Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Featured article candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure
Toolbox

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] L'incoronazione di Poppea

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Monteverdi (with a little help from his friends) wrote Poppea when he was 76 years old. It's a terrific example of early baroque opera, with a controversially amoral storyline in which virtue is trounced and vice is triumphant. It is still hot stuff in the opera houses. My thanks to members of the Opera Project for their help, and to the peer reviewers who have helped polish the article's rough edges and make it a feasible FAC nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment it's got no dabs, it's got no dead external links, it's got alt text that looks solid at first check, it's got consistent Day Month Year dates, and it's got Roman courtesans wearing next to nothing, so the technical aspects look good. --an odd name (help honey) 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - This was already in very good shape when I peer reviewed it, and all of my concerns were met there, so I feel it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This article was already a fine one when I peer reviewed it; if anything, it has become finer still. To me, it fully mirrors the scope, reader interest and overall quality expected of an FA. Excellent work! Jonyungk (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii hotspot

Conominators: ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) and ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


This is no small article. Coorespondingly, this is no small project! But I do think that it's ready to go through FAC. ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fairly complete to me. Although I did not see any response to my previous issues: skipping from Ancient myths to 1880, no mention of Māhukona? I have done research on history but am not a geologist, so maybe all the explorations such as Charles Wilkes, Menzies, and authors such as Titus Coan etc. are not geologically interesting? Anyway there are links to them on the individual volcano articles, and this seems long enough to cover the topic well enough. There are a bunch of red links, that might not be evr filled in if the targets are not otherwise notable. Ah, should the red link to Journal of Science be instead American Journal of Science which does have an article, and even mentions Dana? Yes, I vote promote it. W Nowicki (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks done. Um, do you mean that the article should mention Māhukona...? And what do you mean by geologically interesting? be a little more clear and I will fix :) ResMar 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that I do not know enough geology to understand if your not mentioning Māhukona in your table is a mistake or intentional. Isn't it one of the hostspot volcanoes? Why is it not mentioned? Note it has an article, as opposed to the East and West Molokaʻi, so someone thought it was notable.

Following the James Dwight Dana wikilink I see he was on the Wilkes Expedition! but that was not in 1880, but 1840-1841? It was just published later. Right? Mauna Loa#Wilkes expedition discusses. W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait, where is this? I see both links but it doesn't mention him in either as far as I can see; am I missing it? ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, my point was that you should probably add a link to James Dwight Dana from each of those other articles. In the James Dwight Dana article it should link to Hawaii hotspot, and talk about him visiting in 1840-1841. At least that is the way I like to work, complete the "web of knowledge" and it improves Wikipedia as a whole. As for this article here, if James Dwight Dana was on the 1840 expedition, then the wording that says "In 1880 and 1881, James Dwight Dana directed the earliest geological study..." is misleading. Mention the 1840 visit here? Or something like "After a brief visit in 1840 on the United States Exploring Expedition, he began a more in-depth study..." or whatever, if he really was on the visit. W Nowicki (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The caption says "Sir James Dwight Dana" probably the "Sir" shold be removed? He was American, not British? No mention of a Knighthod either. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but ref 1's first PDF link is dead.
Ouch. Fixed. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; no dead external links now. --an odd name (help honey) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Dates look good. --an odd name (help honey) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name (help honey) 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article definitely deserves to be a featured article. It is very in-depth, refined, and is written like an encyclopedia. Kevinmon•talk•trib 07:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Xmas Everybody

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • All images have alt text. "He is wearing something on his head that is unclear in this image." could probably be rewritten to remove the ref to an image (which alt users can't see), but it all looks good otherwise.
  • Audit for grammar errors: I already removed an extra comma and "are".
  • Can you explain the ref "Black Vinyl, White Powder, Simon Napier-Bell 2001" further? It's apparently a 390-page book; page number and publisher, if so? (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
  • I don't have a copy of that, unfortunately. It was added in by an IP in 2007. Majorly talk 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've put in a different ref. Majorly talk 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dates throughout are all Day Month Year. (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder Plot

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because the Gunpowder Plot is an important part of English religious and political history. Every child knows the name of Guy Fawkes, not so many know that he was only a part of the story. Religious persecution, political backstabbing, conspiracy, murder, torture, gruesome executions, explosions—what more could you ask for? Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are citation needed tags in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Gone - one is probably not citable, the other will be sorted in due course (I've hidden it for the moment) Parrot of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

--an odd name 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • My CoI prohibits me from working on content related to the article, but I will check the images. There were 4 concerns. Feel free to strike through the concerns or leave a note after when they are addressed. Images: File:GunpowderPlot.jpg - check. File:Darnley stage 3.jpg - check and a FP, so, definitely has it all verified. File:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606..png - you could put it into a fancy box but all of the info is there. **File:Gunpow1.jpg - might want to add year (circa 1605) to the info and checks out. File:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg - info checks out. File:John rocque house of lords gunpowder plot cropped.jpg - info checks out. File:Capon map of parliament.jpg - info checks out. File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg - info checks out. File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg - info checks out. File:Monteagle letter.jpeg - info checks out. **File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg - needs year. File:A Torture Rack.jpg - info checks out. File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder (2).jpg - info checks out. File:Guy Fawkes confession.png - info checks out. ** File:Hindlip hall.jpg - needs year (find the original publication, link provided next). 1901 edition to verify that it is PD. File:Edward coke.jpg - iffy, has a year, but no real verifiable source of the year. NPG may have a copy of info on it? **File:Henry Garnet (1555-1606).jpg - needs year and possible author information. File:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg - info checks out. File:Bonfire4.jpg - info checks out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Mostly there, but some prose needs work, which I see Malleus is on. "The new King received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[13] This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics" needs rewriting - he was the Habsburg Viceroy of 1/2 a country. Link Dutch Revolt or Eighty Years War. Since there is so much background, the wider context of religious assassinations of political leaders should be mentioned: in France Gaspard de Coligny, (1572), Henri III, (1589), and later Henri IV, (1610); in the Netherlands William I of Orange, (1584), and in Scotland the Regent James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1570) Not to mention the more obscure Michael the Brave (1601) in Romania, on behalf of the Habsburgs. I'm not saying these Catholic assassinations, and some other attempts and successes, were connected, though many people did, but the wave of assassinations led to a great reduction in public appearances by, and access to rulers, including James, that had profound effects. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll admit my knowledge of 16th-17th-century politics is very sparse. I'd appreciate any help you have to offer on such a thing, I can only really work with the sources I have. There is already more than 60kb of prose, so care needs to be taken here. Parrot of Doom 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bardia

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... although it is very recent, I think that it is of high quality. The battle is a significant one which has received little attention until recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Excellent, although could you mention how hot and how cold it got in the Libyan Desert? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • All my sources are agreed on "bitterly cold". The 16th Infantry Brigade diarist provided a daily weather report but clearly had no access to a thermometer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Technical check No dablinks, no bad external links, images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • For maps, make sure that either the alt or the text describes what each map is trying to show (not merely their colors and appearance), and the movements that are taking place on them. See WP:ALT#Maps.
    • Done. I've never written an article where the map was so useful... added some more text to the alt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a bit more to the lower map. They look ok now. --an odd name (help honey) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Six Australian officers pose for a formal pictures." Should it be "formal picture"?
    • Done.
      • Changed check templates to "Done" to avoid template and image problems on the fac page; see "Supporting and opposing" above. --an odd name (help honey) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Morotai

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


This article on a small but strategically significant battle of World War II was peer reviewed in February and passed a Military History project A class review in March. It has since been further improved by myself and a number of other editors (including, but not limited to, User:Cla68 and User:Ian Rose) and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

--an odd name 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for those comments. I've re-written the alt text for the maps to describe what they depict as you suggest - does this now look OK? Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The alts are all good now. --an odd name 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Very nice article, I believe that it meets FA criteria too. I have some minor comments, though:
    • In the opposing forces section, words are used for numbers greater than ten (in discussing the number of ships), yet in most other places numbers are used...
    • could a convert be added to the distance given in the second paragraph of the Allied landings section ("2,000 yards inland")?

Anyway, well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: Definitely meets FA criteria. Looked at it a few times and couldn't think of any improvements. The article is especially impressive in that there are no major sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is there no casualties and losses section in the infobox? - DSachan (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
In short, because there is no source which provides anything approaching a comprehensive number of casualties during the fighting between September 1944 and August 1945 (the period covered by the article). I've mentioned the casualty numbers for the periods where these are available in the article's text. I removed the casualties section from the infobox in July (leaving a note at Talk:Battle of Morotai) and no-one has either complained or provided a sourced figure. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


A-class Military History Article. Was not promoted on its last FA review because of a lack of feedback from any users. —Ed!(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some minor stuff.

--an odd name 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. The dead link has been removed. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (2c will follow later) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1a:
Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif should in SVG format. Try requesting at WP:GL. Connormah (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It's rather short for an art article, but a week of library-searching leaves me confident it neglects no major information. User:Johnbod commented that the use of sources with extended discussion (as opposed to the current structure, which incorporates information from five or six primary sources interspersed with tid-bits from all over the place) would be desirable, but – as John himself noted – this is not readily available in English. I don't see it as a huge problem; tapping into a large array of sources has given me the impression that what's here is quite thorough. I look forward to criticism and will respond as quickly as I'm able. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:
An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:
"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."
"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."
"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."
Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2c:
Kingfisher article not named when cited.
No longer applicable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiple authors not correctly cited in short citations.
Please name them. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
For example, "Sacks, David; Murray, Oswyn; Bunson, Margaret (1997)." is cited as "Sacks, p. 14" when it should be cited as "Sacks; Murray; Bunston, p. 14", this is true of other multiple author works in your short cites (Corvisier, André; Childs, John (1994). Hagen, Rose-Marie; Hagen, Rainer (2003). Hanawalt, Barbara; Kobialka, Michal (2000). Heckel, Waldemar; Yardley, John (2004). Janson, Horst W.; Janson, Anthony F. Romm, James S.; Mensch, Pamela (2005). ) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
All done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Mayall

Nominator(s): WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is in great shape, stable and complete. WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2c:Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates inconsistent. YYYY-MM-DD, Month DD, YYYY, etc. Please pick one style for the Bibs, References, Notes, and stick to it?
Please check the capitalisation of this journal, "Lick Observatory bulletin"
Link in this citation failed to display correctly due to Square brackets in title?, "Mayall, Nicholas U. (1939). "The occurrence of λ 3727 [O II in the spectra of extragalactic nebulae]". Lick Observatory bulletin 19 (497): 33–9."
Please cite title of journal in full, as is your style, "Mayall, Nicholas U.; Lindblad, Per Olef (October 1970). "Mean rotational velocities of 56 galaxies". Astron. Astrophys 8: 364–74."
Short cite does not match bibliography line: Associated Press 1933; please cite Authors for your newspaper articles in bibliography as AP wire if you're going to short cite to AP.
I'm unclean on what this request is asking for. When AP is used, there is no author listed for the newspaper article. WilliamKF (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiple author style differs in shortcites (" Nicholson & Mayall 1930") from Bibliography (Last ; First).
Isn't this just a function of the templates? I'm using citation and harvnb templates, aren't those meant to be used together? WilliamKF (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Does Crotts have a first name? Bouchet, P.; Lawrence, S.; Crotts; Heathcote, S. (March 2000), "A Tip/Tilt System for the Blanco Telescope"
Please cite Abt 1993 correctly (the link even says how, "Nicholas U. Mayall (1906-1993) (1Mar93) (from the Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 33, 1 March 1993)")
Please generally indicate Staff, Wire service, or named author for newspaper articles, attributing questionable attributions of authorship. Your shortcites claim authors (AP, NYT Staff) where your bibliography lacks authorial information
Please indicate that this, "Eglin, Tom (1973), Dr. Nicholas U. Mayall, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, retrieved 2009-10-24" is the photograph that you're citing, and not the webpage?
I'm citing both the photo and more specifically the caption of the photo. Not sure what to do here? WilliamKF (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with this citation, is the work title the same as the series title? "Osterbrock, Donald E. (1996), "Nicholas Ulrich Mayall, May 9, 1906 – January 5, 1993" (PDF), Biographical Memoirs, Biographical Memoirs, 69, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, pp. 189–213, ISBN 0-309-05346-3, retrieved 2009-09-12"
Note it is both a series and the title of the work is the series. Dropped series and now only have title. WilliamKF (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Book publisher locations. You have a choice: Supply no location data (bad), supply location data for non-University presses and University presses with ambiguous locations (to fix, supply location for "Wilson, Ray N. (2004), Reflecting Telescope Optics: Basic design theory and its historical development, Astronomy and astrophysics library; Volume 1 of Reflecting Telescope Optics, 1, Springer, ISBN 9783540401063"), supply publication locations for all.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed by adding Berlin for the above. Are more needed? WilliamKF (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1c:
Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

--an odd name 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)
      Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] School Rumble

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has undergone several external assessments and a major copyedit.陣内Jinnai 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but refs 68 and 72 and the first external link are all dead.
    • External link corrected; 68 removed (and all infobox info on non-English publishers which have had English publications removed per template talk's consensus); 72 replaced with 3 refs.陣内Jinnai 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • All external links work now. --an odd name 02:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "2004=2005"—should this be 2004–2005 (with an en dash) or was this intentional (like the Lucky Star star)?
    • First assumption was right.
  • Ref dates are all Month Day, Year, except for a few Day Month Year dates in "Other related media" and maybe other places.
    • Checked there and elsewhere and found them all to be MDY.
      • 125, 127, and 128 used {{cite book}} with separate month, day and year parameters. The documentation recommends simply using date if all three are present. They're fixed now. --an odd name 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. The cover's alt should be obvious from viewing the image alone, though—I suggest you replace Tenma and Harima's names with descriptions of the characters, and maybe describe the text on (and appearance of) the cover as well, to meet that. Otherwise, they have no obvious errors. (added on 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
    • Added descriptions of the characters. Check them out and see if there missing anything.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Alts look good now. --an odd name 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

  • I wonder if Kobayashi intended "School Ramble" (with an a) instead of "Rumble". It would make vastly more sense, and one source in the article is spelled "Ramble". Do any sources discuss the spelling?
    • The only other spelling I've seen (and i can note this if you want) is the shorthand Japanese pronunciation Schoolrum.
      • Nah, that one doesn't seem too important. --an odd name 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see sales data for the manga. Is there such data for the anime? (Inspired mainly by your review at Talk:New Cutie Honey/GA1—here I turn the tables a bit *wink*)

--an odd name 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Deal with the others when i have some more time.陣内Jinnai 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Addressed most of the issues. For sales data, i might have a chance later to look around, but not atm.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments for now. I will probably add more later since I'm skimming really fast. —Arsonal (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Any particular reason why the infobox image isn't using a cover image of the first Japanese manga volume?
    • See Talk:School Rumble#Reasoning for volume 13 Infoxbox image. --an odd name 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • In addition, one of the main reasons for manga, to show the artstyle, fails for volume 1 as the main image is a chibi version of Tenma and an very extreme closeup of her face which does not allow to clearly see the general artstyle. 陣内Jinnai 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Good enough reason for me. I disagree with the systemic bias assessment, but I'll leave that discussion out of here. I was just curious. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • First TV anime infobox section: extraneous closing bracket after "Revelation films", whose "f" should be capitalized.
  • Media/Manga: Is it necessary to provide the Japanese name for Weekly Shōnen Magazine if it already has an article?
    • Removed it. I think it was originally added for consistency with the other publications.
  • Media/Anime: In the image, "Initial D" should be italicized. "Azumanga Diaoh" is a misspelling.
  • Media/Other related media: Add a comma after "July 21, 2005". Remove comma after "It was later reissued". "Famitsu" should be italicized and linked as Famitsū.
  • Reception and sales/Anime: Italicize foreign words like shōnen and shōjo.
    • Those imo are common enough words that they do not need to be italicized, especially shōnen/shonen.陣内Jinnai 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It may be common in the manga and anime industry, but someone who has no knowledge about it would not immediately know. These words are not inherently English words. Project FAs Tokyo Mew Mew and the more recent Shojo Beat italicize these terms. Arsonal (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I could see the argument for Shojo, but given the popularity of Naruto and Dragonball Z beyond the typical anime/manga community shonen I believe has become more mainstream.陣内Jinnai 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), mustache (A) (British: moustache), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).

Note: This comment is from User:AndyZ's peer review script. Extremepro 22:59, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  • Image comments
    • File:School Rumble - bike-chase.png is missing source info (is it from a website? Was it a self-made screencap?) and I don't think it really meets WP:NFCC. The rationale states it is used to show "how the series uses gags" and an example of a cultural reference. The latter reason isn't defensible, and the first one doesn't make any sense—I don't see a gag, I don't see where the text explains the gag, so obviously it's not doing a good job. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The gag is that it is a mockup of Initial D's Trueno. Intial D isn't in any way related to School Rumble, but the gag is that they still ride past him on their bikes. The riding past them is hard to show I admit with a screencap, but generally a screencap is easier to be defensable than a clip. Furthermore the cheesy 3-D graphics also show the way the anime goes along with the gag as the Initial D series is known for such graphics. This is an example of the type of gag used; one that used absurdist humor combined often with references to other anime/manga or pop-culture references.陣内Jinnai 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carabane

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because all the suggestions made in the peer review have been implemented. I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but refs 62, 68, and 126 have dead external links. Ref 18 is also dead, but uses an archived page for the "work" param—I think you meant to make that the main url, not the "work" url, because without the archive.org stuff it is exactly the same.
  • All images (and there's a lot—I expect image review to take up some time here) have alt text. For the map of The Gambia with two red dots, clarify that the dots are in the west and center of The Gambia (either in the alt or the prose). The Geography map doesn't have this problem because the dot location is effectively stated in the lead.
  • Check the ref dates: most appear to be Month Day, Year but a few are ISO style and there's even French dates ("Retrieved 8 juin 2008"). Pick one style. (added on 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with all the problems presented by an odd name above except one. I have restored the "work" url for ref 18 and replaced the main url with the archived page. I have also clarified the alt for the map of The Gambia to specify the location of the two dots. The ref dates are now all formatted Month Day, Year. The only problem I'm not sure how to deal with is the three dead external links. How should I fix this problem? Neelix (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, dates look consistent Month Day, Year now. I can't find the dead links in Google cache or the Wayback. Remove them if they're just giving trivial facts; keep them and search around for another source for the cited facts if they're more important. --an odd name 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have switched ref 62 from a reference to the article online to a reference to the article in print. The external link for ref 68 has been switched to a link to an archived version of the page. The article referred to in ref 126 is also found on another website, so I switched the link. There should be no more dead external links in the article. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
All external links work now. --an odd name 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments A nice article, but some niggles on first read I'll have a more detailed read through when I can. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There were some typos, and other infelicities, and the style of English varied between BE and AE (eg "colourful", but all units in meters, not metres. Since it's West Africa, I've tried to standardise as BE. I've made these changes, please check
Damn, you're a Canadian - I should have realised, since I went to Nova Scotia in September. I still think BE is more appropriate, but if you want to restore CE, that's not an issue. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Metric units need imperial conversions to help the poor old yanks also nautical miles to metric
  • mudflats are exposed so that boats with keels can easily dock. When arriving at Carabane, the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village in 8 to 10 m of water. isn't this contradictory?
  • It's stretching things a bit to call the MacDonald's birding trip an ornithological survey, but the birds are typical of the area, and in my Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, so I don't think the facts are challengeable, and I'm happy to let the ref stand Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Similarly with the French fish ref, I appreciate how difficult it is to get cast iron sources, and I would support you if the refs are challenged, since the content is clearly correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the typos, Jim! I'm quite alright with using British English in the article considering the part of the world being addressed; it was simply more natural for me to write it in Canadian English. I have converted all the remaining measurements so that both metric and imperial are displayed, including the one reference to nautical miles.
The two sentences about boats arriving at the island are not intended to state contradictory things. The first sentence states that it is easy for boats to dock on the island because their keels shift into the exposed mudflats, allowing them to dock securely (ie. there are no exposed rocks to damage the bottom of the boats). The second sentence states that the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village because the water surrounding the island is so shallow (ie. the mudflats are relatively close to the surface of the water). Boats can easily dock at the island, but not very close to the island. Do you feel the explanation of this in the article needs to be clarified? Neelix (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm no sailor and I assumed mudflats would be a hindrance, not a help, so perhaps clarification would be good; any way, I'm happy to

