make sure I follow the rules; allthought it's obvious that the rules in this cause is more of a guideline. However, would it be an idea to make some sort of list somewhere that gives samples of what sort of things ought to be cited in different sorts of articles? WegianWarrior 08:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although a quick definition of the word breechblock within the article would be nice to have. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, now that I've waded into it. It looks very well done and researched, which I obviously think is important. Sorry for any fireworks, just intending to be accurate. I would prefer though the couple orphan one or two sentence paragraphs be merged into other paragraphs or expanded if possible. They just break up the flow too much, and I've never seen encyclopedic prose that didn't read better without them. - Taxman Talk 23:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - but I agree that the pile of ibid. notes is not necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble Deep Field

[edit]

The HDF is a landmark image in the study of the early universe and one of the most technically impressive ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. I've been working on its article recently and hope I have given a good account of how it was made and what it's been good for, so I am nominating it here for featured status. Worldtraveller 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through it some times, and (as you can see) haven't found much to edit. It's a great article, uncovering how much planning and thought that went into the image. Just some comments on an article that should become featured, I think:
  • Could we link to or produce and image like Image:Ursa major constellation map.png (or more detailed) with the location of the Field crossed out?
  • The external links need link titles
  • I really like the References style.
  • This site has a HDF image with much better resolution, although it's not the exact mosaic in the article. Can we get this image aboard Wikipedia?
  • Are there any named objects visible in the picture that should be pointed out?
— Sverdrup 14:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and copyediting!
  • I had thought of doing an image showing the location of the HDF on a map of Ursa Major - decided against it for now as it didn't look very good on Image:Ursa major constellation map.png when I tried it. I thought I would see if I could find an appropriately licensed photo of the constellation to work with - I may even have an image of my own I could use - I will work on this.
  • I've titled the external links now.
  • The version you linked to is only one quarter of the whole thing, it's the lower left quadrant, so rather than upload that, I have uploaded the full resolution image of the whole field, which has similarly high resolution.
  • As for names of objects, they all have very boring catalogue designations as they were pretty much all newly discovered objects. I could give a few names for the sake of example but I'm not sure they would be very interesting? Worldtraveller 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I can think of some room for improvement that isn't necessary to meet FA status. The lead, for example, is introductory, and there should perhaps be some summary before introduction (e.g. the simple sentence "what it's all about" before the "the story begins here"). To some degree, there wasn't a single revelation from the HDF, so something like that might not be possible, but a single big sentence for the quick reader (and for the main page) would help ("The Hubble Deep Field is a composite photograph of the sky by the Hubble Space Telescope that revealed surprising numbers of high red shift galaxies, confirmed the cosmological principle, and has been the source for over five hundred journal articles since its publication" -- you know, the quick hit summary). Well cited, well illustrated (though I wish the images were larger and we spent more time with the more striking ones), and well written. Geogre 21:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pretty pictures! --Carnildo 05:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quite pretty pictures indeed, and pleasant text to boot. Anville 19:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Phils 22:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a great article. Raven4x4x 12:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Intresting, nicely written, and nicely referenced--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 05:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely fabulous. --maclean25 06:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I've spent several hours editing this article at the clause level. It's good. Tony 10:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read it long before seeing it here and it was kick-ass even back then. It's nice to see a fairly concise FAC for a change. And excellent, non-cluttering referencing to boot. / Peter Isotalo 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quantumstream 00:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although perhaps a few more footnotes. There's an inline weblink in the "Target selection" section that could be converted to such. Also, it would be nice if Hubble Deep Field South was no longer red. A good article, and easily read.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is excellent, but I have some minor comments: (i) What is the area of sky covered by the HDF? The lead section mentions a tennis ball at 100m, but the actual area should be mentioned in square degrees or steradians. (Since the large chips are 800 pixels each, and each pixel is 0.09 arcsec, presumably it is 144 arcsec on a side? I also can't see the area of the field mentioned in Hubble Telescope or WFPC.); (ii) I agree that an image showing the location of the HDF in the sky would be helpful (preferably a whole-sky image showing the HDF-S and HUDFtoo, or, at a push, just an image of Ursa Major with the HDF located); (iii) The image captions are rather poor - they should be prose sentences with some wikilinks: the areas of the images in section 2 and 4 should be noted; (iv) Would it be possible for the image in section 2 to indicate the location of the HDF (e.g. outlined)? Does it include any well-known stars in Ursa Major? (v) Why doesn't the HDF-S image have the ususal "step" shape? Is this the whole image? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; sound article, worthwhile subject. Erwin