[edit] Rise of Neville Chamberlain

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is a large part of the GA Neville Chamberlain. At the peer review, while the article was generally liked, it was thought to be too long. I did not think that it could be shortened by editing without losing a lot of information, so it was split, and this is part I. While the FAC is going, I'll be working on summarizing the portion of the main article covering 1869-1937 (I could not call this "Early Life of Neville Chamberlain", the customary dodge, for obvious reasons). This article covers much of the career of a man who had a lot more to him than an umbrella and a forlorn piece of paper.Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links and all images have alt text. Ref dates are consistent ISO style. --an odd name 17:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The trend of recoloring historical images does need review, for the reasons mentioned by Abecedare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've switched it for the black and white one. Odd how Joe Chamberlain's clothing could probably pass on the street, while either of his sons looks hopelessly old-fashioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why does the last source in References say 2010? I assuming this is a typo (also note that the Harvard references need to be fixed). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a typo. I bought the book on September 15, too. That's what it says on the copyright page! It won't matter in a month and a half. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Relying on the Copyright date is the most common way to assign a date to a text. If the publisher wants to lie, we still work off the lie on the bibliographic information page of the work. Other ways to date books exist, but shouldn't be of large concern to FAC reviewers of 2c unless the work lacks a copyright date, or date of publication on the bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why they do what they do is not clear to me. I should not that if I switched it to 2009 (publication date at least in the UK where I bought it), five years from now people will wonder why it doesn't bear the copyright date. Copyright date seems to be the best way to go. I'm open to ideas here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Chamberlaincroptime.jpg - Should not be using the "self" modifier. Creation of such a derivative (a crop) does not generate on new copyright (Bridgeman v. Corel); only the copyright of the source is relevant.
    • File:Chamberlain.jpg - PD rationale of "looks like it was taken in the 1880s or 1890s and is probably in the public domain because the copyright is expired" is speculation. Creation is not the same as publication. When was this published? What is the factual basis for claiming pre-1.1.1923 publication?
    • File:Austen Chamberlain.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. How can we confirm the publication date?
    • File:Birmingham Council House.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (in the case of user-created images, which this presumably is, that means an explicit assertion of authorship).
    • File:LloydGeorge.JPG - Needs a verifiable source.
    • File:Churchill 5.jpg - Source is a direct link to the image itself. The LoC says A) the author is "Underwood & Underwood" (not the US government, as purported by the license) and B) that the rights of this image have not been evaluated. What is the basis for claiming this to be PD? Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into these, thanks for the input. Could you expand on your objection to the first image? I don't quite get what you are saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it currently has two licenses (self and PD-US-not renewed). The self license adds "I, the copyright holder of this work..." which is untrue because, as the creator of a mere derivative, you hold no copyright. The only copyright on this is the (presumably expired) copyright of the source work. The "self" modifier just needs to be removed. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've taken care of the image concerns I think but as I am not an image expert I will drop a note on Elcobbola's talk page asking him to take another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose stricken. Images have been repaired or replaced. No issues with the replacements. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I am very grateful for your image work, especially as that is an area where I am not very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Singapore

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because...after a year of work, I feel the article is ready for this again. The main issue last time around was over the sourcing of images. I have talked to the user and gave me some ideas on what can be done. I tried to get more information from the SG government, but not much luck there. All dead URLs have been either replaced or removed and just managed to get a PDF copy of the Main 2004 rules, which I am willing to upload to the Commons once I find out legislation is public domain in Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite ___}} templates. This causes inconsistency (compare refs 45 and 46), so I suggest you pick one type or manually write them. There's also a few Day Month Year dates in the refs, when most use ISO style—change them to the dominant style.
  • No dab links or dead external links, which is good. (The link checker complains about two mindef.gov.sg sites—something about "Excessed redirect limit (8)"—but they work for me.)
  • Some images have alt text. Now add some for the blue Straits flag and the photos.

--an odd name 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Templates fixed (not sure how to do an interview, but I gave it a shot. I did the dab link and url link check before I even came here tonight. I am fixing the alt text issues now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it has some problems. The main problem is that the alt text often contains information that is not about the visual appearance of the image, and cannot be verified by a non-expert reader who is viewing only the image.
  • The problem begins with the first image, of the flag; here the alt text is "Flag of Singapore" but that is of little use to a visually impaired reader. Normally this alt text should be a description of the flag, but since the adjacent text already does that I suggest changing it to "See adjacent text." (By the way, why is the flag's description repeated twice in adjacent text? Once in the 1st paragraph, and once in the infobox. Surely once is enough.)
  • File:FIAV 110000.svg has alt text "Civil and state flag" that has nothing to do with the image's appearance, and which apparently is a duplication of adjacent text. I suggest marking this image with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images, since the image contains no useful information that is not already present in adjacent text.
  • File:IFIS Normal.svg has alt text "Normal or de jure version of flag" that (again) has nothing to do with the image's appearance, and appears to be an explanation of the image. This image should be treated like File:FIAV 110000.svg: that is, it should be marked with "|link=|alt=" and adjacent text should be placed near to it, explaining it.
  • File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg has alt text that assumes unlikely expertise on the part of the visually impaired reader. Most readers won't know what a British Blue Ensign looks like, or what the badge of the Straits Settlements looks like. As a rule, alt text should not contain proper names; please see WP:ALT #Proper names.
  • There are several other phrases in the alt text that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "During national holidays", "is ever present, even handed out as favors", "A Singapore based airplane", "During parades, military aircraft", "in Singapore" (in "giving a speech in Singapore"), "A home in Singapore", "Istana Park", "The standard of the President of Singapore", "The civil ensign of Singapore", "Flag for private sea use", "The Republic of Singapore Navy ensign", "Flag for military sea use".
Eubulides (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It is the MOS for the flag articles to include the design of the flag in both the lead and the infobox. Redundant I know, but many flag articles are not as developed as, lets say, Japan, Canada and a few others I personally touched. I am still working on the alt images (it is new for me, so I thank you for teaching me on what it is and how it is supposed to be done. I will try and have others look at it and see if they can give something that sounds laymanish. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying that point about the MoS. Well, anyway, we don't need to repeat that text a third time, in the alt text. I fixed this problem by modifying {{Infobox Flag}} so that the flag's default alt text is "See adjacent text." This seems appropriate since any call to that infobox should also specify |Design=. You can override the default alt text with a new |Alt= parameter, but I don't think overriding should be needed often.
  • All the alt text problems mentioned above are now fixed; thanks.
  • However, two new problems have cropped up. Flag of Singapore #Other flags of Singapore refers to two images File:FIAV 000100.svg and File:FIAV_000001.svg whose alt text is not verifiable from the image. For example, the first image's alt text contains the phrase "this flag is used on sea by private persons or groups" but that is not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Please move this phrase out of the alt text and into a caption in the nearby text, and similarly for the other image.
Eubulides (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed images in question, the text in the description will explain it to the layman. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; that fixes all the alt text problems reported. Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 4 (Foong..) needs a page number
  • Current ref 16 (Noor..) lacks a last access date.
  • Current refs 18 and 19 (Singapore Arms..) both lack publishers and last access dates.
    • Comment: See my comment about the citation of legislation below.
  • Current ref 48 (Leong..) lacks a publisher. This is a journal article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
  • What makes http://www.singsingapore.org.sg/songs-lyric.asp?sid=27 a reliable source?
  • What makes http://flagspot.net/flags/sg~war.html#const a reliable source? Note that FAC criteria have changed to needing high quality sources, so it needs to not only fulfill WP:SPS but be a "high quality" source.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment List of Singaporean flags is very short and mostly redundant to the main article. I suggest merging it. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Reywas92. There's not much extra there. --an odd name 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about citation of legislation. In a comment above, Ealdgyth mentioned that footnote 19, a reference to the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.), lacked the name of its publisher and the date when it was last accessed. Zscout370 therefore changed the footnote to "'Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.' (PDF). Government of Singapore. 1985. Retrieved 2009-11-19". This is not the correct way to cite a piece of legislation. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to indicate the publisher of a piece of legislation and the date of publication for the following reasons:

  • I do not see why the publisher of a statute must be indicated when a citation in the usual legal form as shown above provides all the information that is needed to locate the statute in question.
  • In particular, it is unnecessary to provide a separate date of publication, at least for Singapore statutes, because a properly cited statute will already contain a reference to the date when it was passed.

In any case, I note that in past FAs such as "Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India" and "Roe v. Wade", pieces of legislation are rightly not cited in the same way as books. Finally, if it is felt that a statement regarding when the legislation was accessed should be added (e.g., "Retrieved on 19 November 2009"), I think this is acceptable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport, Iowa

Nominator(s): CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked really hard over the last 2 years to improve it. The article was not promoted at the last FAC, 366 days ago, and I have done extensive work since then to improve the article. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. CTJF83 chat 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but the external link for ref 40 (a davenportone.com PDF) is dead (goes to main page).
  • Most images have alt text, but...
    • The infobox images are missing alts. The four big ones need it; the two small flags do not.
      • Are you saying the map of Iowa and the map of Scott County need alt text? CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I think so, because they are not merely decorative—they show where the place is in relation to others. I gave it a shot; check it out. --an odd name 11:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "A large f-story red brick building with many windows"—is "f-story" a technical term, or did you mean "four-story"?
  • Speaking of four, spell out small (0–9) numbers.
    • Is it possible to spell out the numbers in the {{convert}} template? It didn't work for me CTJF83 chat 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about those cases: "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer", says the guideline. I mainly meant the alt text, which still has a few (like "A row of 3 older buildings"). --an odd name 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Alright, I have fixed all of these concerns. CTJF83 chat 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2c
Refdates are consistent YYYY-MM-DD
Corporate Authored Works should list their corporate author in shortcites, shortcites which shorten titles should only do so at the subtitle indicator (a colon, or semi-colon.) In relation to: Historic Preservation in Davenport, Iowa; which should read, "Plan and Zoning Commission, Historic preservation in Davenport, Iowa for inclusion in the Davenport Comprehensive Plan"
Manual short citations should end with a full-stop (en_US:period) to match fullcites in the footnotes
Please check all your newspaper articles for by-lines, and indicate the author if a by-line exists.
In general, please check your web references for authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by your points that start with Corporate, and Manual, please explain more. I fixed the other two. CTJF83 chat 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. When a work is authored by a corporate entity, like a government, government department, company, etc, for example by the "Plan and Zoning Commission," it is usual to treat the corporate entity as the author of the work. So |author=Plan and Zoning Commission
Where you provide a short citation, for example, "Svendsen, p. 82" the citation does not end with a period. When you provide a long citation, for example, "Doxsie, Don (1994-07-31). "Q-C race has grown from a humble beginning into one of the nation's most spectacular events". Quad-City Times. Retrieved 2009-09-22." the citation ends with a period. Its a matter of stylistic choice if you go for "no periods" "periods only for long cites" "periods for all". (A short citation is a citation where the work is referenced in full in the bibliography, and you provide minimal identifying material, a longcite is when you provide the citation in full in the footnotes).
Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think so....so I need to choose if all citations get a period, just long, or just short? For example are you saying, citation 32 should be changed to "Plan and Zoning Commission, p. 19." with changing the "author" and adding the period after 19? CTJF83 chat 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'd suggest. The full stop at the end is a style issue only, as long as you're consistent with whatever choice you make. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you also check that your webcitations aren't really other works, say, newspaper articles, with a signed author? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Just a general picky thing, but you're a bit confused about what a publisher is. It's not "Quad City Memory" but "Davenport Public Library" that publishes the work that's entitled "Quad City Memory". Same for "weather.com" which is the work, and the publisher is "Weather Channel", similarly throughout. It's not worth an oppose, but it makes it much harder to check sources for reliablity when the two things are confused.
    • For ref 67, do you want TV By the Numbers as the publisher, or Nielsen company? CTJF83 chat 20:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Which company is behind the site? If Neilsen is the company that owns the website, Neilsen, if TV by the Numbers, then TV by the Numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok, it's TV by the numbers website, they just got the info from Neilsen, I'll use TV..as the publisher CTJF83 chat 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Need to be consistent in how you refer to entities throughout.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
All concerns fixed. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly good (thanks), but there's one problem with File:Scott County Iowa Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Davenport Highlighted.svg. Its alt text focuses on the visual appearance of the map (e.g., whether it uses red to highlight); instead, it should convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map (e.g., something like "Located on the center south border of a county that is on southern side of the hump on the eastern border of Iowa."). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops. Didn't read that section and simply described the appearance. --an odd name 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that should do it. (Sorry about the length of WP:ALT; wish I could make it shorter....) Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin P. Morrow

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


This article recently passed a GA review with only a few minor comments. It is well-sourced, and I believe it meets the FA requirements. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

  • No dab links, but the second External link is dead.
  • Fixed.
  • Only Morrow's signature lacks alt text. I'm not sure how signature alts should be dealt with; the guideline says nothing about them, but clearly says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative, that is, it has no function and is used only for visual formatting or decoration."
  • Fixed.
  • Article dates are all Month Day, Year. Ref dates are all ISO style.
  • Hm. I thought the cite templates required ISO for some reason. Fixed.
    • Oh sorry, I didn't mean the dates were a problem. See MOS:DATE#Full date formatting. You can use ISO if you like for the ref dates, as long as it is for all ref dates, and then use Month Day, Year for the text dates, as long as it is for all text dates. Of course, if you want to use the same format for every single date or if you don't want ISO style, that's cool too. Consistency and standing consensus are usually more important. --an odd name 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c checked 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From the bibliography and footnotes 1c and 2c look good. I quibble below, and one quibble is more serious.
The footnotes could be separated from the bibliography with a title of some kind, consult other Kentucky governor FAs for style examples?
  • Done. I adopted this style for articles where I have explanatory notes as well, since that makes "Notes" or "Footnotes" ambiguous. See Richard Hawes for an example.
Publishers with non-obvious publication locations should have their publication locations inserted
  • Done.
Year of publication required: Cotterill, R. S.. Dictionary of American Biography Supplements 1-2
  • I've given it my best guess based on WorldCat. I actually accessed the article via an electronic database, but wasn't sure how to cite it that way.
I complain about this one everytime fn1: "Kentucky Governor Edwin Porch Morrow", corporately authored works should use the corporate author as the author line. Its non-intuitive that this is a short citation as it lacks an author or a paragraph / section / page reference.
  • Sorry. I haven't touched some of these since they became GA, which was before you started making this comment. You'll be pleased to see that I am doing it in my current and future expansions. See Bert T. Combs for an example.
No worries! Its obvious that I'm going to read a lot of 19th and 20th Century Mid-West Governors, and 10th and 11th Century Western European Bishops! :)
In your bibliography, the Hay work is a chapter by Hay in a book, right? Can you indicate the chapter by its title? The bibliographic reference is confusing at the moment "Hay, Melba Porter (2004). Lowell H. Harrison. ed. Kentucky's Governors. "
  • Yes, I've added the chapter name.
In relation to 1c I am concerned that this is not a signed Tertiary by an expert: ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Harrison in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, p. 655
  • Added chapter title. It is signed, as are nearly all the articles in The Kentucky Encylopedia. I think the ones that aren't are supposed to be assumed written by John Kleber, the primary editor.
Could you please outline Harrison's expertise, cite the article used by title, and assure me that Harrison wrote the article in question over a by-line, rather than just being assigned authorship because its an unsigned author in an edited tertiary? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Harrison has his own (albeit short) wiki article. If there were a Mount Rushmore of modern Kentucky historians, he'd probably be on it with Thomas D. Clark, James Klotter, and John Kleber. He wrote a bunch of the articles in The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Sadly, last I talked to someone who knew him, he was in poor health.

Hang in there; I'm getting better on including this info the first time. Let me know if there are other issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually... that was it this time! With Tertiaries, especially heavily used ones, I just like to make sure. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops. I didn't upload that one and need to check on it. Since it's a photograph of Bradley, and since he died in 1914, it should be PD, but I don't know the details.
    • The other two images, ought to be categorized as well.
  • Is it bad that I've never categorized an image? Don't know the category structure or anything.
  • This should be easy to fix, so could you give me a note on my talk page when you do? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • All issues resolved. Thanks for your good work! NW (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support based on prose and overall quality. I'm not certain if it's comprehensive, but it's written very well. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment theory

Nominator(s): Fainites barleyscribs 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC), User:Jean Mercer


This article was nominated fairly recently in September. It closed after 6 weeks with one support and several reviewers with incomplete reviews. Ealdgyth had done her stuff on links and references. There was also an unstruck image issue. That image has been replaced, (the moose). Two reviewers have now completed their reviews here. I appreciate it is long but fervent copyediting has slimmed it down by about 14 kbs. I believe it now meets the criteria.Fainites barleyscribs 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved 2c issues are now listed at the review's talk page to avoid clutter! Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - This article clearly introduces the reader to a broad topic in an organized and coherent fashion. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this Fainites! Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Good alt text is present (thanks), except that alt text is missing for Image:Child development stages.svg. Please fix this by appending "|alt=Alt text" to the second line of Template:Child development diagram. The alt text should describe the whole diagram; please see WP:ALT#Diagrams for guidance. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried adding alt text where you suggest but it doesn'y seem to show up. Is there a problem trying to add alt text to what is a navbox that is already full of ppiped links? Fainites barleyscribs 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Your addition worked for me; I expect it was a caching problem of some sort? Anyway, thanks for doing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Comments will jot notes here. pending a couple of minor tweaks below. Well done.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
any benefit of "proximity" over the plainer "closeness"?
It's just that it's the word that always has been and still is used. I don't think it's too esoteric is it? I could wiktionary it.Fainites barleyscribs 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the benefit and reason for the term is it leaves out psychological closeness and is technically more specific. JoeSmack Talk 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good enough for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(note to self, have read down to Significance of attachment patterns - looking good but as I am familiar with jargon I might miss less accessible bits. Too tired to do this justice now. Back tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not very keen on this Around 65% of children have a secure classification in the general population, the remaining 35% divided between the insecure classifications. Do you mind if I change it again?Fainites barleyscribs 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
fine by me, you're welcome to tweak any prose tweaks I make which you feel change meaning inadvertently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Should specify that the AAI is primarily a research tool I think (unless this has changed in the last 10 years (?)). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It may also be used to refer to proposed new classification systems put forward by theorists in the field. - needs a ref methinks..
Done. F.
I'll tweak the AAI bit tonight.Fainites barleyscribs 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • We resolved everything at the last FAC, lets spare my eyes and has anything in the sourcing changed? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think one or two have been removed but no new ones have been added other than another ref to Cassidy and Shaver.Fainites barleyscribs 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I've already commented in the FAC review of the first nomination, which I supported. This version is much improved. I will soon be adding the Wikilink for Dorothy Burlingham in the text, a page I created a while ago, which someone will do well to expand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments I've begun a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - you can see extensive commenting on the talk page that i've already done, and Fainites has patiently and diligently addressed them all. This is complex subject that is quite a challenge to get up to FAC, and I think the job is well done. JoeSmack Talk 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jordanhill railway station

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


A very well done article on a topic one wouldn't expect such quality from. The article was nominated for good article status in March 2006, resulting in it being listed. The article was reassessed in August 2008, and it was again deemed worth of the status. The only major editing note since 2006 was a debate on the naming structure for British railway stations; it was temporarily moved to Jordanhill (railway station) after a very brief discussion, and soon moved back. And yes, this was the millionth article on Wikipedia, thus why it ever was polished this much. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments I'm not yet convinced on the "very well done" part.

  • Most images lack alt text.
  • Most external links are dead.
  • Most ref dates are Day Month Year; change the rest to that format.
  • Some refs say "Retrieved on date", and some say "(Accessed date)". In general, the citations bounce between manually-typed and {{cite ___}}-generated, which causes inconsistencies like that—either use consistent templates or drop them.
  • Is there no more info for ref 16 (The Herald, 20 August 2001)?

Thankfully, there's no dab links. --an odd name 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per the above and comments below. Polish it outside of here and bring it back later. --an odd name (help honey) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment The words "side platformed" would be better removed from the first sentence and the subject of another sentence. Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per AnOddName; most sources are no longer operational, and almost all citations are poorly formatted. Further, at least one of the images is lacking proper source information, and has been tagged accordingly. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has potential, but needs a lot of work. The lead doesn't include anything about the history, despite that being the longest section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -
  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I have not looked at the sites in terms of reliablity, as there are a lot of deadlinks.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Premiership of John Brownlee

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


FAC has read about the John Brownlee sex scandal, now read about the premiership that it ended. This has been through GAN and PR; my thanks to User:Arsenikk and User:S Marshall at those venues.

I'd like to say a word about criterion 1c, since I expect it to come up: this article relies far more heavily on a single source than I would like it to, and far more heavily than any article I have previously brought to FAC. Given the subject, this is unavoidable: Foster is the only writer to publish extensive secondary material on Brownlee's life and career. Brownlee's premiership has been dealt with incidentally in some other works (see my use of Wardhaugh, for example), and two elements of his premiership (the sex scandal and the sterilization act) have been the subject of academic study in their own right. I've referenced the best of the works on the sex scandal (Brode), but reading the papers about the Sterilization Act did not reveal any new information suitable for an article of this generality. Finally, there are a number of books dealing with more general subjects that contain information on Brownlee's premiership, but while these books are generally secondary sources the portions of them dealing with Brownlee are almost always tertiary sources, sourced almost entirely to Foster's work. I could have sourced information found in Foster's book to some of these other sources that duplicated it, thus giving the illusion of source diversity, but I've opted instead to identify the source where I first found it.

The featured article criteria require that an FA be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I submit that, reliance on a single source notwithstanding, this is. That said, I look forward to addressing reviewers' concerns on 1c or any other criterion. Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Foster (1981) appears to be SELF. Can you supply academic peer review of Foster (1981)? Reviews in Journals of Canadian History? This is essential as Foster (1981) is published by Foster Learning Inc., which appears to be edited by Foster. The fact that on his biopage he appears to have been badly photoshopped into an image is not an indication of veracity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look for reviews of that book in particular. Here's an academic review that deals with Foster (2004), which is in most respects a condensed version of Foster (1981). Here's an academic paper that cites Foster (1981) reasonably heavily. Note also that Foster (1981) is an edited version of Foster's doctoral thesis, for which he was awarded a PhD from Queen's University, so this is not exactly typical self-published terrirory. I'll look for something more definitive, though. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A brief review appears to have been published in the following: "John E. Brownlee, a biography." Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Text is not available online, so I'll have a look in the library in the next few days. A longer article from the same journal ("An Alberta political revolution and Calgary's Lougheed Building." Alberta History 51.4 (Autumn 2003): p51(3).) cites it and comments favourable on it in passing ("Franklin Foster tells what followed in his well-written biography..."). It's also been written up in such non-scholarly publications as the Globe and Mail, Alberta Report, and The Beaver. Steve Smith (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise), and alt text looks good. --an odd name 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The first page reads like a biographical article and left me wondering why you hadn't put the man's dates in. But the article is the Premiership. It would be better reworded:
John Brownlee was Premier of Alberta, Canada, from 1925 to 1934 as ......
You don't need to say that he was a politician. It interrupts the flow between his name and the word premier. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Change made. Steve Smith (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, except for the bold text. --an odd name 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wasn't the first name of the girl he was accused of seducing Vivian, not Florence? Connormah (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a hell of a mistake for me to let make it to FAC. Thanks! Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, I find the sentence, On no issue was Brownlee's relationship with the King government more critical than it was for the control of natural resources. worded a bit strange. Something just doesn't sound right about that sentence. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalera Conspiracy

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... After follow the rituals presented at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I decided to nominate this article. To reach here, this article passed for a GA review (conducted by user:Maclean25), and then a peer review, where it received a copy-edit, done by user:Finetooth. I am willing to fix [any?] possible problems that the reviewers find.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • All images have alt text. Make sure that the text would be obvious from seeing the image alone—I think "four members of a musical ensemble", for example, should be changed (they could be from different groups or even all solo, unless we read the article!). How about "Photomontage of four male musicians. Each man appears in a separate column." for the first alt?
  • Ref dates are consistent Day Month Year.

--an odd name 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text, take a look please. Is in this way?--Cannibaloki 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. --an odd name 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose
I haven't generally commented on articles about bands / singers etc, so this is not input from a topic expert at all. I thought this article appeared unbalanced. Entire article text is under the heading 'History'. That looks wrong, and not everything is historical material. The article needs a separate section on musical style etc. Also a section on critical reception, of which there appears to be nothing at all. The article's entire content on impact, style, lyrics, etc appears to be as follows: "...peaking at number 72 on the Billboard 200, selling more than 9,000 copies during its first week in stores.[7] The album blends elements of punk rock and hardcore punk, Sepultura's thrash metal of Arise (1991) and the groove metal of Chaos A.D. (1993),[1][6][8] with its lyrical concept taken from movies Apocalypse Now, City of God, A Clockwork Orange, and La Haine." Surely more would be needed than this for an FA on a band?
The content that has been written is generally well prepared and referenced, but I would not have seen this as close to FA at present. Happy to have a discussion here, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Doing... Please, next time give examples (ie. like article X or Y).--Cannibaloki 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Agreeing with your comment above, I expanded the article into a new section entitled Style, lyrics and reception.--Cannibaloki 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, I think there's a problem with the images. The montage includes images sourced from File:Cavalera Conspiracy 004.jpg, File:Cavalera Conspiracy 005.jpg and File:Cavalera Conspiracy 013.jpg. According to the tags on Commons, the files were taken from a Flickr account operated by Flickr user Eurockéennes de Belfort. All three images - here, here and here are clearly marked as copyrighted (as are all of the Flickr user's submissions). This looks like a Commons error, and I'll be tagging those as copyvios, but the upshot is that File:Cavalera Conspiracy.jpg is also non-free and will be tagged as well. The image is therefore, even if transferred to Wikipedia, non-free and speedy deletable as a copyvio as well as failing WP:NFCC#1 as the images of living people are replaceable. Black Kite 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the Flickr user has changed the license.--Cannibaloki 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • If Flickr has a "View licensing history" feature that illustrates past license changes, this would be less of a problem. (Of course, the Flickr user should be asked to clarify or relicense.) --an odd name 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Possibly, but given that the images in the Flickr collection - which is run by the Eurorockennes festival - were not taken by one person, but a collection of photographers (some professional), I would be very surprised if any of them were ever anything but copyrighted. This isn't the first time - by a long way - that Flickr images that have been marked as "checked" on Commons have turned out to be copyrighted, though. I note that the images were never checked by a human, but by a bot, which has caused issues in the past. Black Kite 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I just assumed that the licenses had changed since the check - I was unaware that there had been problems with Flickr checking on Commons. I had been relying on that for image checks. Could you please leave a detailed explanation on my talk page of the problems with Flickr checking? And thank you for bringing this up. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I will remove the images, and replace by those available on Commons.--Cannibaloki 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HDMI

Nominator(s): GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a notable subject in the consumer electronics world since there are over 600 million HDMI devices. The article covers the history, technical specifications, and revisions of HDMI along with the relationships that it has with other devices. The article was listed as a good article over a year ago. Any comments would be appreciated. GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Please provide alt text to images per WP:ALT.
  • Several web-links are dead (click "external links" in the Toolbox on the right);
  • urls are missing in refs. 92, 100
  • "Overreferencing". A representative example is section "CEC" where 9 links are bundled only to support the brand names. Some of them are incomplete (see above); clicking some others leads to a page of questionable validity (promotional page).
  • I am not happy with the prose. Examples are excessive capitalization (I understand there are many proper names there, but not all are such) and use of slash and brackets. I believe abbreviation "CE" is unnecessary, especially given the large number of other abbreviations.
I have added alt text to all images, I believe that all of the reference links are now correct, have tried to cut down on the number of references in CEC trade name sentence, and have changed all CE abbreviations to consumer electronics. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Have reduced the number of references in CEC trade name sentence to the minimum possible while still having all trade names referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a comment without judgment, about 60 out of 150 refs are from the HDMI website. Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

  • There are 2 links that point back to the article. These will confuse readers—fix or remove them.
  • The lead should serve as the overview of the article—there should not be a second one. Combine the two or remove the second.
  • Find archives or replacements for the marked dead links and for ref 158 (that redirects to the main page, which is not good).
  • Most, if not all, ref dates are ISO style. Double-check that they all are, for consistency.
  • Ref 32 simply says "Cannot connect to database: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 65", and ref 62 does not match the old content, either. I suggest you audit external links throughout the article. (added on 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC))
  • "A miniconnector(=>Micro connector)"→which is it? (added on 04:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected links that point back to the article, have removed overview section and moved information to other sections in the article, I believe that all of the reference links are now correct, have changed all reference dates to ISO style, and have corrected several statements in regards to the connection names.--GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Refs 86 and 92 still need fixing. 86 goes to a Sharp sitemap, and 92 goes to a general Panasonic support page. The digital-cp.com ones also time out—which could just be a server problem—but at least ref 63 (which is exactly the same as 69, by the way) works. --an odd name 08:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Went through and fixed or replaced many references and I believe that all references now work, made various corrections, and made sure that all references use ISO style dates. Also the term used is Mini connector for the Type C connector and Micro connector for the Type D connector and I have corrected those terms throughout the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Struck oppose and issues. A few more points:
  • "The previous maximum pixel clock rate HDMI interface was 165 MHz, which was sufficient for supporting 1080p and WUXGA (1920×1200) at 60 Hz."—should "previous" be "original"?
  • Are you sure Mini and Micro should be capitalized? Who capitalizes the terms? (HDMI.org doesn't; see e.g. ref 1: "New mini connector: ...")
I expect to stay neutral in any case. --an odd name 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Changed the wording of the statement on maximum pixel clock rate for clarity. As for the Mini connector the HDMI website has not always been consistent with capitalizing it but in recent articles I have seen it capitalized. This can be seen in the HDMI 1.4 FAQ, the HDMI 1.4 press release, and the HDMI article on the Micro connector. As for the Micro connector all the articles on the HDMI website I have seen capitalize it. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per criteria 1c and 2a, due to my second issue and because so many links redirect to the main HDMI website that I can't tell whether the text is lifted or not. For example, the first sentence of Cable length is slightly different from the source material, but still too close. Audit prose and, again, external links throughout. --an odd name 05:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Struck overview issue. --an odd name 08:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added links to HDMI Specification 1.3a and have changed the wording in the statement on HDMI cable length. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Have added information to those references that were missing information. For the following articles I will comment on whether I consider them to be reliable:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2254162,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
Reliable, ExtremeTech is done by the same people behind PCMag.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html
Reliable, the home theater magazine launched in 1994.
Current ref 34 (Jeff Su) lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
Removed, the author of the article works as a HDMI product development manager but it was hard to tell who was the website publisher.
http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/202803907
Reliable, website is owned by United Business Media who also owns the EETimes website.
http://www.elitelex.com/HDMIConnectors.html
Replaced, website sold HDMI products but had few articles on HDMI.
Current ref 55 (Ultra-smal...) lacks a publisher and last access date, and what makes this a reliable source?
Reliable, Nikkei is huge media company in Japan.
http://www.twice.com/article/238949-Retailer_Requires_Simplay_HDMI_Testing.php
Reliable, a business magazine.
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the information in that magazine interview came from the Vice President of Marketing for HDMI Licensing.
http://www.cepro.com/
Reliable, a trade magazine that was launched back in 1994.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Reliable, a website that stores technical articles and has the best SPDIF article I could find.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, gaming website that covers issues related to Linux.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, a gaming website that did the first article I know of on HDCP computer monitors. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've struck some, but on the others, still need more information to show reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Looked into the publisher information for those references:
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the online magazine was established in 1996 and is an official Google news source.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Removed, I couldn't find information on the publisher.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by Phoronix Media and was started in 2004.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by FS Media and was started in 1998. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't there anything about DRM in relation to HDMI ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a section in the article on HDCP and a link to the main HDCP article. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rolls-Royce R

Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this article for Featured Article status as I feel with much recent work carried out that it now meets the FAC criteria subject to review. A very constructive peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Rolls-Royce R has been closed and archived with comments being actioned to the benefit of the article. I must acknowledge the tireless input of User:Red Sunset over the past few months, he has concentrated on copy editing, improvement of my grammar and formatting of the table.

If I may comment on the revision history of this article, a large unreferenced text dump was added some 18 months ago, this was pasted in by the owner of a dying website who later contacted me by e-mail as he was pleased that I was working on improving it. Recent work, on obtaining the sources that he originally used, has concentrated on improving the referencing of this information and then expanding on the remarkable human story that lay behind this apparently obscure aero engine with a strange name. A predecessor of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, I felt that the R engine deserved to have some effort expended on it. The article is stable apart from recent improvement work which has now come to a practical end. Wherever possible technical terms have been wikilinked or explained with footnotes and plain text. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: 1c, 2c. An impressive use of exhibit objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1c: Support as a result of evaluation of article and discussion at here regarding source exhaustion.
2c: A couple of fix-its, some style suggestions, which sadly spiralled out of control (in terms of length), so I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce R/archive1#2c issues
Note: 3 2c issues remain, all relating to "Further Reading". I can't find the material myself to work them into fullcites, see Talk:. Suggest Fullcite or remove. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Actioned by removal. 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your constructive observations, I was never really happy with the 'Further reading' section, it was a remnant from the website, will try to identify that material but it's probably gone on a bonfire by now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a great article, and a credit to those who've put so much effort into it. I do have a couple of things I think need to be fixed though:
  • "During the World War II years, he was responsible for the upkeep of Blue Bird K4 and the spare R engines, but unknown to him they had been sold along with K3. Villa eventually took the three R engines to Thomson & Taylor at Brooklands ...". I can't get my head round this. Villa was responsible for the upkeep of the engines but he didn't know they'd been sold? Campbell was paying Villa to maintain engines that he no longer owned?
  • "It had been intended to also use the identical sister aircraft, S1596, for the attempt ...". Why "also"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, Malcolm Campbell was apparently a very strange person, what I have written is exactly as quoted (with words rearranged to avoid copyvio). Although this started as an engine article the unfolding story behind it became very engrossing. I have tried to keep it relevant to the engine although I noticed that the linked articles such as Sir Malcolm Campbell and Donald Campbell are not currently telling the full story. Donald had to buy the engines and boat back out of his late father's estate for instance. Leo Villa's article is a one-liner. I don't really have any interest in the Campbells but I will try to improve their articles in the future.
On S1596, both aircraft were intended to be used as record breakers but this aircraft had an accident which is explained with plain text and a cite. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally managed to log in!!! Thanks for the thorough going-over Malleus (the article that is!) – some blindingly obvious fixes now that you've implemented them! Cheers. --Red Sunset 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-done article! - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thankyou, any bad parts? Just to note that 'RS' and myself are suffering internet problems, especially with Wikipedia, might be a server traffic thing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks very much. I reckon it would be quicker to use Royal Mail and post my edits right now! ;-) --Red Sunset 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. As the editor who probably put Nimbus and RS through more grief than needed during their peer review, I can wholeheartedly recommend this article. It is an extensive and complete article that has the additional bonus of telling an interesting story. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks SidewinderX – no problems, someone's gotta' keep us in check! --Red Sunset 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of modifying some of the grammer; eg: "The first configuration drawing of the "Racing H" engine, based on the Buzzard design (itself a 5:6-scaled Rolls-Royce Kestrel), was sent to R. J. Mitchell of Supermarine on 3 July 1928 to proceed with the new S.6 Schneider Trophy seaplane layout,[2] shortly after which the name was changed to R for "Racing". Is a little wordy and confusing - it is much easier to state that Mitchell was able to start design on the S6, and the last part of this sentence implies that the name of Mitchells' design was changed to R. Finally, that the Buzzard was an upscaled Kestral should simply be footnoted, rather than breaking the sentence's flow. Hope this helps. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • Striking as this has been removed from the article (I think). Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I can confirm removal Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
In the lower left corner of the original image is the text 'Paris Office N.A.C.A. NACA was renamed NASA. Hope that is ok. Could also be tagged US PD Gov as it is from a national museum. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Now permission templated as PD-USGov replacing PD-USGov-NASA. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Note of this action left on reviewer's talk page [1] per FAC instructions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Striking as this has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Easy to get lulled into a false sense of security by using Commons images.
File:Rolls-Royce R Engine.jpg was tagged for deletion by me some weeks ago as it was clearly public domain and I transferred it to Commons. It was deleted but the file code still links to the WP version? This [2] shows that it was deleted on 3 November 2009. Perhaps the editor only deleted the talk page? I have seen this problem before. Would appreciate some help from an admin here as I don't have the access to fix it. In hindsight I should have renamed the Commons version.
Have contacted the deleting admin to ask if he can help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Have now renamed this image as File:Rolls-Royce R Side View.jpg on Commons and have tagged the duplicate for deletion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
File:ArticulatedConnectingRod.jpg - I will contact the original uploader who appears to possess this WW I manual. Uploader contacted [3].
Replaced with one of my own photographs, File:Rolls-Royce Merlin Cylinders.JPG, as the original uploader appears reluctant to assist. I believe that this is a more informative photo anyway as it shows several features mentioned in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Supermarine S.6B ExCC.jpg - Will have a look at its permission and linking. Traced the source, provided image link and source link. No photographer details given, added the date of 1931 as this aircraft is identified as a Supermarine S.6B with the tail number of S1596 that was only used in this year's competition.
File:Bluebird land speed record car 1935 rc10413.jpg - It appears that this has been through the system according to its permission, not familiar with OTRS procedure. It is possible that I have an image of my own of a replica but I fear that it is not very good.
Replaced with another of my own images, File:Campbell Railton Blue Bird Replica.JPG, this is an exact replica of the original car on display in England, the caption makes it clear that this is a replica and I think it serves the purpose of illustrating the machine. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The original image has not been through the system - the email listed in the image description page needs to be sent through OTRS. See here for details. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Will take a little time, if the answers can not reasonably be found then I will remove the questioned images. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It was in the Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC although it might have been another Spitfire website as there were a few that were removed. This site appears to be the museum's own website. I have replaced it with a book cite in case of doubt. Have removed 'rainbowcoloured'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese Restaurant

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think this meets the FA criteria. This is the third Seinfeld season two episode I'm nominating for FAC, both previous episode articles have not been promoted (yet). Mostly because nobody seems interested enough to review them. Hopefully, as this is considered a "classic episode", reviewers will come in greater numbers. Thank you.--Music26/11 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

--an odd name 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - The sole image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why does the plot section begin with "In this landmark episode[...]" ? How is it neutral? (More comments likely to come) The Flash {talk} 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No idea how that got there. I've removed it.--Music26/11 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comments:
  • I'd like to see an image for this article's infobox; something like this. With that image, you can have a rationale for "Hong's performance became one of his most famous roles in the United States" or "The plot was believed by NBC to be nonexistent and uninteresting to viewers, which the crew vehemently denied" or even "The very simple and generally nonexistent storyline for the episode was praised by critics, who believed it help define the series' "show about nothing" concept."
  • The fact that you prefer an image in an article like this (a TV episode article that is) is understandable, but I believe other users will critize an image such as the one you propose. The thing is (based on experience with other FACs) most reviewers only think an image is neccesary when whatever the picture depicts can't be explained in words; for instance the image you used on your first FA, you can see in the image what is explained in the caption, in other words, you can see the design of the Electro character. The thing is, the image you propose, as well as any other image, would be considered redundant as it doesn't add anything; we don't have any info regarding the set of the episode or the clothes the characters wore or something like that. That's why I believe an image will be critized by other reviewers. Sorry for the length ;).--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly agree with you here, but do understand where you're coming from and have struck the comment. The Flash {talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with what I point out either. I just hate it if reviewers make a "big thing" about it.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In Richard's quote, please decapitalize "restaurant" as it implies he's referring to the episode's title, not the plot.
  • As this article's references show "Inside looks" on the episode are available on the DVD, I'd suggest removing the instance that is wasn't from Seinfeld (season 2).
  • I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.--Music26/11 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Throughout the article, a citation used is the DVD feature "Inside Looks - The Chinese Restaurant." On the season 2 page, it is said that the feature is not available for the episode. It doesn't truly pertain to the article itself, but when viewing it one is bound to read the season page, which gives false info on one of the article's sources. Is that a bit clearer? The Flash {talk} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ohhh... I get it, sorry that's my fault. Removed.--Music26/11 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Michael Mitz portrayed the man who is on the phone when George tries to call Tatiana, Mitz would return[...]" -> "[...]to call Tatiana; Mitz would return[...]"
  • "[...]he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at the beginning of the episode, he is still sitting at the same spot when Jerry, George and Elaine leave." -> "[...]the beginning of the episode and is later still[...]"
  • That's all. Excellent work with the article. The Flash {talk} 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: My issues have been taken care of; I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Flash {talk} 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1930 FIFA World Cup

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

With the 2010 World Cup just around the corner, this is my attempt to give the very first edition of the most prestigious tournament in football (or soccer if you prefer) the article it deserves. While today the World Cup is a media extravaganza rivalled only by the Olympics, its origins were far more humble. Ignored completely by much of Europe, crowds were a mere few hundred at the start of the tournament. By the final, they had grown to 93,000, and the rest is history. The boring part: the article is a current GA, and has had two peer reviews. The images are free, and since I've taken it as far as I can, its time for the FAC microscope. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Interesting article. Could the single "See also" link be incorporated somewhere in the prose? It also seems a little confused - if Uruguay were chosen as hosts partly because they offered to refund the expenses of the participants, why did European countries consider the trip too expensive? And then why did things change after the Uruguayan government agreed to pay travel expenses? (Or was the first offer to cover non-travel expenses, and then later it was extended to travel for European countries?) Trebor (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If I had been writing an essay or blog post, I'd have expanded on this more, but I'm wary of synthesis. Professionalism was in its infancy - the first professional league outside Britain was not formed until 1924 (in Vienna), and in 1930 professionalism in continental Europe was mainly limited to Central Europe and Spain. So in many cases the players were amateurs. Since this was the time of the Great Depression, taking a lengthy period off work would no doubt represent a big risk for players. The colonial attitudes of Old Europe played a part too. I'll try to add a little, but I shall have to be careful not to advance beyond what is explicitly stated in the sources. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • Ref 38 is broken, both in availability and formatting. Use {{cite web}} with the format parameter instead, and don't worry about the size. Otherwise, external links all work, and no dab links.
  • The infobox needs alt text and may need changes to its template for that purpose.