Cerebellum

[edit]

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

  • Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

  • General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.
  • Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

  • Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

[edit]

Partial self-nomination. This is the second article we've worked on at the fledgling Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. We've been working hard on this article for a couple weeks and feel it has improved significantly. It was listed on Wikipedia:Peer review (see project page) on August 11th and we have done our best to incorporate the helpful suggestions given. I don't have any experience with WP:FAC, and I don't believe the other participants do either, so we would appreciate any suggestions from the reviewers for how we can further improve the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Very good. Could do with better reference system and a description of the staggered approach (e.g. first β2 agonists, then steroids, then long-acting bronchodilators etc etc) as used by the BTS and elsewhere. I miss "alternative medicine" and a consideration whether it contributes to COPD later in life, and smoking should be mentioned as detrimental. Finally, did we mention active avoidance of allergens and removing them (although this is old-fashioned and poorly supported by evidence). JFW | T@lk 07:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Simply fantastic improvements. Comments. Hmm I didn't reallize you planned to bring this to FAC so soon, as there are still a few issues. But since most of the article is very good, I think we can get any issues fixed up well. I'll try to be detailed here not because the article is bad but to help it be great. Besides the pathophisiology section the rest seems to lack the depth of research one might expect for a medical related article. 1) For example the treatment guidelines seem to conflict a bit. The top treatment paragraph mentiond leukotriene inhibitors can be used instead, while in the preventer section it is mentioned preventers can be layered. Which ones can be layered? I thought leuk. and corticosteroids could be, but I could be wrong. Do you have a reference for what the standard first line treatment recommendations are? For ex from the American pediatrics community vs European or other. Do they differ? 2) Some mention of the side effects of the primary drugs would be good too. 3) I also agree coverage of alternative medicine should be included. 4) What is the relation to exercise recommendations? Does it help asthma symptoms in the long run or no? Swimming is often recommended as good exercise that doesn't trigger asthma as much, but I don't know if that is a current recommendation. 5) As in peer review I think a mention should be made of athletes with asthma, even some olympic runners have it. If you really feel it is not important enough for inclusion then I'm ok with that. 6) I really think the reliever and preventer phrasing is innapropriate for the headings. That may be the words used with children, but most children with asthma aren't going to be reading this article. 7) Lung modification, I saw the addition that there was none, but a pediatrician friend told me I should stay with a long acting preventive treatment in order to avoid the modification that occurs from attacks. That may be based on newer information or research than the article so a citation for that would be good. So for any potentially contentious facts or for very important points citation to the most reliable source available would help meet the criteria. I've been meaning to dig up what I could, so I'll try to move along a little faster to find the material. - Taxman Talk 14:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (Partial self-nomination)
    • Yes, some work yet to do on article (both simplifying some of pathophysiology and increasing breadth of the article). I hope to continue contributing to this article, but my free-time is short,so I'll try on & off over the next couple weeks.
    • re "Relievers" / "Preventers" these are terms we (doctors and Asthma-UK patient organisation) use in UK (see Management PDF). The terms apply not only for children, but especially with adults to help explain that steroids must be used all the time and not just when symptomatic and that by so doing, they will help lessen need for the short acting dilators (salbutamol). Dilator use does not prevent asthmatic deaths, failure to grow in children with severe asthma nor time lost from school/work, but steroids are shown to do this (excess of course can affect growth).
    • It is perhaps the hardest part of helping asthmatics to manage their condition to persuade people to use something (a steroid) that gives no immediate effect unlike the very obvious response bronchodilators. No "normal" patient knows what bronchodilator or beta2-adrenoceptor agonist means, and the term "steroid" frightens may from using.
    • I, from the UK perspective, would strongly urge that these terms help the non-medic understand the role of different types of drugs used for asthma. Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, but is meant for the 'general public', patients and friend/family of patients. David Ruben 17:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but I wasn't saying remove the terms, just put the section headings back to a less colloquial form like preventative treatments and relief treatments or something to that effect. Then include a mention of the other terms if they are common. I also noticed that glucocorticoid is mentioned first and then corticosteroid is used later without any explanation of whether they are the same or different. Also, isn't theophylline sometimes still used as an ongoing treatment, and not just in an emergency situation? - Taxman Talk 21:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the feedback. Taxman, I'm sorry if I nominated this earlier than you intended. I am excited by the improvement in the article and may have gotten carried away, but I am confident that the article can be improved enough to merit being selected as a featured article, if it does not already (regardless, we will of course continue to improve the article). Dr. deWolff, are there specific parts you would like footnotes for or what are you suggesting? I've seen previous FACs get criticized for overuse of inline footnotes, so we left the references at the bottom for the most part. Maybe some of the statistics? I'll work on putting more detail into the treatment. I'll do some research too on smoking/COPD correlation. I don't have any information on alternative medicine but I'll bring it up on the talk page and see if anyone else does. Yes, allergen avoidance is mentioned under Asthma#Treatment. I didn't put side effects in because I didn't want to clutter the article, but if you feel they are appropriate, I'll put them in. I'll also expand the section about exercise, but I am not sure about athletes with asthma. I agree that the "reliever" and "preventer" sound too childish for headings. Incidentally, Dr. Ruben, I know you mentioned that no "normal" patient knows what bronchodilator means, and that may be true in the UK, but in the U.S. that is the term our patients know the medications by (not β2-adrenoreceptor agonist though). I don't want to use country-specific terminolgy and both can be included, but I do feel that those terms are too informal to use for article headings. I don't believe that there is any evidence that asthma progresses or, given that, that steroids reduce progression, but I will look to see if I can find a study specifically addressing that. Thanks again! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I got some of the updates in. Mr.Bip and Encephalon are putting some great work in finding and listing references. I'll work on incorporating some of them into the article to help fulfill your suggestions, Taxman, but it will take me a couple days because I am on call at the hospital tomorrow (which means I won't come home until the day after). Hope you don't mind giving us a few more days to fix up these sections. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Honestly this is an extremely well-written, thorough article. I'm not a clinician, so this is outside my specialty, however I read through it late last night and was very impressed. I made a few minor changes in the first three sections, but those are simply stylistic and it's difficult to say whose version is better. I'd like some more wikification of topics... but I tend to be very "wiki happy" with my articles, and I'm not sure where my preferences stand in relation to standard wiki etiquette. I'll read through this article more closely tonight to add some more in depth analysis and criticism. All-around however, every topic that I thought should be included was. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternative treatment, more treatment details, and athletes with asthma are in, at least in basic format; I'll work on expanding them. We're redoing the reference system. I'll get to smoking/COPD and permanent lung damage later. There are conflicting reports regarding irreversible lung changes, although it appears that there is more evidence that early glucocorticoid use can prevent long-term lung changes. What is less clear, though, is if this has any correlation with progression of asthma: some lung parameters might decline, but it looks like there is no evidence that someone would progress from mild to moderate or moderate to severe asthma. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • I apologize for moving slowly on addressing concerns. I know we are all busy, but residency has left me with less free time than I have ever had before. I hope this will not hurt our chances for achieving featured status even if it takes me some time to make all the appopriate improvements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well all the recent efforts look great, the article has really improved in my book. The references look great, I'm not picky as to what style is used specifically. Addressing the major points in the journal articles on the talk page would solve almost everything left that I can think of, and you seem to have it outlined well above. The one article on lung changes is a review of the current literature and states that thee is some conflicting reports so noting that they do occur, but also where the conflicts are would cover that just fine. I agree that the article notes lung parameters decline, but that no link is made to a progression to more severe catagories of asthma. Our article should do the same basically. Finish what you have planned for these points and I anticipate adding my full support. This has already been here for a while, if Raul654 wants to let it stay for longer it's up to him, but that's my preference as long as you can get the above fixed in a couple days. - Taxman Talk 21:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for all your advice, Taxman. I think we have now incorporated all the areas you suggested. Is there anything that I've missed or are there any other comments or suggestions anyone else has? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
            • More than welcome. Being an asthmatic with a strong science interesst I can spot the things needed, but not always understand them enough to fix them. I'm glad that helped. I've switched to support, because overall it is really good now, but still two things would improve it more. The alternative medicine section still needs expansion to say what treatments are used, and you should probably link to Complementary and alternative medicine. That would be enough there in my opinion. Then the addition of general side effects to the preventative treatment section really helped I think. How can the article be comprehensive if it only notes the treatments are good, but not the (small %) bad effects? So that should be extended to the other treatments, with perhaps the emergency section only getting a blanket statement that higher doses and emergency treatments do carry higher risks, but that is balanced against the urgency of the problem. That sounds valid to me, but I'll let you be the judge. Also shouldn't theophyline also go in the preventive treatment section, as I thought it still was used as a last resort preventive treatment, not just in emergency situations. Again, I'll let you be the judge. And finally, every medical definition of asthma I've seen refers to reversibility, as does the diagnosis section of the article, so shouldn't the lead? - Taxman Talk 16:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
              • Taxman, you're an awesome critic, and I hope you'll continue to offer your thoughts on all the articles that we work on for the MCOTW. I'd like you to consider joining us as a regular participant: the "intelligent layperson" perspective is very valuable. Regarding the above, a new section on alternative medicine for asthma has been completed. I'd have posted it earlier, but my computer did a bad thing and ate it all up, and I had to rewrite. I referenced it quite heavily, as that is often the most contentious area in any given treatment of medical topics. Your suggestion on linking to the main article is good, I'll look into it. Re: theophylline, it's actually not that commonly used either way. In emergencies, adding it to B2 agonists does not give significant benefit, but increases risk of tachyarrhythmias/tremor/nausea/etc. It's used as a last ditch (ie. pt failing everything else). For long term management it's a possible candidate if i.steroid + addon does not = good control. So yeah, it could be added as a possible option. Re: the emerg caveat, I'm not sure it's necessary; if the others want to add it I wont object. Re the lead, I think it's written as a simple overview of some of the major aspects of asthma; reversibility mentioned later on is fine. Cheers—Encephalon | ζ  18:56:31, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Oh. and I'd like to SUPPORT please!—Encephalon | ζ  18:57:31, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