--an odd name 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I have fixed {{Infobox International Football Competition}} to support alt text; please use its new |alt= parameter to describe that (very cool) lead image. Also, the alt text for File:Red card.svg currently says "Sent off in the 54th minute", which isn't right: the visual appearance is merely that of a red card, so the alt text should say just "Red card". The rest of the alt text looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref fixed and alt text added for the lead image. I'm struggling to work out how to do so for the red card as a template is involved. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed that red card template. The alt text all looks very good now; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3'

Done.
  • File:Estadiocentenario.JPG - The author and uploader of this image do not appear to be the same. Please contact the uploader and see if s/he is indeed the author and has the ability to release the rights to the photo. If not, please contact the author and ask them to do so through OTRS.
I have replaced this image with a PD-old alternative. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please link the new image here so that I can check it - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Decide if you're going to refer to the FIFA site as "FIFA official website" "FIFA" or "FIFA.com" Also whether it's going to be italicised or not. All references to that need to be consistent.
  • Current ref 13 (Lara...) is in Spanish? Needs to note that in the reference.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted RSSSF particularly.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – A pleasing read overall, but I am a little concerned about the third comment below. I'll probably check some more for this before any offer of support

  • Origins: I see nothing in the source given (reference 2) about soccer's lack of popularity in the U.S. Also, baseball was the number one sport in the country at the time, not American football. In fact, the National Football League had a very limited fan base in 1932, though the college game was popular at the time.
  • The "Not only...but" sentence structure is long and awkward in most cases, and it appears to be here. See if this can be re-worded.
  • Major problem in Summary: "The USA were seeded on account of the professional soccer league in the USA at the time" is pretty much identical to what is in the source. I hope this isn't a trend elsewhere.
  • Is the anecdote at the end of Group 2 covered in the following reference (26)?
  • Group 3: "when Placido Galindo of Peru was dismissed against Romania. Romania...". Notice the repetition at the end? That's something to fix.
  • Final: "and Uruguay thus added the title World Cup winners to their mantle of Olympic Champions." Should Champions be capitalized like this?
  • Commas before and after Buenos Aires? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina class battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


The North Carolina-class battleships epitomized the problem faced by 1930s designers: how to fit a maximum of firepower, armor and speed into a 35,000 long ton ship. Both ships of the class, North Carolina and Washington, served with distinction in the Second World War, with Washington sinking the Japanese battleship Kirishima in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Both ships were decommissioned soon after the war's end; North Carolina was preserved as a memorial and still exists today, while Washington was broken up for scrap. The article passed a Military history WikiProject A-class review in September. Any and all comments are welcome! Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Dates are consistent. Apart from noted below, citations are consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2c related:
Your bibliography entry for "Garzke; Dulin, Robert O. (1976). Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870210998. OCLC 2414211." is wrong, does Garzke only have one name?
Your short cites for "United States Battleships in World War II" are wrong, the full title from your bibliography is "Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II."
fn53 isn't very good at indicating a full cite is elsewhere? ^ "Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944"; ahhh, its a short cite of the bibliography item ""Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944". Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. 6 October 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2009."... try using the publisher, to indicate that its not a hanging footnote without a full reference elsewhere? so ""Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944". Navy Department." for the short cite? or even "Marshall Islands Campaign." Navy Department.
Fixed, thanks—it was a typo in {{cite book}}
The "Battleships:" is there because it is part of series, all of which are prefaced by that. Do you still want me to add it?
Done, I believe.
Thanks for the comments; I can't believe you got here and commented just 15 minutes after the nomination. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I try to do 2c on any article I'm capable of, and 1c on those I'm capable of and have time for, I worked from the end of the list up :). Also I watch FAC, and Majestic Titan articles tend to be easier to review for 2c / 1c due to MilHist's quality as a project.
Check the title page for the correct book title, use that for the title field. For a book in series, if using cite book use |series=. For hand citations, write in non italics after the title, as such: Author, Firstname. Book title: subtitle. Series Title, Foo, Bar (Series ed.). etc... You can use [Series] when it would be unclear its a series title. So Rudd, Kevin. My election to Australian Parliament. Election of Australian Prime Ministers [Series] Windsor, Elizabeth (Series Editor). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Press, 2007. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See this (note that the last book is editon two of the book I've been using. It has virtually the same information on the North Carolinas; it mainly served as an update for the modernizations of the four Iowa class). for what I mean. I don't think that the series itself is named "Battleships", but it seemed pointless to add it in the article to the short cites. It's not a big deal if I have to put it in though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Extensive bibliographic searching (I went to Amazon and Worldcat) indicate the title is "Battleships : United States battleships, 1935-1992". So it is part of the title... urgh. So your shortcites must be Battleships (at least). I'd suggest that's ugly and stupid, so its one occasion where I'd suggest using the subtitle in a short cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I have the book, it's Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II.[4] :-) The one you cite is a later version of the same book; basically, it included the same information on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, but it had complete information on the modernizations of the Iowa class. So is what I have okay, or do I need to add "Battleships:" in front of my short cites? :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks), but there are a couple of problems:
  • Alt text is missing for File:USS North Carolina Fit out NARA 1941-04-17.jpg.
  • A few of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert just from the image, and need to be reworded or merged into the caption; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "Proposed" (in "Proposed schematics"), "Design schematic, more similar to the eventual design", "16 inch" (in "two levels of magazines for the 16 inch shells"), "instructions" (in "another yells instructions"), "The explosive force", and "The King".
Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that alt text viewers were supposed to use the caption and alt text together? I.e. so information in the caption should not be repeated in the alt text? For example, in the king image, the caption starts with "King George VI of the United Kingdom ...", while the alt text has "the King". —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, @"instructions", would you rather that it say a guy is 'yelling something unknown'? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd replace "the King" with something about a man in a naval uniform of very high rank. And for the other image I'd just say that the man is yelling at the other men. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hah, wrong edit summary, but does this satisfy your concerns? Sorry Fifel, I assumed it was Eubulides. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Most of the above problems have been fixed (thanks) and I struck them, but there are still some phrases that can't be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability): 'Proposed design "A"' (nothing in that image says it's proposed, or is "A"), 'Proposed design "XVI"' (likewise), 'The explosive force from the torpedo' (the image doesn't establish to a non-expert that it was a torpedo, or even that it was an explosion), '—the King—' (can't tell it's a king from the image; besides, the caption already says it's the King, and alt text shouldn't repeat the caption; just remove '—the King—' to fix the problem). Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Schemes and torpedo are fixed, but I disagree on the last point... It seems like a good time to IAR. I fully understand what WP:ALT#Verifiability says, and what you are stating is within the letter of the policy, but I don't think it is in its spirit to willfully mislead a reader. Even the blind should know that he is the king, not a "high ranking naval officer" or "person decorated with ribbons" etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Even the blind should know that he is the king" But the blind will know that he is the king, because the caption will be read aloud to the blind, and the caption says he's the king. With the proposed change, the blind will find out that he's the king at the same time the sighted reader finds out. Both sets of readers will look at the picture (or listen to the alt text) and will see (or hear about) a man of high rank; and will then later read (or hear) the caption, and find out that he's the king. That's a good thing: the visually impaired will get an experience that is similar to that of the sighted. But when the alt text says "the King", the visually impaired gets a different experience than the sighted: one that repeats the caption in an undesirable way. (Thanks for fixing the other problems, by the way; I've struck that part of my comments.) Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is an "undesirable way". I'm not discriminating against the blind by ensuring they know which guy (ie the one with ribbons) is the king, am I? The caption does not—and should not IMO, because it ought to be obvious to people seeing the image—signify which one is the king. The blind do not have this advantage of seeing who is in front, hence the mention in the alt text.
Also, keep this in mind: "high rank" can equate to many different people who could be or were accompanying the King, like generals and admirals (and all of the accompanying ranks, like vice admiral or lieutenant general, etc.) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, we've spent way too much time on this already, but removing the identification of the king from the caption would be a clear mistake. Most readers won't know the king from a hole in the wall. (These days, most readers won't recognize any British figure from World War II, other than Churchill.) All that's clear from the image itself is that it's some high-ranking guy. It's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the guy happens to be His Majesty. And "high rank" accurately reflects his title, regardless of whether the phrase is interpreted as rank of nobility or military rank: the king was Commander-in-chief of the British armed forces. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You miss my point. (a) there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is, but (b) if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king and not just say "a guy of high rank with many ribbons". "High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense because it can be interpreted in so many ways. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - I don't see the following onthe source page: "These photos are arranged in chronological order and are believed to be all declassified official USN photos". Can you point me to it?
  • The site seems to have undergone some changes since I last looked at it... I think what we are looking for is here, but it is also unneeded. The original source is ""Naval Ordnance and Gunnery - 1952" Navpers 16116-B", which is/was a publication of the Navy's Bureau of Naval Personnel. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please add the complete publication information for "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery" so that this is clear. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be. I've been in email correspondence with the NH&HC/NHC over this in the past; their reply was
As a matter of general policy, we take the view that images presented on the NHHC website are "to the best of our knowledge ... in the Public Domain". If the image is credited as "U.S. Navy Photograph", it would have that status because it originated with an official source. If it is credited as "U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph", the image is either old enough to have made its way into the Public Domain before the copyright laws were changed to eliminate the old 27 years + 27 years rule, or because the image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned, or appears to have originated with an official source but we can't be sure.
If those considerations do not provide you, your lawyers, or the Wikipedia contributors community with sufficient certainty, and you therefore wish to avoid whatever risks might be involved with using any of our images, you are certainly welcome to seek alternative pictures from other sources.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: some checking revealed that this is an official U.S. Navy photograph. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Great. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, this took much more hunting than I thought it would, but it appears to be from here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please add the link to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


These should be easy to fix and I look forward to striking my oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • Some of the links in the source section and those in the external links section need to use the cite web template.
    External links done, not sure which ones you mean for the sources? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you add the WW2 portal to the article
    The Military of the United States portal is probably relevant too.
    They don't really have a lot of relevance to this article... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Use of abbreviations does appear not to be consistent in regards to knots; personally I think in regards to this one we should consistently use “knots” over “kn”
    Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To be honest the below has confused me somewhat considering it has already been stated that the first few designs included 16 in guns.
    "Standley's only addition to the characteristics was that a switch from quadruple 14 in to triple 16 in turrets be possible if the 'escalator clause' in the Second London Naval Treaty was invoked. This provision allowed … to raise the 14 in limit to 16 in if Japan or Italy still refused to sign after 1 January 1937….[19][20][21]"
    You are correct. I have copyedited this.[6] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In the main battery section we have started using the abbreviation “cal” but have not started further up the article that this means “calibre”. Can the abbreviation be added after the first use of the full word or be replaced.
    Done, I think.[7] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Barrel Life: AP and training rounds have been talked about; did these ships fire HE for shore bombardments? If so is there any information of there effect?
    The source, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm , doesn't say anything about HE. I'm guessing that HC replaced/superseded it? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondary battery, do we have a photograph or diagram to illustrate the weapons talked about?

Extremely detailed article thus far.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amador Valley High School

Nominator(s): Deltawk (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


I would like to thank the users that were involved in helping review and give constructive criticism for this article, particularily Camaron, Shirulashem, Scartol, Finetooth, Jp07, and Ruhrfisch. Also NuclearWarfare, Eubulides, Rocksanddirt, Ealdgyth and Tony1 from the previous FAN. I have addressed their comments and suggestions for the article, and their input has helped this article improve.

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel like it has reached FAC status and is ready to become one of the very few high school FAs. I will do my best to address all correctable concerns in a timely fashion. Deltawk (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, The first sentence gives the town and state, but not the country. This is an encyclopedic part of every article. Amandajm (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been fixed. -Deltawk (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

--an odd name 07:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Response - I have replaced the URLS for refs 86 and 87 (now they are actually 88 and 89) with working links. I have also looked over the reference list twice and replaced 4 dates that were not in ISO style. Thank you for your comments, do you have any more suggestions on how to improve the article? - Deltawk (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • All external links appear to work now. Also make sure to check for duplicate references; see my last edit there. (I'll stay neutral on this article.) --an odd name 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please see my query re "lumber" in the edit history page.

Paragraphs. There are some problems. If you try to maintain a strictly chronological order, your reader becomes exhausted flicking their mind back to a previous paragraph. For example, this sentence, From 1922 to 1988, the school was part of the AVJUHSD.[5][13] and that which follows about Dublin have nothing to do with the next sentence about the construction of the theater.
Can I suggest that you work carefully through the history section, and group "like information". So that the statement about the region is immediately followed by the history of this school's part within the region, and division from it. It is easier if the paragraphs are thematic, perhaps with an overall chronology about them, so that the statement about the district kicks in at 1988, when the change was made, rather than 1922, which has already been indicated in the part about the school's foundation.
Likewise, discussion of parental and citizen involvement needs to be followed by more info on the same subject, if available. Hope this is helpful!
Please check my spelling as I write British/Australian English and sometimes am not aware of spelling protocols in U.S. articles. Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - I do like your new wording of the sentences involving the lumber, thank you. I have reorganized the information in the history section into subsections. How do you think of it so far and how could it be improved? There is no more information about the school's parental and citizen involvement in the book that I retrieved the information from, sadly. - Deltawk (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Sounds like a much cooler high school than the one I went to. I have some comments, questions, and recommendations below: Sasata (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • "...out of concerns for overcrowding and transportation for students travelling to other schools." replace 1st "for" with "of"
  • "...the increased population produced an increase in student enrollment." There's a cause-effect relationship implied there which is probably true, but is not exactly stated in the the 1st ref that's given (current ref #13). I'd prefer if the term "produced" was replaced with "coincided with". Also, please ensure that pages numbers are given for multi-page documents like this, to help those readers that want to verify the information.
  • "As of 2009, the district contains two comprehensive high schools (Amador Valley and Foothill), two continuation high schools" please link or define "continuation high school"
  • "The Fall Festival parade starts on the Amador Valley parking lot, travels down Main Street, and ends near the fairgrounds, with bands, floats, balloons, horses, and antique cars." Sentence construction seems slightly awkward to me... how about "The Fall Festival parade, which features bands, floats, balloons, horses, and antique cars, starts on the Amador Valley parking lot, travels down Main Street, and ends near the fairgrounds."
  • "In 1927, Pleasanton mothers decided to start a school lunch program to help students learn better." Learn what? Cooking? How to eat well?
  • "Parents donated pots and pans, and a newly hired cook prepared lunches, to be eaten at tables and benches constructed by the custodian and the music teacher from wood of horse stalls formerly on the campus." Sentence doesn't read well to me
  • "... but for the 1968–69 school year, both high schools were on double sessions on the Amador Valley campus." What does double sessions mean?
  • "As more families moved to the Pleasanton region, Foothill High School was formed in 1973." "formed" strikes me as an odd choice of verb... how about built, constructed, or completed?
  • suggest wlinking substitute, and unionized
  • "The measured added renovated science classrooms," fix
  • wlink superintendent
  • don't think the 6 character traits need to be capitalized
  • "Amador Valley curriculum offers 20 Advanced Placement classes" Since the shortform "AP" is used several times after this sentence, I suggest adding (AP) after its first full mention
  • "The average participant takes 4.3 exams..." Per class? Per program? Per semester?
  • "also offers AP courses in Social Sciences and Visual and Performing Arts." These don't need caps (as well as "Literature" previously, and "Vocational education" in the next sentence)
  • wlink flora and fauna
  • "...these resources include data descriptions, a virtual tour of the creek..." Not clear what is meant by "data descriptions"; what does "virtual tour" mean?
  • "Research projects from the creek and other sources have led to sweepstakes awards " I doubt the creek has done any research projects; what's a sweepstakes award?
  • "...and has won four EBAL Championships." EBAL?
  • "The school provides facilities free of charge for three Special Olympic events: Basketball, Track, and Volleyball..." No caps on the sports, and the punctuation in this sentence needs revising.
  • "Amador Valley High School, the first to represent California at the Midwestern event, finished fifth in the championship." Hard to tell how much of an achievement this is without some context... how many competed?
  • that's quite a list of extracurricular activities in this high school; at my school all I remember was chess club and drama club!
  • maybe for the alumni list would it be a good idea to add their graduation year parenthetically?
  • any info on when the emblem was created?
  • Response - Thank you for taking your time to look over the article in detail and to leave your comments. I have addressed your comments, although if you would still like me to change anything please let me know and I will gladly do so. The math team placed 5th out of 10 teams. I don't have a source for their being 10 teams at the competition - although this is somewhat more notable because only the top three teams from all participating states were invited. I would like to add their graduation years, but I do not have graduation years for many of the alumni so that list would be incomplete. I do not have information on when the emblem was created. - Deltawk (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making the changes. I'm leaning towards support, but will come back again for a second read in a few days, and I'll probably offer a few more tweaks. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Image review - The images were reviewed last time the article was up for FAC. Have they changed since then? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Response - Two images (under alumni and student outreach) have been readded or added. Otherwise, the images are the exact same. - Deltawk (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please link the new ones here - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this article several weeks ago, and I've been pleased to see Deltawk's indefatigable, precise dedication to its improvement. I believe the source on this photo needs to be more accurately specified, but otherwise it appears to be of FA quality. Scartol • Tok 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Response I have received OTRS verification that the author of the photo has released it under the mentioned license. Christopher Stair is a friend (and owner of the photo) who had release its permissions. - Deltawk (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Current ref 22 (Prop 8 Ruling..) is the LA Progressive a newspaper? Needs to be italicised. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 92 (Casey..) newspaper title needs italicised.
  • And there are other newspapers that need italicised past current ref 92 (The bing refs - 96, 97, 98, 99) and on out. Please double check this.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - Thanks for being able to re-review the article. I've replaced the article from the LA Progressive with a reference to the official PDF file with the quote. I've also italicized the newspapers that I found were not italicized. - Deltawk (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

  • The enrollment subsection is placed beneath the awards subsection. Every book I've ever seen about a specific school discusses the enrollment/class size trends first.
  • There is no drop-down list of recent enrollment numbers (say from 1990 to 2009). There is also nothing at Pleasanton Unified School District. Does this school for some reason not get given a School Accountability Report Card each year?
  • Ottre 17:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - Thank you for your comments. I have reorganized the academics section of the article so that enrollment is discussed first. I have added a chart of the recent enrollment numbers to Pleasanton Unified School District. I tried to put the chart in this article too, but the placement of the chart relative to the images did not work out. Do you feel like there is some way I could still include the recent enrollment trends? - Deltawk (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a collapsible navbox. It's a less than perfect solution, but I can't think of anything else. Tell me if you want to change the colours, I'm using orange because I think that is what is used on high school reports in the USA. Ottre 12:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - May you change the colors to purple and gold/white? Orange and yellow don't seem to fit that well in the article. Thanks for adding the collapsible navbox too - I was looking for the wikicode to make it collapsible but couldn't find it. You added exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. - Deltawk (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Ottre 14:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice that the only references in the paragraph about the school hosting the ABC basketball tournament are the articles by Heidi Massie, and they are both rather lacking in detail. I'm sure many others have written about the tournament. There's no problem with using Massie as a source, but you also should also include articles from respected high-school/college basketball sports writers. Ottre 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - I've tried to look for more references, but the only other third-party reliable source I can find so far about the ABC history is [10] - which doesn't really give any additional information. I'll continue looking. - Deltawk (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I found nothing in the EBSCO and HW Wilson databases. You may want to get someone who has access to Factiva to search for you, as it has the full-text archive of the Los Angeles Daily News and recent articles from the Los Angeles Times (going back to 2000, if I remember correctly). Both of these papers have good coverage of high-school sports in California.
  • If you do go that far in your research, you might want to see our article on Riordan High. This school runs the "Crusader Classic" tournament, which has apparently been running for almost as long as the ABC. Notice that the article includes a lot more information on the school's championship teams. Ottre 14:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do we really need to mention that Aliya Deri was featured in a book about the National Spelling Bee? WorldCat says the book in question is only held by 24 libraries in the USA. Ottre 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - I've removed the reference to the book. - Deltawk (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland Toleration Act