                • Oh, well thanks. It's nice to be wanted, though for most medical topics I'm probably better at the peer review stage to help iron out the final issues and give the overview advice. So if you'd like to nominate all your articles there once they've finished the collaboration focus stage, and give me a nudge if I forget to notice them, that's where I could probably help the most. It works the best if there are people willing to impliment good suggestions, as happened very well in this case. So if you guys want to keep that up, I'll keep reviewing. Also I just happened to have a little more knowledge about asthma. As for the article, I was aware theophylline was last ditch, so the way it is now is fine. For the caveat part I was only suggesting that as an easier alternative than discussing side effects of each type of medicine. But I do feel side effects for each ype of treatment are pretty important in order to be complete, so whatever you think is best to cover that. - Taxman Talk 20:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like Encephalon pretty much took care of that stuff. Anything else that can be done? Incidentally, I'm on call again tomorrow, which means I won't come home until the following day (and I'll probably sleep all day after that), so if there are any new suggestions I might not get to them for a couple days. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Needs editing; then I'll probably support. Tony 07:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, Tony, and for going through the article and fixing it up. I'd hoped it was in good shape by this point; is there a specific paragraph or section that could use improvement in your opinion, or do you feel it overall needs to be cleaned up? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I went through and made a few small changes, as did Mr.Bip. I think it's pretty good now; of course, I'll continue to read over it and fix awkward phrasing and such when I see it. If there is a particularly problematic section, please let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Some links to some well thoughtout feedback: Peer review/Asthma, and Talk:Asthma#"Layperson's Review" of Asthma article (Avocado's layperson-review). (courtesy of Mr.Bip) David Ruben 18:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object; no mention of ventolin. Erwin
Ventolin is a trade name, the drug is mentioned under its generic name, Salbutamol. --WS 11:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sociocultural evolution