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


This article's come a long way, with good reviews at both GAN and PR, and a thorough copyedit by the peer reviewer. I know there's gotta be some problem with the refs, despite my checking repeatedly, since I never get them quite right, but think it's ready to be picked apart at FA. Thanks in advance for your reviews. Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1b,c,2c: There appears to be an extensive untapped literature, of which the literature used here is not adequately representative, and where major features of the topic are not currently discussed. Referenced material producing facts and analysis has not been correctly cited (by author admission). 1d: Despite the hundred of years, there is a failure to adequately deal with anti-papist and anti-dissent opinion forming; Toleration is portrayed in a modern manner inappropriate to the subject matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Comment Extensive sourcing issues unaddressed by author prior to FAC. (2c, citation consistency)
  • I've abandoned the cite ____ templates for flexibility, which due to my referencing incompetence may make things worse rather than better, but we'll see. Geraldk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Date consistency: "December 1957" in the article, the December is an issue name, not a date. Generally dates are inconistent September 21, 1649 (Old or New style?) yet, "Retrieved 2009-11-13"
  • I've changed the dates in the refs so they are consistent with the date formatting in the article. Have tried to deal with the issue name / date issue, but not confident of the result, so let me know if that is what it should look like. Unfortunately, the sources that I used for the date are not clear about whether the date is old style or has been converted. Any ideas on how to deal with that? Geraldk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're using publisher locations, all publishers must be located.
Encyclopedia articles must be signed by experts to be high quality reliable sources, you don't name the article in the encyclopedia or the articles author. Treat for citation as if a chapter in a book. Finkelman, Paul (2006). The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. ISBN 0415943426.
  • The article is written by Finkelman, who also edited the encyclopedia. I've added the title of the entry, but am I correct in assuming I don't need to include his name twice? Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a particularly good sign about the RS quality. How long is the article. Does it explicitly name Finkleman as the author? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's online, so it isn't difficult to look up. It's only about a page, and it does explicitly mention Finkelman. Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Its a Scholar publishing in a non-scholarly mode (its too short, even for law). Pursue the material you would cite from there through Finkleman's references. Also its pp975-6 in the Books edition you cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If you indicate the publisher of one journal, you need to do it for all of them (Church History versus Constitutional Comment)
Can you please cite US law correctly? "Maryland Toleration Act". Yale University Avalon Project. 1649. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
  • I'm afraid I don't know the proper format for this. How should it be formatted? Geraldk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You'd need to look up the citation of US law. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do. Thanks for the help. Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1c commentary
You are reliant on Finkleman. Failure to indicate that this is a high quality source will not be good for your 1c status.
  • I rely on Finkelman largely because his presentation is compact, but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer. I do believe Finkelman is reliable, he is a professor who specializes in American legal history at the Albany Law School, website here. Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's basically a 1c failure right there, "but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer." Please ping me when you've written the article to FAC standard? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled by your response. Not just the unwarranted rudeness, but the suggestion for some reason that because other sources have the same information, but I've chosen to use a source that is both accessible to readers and reliable rather than listing in-line cites for offline sources somehow weakens the article. Do you have a substantive concern about the reliability of the source? Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The encyclopedia article you're citing is not, in my mind, a "High Quality Reliable Source." Its a signed Tertiary by an expert, but it is well under the expected word count for HQRS in legal history. It may be Reliable in a strict sense, but it is so emaciated an account that it certainly isn't HQRS (the fact that the tertiary is smaller than this article is of concern, it appears as though we've expanded upon Finkleman). That you've channelled verifiability into a single source due to access issues is not commendable, it removes the actual verification process. A courtesy link is a courtesy, it doesn't carry the weight of the verification. It is fine to cite a single fact with multiple verifying items. Your expression also creates a deep sense of doubt in my mind, which is developed by the 1b/d issues over anti-Catholicism, and sustained by comparing the 1b/c material gathered against a rapid search of the literature. The Maryland Toleration Act has obviously been a focus of significant scholarly attention. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Citation please, "the Enlightenment, which is generally considered to be when the idea of religious freedom took root"
  • Out of time right now, will add tonight. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1c / 1b commentary
Hostile and negative receptions of the law are dismissed and understated. The political/economic elements of anti-Toleration in the United Kingdom and specifically the American colonies are inadequately contextualised. The text presents a naive Whig theory of history which I'm unsure originates in Finkleman or American (legal history) triumphalism.
  • Yeah, sorry, this comment's a little above my head. You mind breaking down 'naive Whig theory of history' so I can better understand what you are getting at? If your concern is that the article's treatment of how the law's being an early example of religious 'tolerance' contrasts with its exclusion of non-Christians is not balanced, then I can certainly reword. Also, what do you mean by the political/economic elements of anti-Toleration? What are you looking for me to include in that area? Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • People hated the law at the time. Protestants repealed it instantly, and repeatedly. The concerns and politics of British repression of catholics and dissent isn't contextualised. The anti-Catholic anti-dissent views are brushed over entirely, and viewed from an anachronistically modern context. The Whig theory of history is an analysis of (predominantly) legally focused institutional histories generated which view the secular anglo-american state as the perfection of mankind and the epitome of civilisation, and reflects on all things leading towards this blessed state in terms of its promotion or hinderance of Whiggery. Basically, its explaining the past in terms of how it creates the present. This article projects contemporary ideas backwards onto the concept of religious tolerance in the 17th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK, I think I understand you to say that the article judges the law within the idea (right or wrong) that it was one further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution. That was certainly not intentional. Will go back to the sources tonight, although as I recall they did not go into much depth about the Protestant opinion of the law at the time aside from saying that as soon as they had an opportunity, Protestants repealed it. The larger background of British repression of Catholics will take the identification of new sources, and may take a day or two to complete properly. And I suppose some scrubbing of language is in order. Thanks for the clarification. Geraldk (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It does come across as very much addressing whether or not this legislation was a "further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution." Readers will be interested in that, but we should provide them with raw materials rather than a conclusion. (If you can't find materials on Maryland, general comments on seventeenth century toleration should be found in discussions of Independency and of the 1689 English Act of Toleration.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks much for the thorough review. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not Yet
    • This law was passed September 21, 1649. How, then, is its repeal of 1654 seven years later?
    • More importantly, this is eight months after the execution of Charles I, four years after the outlawry of the Book of Common Prayer. There is very little sense of this context, and the implication that the Civil War began in 1652 is nonsense.
    • By the same token, the claim that the parliamentary commissioner Claiborne was a staunch advocate for the Anglican Church is most unlikely.
    • It seems almost equally unlikely (although more technical) that (in 1651) he was appointed by Cromwell in person; Cromwell spent most of that year in Scotland.
    • A rebellion of Catholics overthrew Calvert in 1688? Is this vandalism? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion 3

These issues should be able to be fixed quickly and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lactarius indigo

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a penchant for edible blue mushrooms. Perhaps it's the result of some synaptic rewiring that took place while watching the Smurfs as a kid. Anyway, the article is short, but comprehensive. Is it sweet? I'l let you decide. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • All images in the article itself have alt text that looks good to me. Other images either have alt text or don't need it because they're unlinked and represented by other text nearby (like the Mycomorphbox), except for one: I tried to unlink {{fungiportal}}'s image so it wouldn't need an alt, but the protected parent template apparently doesn't even see the result of the documented "link" attribute. :(
  • No dab links or dead external links, I'm glad to see.
  • Ref dates are consistent ISO style. Cool.

--an odd name 05:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - Copyrights check out and images have adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments -
  • Current ref 15 (Volk...) lacks a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 17 (Kuo...) has the publisher run into the link title, it should be separate. We've already discussed reliability of this site before, right? Refresh my memory of which FAC it was, if indeed we have?
  • Is current ref 26 (Sicard..) in French? Needs to be noted in the reference
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made the changes as requested. Regarding ref #15, Tom Volk is a well-known, highly published mycologist and long-time professor at the UW-Madison, so I trust the information he presents on his mushroom site. The MushroomExpert Website (ref #17) was discussed first here and later here. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Temple

Nominator(s): 808Starfire (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets FAC criteria, is well written, and adequately sourced. I believe that any concerns or problems encountered during the review process can be met and dealt with by the nominator quickly and efficiently. 808Starfire (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

oppose massive copyright abuse, most of the images don't even have FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I've removed the many non-free images and have limited the article to 4 free images which (I think) are enough for an article of this length.808Starfire (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • excellent work, oppose stricken, best of luck with the FA candidacy Fasach Nua (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • These have been corrected and I am embarassed there were so many - 9! My apologies! 808Starfire (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I added alt text to the infobox. Do so for the other images. Pretend you're on the phone with someone who can't see them.
    • Completed alt text for the other images on the page. 808Starfire (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dates are consistent: ref dates are ISO style, and others Month Day, Year.
  • The few external links all work. (added on 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Longchamp

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the better summaries of Longchamp's life available. As per usual, it's been through GA, Peer Review, and a stringent copyedit by Malleus. We're starting to stray a bit from my normal time frame, although its still a "bad boy bishop". Longchamp was one of Richard the Lionhearted's major advisors, and got into severe conflicts with the English nobles and bishops, eventually being driven from England disguised as a woman, or so the stories say. A contemporary of Hubert Walter, he lacked Walter's suaveity and ability to get along with others. The one remaining article that might touch on his life is unavaible to me at this time (someone will eventually respond to my Inter Library Loan request on it) but from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Longchamp, it probably has little new to offer this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

  • The dab checker shows three dab links.
  • I fixed the one problem alt. If an infobox uses a full image tag instead of just an image name, it's easier to just place the alt in the tag.
  • Not sure the Greenway link in the References section should be repeated again in "Notes"; just use "Greenway." there.
  • Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. ;)

--an odd name 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've redlinked one dab, removed the link to Le Pin completely as I have no clue where the abbey was located and it's just easier to let someone else figure it out, and dab'd Wilton. As for the Greenway, it's how I've always done those Fasti refs, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The double link is nothing big to me (see also Nikita Khrushchev's FAC with the double on this day link). It just looked weird seeing it twice in the link checker. Issues struck; carry on. :) --an odd name 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:Lincoln Castle.jpg - Please ask the uploader to clarify on the image description page that s/he is indeed the author of the image. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the original uploadeer hadn't edited since May 2008, I just replaced the pic with an almost identical one File:LincolnCastleGatehouseInterior.jpg which has the requested information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Great - that works - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • Oops, I had a note from Ealdgyth to look at Longchamp, and didn't even notice that it was currently at FAC. I think it needs a bit of clarification and reorganization, but it is Midterms week and I am busy for other reasons as well... It seems it has been here only a short while, so I probably have time. I would like to work on this with others but it may be a few days before I can. I did leave one note on the article's talk page. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 1c, 2c (Hooray, More Bishops!) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1c checks out for expected balance between source types and publication modes
1c checks out for no inappropriate sources
1c checks out for a balance of scholarship over time
2c checks out (beautifully)
2c quibbling:
Heiser, Richard R. (01 Spring 2000). "Castles, Constables and Politics in Late Twelfth-Century English Governance". Albion 32 (1): 19–36. doi:10.2307/4053985.
Turner, Ralph V. (Autumn 1975). "Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton". Journal of British Studies 15 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1086/385676.
the (01...) in Heiser's date is an issue number, not a date number.
Spring and Autumn are issue names, not dates (remember the bottom half of the world here). Should read Albion 32 (1: Spring) and Journal of British Studies 15 (1: Autumn) respectively. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are errors in the citation templates, and I don't have much control over how they are formatted. The only way to fix them is to remove the Spring or Autumn, which I've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Named the issues in the article; reported the poor documentation to the Template. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I took some time to reorganize the article a bit, then self-reverted. More info on article talk. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ling's changes have been placed in the article, they were fine. I did fix his reference, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support A well-written and well-researched article with just a spice of Hollywood movie thrown in. Thanks to the clarity of the article, I can now spout interesting facts about this bishop, too. :) Just the other day, I was telling someone all about the Gregorian mission. FAC reviewing really comes in handy as a discussion-starter. "Did you know that...?" "Where did you read that?" "On Wikipedia..." "What?" Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've caused Malleus to tell the BBC that they've got their facts wrong so I guess I am now corrupting lots of others also... yikes. (Today I wrote an article that wasn't about a horse, a bishop, nor an Anglo-Norman nobleman! ... )Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with minor comments. I simply rearranged the info in the "Death and legacy" section, and barely changed the sentence structure at all. On a second read, I think the its first paragraph might be a bit choppy... too many simple, brief sentences all in a row. If you could combine one or two of them to create a little variety, that would be good. But this is a small matter. Thanks for fixing the ref; I knew it was wrong when I added it (see my comments on article talk). Ling.Nut (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


This is my first FAC, so gentle please. :) I've put together what I think is a very thorough and complete biography of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, a jeweler and director of the Dutch West India Company who founded the only successful patroonship in New Netherland. Going a lot by the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (a translated collection of primary documents and subsequent early-20th century discussion), along with info from the New York State Museum and other various sources, I've brought this article to GA status and expanded WP's knowledge of this important colonizer. I also think it's well illustrated; considering the guy died in the 1640s, I was able to secure some great photos and have svg copies of his merchant's mark and signature made. This person is important to the history of my local area. upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Question: The picture that illustrates the article is claimed (in the article) to be the Kiliaen van Rensselaer of the article, painted 100years after his death. This seems unlikely to me, since there were two later Kiliaen van Rensselaers that it could be, most probably the one who was born in the 1660s.
The picture is not "100 years after his death". The costume is consistent with the last decade of the 17th century, ie about 50-60 years after his death.
If the painting remained in a particular family for a length of time, it is quite possible that they knew the name of the person, but later generations presumed it to be the first and most famous man of that name, rather than a later one.
So the question is, who said that the painting represented this particular Kiliaen van Rensselaer? and did they really know? I would think that the fact that it was so obviously painted many years after his death negates the fact that it represents him.
If, on the other hand, the family commissioned an artist to paint an imaginary picture of a deceased ancestor, it is most unlikely that they would depict him in current costume, or show him as quite so youthful. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Makes me think of the painting of Shakespeare that was done years after his death. The quote from the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (p. 32) states, "It would have been appropriate to add a portrait to this voluminous collection of writings of the first patroon, but unfortunately none is known to exist, that which is occasionally represented as his likeness being clearly of about a century later than the time of the patroon." The image itself, which if you go to the image page, shows the source of the image as well as the source for the preceding quote, is from the Schenectady Digital History Archive. The way I interpret the quote from the book is that the author didn't include this because it 'wasn't worth anything due to the date of its creation' or something, while I think it's still important as being an image commissioned to represent him by the family. As for his outfit, I could see the contemporary artist putting him in the elegant outfit of the artist's time or what he thought was appropriate for Kiliaen's time, no? upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I disagree with your interpretation. The writer here is telling you quite clearly "none is known to exist" and "the one ...occassionally represented as his likeness is clearly about a century later", in other words, too late to be him. It is most unlikely to be a picture commissioned later to represent a deceased family member. It is much more likely to be the man who was alive at that time and who had the same name. This is fairly obvious. The term "represented as" means that someone has said it is him, but they are not necessarily correct.
As for the painting of Shakespeare, the Chandos portrait, probably painted about six years before his death, has been the source for later images. Because Shakespeare is 'enormously famous there are statues of him all over the world, but all based on this portrait.Amandajm (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's a fair interpretation. Is it kosher if I used a version of File:Replace this image male.svg, but with just the outline, then have a caption that states "no image of this person is known to exist"? Bummer. upstateNYer 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that there is any point in doing that. You have the statement that "none is known to exist". It needs to be made clear on the uploaded image that this is cannot be a portrait of the man, because of its date. Otherwise, you will invite someone who knows nothing about the history of costume and this discussion to insert it at a later date. Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the caption on the uploaded image. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But you think the image should be removed from the article, right? upstateNYer 11:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it should be removed! It is most unlikely to be the person the article is about. It is 60 years too late, and there was another man of the same name as patroon at the time the picture was painted. Amandajm (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is hard to imagine that even a portrait intended to represent a dead ancestor would not have given him a ruff etc. If it had that it might also be a copy of a lost original - there would be nothing unusual in that. By the way, KvR is exactly the sort of person one expect to have had one or more rather good portraits painted, but it/they or its identification has evidently been lost. Having this image can only mislead. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, I'm not sure how I missed this, but the source that I have on the image page (under source, not description) does claim it's this Kiliaen and even points out who owned the painting in 1903 (Howard Van Rensselaer). Is there anything about this painting (maybe the style, or the clothes or something) that leads you to think that it is European (and not early European American), because this was the only patroon named Kiliaen that lived in Holland; the rest lived in New York. upstateNYer 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind; confirmed by a curator at the Albany Institute of History and Art that the portrait is in their collection and is not the Dutch KVR. Bummer again. upstateNYer 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Welcome to FAC! I'll try to be gentle!
  • Okay, first thing... a large number of your references (including the first 8) lack a publisher and last access date. Everything needs publisher and last access dates. I'll come back and review after all the websites have that. Right now, you've got a large number of your citations that have outside links, so I assume they are to websites. SOme, though, appear to be to online scans of printed works, which would mean that you treat them as printed works and would italicise them and given the conventions you're using, use the last name of the author to refer to them, not the title unitalicised.
    • I find the best way to cite (since WP doesn't offer an option for ibid. or anything like that) is to use the References sections for footnotes, usually using the author's last name as the source, along with a link to the document, which usually comes from Google Books, as this one does. That means the link goes straight to the page you want. Then the bibliography section gives all the additional information, such as publisher, year, etc. So all my references should have the information stored globally in the Bib section, not the Ref section. And does a citation to a book at Google Books really require an accessdate? Technically, I could be looking at a hard copy on my end and offer a link out of convenience, that which I never actually access. Seems excessive. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We ask at FAC that the citation system be consistent. Either use the last name for the author ALL the time or the title of the work ALL the time. Right now, you've got some with last name and some with title, and that's not consistent.
  • I took the liberty of running the dash script over the article for you.
  • Also, what makes the 1888 Family genealogy book reliable? Most late Victorian family histories are ... iffy sources at best. Even if it's not fabricated (and a LARGE number were) it's quite likely to have been superceded by more recent works.
  • The same concerns on outdated sources for the Van Laer work from 1908.
  • And the same for the Spooner ref from 1907.
    • Hmm, well to be honest, I feel that the closer you are to the source, the more likely you are to have the primary sources to make verifiable claims. Many of the documents used in the general research of these works could very well have been destroyed in the 100 years since. The Van Laer work, which is known universally as the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts is the single best source for information on this person, being cited by almost any following work on the Van Rensselaer family. This is because it is a compilation of primary sources translated from old Dutch to English by an employee of the New York State Museum as a celebration of 300 years since Hudson discovered New York (1609). This is the closest anybody can (and most likely will) come to really knowing this man, since much of the document is made up of his correspondences, bills, receipts, etc. It also contains commentary which I think is probably coming from the historian that knew Kiliaen the best. I would claim that these sources are far from outdated since most of them are cited in future documents. Pretty much everything that is known about Kiliaen comes from two of the three sources you list, including the book The Van Rensselaers in Holland and in America (1956) which is currently out of print (and not worth $210). upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact, the only thing in your references that is recent is the History of New York State. Historiography has advanced quite a bit in the last 100 years, so I'd expect to see more recent works consulted. Here is a google scholar search that should help you get started.
    • Will take a look; in all honesty, I trust the older works more than those from current historians. Unless they're basing their work on primary sources, I don't see them as "more reliable" just because they're more recent. The NYSM has vast amounts of info on the history of Rensselaerswyck, but nobody to go through it; apparently they're busy elsewhere, which is reasonable. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, also, since there have been no fewer that 6 other Kiliaen van Rensselaers in the family, simple name searches don't produce much, especially since one of the Kiliaens (which evolved into Killian) was a Congressman. I'll definitely have a look at the google scholar results, but I don't expect to find much on the correct man. It's sometimes very difficult to keep a pair of Kiliaens that were cousins (grandsons or great-grandsons of the first Kiliaen, I believe) straight, which is why this article in particular has been difficult to research. upstateNYer 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I noted that at least two of the articles were covering events in the correct lifespan for the subject of this article. I did not check much further than the first page. The second page has a couple of things that might be interesting and that are in the correct time frame also. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems:
Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the alt text fixes. Only the lead image and the signature image remain. By the way, to save you work next time, alt text need not be quite so long and fancy as what you've written. For example, the alt text for File:Mark of Rensselaerswyck.svg can be written assuming the reader has already seen the alt text for File:Mark of Kiliaen van Rensselaer.svg. For more, please see WP:ALT#Brevity and WP:ALT#Context. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'll keep that in mind for next time. To note, the Mark of Rensselaerswyck is in a template, so it's now in a bunch of articles, so no work will have to be done there either. upstateNYer 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review - The copyright of all of the images is fine. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Nl-Kiliaen van Rensselaer.ogg - You might want to add this sound file to the article. It is of a native Dutch speaker pronouncing the subject's name. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Awesome! I made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics for an IPA version of the name to be put in, because I'm not good with the IPA system. Though if anyone here is good with it, I'd appreciate the addition. upstateNYer 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I changed your done templates to little bolded dones, see the FAC instructions, templates are discouraged at FAC because too many templates on the page can cause the page to break. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. upstateNYer 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Other than the lead image, which is being discussed above, I believe I've fixed all the issue brought up. What's next? upstateNYer 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Decline 1c (Original Research), 2c. I wish I could be more tender with you on this point, but archival research and production of material from primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1c: This article is Original Research. as an example: fn1 "^ a b c Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 32" at usage b establishes a fact "Interestingly, letters saved by the van Rensselaer family show that Kiliaen van Rensselaer never visited his colony in person." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2c: Short citations lacking Author / Editor. Cited Manuscripts lack a document, author, date for the MS cited. (But this should not occur at all, as it is OR).
  • I'll try to be tender with you as well: I don't think you've fully read the article and examined the sources. If you go to the Bibliography section, both your issues will have resolutions. First, this isn't original research. It would be if I had found all the primary documents, translated them, and compiled and essayed about them, but the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (VRBM) is a book (not a literal collection of manuscripts), published by an historian, working for and published by the University of the State of New York in 1908. As for the citations, they are consistent, as discussed above. The book citations are kept short, limiting to title and page (with direct link to page at google books), with the full citation listed under the Bibliography section. Think of the bibliography section as a list of global variables and the references section a list of local variables. upstateNYer 03:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You are working out of Primary sources. This is Original Research. It doesn't matter if your primary sources are manuscripts, or translations, or compilations of primary sources in a source book. They are primary sources.
  • Thank you for the metaphor on what a footnote and a bibliography are. Your variable names are non-standard to the point of being out of style. Complex variables should be calling subroutines, but aren't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not working out of primary sources. The book is a biography of KVR that also includes its referenced documents (translated); it's quite handy really. I make no judgement, inference, or interpretation in the article that is not first stated by the author of the book. (And while on the topic, if you go to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, you see that the policy is stated as such: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Note: this was published by a University press...) As for the citation style, here's one FA that uses the exact same system. upstateNYer 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That FA that you indicate cites Authors, not work titles.
Primary: Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXVI of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
Primary: Van Rensselaer, Kiliaen; Samuel Godyn, and Samuel Blommaert (1629): Notification by Samuel Godyn, Kiliaen van Rensselaer and Samuel Blommaert that they send two persons to New Netherland to inspect the country
Primary: States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article XI of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company
The article is written from inappropriate material. No secondary sources post 1919 have been used. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The Bowler manuscripts involve his raw letters, although the first section is written by teh historian who sums up his findings and is not primary. It is very old however. The raw letters are primary though. On another note, in teh notes, Bowler etc have to be itaclised as they are the names of the books YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point there, but like I said above, no judgement, inference, or interpretation is made without it strictly being stated in the writing of Van Laer. But as policy states, referencing primary sources for direct facts is not against the rules here. I'll go off and do some italicizing... upstateNYer 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Every one of those comes from the VRBM. See the source section at each Wikisource page. And as for format of citations, your colleague Ealdgyth has made it clear that the format is not the important part, the consistency is. My preference comes mainly because I've yet to see the VRBM cited as "Van Laer"; it is always cited as "Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts". Originally I had cited VRBM by its title but everything else by its author. I changed that per request above, but because this book seems to be unique in the way authors cite it, I found it more important to keep with that reference type. Either way, only one book reference doesn't link directly to the page at Google Books or a similar online service, regardless of the reference style. upstateNYer 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tender Mercies

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Here's hoping the third time is a charm. During my first FAC nomination for this entry, there were frankly a lot of issues that needed addressing, including the removal of unnecessary detail and problems with images. During my second nomination, I got a lot of very positive feedback, but the article was said to be lacking a comprehensive "Themes" section and analysis from scholarship journals. I believe the article now has that missing element. (Actually, I would have renominated it months ago, but it took me a surprisingly long amount of time to get my hands on one particular journal article.) I think it's finally ready, but I am more than willing to make any further necessary changes. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article is well researched, well structured, well focused, and comprehensive. It is in need of a rigorous copyedit, which I'm beginning to undertake. Here are two problems in the "Writing" section I'm unable to resolve.

  • "Foote was initially in writing a film based on the nephew and his young colleagues trying to form a band of their own, an experience from which Foote drew a parallel to his own attempts to find work as an actor in his youth." Clearly a word or two is missing from this ungrammatical sentence, but it's not self-evident how to correct it.
    • Should have been "initially interested in", not "initially in". Also broke it into two sentences to be clearer. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application.'" Is that an inadvertent quote at the end of the sentence, or is there a missing open quote that needs to be included somewhere along?
    • The quotation mark is just an error. I erased it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there's also a problem I raised some months ago on the article's Talk page that remains unresolved. Here's the issue I raised (this is in the "Distribution" section):

  • The following is problematic: "Universal had released Scarface, a far more expensive and anticipated film, that same year and the studio was spending most of its advertising revenue on that film, which left little remaining to publicize Tender Mercies". First, the past tense is simply incorrect--Scarface wasn't released until December 1983, nine months after Tender Mercies. Second, that's a long time in industry terms--and, I believe, a brand-new fiscal year. It's rather difficult to believe that Scarface had much to do with the scrimping on the Tender Mercies publicity budget. Then we check the source: it's Tess Harper. I can't say that an actor who was making their film debut at the time is a great source for accurate reportage of studio financial machinations. If corroboration for this claim can't be found, I'd cut it, or relegate it entirely to a footnote, clearly identifying its source.

I'll state more firmly now that an actor's comments in a "making of" documentary simply do not qualify as a reliable source for flatly reporting a studio's publicity budget decisions. (I note also that the documentary was made 19 years after Tender Mercies came out. That makes it all the more likely and understandable that Harper would misremember and misreport things with which she wasn't directly involved.) Hunter, you said in Talk that you found "it hard to believe that they would have included it in the film if it flat-out weren't true", but it's clear they didn't fact-check her statement--they included her assertion that Scarface "had" been released, when in fact it was not released for another nine months. In addition, in the very lead of the article, you provide much more plausible explanations for Universal's weak promotional effort: "poor test screening results" and "the studio's lack of understanding of country music."

Scarface is a well documented film. If its release had a negative affect on Universal's publicity campaigns for its other films as far as nine months ahead of time, it should be possible to verify that. If Harper's claim can not be corroborated by a published source it should, again, be cut, or at least relegated to a footnote and explicitly attributed. DocKino (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • You are probably right about the Scarface reference. Let me ask, would it address the problem to add Tess Harper to the prose text? Like "Tess Harper felt the studio spent most of its advertising revenue on Scarface and little to publicize Tender Mercies." Or something like that? Then the reader could judge the source and the statement for themselves? Let me know what you think. If you feel this isn't sufficient, I'll cut it out altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If the claim was uncorroborated but plausible, I think that would be exactly the way to handle it. But it's not like Tender Mercies came out within a few months of Scarface. It came out nine months before, rendering her claim implausible. In the absence of any corroboration for it--and faced with completely plausible explanations for the weak publicity effort--I believe it shouldn't appear in the primary text. DocKino (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment First sentence, second paragraph, state that Texas is in the United States and link it. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No. Texas is named and linked in the first paragraph. As the first sentence of the article states that Tender Mercies is an American film, there is no need to clarify--even for those few English speakers who have never heard of Texas--that it is set in America. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You are writing an encyclopedia here, not a magazine article, and not exclusively for Americans from the US. Regardless of whether you think it is too obvious, or quite redundant, or that the whole world knows that Texas is in America and that America means the United States (unless otherwidse stated), there is simply no escape from the fact that locating subject matter accurately in time and place is a basic necessity. Can't you think of a tidy way of doing it?
Mmm. How about mentioning, in the first paragraph, that it's an American film set in Texas and linking Texas for the benefit of those few English-speaking encyclopedia readers who have both (a) never heard of Texas and (b) are incapable of deducing that it's in America? You know, I think that might work. DocKino (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments. Steve T • C This is a strong article, an improvement over the version from the last nomination, which I felt was a little light on content in some areas; I'm glad to see that Hunter even waited a few months just so he had one last journal article from which to draw. A few prose bumps aside, there's little I can find fault with:
    • After recent expansions, especially to the "Themes and interpretations" section, the lead no longer summarises the body. Given the length of the article, I think an extra 100 words—give or take—wouldn't be uncalled for, but any length is OK as long as it covers the major sections and points.
      • I've expanded the lead a bit, particularly with info on the "Themes and interpretations" section, but also a bit about the challenges in securing the financing and finding a director. Let me know if there's anything missing or if the wording needs some tweaks. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Duvall ... provided his own vocals"—ha, I rather hope he didn't expect to be dubbed in post-production by Glenn Close. Obviously you're referring to the singing, but the way it reads makes one think of general dialogue too.
      • lool, Whoops. I changed it to "who sang his own songs". — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's usual to include the full release date in the lead text, but your mileage may vary.
      • Added. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Given that the actors are already linked in the lead section immediately above, and in the infobox, I'm not sure it's necessary to link them all again in the plot section, or use anything other than their surnames.
      • I agree, and in fact, they hadn't been linked before in the plot summary, but [an anonymous reader readded the wikilinks a few days ago]. I've removed them again... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see any harm in reinserting Harper's claim about the marketing as long as it's not in the primary text (i.e. it's in a footnote), and is unambiguously attributed to her.
      • Well, given that this has been an issue not only in this FAC but beforehand as well, and after having come so far in trying to bring this up to FA standards, I'm sort of hesitant to bring it back in if it's going to lead to objections here. That being said, I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by having it as a footnote rather than the primary text. Could you explain it a bit or, if it's not too much trouble, maybe make your suggested change in the article and then we could discuss it from there? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure, [this is the sort of thing I meant. I've reverted for now. Whether it's included or not, I can't see anyone using it as an oppose concern, so it's entirely up to you. Steve T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I've always felt that putting it in a footnote was a fine way to handle it. Steve's proposed solution works great. DocKino (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't the time to look at every one, but a random check of half a dozen of the sources reveals no issues with too-close paraphrasing or original research.
      • Thanks! lol — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Have you had a look to see if there any free pictures of Waxahachie or Palmer available that might get across to the reader the "barren" look of the unnamed town in the film? Alternatively (or in addition to), free, time period-appropriate images of Duvall, Harper or Hubbard could be useful too. As it stands, the article is composed of several large chunks of text, unbroken by visual decoration. If there are definitely no images available, is there anything you discarded that could fit into a quote box?
      • Unfortunately, I've not found any of those pictures; a few months ago I even asked over at Wikiproject Texas whether anyone could snap shots for me, but to no avail. I added this geographic photo just to illustrate exactly where Waxahachie is in Texas; let me know what you think. (And for Harper, Duvall and Hubbard, doesn't the photo in casting serve that purpose?) As far as quote boxes, I'll take a look through my sources to see if I can find some... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Gah. I read that section a couple of times and didn't even notice the pic. Weird blind spot. Anyway, it's a pity about the lack of free location photos, but there's definite merit in DocKino's suggestion below. Steve T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As I say, other than a few prose bumps (which I'll tackle separately) I can't see anything else to pick at. Nice work, Steve T • C 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to correct this: "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application." First off, "tenets" are principles or doctrines--that is, rather explicit things, certainly more explicit than "undertones". Which term better describes this aspect of the film? Second, do you mean that he felt it was important that the religious beliefs expressed in the film be seen to be practically applied, for better or worse? Or that he felt it was important to balance the religious message of the film with a focus on the purely practical challenges of everyday life? DocKino (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The latter. I've changed the wording to reflect that a bit better (and borrowed some of your own wording in doing so, if that's OK. ;) ). I also replaced tenets with the more simple "elements", but let me know if that's insufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good work but it has some minor errors. I think this article still needs a "Cast" (not "Casting") section with short introductions for each of main characters. The "references" section should be divided in "Notes" for citation and "Bibliography" for books that you used in this article. Could you find more illustrations for article like images of actors or location which appeared in film? Because with only one (fair-use) image, this article looks somewhat monotonous for reading. And in my opinion, the intro section of this article is a little bit short (and a little bit fragmentary too) in comparison with the rest. Hope you don't find me too "prissy" :). Grenouille vert (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Not at all! :) The lead has been expanded as per some of the above comments, so let me know if that works for you. As for images, I added this one and would love your thoughts on it. As indicated above, the selection of photos for this article are pretty limited, but I am in the process of looking through my sources for quote boxes to help illustrate the entry a bit. As far as the lack of a "Cast" section, this was done in response to feedback during the first FAC review; the feedback was that when there was a "Cast" section, the cast was mentioned in the infobox, in the lead, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section, and that it was "overkill". The solution was to drop the "Cast" section, and identify the actors in parentheses after their characters are named in the "Plot" section; this approach is identified in WP:MOSFILM, which itself specifically cites the use of the approach in the FA Tenebrae (film). I truly feel this compromise was best approach, and that readding a "Cast" section would only be redundant because it would rehash character and cast info that is already included elsewhere in the article. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The lead looks fine now. The fact that I'm too familiar with featured/GA articles about films with a distinct cast section so Tender Mercies makes me feel a little bit confused. I've read your argument for removing it but Tenebrae (film) is not a good example, it was promoted a long time ago, you can consult Tropic Thunder, which has been just reviewed this month. And how about my idea of dividing "references" in "notes" and "bibliography"? It will make the article look clearer and easier to consult (because you used many books as reference). About the "reviews" section (will "reception" be a better name?), it is well-written now but I think you could still add Rotten Tomatoes's score or even IMDb's score (not recommended by Wiki but I still think it's a good channel for audience's opinion), and Roger Ebert has just added this film to his list of Great movies which is a very high appreciation from the respected critic, that information may be useful for this article. That's all I can comment now. Grenouille vert (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I didn't see notice your suggestion about Notes/Bibliography. I've tried adding it, but I also still need citation tags for all my book references, so please let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks also for the Ebert citation, I had no idea about that! I've run out of time now, so I will add that one tonight, and take a look at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. (I also changed "Reviews" to "Reception" as per your suggestion.) As far as the cast thing, I'm still reluctant to add something that was specifically objected to in a previous FAC review. (For the record, I only used Tenebrae (film) as an example because WP:MOSFILM uses it when addressing this type of cast approach.) Is this such a major point that it would hold up your support of the entry? Also, I'd encourage you to look back on various points (here and here) and I'd suggest they don't add anything that aren't already in the current entry at some point... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
          • There's only one weak oppose (mine) about the "cast" section so you can take it easy, if you don't want to change structure of the article now, then so be it :). I helped you a little bit with the reference by using {{Harvnb}}, overall I think the article's good, hope it will be promoted soon. Grenouille vert (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
            • On the use of IMDb—by long-standing consensus user ratings from the IMDb are considered unreliable, as they are subject to vote-stacking and demographic skew (I can dig out the multiple discussions we've had on this over the years if you want me to, but it would have to wait until tomorrow). Polls of the public should only be included if they're carried out in accredited manner, as those from CinemaScore are (unfortunately not around when Tender Mercies was released). On Rotten Tomatoes—it's usually fine to include the score; however, for films released before the site became active it's not a good idea as the site is often wrong about film's reception at the time it was released (due to a bunch of factors too boring to go into here—again, this is something that has been thrashed out in the past). For example, reading the site, one might think that Fight Club achieved immediate critical acclaim, when in fact it pretty much polarised critics. (Oh, and as a side note: examples of recent film articles that have passed FA without a cast list include: Changeling and Fight Club.) Steve T • C 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Thank you, great answer! No need to cite me the discussion about IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes because I knew their disadvantages too, I just want to add IMDb rating because it still has value about viewer's opinion, but per consensus first, of course. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                • I've added the Roger Ebert quote (thanks again for that!), and I see the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes questions have been addressed. Considering the Changeling and Fight Club examples above, do you think you'd be willing to support this entry now with the cast section as is? — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to correct this: Beresford "contacted EMI Films and asked for permission to visit Texas for one month to familiarize himself with the state before committing to direct the film, to which the company agreed." Obviously, Beresford didn't need "permission" to travel to Texas. I assume you mean that he asked EMI for time--to not pick another director for a month. Did he also ask them for money--to pay for the research trip? DocKino (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You are correct, that's what I meant, and I changed the sentence a bit. But as far as whether he asked for his expenses to be paid, that's not clear in the source. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope you can still access the restricted NYT article that sources this passage: "Beresford, who is known for carefully planning each angle and shot in his films, created drawings of how he envisioned the sets and camerawork, and shared them with Oppewall and Boyd as soon as filming began." The common term for "drawings of how he envisioned the ... camerawork" is storyboards. Is there any reason not to use that term here? You might say "Beresford...drew his own storyboards as well as detailed drawings of how he envisioned the sets"--if that's supported by the source, of course. Also, the cinematographer and especially the art director would customarily look at pertinent material of this sort in preproduction, before filming begins. Are you sure the existing sentence accurately paraphrases what the source says? DocKino (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I made the suggested storyboards change. I can access the NYT article, but I had to wait until I get to work on Monday and get access to the Lexis Nexis account there. However, I'm pretty sure that the paraphrasing is correct; I also Beresford talking about his detailed storyboards and drawings in the Miracles & Mercies documentary. I'll get back to you though. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the attention paid to the choice of the motel, the art direction devoted to its look for the film, the significance of the rural setting, and the importance of capturing it authentically, I think there's a strong fair use case for a judiciously chosen still from the film showing the motel and its barren surroundings. Here's five possibilities: third image after the poster; a high-angle shot; motel and sign; Mac's trailer between the two buildings; two buildings and landscape It's my sense that the last image might be the most informative, but you know the movie best, and I think the inclusion of any of these five would significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film and its setting. DocKino (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've given this a shot with the latter of the images you suggested (I agree with you, it's the best choice) and I've added it to the article, next to the part that discusses Jeannine Oppewall and her art direction. Please check over my non-free use rationale (which you'll see borrows a lot of your own wording) and let me know if you think it's sufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On a related point, this sentence needs to be recast: "The only specification for the location of Rosa Lee's flatland motel was that no other buildings or physical structures could be visible from it." In fact, of course, there is another building visible from it--the free-standing gas station building on the same property. The existing sentence leads the reader (led this reader) to mistakenly believe that the gas station and motel are all one structure. I assume the building used as the gas station was already there when Oppewall found the abandoned building chosen as the motel. Is that right? Or was it, like the motel sign, built for the film? And how does this relate to the new construction implied in the following sentence: "Oppewall purposely deviated from conventions of 1940s and 1950s motel design in order to give the building a more singular shape"? I'm looking at the stills of the motel and struggling to figure out what is particularly "singular" about its "shape". I think a revisit of the sources for this entire passage is in order. DocKino (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I've consulted that source again and I think I paraphrased it accurately, so I'm not sure how to address this problem. I was hoping you could take a look yourself and give me your suggestions. This can be read on Google Books. The "singular shape" source can be read here, and the "no other physical structures visible" source can be read here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Both the lead and the "Themes" section describe Mac's conversion to Christianity; the "Themes" section also discusses his and Sonny's baptisms--but these significant events are mentioned nowhere in the plot summary. DocKino (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Castles are one of the best known symbols of the medieval period and are there's no doubting their popularity, so it's about time the article was knocked into shape. It covers the development of this medieval institution and has sections on the different aspects of its use. The main points are covered, but due to the sheer size of the subject, not everything can be included in one article without digressing from the main subject; hopefully the article is still comprehensive and interesting. Any and all comments are welcome, so please do review. Thank you in advance anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: A vital article to be made FA, well-done on your work so far. I would argue that many more terms in the lead: moat, gunpowder, cannon, flanking fire, all need wikilinking.
"lay of the land" it's accurate, but not articulated.
Are two pictures at the lead necessary? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added more links to the lead per your suggestion, and substituted "lay of the land". [11]
The lead images are tricky. It is a subject that has lead to some prickly discussions on the talk page stretching back years (usually an editor popping along and asking why a castle in their country isn't the lead image). The use of two evolved over time (probably to ease the concerns about representation), but I can't say I'm particularly attached to the idea, and one would work well for me. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Response I chose the two pics, and I think two is justified, given 1. that there is plenty of room for them; 2. that they serve a purpose. They were selected to represent two very typical types of castles that are found all over Europe: those which make defensive use of a rugged position, and those that do not, and rely on massive walls and often a moat. The two images also depict two qualities associated with castles: the "romantic" image and the "forbidding" image. No single picture of a castle (that I can find) sums up what we mean by "castle" as well as the combination of the two.

Provisional Support At long last a real encyclopedia article! Let me go out on a limb and offer provisional support on the basis of Criterion 0(a) ("Notability"). I will, of course, go through the details later and my support could be withdrawn, but this is a good start. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Before I start reading the article, I wanted to make sure that you are not saying that private fortified residences did not exist in other parts of the world. In India, for example, they are simply called "forts," and most are/were residential. (Here's Britannica's lead: "Castle (architecture): medieval European stronghold, generally the residence of the king or lord of the territory in which it stands. Strongholds designed with the same functionality have been built throughout the world, including in Japan, India, and other countries." (I am assuming, though, that you're not saying this.)
  • It seems to me that the lead is being a little coy about mentioning the 800-pound gorilla (named "Europe") in the room. (I see words like "symbolic," "Middle Ages," but no "Europe.") From what I have quickly gathered (from other sources), "castle" is the medieval European version of the private fortified residence of royalty and nobility. Strongholds with the same functionality (to use Britannica's language) were not only built outside Europe but also before the medieval period. The lead will need to acknowledge that up front.