[edit]

2nd attempt, self-nom. Hopefully it will get more then 4 votes it did last time. I think objections are adressed: pics have proper copyright notice, several references and footnotes are added and lead has been decresed by 25%. I feel that any further reduction of lead would damage the article (see also Wikipedia 1.0 lead requirements), besides, we have many FAs with longer leads. Click here for former nomination. Your comments, as always, much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A long read, but well presented and argued. The only change that I would make would be to shorten the sections that have their own articles (such as Neoevolutionism and Sociobiology). slambo 02:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Really well written. I don't understand the creation of the Overview section (I never though the intro was too long), but it doesn't matter. Also I don't know if you need to repeat all of the references that are also in the notes section. -MechBrowman 03:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good, Piotrus. The lead is definitely more readable, and the rest of the article is quite comprehensive. --Pariah 03:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski

[edit]

This is an article on a major 20th century classical composer, which seems comprehensive to me. It's a partial self-nom; I carried out a significant rewrite in May, since when it has undergone peer review which resulted in several improvements. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As seems all too common with our Polish history articles, even the well-written ones like this, there's a right-wing nationalist perspective pervading them. The anti-Soviet bias in particular knows no bounds, even in an article on a composer: "It was with his substantial Concerto for Orchestra, also completed in 1954, that Lutosławski made his name. Much of the work is based on folk music, and in what may be seen as a cynical attempt to imply that this was in accord with the authorities' principles he was awarded the State Prize for Music." Must evil motives be attributed to every action of the socialist government, even such a harmless measure as awarding a prize for a musical piece? This kind of thing gets kind of nauseating to read after a while, no matter how well it's written. NPOV needs to come first. Everyking 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry it nauseates you. The point is that the award was made for the government's political ends, and not because they loved his music (it's plain they didn't approve on the whole). I see no "evil motives" implied in the article; awarding a prize for political reasons seems to me to fall under the category of patronage, which any government does; surely this behaviour can be described as cynical (conduct in self-interest). I believe the passage is true and relevant. Lutosławski himself was not pleased at the award - knowing what I do about him I believe he thought it was cynical; Charles Bodman Rae knew the composer well, and his book (referenced in the article) implies cynicism. Is it the word "cynical" you object to? Would you like it to be replaced with "political" (I would have no objection). Or can you suggest an alternative? I should be grateful if you would be more specific, otherwise there's no way for me to address the objection. And Are there any more examples of "right-wing nationalist" POV you see in the article that I can address? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slept on it. Agree with Piotrus: I will recast the sentence incorporating Antandrus' sensible take on it below. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to execute a complete volte-face. I checked up and find I must have been confused. It was the Prime Minister's prizes for the little pieces of "functional music" which Lutosławski viewed as wilfully misrepresenting his works as supportive of the artistic aims of the regime, and my mind had conflated those awards with the State prizes of 1955. So I have recast the sentence altogether. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. All three images in the article are claimed as public domain, but Image:Lutoslawski.jpg is from a copyrighted web site, and Image:Lutoslawski3.jpg is from a page with a photographer's copyright statement. I'd like some evidence that the images are indeed in the public domain. --Carnildo 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear; the uploader is currently on vacation. She did assure me here that they really are public domain. Advice, please. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that Karol Langner, who uploaded the images, has already done this I believe. I don't understand why Wikipedia needs it to be done again, to the inconvenience of the parties already contacted. Carnildo's objection is that he'd "like some evidence", which I am sure Karol could supply if she were not on vacation, hence my reluctance to repeat her efforts. I've left a request on Karol's talk page. Is there something Karol omitted to do? Would Carnildo's objection be met by removing the two images from the article pending production of evidence to his satisfaction? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, all Karol needs to do is paste copies of the emails involved onto the relevant image description pages. It's not sufficient to simply get permission: it's also neccessary to demonstrate this to the community. --Carnildo 17:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi! First of all, I'm happy there's so much interest in the article. As to the images: 1) image from Polish music Center: I recieved information from the manager of PMC via email that to "the bast of his knowledge the image is in the Public Domain". 2) image by W.P. and L.K.: I have contacted the author of this photograph personally (it was made during a photographing session in the composer's house) and he has allowed the use of this image in Wikipedia as long as it has the annotation I added (the one currently there); notice the lack of the watermark present in all images on the author's web page - he sent me the original image. What and where should I provide as evidence? I am currently on vacation and will be looking in here not so often. Ciao! Karol 18:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • For (1), it's simply a matter of copy-and-pasting the email into the image description page. For (2), it sounds like the correct copyright tag is {{attribution}}, not {{PD}}. I've made the change. --Carnildo 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the change. I'm afraid I don't have access to those emails right now. I am really "out in the wild" during my vacation, and my email archives are at home. I inquired for a copy of that email from the addresser, which I may or may not get before finishing vacation. Also (I'm not oriented in the procedure) - is this common practice to paste such "evidence", i.e. emails, on the image description page? Can you provide examples of such image description pages? Karol 06:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's official procedure for cases where we explicitly get permission to use something, or for cases where the copyright status is not immediately obvious. It doesn't happen very often -- I've only seen it two or three times -- so I couldn't come up with an example. --Carnildo 04:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm back between trips and online for a few days, so we can settle this once and for all. I got another email from the manager of the Polish Music Center, and she asked specifically this time if it is "possible to give recognition to the photographer, Betty Freeman?" I have added a note in the image description. Should it now also have an Attribution tag like the other photo or PD? And in this case is the email still neccesary? Karol 11:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have copied the relevant fragments of two emails concerning the doubted image. Is this what is needed? Also, I'm not sure if the way I formatted the fragments is OK. Karol 16:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; well-written, thorough, and accurate. A couple of minor things: that one line Everyking objects to could be done better (I'm not really sure what it means). Lutosławski was using folk music before the political climate became arctic in the late 1940s, and he continued developing in that direction not only because he had to, but because it was the most logical course of development harmonious with his own goals, with other paths effectively blockaded by the "anti-formalism" Stalinists. I'm interpreting a little here, but the Concerto for Orchestra was both a very honest work along the main line of his development, as well as being harmonious to the aims of the committee (that wasn't to remain the case with later work!) He did a lot of writing of "little pieces" under a pseudonym ("Derwid") that could be mentioned (this is from the Grove article). The issue with the images--well, you just might have to wait for verification from the USC website; if they are PD, they'll probably let you use them, sooner or later. (I don't know of any source for PD images on him.) Also, inevitably someone will ask for musical samples: since nothing will be available PD, maybe some external links can be found. Nice article! Antandrus (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reads well, I did comment more during PR. I wonder - are there no public domains samples of his work we can link? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Written in a clear style and nicely structured. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good, but needs a serious editing job, which I've started by running through the opening section. I'll try to complete this over the next few days. I'll end up giving this article my support. Tony 11:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) The music section is not there yet! This should be the crux of the article. Tony 10:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I agree with the music section not being there yet. The section is relatively short, and could perhaps in time be expanded, but a lot of discussion of the music is interspersed with the biography, and the music discussion is far bigger than for, say, the Mozart article! --RobertG ♬ talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Balcer 14:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has really come a long way in the past 2-3 months. Karol 11:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Mature, comprehensive and complete article. --Lysy (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]