I'll write my detailed comments on the talk page of the article in a compressed box. Hopefully soon! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The very particular thing about castles is that they are lordly fortified residences. Not only a defence, they are centres of administration and display. I would say that, in this instance, Britannica is not a reliable source; I think more useful is Darvill’s Dictionary of Archaeology which makes a specific link between castles and Europe, and does not include places such as India (although tertiary sources such as Britannica and dictionaries should always be treated with caution). There are of course fortified private residences that do not belong to lords or kings etc, but these are not castles; for example some farmhouses were fortified such as bastle houses but are not considered castles. It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative. It’s also important who they were built by (ie: the same type of people who lived in them as opposed to built by the state).
I’m slightly confused by your assertion that “Strongholds with the same functionality … [were built] before the medieval period”. The article does state that castles were a departure from previous fortifications (not just in Europe) which had generally been much larger and communal whereas castles were smaller and private. That’s what the source said anyway. As for extending beyond Europe, yes they did; castles were introduced to the Holy Land by the Crusaders. But the literature does not indicate that the permeated further east.
Hopefully this edit makes the lead a little more blunt (although the implication was that they originated in Europe). Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply! I'm a little strapped for time right now, but I'll mull it over and then continue on the article's talk page. All I am saying really is that you need to say something explicit along the lines of: "A castle is a private fortified residence associated with the nobility of Medieval Europe; private fortified residences were built by the nobility in other parts of the world as well, but these are generally not referred to as 'castles.'" (In other words I would use "Medieval Europe" (redirected to "Middle Ages") rather than the "Middle Ages," to help out the uninitiated. And state the scope of the article up front.) Many of the forts in the template Template:Forts in India are in fact the private fortified residences of "rajahs" or (little kings); some are bigger and belong to maharajahs (the big kings), and a few even mini-townships (of the Emperors). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: You present castles of Western Christian Europe as the only castles. That's a bit narrow. Either you define your topic better or you include castles from all over the world. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Wandalstouring, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion if you actually read the article. It devotes a large amount to castles in the Holy Land and the influence of the Saracens, and touches on the handful of late castles in the Americas. Perhaps you have some suggestions of how the article could be improved? What exactly do you think is missing? Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't mention large parts of Eastern Europe, Spain and Asia and Africa. I don't think a rewrite is feasible during this review. Make a better definition of your scope and explain to the reader how castles in other regions of the world were different. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not happy with the caption to the Bodiam Castle pic: Bodiam Castle in Sussex, England, was described as "an old soldier's dream house" in the 1960s, although its defences are now considered more ornamental than practical.[1] The bit about how it was described in the 60s, comes across as rather sentimental. It's OK for the article specifically on Bodiam, which might present a range of quotations, but it's out of place in this general article. Secondly, the bit about its defences being considered more ornamental than practical needs discussion and clarification. Once again, I think it's not relevant to the generic page. Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point so I've stripped back the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I reviewed the sourcing and commented on some aspects of the article in an informal Peer Review held before the article was nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "Doornenburg Castle in Denmark" - Doornenburg Castle is definitely not in Denmark.... See Doornenburg Castle. Are there other such basic factual errors!? Also to expand on Wandalstouring. Why aren't there anything about castles in for example China, Japan and Korea? I would imagine they are quite different from the typical European castle.--Harthacnut (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You’re quite right, I went back to the sources and it seems that first time around I misread Dutch as Danish. A silly mistake, but shit happens. As to your second point, it is addressed below. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is an excellent article, I share Wandalstouring's concern about it not including castles in Asia. There are good reasons to have separate articles on the various different traditions of castle-building and use, so it may be best to split this article's content into a separate article (or articles). At present it's not a comprehensive account of castles around the world and so doesn't meet FA criteria 1(b). Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have replied below so it is highly visible as several people are concerned about this issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is present (thanks), and the images look great. but there are a few problems with proper names. Alt text should ordinarily be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and most non-experts won't be able to look at these images and verify the proper names in the alt text. For example File:Alcazar de Segovia.JPG has alt text saying that it's a Spanish castle, but a naive reader can't see from the image that it's Spanish. Please remove or move-to-captions the following phrases in the alt text, which have veriability problems: "Spanish", "English", "Tower of London", "Thames", "Traitor's Gate", "Windsor Castle". Also, please fix the capitalizations and spellings of "A Square" and "crennelations". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply With regard to the alt texts, this has been a matter of discussion. Because the alt text is normally read before the caption, it needs to give the clearest possible picture to a blind listener. Saying "A large castle seen from a river rising above a gateway" (and then a caption saying "The Tower of London" is simply not as revealing as saying "The Tower of London seen from the Thames River". Likewise saying "picture of a man with a beard wearing a black jacket and white shirt, looking left" is not as revealing as saying "picture of Charles Dickens wearing a black jacket and a white shirt" or "picture of Sadaam Hussein wearing a black jacket and a white shirt". In an alt description, the place or person needs to be immediately identified so that the blind person knows exactly what the object is, in order to relate to the description. Neither must we presume that the blind person has never had sight, or that they are ignorant. The description "Spanish castle" conjours up a different image to the description "English castle". This may not be true for ever listener, but it will certainly be the case for some. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The previous comment underestimates the intelligence of visually impaired readers. Just as sighted readers don't need text at the top of an image saying "TOWER OF LONDON", but can deal with seeing the image first and then the caption later, visually impaired readers are used to listening to alt text first and captions later. One of their major annoyances is repetition, and the strategy of saying "Tower of London" in the alt text and "Tower of London" in the caption hinders accessibility far more than any relatively-minor clarity rendered by saying it twice. (See WP:ALT#Repetition for more on this.)
  • Dickens, Saddam, the Tower of London, and Windsor Castle are arguably iconic enough to be recognizable to most readers, and thus not to need description (as per WP:ALT#Proper names, which gives Big Ben and Napoleon as other examples of icons), so I've struck those from my comment.
  • However, the other proper names in this article's alt text presume too much from a typical Wikipedia reader. It's OK to respect the readers, but it's not OK to confuse them. The vast majority of readers won't know Traitor's Gate from a hole in the wall. I'm particularly mystified as to why the phrase "Traitor's Gate" would appear only in alt text, where most readers can't see it: if this info is important enough to tell visually impaired readers, it's important enough to tell the rest of us; and once that's done, then as per WP:ALT#Repetition this info shouldn't be in the alt text.
  • I'm dubious that a typical reader (visually impaired or not) will know what a English or Spanish castle looks like, as opposed to a castle in some other country; I don't think that one Wikipedia reader in a hundred could reliably tell castle nationality from these images. I suppose an expert in castles could tell, but please try to pretend that you're not an expert when deciding what should go into alt text.
Eubulides (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding criterion 1b I can speak only from the books I have read relating to the subject of castles. Not one has mentioned any of the countries that have been suggested by the above editors. I have to wonder why. While compiling the article I read beyond those included in the bibliography section; the reason they were not all used is that many repeated the same points, and usually one particular book covered the subject better than the others. Although some were focused on Britain, many took a wide view of castles. For them to ignore what several editors have suggested above is peculiar if they are correct in their assertions. And so I come to the conclusion that they are sadly wrong.

The fact of the matter is, I have taken this article as far as the literature allows it; to brand that as incomplete is not a judgment on the article, but on the scholarship of the subject. That is not the purpose of WP:FAC. The castle is a primary European development, so it’s hardly surprising that the article concentrates on Europe - although I have already noted that Saracen and even American castles are included. That’s why chivalry is linked with castles in literature, and why Gothic Revivalism was sparked in Europe. The entry for “castle” in Darvill’s Oxford concise dictionary of Archaeology declares that it is a European concept. Should you doubt that Darvill takes a wide ranging view of things, his dictionary includes terms such as the Cashibocana Phase (a South American cultural grouping), Quynh-van (a Neolithic site in Vietnam), and Babylon. If you disagree with his definition (as well that used by the likes of those included in the bibliography section, heavyweights of castle studies), I put it to you that you are going against the policy of WP:RS. There may very well be a gap in scholarship that should link castles with other things such as Tibetan fortifications, but that is not Wikipedia’s place as it would be original research. Twenty years ago it would have been impossible to have the landscape section as there simply wasn’t the literature about it. As more research is done into the subject of castles - an already heavily studied area - the scope of the article can increase, but until then it should work with the sources and not be synthesis.

I cannot say myself that there are definitively no castles in China, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, but common sense tells me that writers did not feel it necessary to spell it out in the same way they did not feel it necessary to state that there are no castles on the moon. If you still believe the article is incomplete, please give me some examples of what should be included with an explanation and some good sources. If that is not possible, then I shall stick with reliable sources and the article’s scope will remain as it is. I applaud those who say we should include as many things as possible as castles for their egalitarian attitude, but sadly in this case it is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy that there must be no original research. I understand how it may seen that this article has gaps, but I hope I have demonstrated that that is not the case. My apologies for not replying sooner, I should have foreseen this.. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing a quick search I find for example Japanese castles 1540-1640 and Castles of the Samurai: Power and Beauty. I can't speak for the quality of the books, but considering there are books like these, I find it hard to believe that it is not a subject that should be explored in the article. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Japanese castle (Shiro in Japanese) is in see also here. They are certainly a case of parallel development, apparently beginning just as the European castles were ceasing to be of military significance, but a different phenomenon. I've argued at the talk page that they are worth a few sentences in this respect, but they certainly don't belong in the main sections. See page 5 of the first book you link to, for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The case with literature might be a result of authors being unable to read papers in other languages. Concerning the crusades it's quite common that European historians don't have a clue about medieval Arabian, Syriac and Hebrew and for this reason leave out a lot of sources or only quote English translations of a few works. Same is often true for the modern languages in which works on these subjects are published. Same could be applied for castles, however the term castle is used in English for Chinese, Japanese, Muslim and ... structures. I stand by my suggestion to make a clear definition that you talk about castles of Western Christianity. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That writers may not be able to read reports etc in other languages has crossed my mind, and it does hinder the spread of information. But what can Wikipedia do about it? It means that we're reflecting the literature, criterion 1c: "[a] representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". But no, the article is demonstrably not restricted to the castles of Western Christianity, so please stop insisting it is. Again, I’ll go back to Darvill's summary that emphasises Europe, as do many, many other sources. If you disagree with that, you are going against the sources. There are many things called castles, not all actually fit the definition. It may, however, be worthwhile including a brief section on Japanese castles due to their similarities, despite that they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Castle comes from the Roman castelum, simply meaning fortress. If you feel there's any other definition to it, please make it clear and say why other structures called castles aren't considered castles by your authors. That someone has written a book about castles doesn't mean it completely covers the topic. Books are written for selling and you sell to people what interests them. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition in English is clear, and given and cited in the article. Despite some stately country houses, usually on the sites of former castles, having "castle" in their name, the English term is much clearer than the French or German one (though I think the Italian "castello" is also more restricted). What exactly are you suggesting? A disambiguation page for "castle", going to Western castle, Japanese castle and, er, what else? There is clearly no point in merging the long Japanese article here. Most other cultures, for example China, have concentrated on fortified cities. The Tibetan/Bhutanese fortified monasteries, dzongs, are the next nearest thing I'm aware of, but these are not referred to as castles. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
We have this definition of castles in the article and the different use in other works where castle is refered to structures in different parts of the world like some ribats in Spain. The problem is that the definition of feudal isn't clear, does it exclusively refer to the Western Christian organization of society or is it the general structure of a society like we also find it in Muslim countries and in Japan. Another problem arises with semi-non-feudal societies in Europe that hold control over "castles" like the Swiss. Does a castle become a fortress with the change of ownership and why is it still called a castle in literature? I know that sounds pretty much like hairsplitting, but we have to make a very clear point because of actual differing common use in English as opposed to a few scientists's definition. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition in the article doesn't bring in feudalism at all, or any particular form of social organization. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition given in the lead seems to be "a fortified structure that also served as a private residence (in medieval Europe)" and this is repeated under "Definition". Even if we for the sake of the consistency of the argument decide to entirely ignore the fact that Japanese daimyo appear to have lived in their own "Japanese" castles, does that mean that "medieval Europe" ends somewhere west of the Vistula (except where Western Christians like the Teutonic Order set up shop)? At least that's what the actual content of the article seems to imply.
I agree that there's probably a good reason to limit this article to Christian European structures, maybe even just Western European ones, but I think it requires a better summary of the definition among historians. The current one is either too vague to be this narrow or hasn't been reported clearly enough.
Peter Isotalo 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's another title that seems to discuss castles on a worldwide scale.[12] The table of contents appears to imply that non-European fortifications aren't quite defined as castles, but it most certainly includes Eastern Europe. Peter Isotalo 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Eastern European castles are excluded from the article as it is, though i agree they are not much mentioned, but then nor are many other areas. The literature I've seen suggests that France, England and the Crusader States mostly led technical developments, but then I've never read a Polish book on the subject. Perhaps a vmention should be added when brick is being discussed. The book above gives 16 i think pages to Eastern Europe, half what it gives to Spain & not much more than Ireland gets. The WP article is not a geographical survey in this way. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no information at all about Eastern Europe except for the picture of the Teutonic Order castle in Malbork and a mention of "the Baltic". If I've simply missed it, you're welcome to highlight it for me.
Again, an overall focus on Western Europe isn't unreasonable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any other information to speak of at all. I agree that the availibility of literature should to one degree or another decide the article focus, but in this case it just seems quite obvious that we're dealing with a systemic bias. That Ireland and Eastern Europe are given equal treatment seems like an obvious indication of this. We could afford to at least describe Eastern Europe just a smidgen more than we are right now. And we should probably also include something about Japan as long as the verifiable definitions fail to explicitly excude them, especially now that we have a source available through Google Books. 1b does not automatically overrule all requests for neutrality just through sheer quantity of references. Peter Isotalo 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There are relatively few indications of place in the article at all, other than the examples given, which are indeed mostly from France, England and the Crusader States. What should be said about Eastern European castles, other than that they exist? The book on Google on Japan arguably excludes them itself by saying they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". In other words, they need their own article here, which they have. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You call them castles. They may derive from a different source, but it's common English usage to call them castles. This pretty much cristalizes the issue around the definition. We have few scientists arguing against the common English use. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's basically wrong. You're suggesting that the article be expanded to include hill forts such as Maiden Castle because they're colloquially and wrongly called castles. People in the medieval period called walled cities castles, but the article uses the academic definition as it obviously should. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wandalstouring and other commenters here that this is a fine article, but that it is geographically biased. There is one photo of a Central European castle built by Germans and none from Eastern Europe. This reflects the text well. It is very interesting to learn that brick castles are common in Scandinavia and why, but there is no mention of comparable trends in the Balkans, for instance. There are also some phrases such as "the 13th-century ruler of the Saracens," which could be clarified. In this instance, it is worth noting that there never was one unified Muslim state in the Near East. The works cited for this article are slightly unsatisfactory, but that does not get in the way of FA status, in my opinion. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
References have been found which explicitly call the structures in Japan 'castles'. I visited Japan last year and they were called 'castles' there on all the English-language signage I saw. There is no reason to exclude them from this article and I'm surprised that they haven't been included. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well there is a reason. They may be analogous, but they are not the same. I'll give you an example, recently I came across the description on Wikipedia of the Hellots of ancient Greece as serfs, a medieval concept. Academic sources are split on whether to describe them as such because it's anachronistic and there are many differences, but the term serves as a convenient short-hand so many do use it. Some academics attempt to apply modern models of economy and society, such as Marxism, on ancient societies despite evident differences, incompatibilities, and anachronism; it's not necessarily wrong, it's used as a short-hand to aid people to understand something they are unfamiliar with by associating it with something familiar. What we have in the case of "Japanese castles" is something that was used because it was an easy term despite their obvious differences. They should be recognised as a separate, though similar, phenomenon which is why Japanese castle is an independent article. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the 'Castle' article, not the Castles in Europe and the Middle East article. As such, it needs to cover 'castles' worldwide. I'd suggest that you either expand this article to include Japanese castles or, perhaps better still, create a new article which covers the European and Middle East tradition of castle-building. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The argument that something is too different to merit inclusion requires some kind of backing from references, or it's just a subjective editorial choice. And if you're saying that academic sources are split on this issue, then there's even more reason to include the Japanese castles (and others) on grounds of neutrality. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

  • Nothing has been done on this one. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please add the date and author, if known, of the tapestry. Once that is included, I can fix the license (which is incorrect - clearly a medieval tapestry could not have been licensed under CC-by-SA in the middle ages!). Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg - The uploader and the author don't appear to be the same person. The uploader needs to be able to release the copyright (which belongs to the author). Can you contact the uploader and see what the situation is?
  • Problem still exists. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Malbork zamek zblizenie.jpg - Please remove the watermark from the photo. I'm confused by the source - it says "pl.wiki" - does this mean that the it was user generated by User:Topory?
  • Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Trebuchet.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person. Please contact the author and make sure that he has released the rights to this photo. He can indicate as much on the image description page, for example.
  • Problem still exists. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, although I think most have been fixed. Regarding File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, Lapo Luchini (who is attributed as the author) edits infrequently and as far as I can see hasn't edited since October. The confusion arises because Elya transferred the file across to commons, but I should think the license was kept the same. I'm not sure what to do about the drawing of Krak des Chevaliers as I don't have the book it came from and was taking the source on good faith. I could replace it with another image of Krak des Chevaliers (there are several on commons) if it's still a problem. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that's all the issues addressed. The two images that haven't yet been sorted (the old drawing and the one with the watermark) have been replaced. As for File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, I just noticed that the edit summary of the person who transferred the file from the Italian Wikipedia to Commons was "(* Castle (Fortezza Firmafede) of Sarzana, Italy * author: it:Utente:LapoLuchini * date: 2002-08-07 {{GFDL}} Category:Cities_in_Italy)", which I assume means it was under a GDFL license there so should be fine on Commons. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The issues regarding the uploader/author questions is not about the license precisely - it is whether the person who is claiming to release the rights through the license has the right to do so. When the uploader and the author are the same, we know that the uploader has the right to release the rights. However, I'm not seeing in the documentation here that the author ever uploaded the image (even to another wiki). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see a record of the uploader being the author (I might just be blind from looking at too many images, though). If the author and uploader are different, the author needs to give explicit permission, either by signing the page or going through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Please link any new images that have been added to the article here so that I don't have to go searching for them - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dab link fixed. Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The notion that the "other European words for castle derive from castellum" appears to only hold true if if you limit yourself to English and Romance languages. I don't know if other words were used in Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric and other languages during the Middle Ages, but the modern terms are certainly not derived from the Latin term. -Peter Isotalo
It's verifiable: the source states that other European words for castle derive from castellum, but that's not to say all of them do. The section is about the derivation of the word "castle" so it's relevant to mention other similarly derived words. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest rephrasing the section for clarity, then, because currently "other European words" implies what I said above. Peter Isotalo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've made the phrasing less ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
In German, castle is Schloss; don't know it's origin is though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The German article is at Burg in fact. Schloss has as its lead pic the highly unfortified rococo Sanssouci, and even more than chateau means a grand country house or "stately home", regardless of architectural style. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the trace italienne or link to the article (other than in the template at the bottom, which is insufficient). Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
They are to some extent the successor of the castle, & could be mentioned as such, but are essentially different: "the star fortress was a very flat structure composed of many triangular bastions, specifically designed to cover each other, and a ditch". Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the point; the article talks about the obsolescence of castles with the advent of gunpowder artillery, and should really mention the trace italienne, which succeeded the castle in the role of area defense. Yes, the walls were shorter and thicker, but the point was the same: to project power over a local area. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning them in the sense that they were major fortifications with their roots in castles (with the Henrican artillery forts as a notable predecessor of star forts, but only in a one liner. To state simply that their purpose was the same is to take an old fashioned view of castles and focus solely on their military role at the expense of other important facets. Country houses are already mentioned as their successors in social terms, a mention of castles' immediate military successors would not be amiss. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards support Let me say what an achievement this article is. To write about a topic as diverse as the castle is extraordinarily difficult and the editors are to be commended for their success. On the point raised above about comprehensiveness, I do not feel that adding information about other areas of the world is necessary to fulfill 1b and 1c. In fact, if extensive information on Japan and China were added, I think it might distort the summary of the academic literature. I looked at the "castle" entry in a few reference works today, all of them tertiary like Wikipedia aims to be; all of them focused on the castle in medieval Europe and the Middle East. If they mentioned any other place, it was Japan and for only a phrase or a sentence. I might also add that our article is in many ways better than those I looked at because it goes into so much detail. However, before I fully support, I do have a few issues that I would like to raise:
  • Above, Nev1 wrote in his explanation of the castle, "It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative." - I'm wondering if the article could do with a bit more explanation of what feudalism was and what the relationship between the lord and his tenants was. I'm thinking here of a very basic explanation - just a reminder for the reader of what feudalism was. This could be added to the "Defining characteristics" section or the "Social centre" section.
  • The material on courtly love seems like a tangent in the "Social centre" section. I would suggest removing it or explaining what about courtly love was related precisely to castles.
  • Little of servant life inside the castle is described. Would it be possible to add something on this?
  • This source is a children's book and thus does not meet the requirement of "high quality" source. There is only one fact sourced to it, however ("Brick castles were predominant in Scandinavia and the Baltic"), so replacing it with a good source should be easy.
  • At times, some of the sentences ran a little long and a few were a bit awkward. I plan to put a list of these sentences on the article's talk page in the coming days. These are very small issues and will not keep me from supporting.

I hope these comments were helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments I always find it very exciting when broad articles like this are brought to FAC. Although I usually review science articles, I think my critical eye may be beneficial to a popular article such as this one. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Sounders FC

Nominator(s): SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently passed a very successful (active) peer review where many improvements were suggested and made. User:Cptnono, User:George, and myself have worked diligently to take action based on all feedback given in the review as well as making many other improvements. At this point we have exhausted all known resources that could resonably be added to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and that with the help of the WP:FAC reviewers we will hopefully be able to get the article to the status of featured article. SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WFCforLife's comments

Comment I did the peer review, and believe the article is ready for FAC. I'm not sure if that excludes me from supporting or not, but as someone with a strong knowledge of the sport I'll follow this review in any case. The only comments I have at this time are about the alt text, which I now have more experience in. For the crest it's okay to mention that the banner has the words "Seattle Sounders FC" on it, but otherwise specific things such as the club's name, or the name of a trophy should not feature in alt text. Alt text is there to literally describe what you can see, and it's the caption's job to explain what these actually are. See the alt text in List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year for inspiration. Also, consider replacing "the field" and "the goal" with "a grass football field" and "a goal". WFCforLife (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - I've touched up the alt text on most of the images. Hopefully this is better. Good example. That helped a lot. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Whe you write alt captions there are three things to keep in mind
  1. They are going to be read aloud, so they need to be properly grammatically structured, not verbal shorthand. I just added a couple of essential words.
  2. When the alt description is read, it is general heard before the caption. So the hearer needs to understand without having heard the regular caption.
  3. You are writing for blind people. Although you are not permitted to use interpretative language elsewhere, it is important in alt descriptions to be descriptive. So it's fine to say that the men in this picture look "hot and sweaty" or "tired but happy" or some other terms that help a person visualise the picture.Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eubulides's comments

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text for the home and away uniforms, by filling in the |kit_alt1= and |kit_alt2= parameters of {{Infobox football club}}. Also, I suggest removing the flags from the owners and the player lists, as per MOS:FLAG #Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. I suspect that the flags are there because of tradition from European clubs, but they aren't nearly as important in a U.S. club. If the flags must be there for some reason, they also need some text next to them to say what country they represent, as a lot of those flags don't mean anything to the typical Wikipedia reader. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those examples are all European clubs, no? My point was that the flags are far less useful for a U.S. club. At the very least the non-U.S. flags need to have text next to them, saying what countries they represent. Thanks for fixing the alt text, by the way. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Eubulides r.e. this article, but not that they should be removed "because this is an American club". Flags are relevant where the owner/head coach/manager isn't of the same nationality as the club. Being foreign-owned or managed is significant, but displaying an English/American/Venezuelan flag 100% of the time is of no real benefit. Going by the policy flags should be removed from the Gillingham, York and Seattle Sounders' infoboxes, and kept in the others. WFCforLife (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed - (I hit edit conflicts with both of you trying to add this comment...) Nevermind, I just removed them. I found some that didn't have the flags... Leek Town F.C., Luton Town F.C., and Dover Athletic F.C.. It's also mildly redundant that there are a bunch of American flags there for an American team. It would be interesting/notable if one of them wasn't American. Also, there was this discussion previously where we didn't even know of the coach's flag should be German or American. At this point I agree, it's better not to have them. It's not in line with the manual of style, and we don't even know if one of them is 100% right. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. How about all those flags in Seattle Sounders FC #Current roster? I don't recognize half of them. I'd remove them; but if they're kept, they need to be changed to use (say) {{flag}} rather than {{flagicon}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Removing the flags from the infobox and the roster would make the page inconsistent with every other soccer team article on the site. They form an important part of each team's detail by indicating the international makeup of the squad and the origin of the ownership/coaching group. If they are all American, it should say so, because it's an important part of what the team is. They need to stay. --JonBroxton (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Agree about {{flag}}. They are relevant in a sporting sense, because most of the non-american players (and at least one American) have represented their respective countries in international football. WFCforLife (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't get bogged down in this. There is not precedent to have flags in all FA infoboxes and there is not precedent to remove. I assumed there would be one way or the other to be honest but there isn't. Much like the MLS specific infobox discussion from last month, maybe this is something else that needs to be addressed in general So lets get it done. For now, I personally don't care either way since it is so minor. For now (since it would be completely bogus to hold up an FAC over a previousley unadhered to style guideline) which makes more sense? Flags: For the benefit or the detriment in this circumstance?Cptnono (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If I could chime in here, I think the flags are important for the players, because, if I'm not mistaken, the MLS (the league the Seattle Sounders FC plays in) has rules regarding how many players from the team can be foreigners and how many must be American (I could be wrong on this - can someone verify? I know it's true for U.S. Open Cup play at least). The nationality of the owners/manager/coach is probably less important, and may not have a good reason to use flags. Just my two cents. ← George talk 09:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
They are absolutely to the benefit of the article. Indicating the nationality of the owner of ownership group indicates an important part of the club's culture, and its source of wealth; all-American, or a Latin flavor, or Russian oligarch, or Arab nouveau-riche. Having a flag indicating the nationality of the coach can give readers familiar with such things an at-a-glance indication as to the nature of the team's style of play. And having flags next to player names in the squad list gives an indication as to the international makeup of the team, which players have potential international experience, and can also be used to illustrate which of the team's players counts towards international roster limits (which don't apply for MLS, but do apply for many other leagues around the world). Also, removing flags (especially from the roster list) creates inconsistency with other articles on soccer teams around the world, when as much consistency as possible should be strongly maintained. --JonBroxton (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
WTF? You guys are too quick! George: Yes. But riddle me this: Does Alonso's "status" or Boss's nationality factor into our current allotted international number? (this question is for fun off the FA page)
I must have only been half paying attention since I thought it was the infobox we were discussing. (I do pay half attention alot)Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
From the MLS rules & regulations page:

"Each team is allotted eight (8) International slots, with the exception of Toronto FC who is allotted 13 International slots, five (5) of which may be used on domestic U.S. players. All International player slots are tradable, therefore a team may have more than or less than eight (8) International players on its roster."

So the international makeup of the team is more than just trivial data, so I support including the flags for the players. I'm not opposed to including the nationalities of the owners/coaches/managers. At least some of them (for other MLS teams) are non-American for sure, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. ← George talk 12:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
We are only talking abut the ownership flags not the team, though.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides suggested the removal of both. I agree with George based on the exact justification he brings up, that flags should to be in the roster list. All other FA quality club articles, regardless of geography, have flag inidcators for the nationality of the players. Flags are also shown in the squad section in the WikiProject Football MOS for club articles. However, flags are not shown in that tempalte for the owner(s) and manager(s). Among the FA quality club articles, I've seen examples that have flags for the owner(s) and manager(s) and others that don't. Also, the template being used for the players only shows the flag (with no text), but if you hover over the flag or click on it, you find out quickly what country it is if you didn't recognize it. Clearly JonBroxton strenuously objects to the removal of any flags from the article. Is anyone else against the removal of the flags from the infobox? I'm not. Eubulides, is a compromise to remove the flags from only the infobox sufficient enough to sway your review towards support? At this point I think it's clear that the flags are not in the players list for traditional reasons only, there's actual justification. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know this is not a done thing at FAC, but I'm tempted to cap the entire conversation. This article uses the widely used and standard Template:Football squad player. Unless consensus exists to remove or replace it that I'm not aware of, it should continue to do so. If the template itself needs changing, the template should be changed. It's got nothing to do with Seattle Sounders FC. WFCforLife (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree to not touch the flags in the roster section. But what about Template:Infobox football club? I don't mind either way to be honest but don't see flags at the template. They are used in some FAs but not others. This might be something to bring up to the project but for now and with this article which way are we going?Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If the club is American/English/Mongolian and everyone in the infobox is American/English/Mongolian respectively, I just do not see how they can be justified. Admittedly my opinion has changed over the past month or so, but I now only think it's significant if a club is foreign owned. Imagine a Russian buying an NFL franchise and you'll have some idea of the level of controversy there is about that subject. But a head coaches' nationality is in no way indicative of his team's playing style; Gianfranco Zola is Italian, Jose Mourinho Portuguese, and Guus Hiddink Dutch. WFCforLife (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with keeping them in the roster and removing them for the owners and coach (in the infobox). Do we have consensus on this? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the three of us are on the same page on this. I think it looks OK to remove from the infobox (not the roster) in this circumstance. Give it another day just to make sure there are not any objections.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Awadewit's comments

  • Oppose on criterion 3
*File:Seattle Sounders FC.PNG - Ideally, this logo should be in SVG format. See Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop to request this. {This does not have to be done for me to strike the oppose, but it is recommended by Wikipedia's image policy and it makes the image look much cleaner.)
  • Request Made - I've put in a request here. It looks like it's about a week turnaround though. Hopefully making the request is enough to strikeout your oposition. Thanks for the review and feedback. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed team logo - It appears that Andrew c from the Illustration workshop went and found an SVG image from the club's website, uploaded it to Wikipedia, and updated the article. In general though, it appears that the folks in the Illustration workshop are not excited about creating SVGs for non-free images like this. There's another request on the page prompted from an WP:FAC review that they're pushing back on as well. Regardless, this issue is resolved now (Thanks Andrew c!). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But why do readers need to see the photo? What does the photo show that cannot be described in words? Also, I don't think the description is quite accurate - I think the photo shows them celebrating, not winning. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Taking another stab at it: It illustrates a significant historic event in the history of the Seattle Sounders FC: the club celebrating their first major trophy, the Lamar Hunt U. S. Open Cup. Some key players on the club who participated during that season and tournament are depicted, specifically: Kasey Keller, Osvaldo Alonso, Steve Zakuani and Leonardo González. It is used in this article to facilitate identification of the trophy being discussed in the context of historical commentary for the club that won it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony1's comments

Oppose—not well-enough written. Here are examples from the top of why the whole text needs an independent copy-edit.

  • Why is "American" linked? Why is "Washington" linked adjacent to "Seattle", when the latter goes to Washington directly?
  • Fixed - removed "American" wikilink and made "Seattle, Washington" a single wikilink which goes to the article on the city.--SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comma after "playoffs" required; it changes the meaning.
  • Fixed - good catch. English is my first language, but you wouldn't know it by my writing skills. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is "also" necessary at the end of the lead?
  • Close rep: "United States.[1] In 1994, as the United States"—possibly "the nation/country" for one?
  • Fixed - Changed the first to country since it's less ambiguous in that sentence which country is being referred to. In the second sentence, pretty much any country could be preparing for the FIFA World Cup, so it makes more sense (to me at least) to leave United States there.--SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Even in 1994"; perhaps I haven't read closely enough, but I don't get the logic.
  • Fixed - removed that "even" as well as another in the first sentence of the section. The first was meant to emphasize that Seattle was in the running for an MLS team over 14 years ago. The other (the one you pointed out) was meant to emphasize that a soccer-specific stadium has always been a sticking point with the league. Both are unecessary. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Very clumsy: "Another criterion needed for considering a city for getting an inaugural MLS team was to secure 10,000 deposits for season tickets."
  • Fixed - Agreed. Too many "for"s for one thing. Changed it to this: Cities seeking consideration for an inaugural MLS team were also expected to secure 10,000 deposits for season tickets.. Better? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 7 and 5: prefer spelled-out single-digit numbers, especially close to a numeric date?
  • Fixed - my instincts are often flawed for when to have digits vs. words. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "In an effort"—can it be removed?
  • "hurt momentum"—odd. "slowed the"?
  • Fixed - after consulting a thesaurus, I think "thwarted" may work better and conveys the right point. I believe "hurt momentum for" came for the referenced source, but it doesn't fit very well in the context of the article prose. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Indeed"—usually not encyclopedic. Careful with "unfortunately", which sounds like a personal opinion. "Unfortunately, as the stadium problem in Seattle was resolved, a new problem emerged." Clunky order. Try "Just as the stadium problem in Seattle was resolved, a new problem emerged."
  • Fixed - removed indeed. Changed "unfortunately" to "however". The point here is to draw attention to the fact that just as one requirement was met, a new requirement emerged. Hopefully "however" is more acceptable. I think it still conveys the intended meaning. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hah! I missed your suggestion to use "just" instead of "unfortunately" while I was editing. I like that better anyway and it conveys the meaning I explained as well. I changed it to match your suggestion. Thanks! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And so on. Tony (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just finished a copy edit effort to apply some ideas I gained from one of your tutorials. I will continue going through your tutorials over the next week making edits to this article as I go. Thank you for making such amazing tutorials. This WP:FAC review has already been a great learning experience for me. I also look forward to responding to any more suggestions comments you can provide as you dig further into the article. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I did another copy edit, of linking this time, based on WP:LINK and your linking tutorial. Thanks again for these great tutorials! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cptnono's comments

Comments

  • "Seattle was not among the cities to have a team play in the inaugural MLS season" Is this line needed?
  • I don't know. Do you think it's superfluous? The reason I added it was because I felt it was part of telling the story. There's a lot of prose about the formation of the leauge and how Seattle was considered. Without this, I felt that it was ambiguous whether Seattle got a team or not. Maybe they got one and lost it (like San Jose) or something. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No concern then.
  • " United Soccer Leagues (USL) Sounders (formerly the APSL Sounders)" This might cause confusion. ASPL -> A-League -> USL1. Any thoughts?
  • Hmm, the info in this artical is based on the info I gleaned from the news articles referenced. I didn't even know that there was another step in the history between the APSL and USL1. I don't think it's necessary to elaborate too much here though. The leagues are wikilinked and the information's available in their specific articles. I think simply saying that the USL Sounders were formerly the APSL Sounders is accurate, even if there was another step between them. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry I wasn't clear. My concern is that I want the read to understand that it is the same franchise but there wers some funny changes to the top division in the States. Does it do it as currently worded in your opinion?
  • Right now it says "United Soccer League's (USL) Sounders (formerly the APSL Sounders)" which I think gets the point accross. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • An image can fit within the "Team name, badge and colors unveiled" section. Check out commons and see if anything looks good.
  • I can think of some appropriate pictures for the section from the SoundersFC site, but those would be non-free, fair use candidates. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing currently at [13] I like enough that matches the paragraph. Keep an eye out over there sine images are uploaded here and there.
  • "However, when the second of these two expansion teams was awarded to Salt Lake in 2004, MLS commissioner Don Garber indicated that Seattle had been "very close" to getting that expansion." Not exactly inline with sources and wording was awkward. Modified to "Seattle was again listed as a possibility in 2002 when the ten-team MLS announced plans to eventually expand into new markets[14] In 2004, MLS commissioner Don Garber indicated that Seattle had been "very close[15] to receiving the expansion awarded to Salt Lake."
  • Good job on the rewording. I think this is fine. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Replaced all - with – HTML code
  • I don't know why this was necessary, but either way I'm fine with it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Something to do with the way it displays I believe. Just another one of those pasky MOS things that I don't understand completely but do :) WP:DASH.
  • Removed "The first player signed by the Sounders was 2007 USL First Division Most Valuable Player (MVP) and former USL Sounder Sébastien Le Toux,[1] with University of Akron forward Steve Zakuani being the team's first draft pick.[2]" Such info isn't in other FAs. It could be expanded but what would be the limit before putting it in the season article?Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When I moved the paragraph that was there to the season specific page, Bobblehead added these sentenceas back. His edit comment was: First signee and draftee are historically "important" so added them back in. I tend to agree with that reasoning, but if it's outside the WP:FOOTY MOS or something, then it should go. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is historically significant but there is not a precedent. It would be easy to fill out this section with a paragraph (probably several, actually) that is season specific. This could cause concerns in a few years as it is built upon.
  • Follow-up: I am pretty confident that this is of FA class or at least could be with some minor tweaks. I'm going to do another run through to double check, though.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Giants2008's comments

Comments – Prose in the beginning looks okay to me (perhaps due to extensive reviewing already), but gets rougher afterward; the History section in particular could still use cleaning.

  • One comment about the lead: it should summarize the entire article, and I'm not sure that is happening now. I see nothing in there on rivalries or broadcasting, to name two examples. Even a sentence or two on those topics would be beneficial.
  • Fixed - added a sentence for each of these short sections. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • History: "so in order for Seattle to get an MLS expansion team, an investor would need to step forward." The phrase "in order" is usually redundant, unless there's a good reason for it, which doesn't exist here. Chopping that would help make the prose in this sentence tighter. Similar to one of Tony's comments above, and well worth weeding out in the rest of the article.
  • Fixed - I made a bunch of edits based on Tony's redundancy tutorials, but I missed this one. I'm still a novice at this way of writing, so I appreciate you pointing these out. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could link Don Garber here, unless there's one above that I missed.
  • Fixed - it was linked later in the article (in the Golden Scarf section). I've moved the wikilink the first instance of his name as you suggested. Thanks. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "to receiving the expansion awarded to Salt Lake." Is "team" missing toward the end?
  • Fixed - changed it to "expansion team". Good clarification. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "then owner of the United Soccer Leagues Sounders". Hyphen for "then owner" and apostrophe after Leagues.
  • "was working with MLS discussing an estimated payment of $1 million to secure rights to a Seattle franchise for 2006." To remove two -ings in three words, try "was in discussions with MLS about an estimated payment...".
  • "Paul Allen, who's First and Goal company operated Quest Field". "who's" → "whose".
  • Fixed - hah! MS Word spell checker told me to change it to who's. Changed it back. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "and announced Microsoft and Xbox 360 as the team's sponsor in a 5 year deal worth $20 million." I'd recommend "five-year" in the last part; in fact, this is akin to another of Tony's comments. Also, Microsoft and Xbox 360 read like there were two sponsors, which would make the singular tense ini "sponsor" wrong.
  • Fixed - It's just one sponsor so I removed Xbox 360 from that sentence. I think this is fine because in the very next sentence it explains that XBox 360 is what's actually on the jersey. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "are featured prominently on the front of the jersey". Little vague here; I assume this means the Sounders' jerseys?
  • Fixed - I changed it to "Sounders FC's jerseys" and corrected a reference to the club in the previous sentence. We've clarified this with the club; it should be referred to as "Sounders FC" always. Just "Sounders" should be avoided. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Inaugural season: Do Americans know what a clean sheet is? This is not what I'd consider a common term in this country, as opposed to many other places in the world. Links for this are avaliable at shutout or whitewash (sport). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed - good point. Wikilink to shutout added. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rafablu88's comments

Source comments Everything fine. Some nitpicks:

  • Remove the italics on the publishers on current refs 18, 24, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 44.
  • Fixed - I assume these were picked out because there is no wikilink for the publisher/work. There are many other refs of the exact same format (using "cite news"), but the publisher/work is wililinked. Based on that assumption, I've left the italics and wikilinked the publisher/work in the refs you listed. Hopefully this is satisfactory. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You've misunderstood me. It wasn't about the wikilinking. We reserve italics for print media. As far as I can tell, all the publishers in the above refs are not print but organisations, hence the italics need to be removed, i.e. from MLS to MLS. RB88 (T) 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I didn't quite get it last time. I think I've fixed everything now though. All newspaper names are italicized and all web site publishers are not. I think this is what you were going for with your comment. Let me know if I missed something or goofed this up again. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Add italics on the publishers on current refs 72, 75.
  • Fixed - this was happening because the wrong templates were being used "cite journal" and "cite web". I've changed both to "cite news" which has the desired effect. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref 57 needs a bit more detail. Whose press release is it on current ref 20?
  • Pick a dating convention and stick to it. I see a mixture of two.
  • Fixed - This was because of this guidance on how to format accessdates, which has since changed. I've updated the dates. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ComputerGuy's comments

[edit] Battle of Villers-Bocage

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I believe the article meets all criteria, previous review did not flag up any major issues; the minor issues it did flag up have since been sorted out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is mostly quite good (thanks), but the two maps have problems. The alt text for File:Operation Perch.svg doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader the essence of the map, which is that the German lines run east-west, parallel to the ocean at the Allies' backs, and that there's a big gap in the German lines that the 131st INF BDE and 7th ARMD DIV are exploiting, with their goal being Villers-Bocage. There's a similar problem with File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidelines on alt text for maps. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    Cheers for that, i will take a look at it over the weekend.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    Bette rlate than never ;) I have edited the alt text for the two diagrams after reviewing the information within the article you linked to. They should now adhere to the correct standards.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • An image review was performed at the last FAC. Have any new images been added since then? Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    Just File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    What a beautiful map! Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I largely approve of the nicely written article. However I want to recommend an expansion or counter balance of some of the elements in the article. Especially since the article states that the German propaganda exploited the battle. I therefore have checked what the Wehrmachtbericht reports about the battle at Villers Bocage. Interestingly I find it very moderate in comparison to what is stated in the article. It reads on 14 June 1944

In der Normandie stieß eine gepanzerte Kampfgruppe in den feindlichen Brückenkopf östlich der Or