Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2006

Vancouver

• Support this article is fairly comprehensive. It has several related articles for each of its category and seems to be quite accurate. Mkdw^talk 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object the wide panoramic pics wreaks havoc with screen displays. The external jumps in refs 37-40 need fixed. More later. Rlevse 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The linking for footnotes 37-40 seem to be intacted. I have adjusted the pannoramic pictures to be more size friendly. Mkdw^talk 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Still Object I done some sample refs for submitter and many refs are still not in standard format. Rlevse 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The article citations have been greatly improved, thanks to yours and many others efforts. The citations provided are in better shape than a good portion of the other FAs and are almost University acceptable, which are far beyond Wikipedia's standards. I noticed myself, along with some other people are having some troubles with the citations. The information is being input but the references are not showing all the details. Mkdw^talk 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations should be up to par now.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is well-written and my display at 1024x768 running IE6 doesn't have any problem with the images, although the view from chinatown does require scrolling to the right a bit to view the whole image. Users at lower screen resolutions may have problems with some of the images, as noted above. I'm also not experiencing any problems with the external links in the citations. Neil916 (Talk) 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article seems in proportion using Mozilla and Safari at 1024x768. I have adjusted the Chinatown image to a more accommodating size. Mkdw^talk 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A lot of red wikilinks because they point to articles which are not there. Either create stubs for those articles or remove the wikilinks. Mercenary2k 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  

The redlinks have been removed. Lily Towers^talk 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article needs very little work to be done and it appears that as the recommendations are coming in the article is being improved. As far as content, the article is well organized and complete. Mainly technical notes that need small alterations, but can be easily done. Langara College 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Objection — I only made it a third the way through the article, but I found several issues that I think need to be addressed:

• "In 1808, Simon Fraser arrived in what is now Marpole. He was searching for the Columbia River, but soon discovered that he was not in Columbia and was captured by natives." Was he looking for Columbia or the river? Wasn't he in B.C.? This needs to be clarified.

I looked into this. Simon Fraser was looking for the Columbia River but ended up exploring what is not known as the Fraser River. Both rivers are located in British Columbia. Colombia, South America has no relation to the river. I have changed "not in Columbia" to "not in the Columbia" for clarification. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That works.

• "A fire broke out on June 13, 1886. The city was quickly rebuilt, using bricks that time." The effects of the fire were what? Was the entire city razed?

This piece of information is a quick summary of the main article listed at the top of the section: History of Vancouver. I have included the extent of the damge to the city though. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The history section needs at least a paragraph to cover the entire 20th century.

Refer to History of Vancouver as listed as the main article in the History header at the top. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reader should not need to drill down to a sub-article in order to get a proper summary.:::::Article section has been greatly expanded. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The climate is wet..." suggest maritime or oceanic, rather than "wet".

Climate may refer to elevation, but in most cases it's definition falls to its first and most used term to describe weather, see climate. "Wet" in that case was used to refer to precipitation rather than its geographic location being surrounded by bodies of water. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be made clearer by using the word "weather" rather than "climate"?

I recommend climate be kept for lack of a better reason. The sentence has been changed to "The climate is moderate and experiences a high precipitation. The city is also surrounded by several bodies of water, rivers, lakes, and streams." As though climate is the best word describe 'weather over a long period of time, 30 years', it may also be used to describe degree. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. — RJH (talk)

• The "Flora" section is missing citations.
• "...reckoned to be..." is too folksy and lacks a citation.

section improved. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• What does "second and third growth" mean?

Second and third growth are used to describe a generation of trees. These terms are common in forestry. There technically exists no first growth category. When 'original trees' are cut down, or are destoyed by floods or fires, the next growth of trees are called second growth, etc. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we're not all in the forestry business, it might be helpful for the lay reader if these terms were made clear (or at least linked to an explanatory article). Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk)

I'm not in the forestry industry, but that word is a very common word. Its usage is as common as Fir Tree. Logging and signs of logging is menioned in the same sentence and I belive most people will understand the concept simply from the sentence. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By most people do you include somebody living in a desert region? Sorry I don't find that sufficient. These articles are read world-wide, so you can't expect that everybody will share your "common word" knowledge base. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few more and then I'll leave off:

• "twice the speed" => "twice the rate"

Done Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "acre" is old English units. For consistency I'd also use km², as was done later in the article.

Canada still has a very odd mixture of units. Technically we are a metric country, but due to our legacy of people in Canada, baby boomers, who still use imperial, Canada is almost a go-between. Our close relationship to the United States also has that affect on our measurement system. Acres in this artcile could be kept with the km measurement in brackets as many area measurement documents, even government, show. Acre only shows up two times, the staticial one would not make sense as it was done in acres. You would ultimately be saying there are 49 people in ever 0.0001km². The km will be put in bracks for convience. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the km to hectares, as methinks that's the relevant unit here. It's now consistent with other measurements in the article (metric first, imperial in brackets).Bobanny 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all I was asking. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

• "Mayor Sullivan's Eco-Density initiative" is mentioned off-hand but not explained or linked.

Expanded Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk)

• Two of the paragraphs in the "Demographics" section are unsourced, and I think they are in need of sourcing. These are the two paragraphs on the largest ethnic groups.

Seems to have been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Economy", "Politics" and "Architecture" sections are only sparsely referenced. The trade statistics at least should be easy to source.:* As a side note, the reason why Vancouver is such a popular cruise ship starting point is that for a long time foreign-owned cruise ships were banned from docking in Seattle for cruises drectly to Alaska.[1]

Thanks, this helps and will be included. Mkdw^talk 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• In "Sports and Recreation" paragraph 3, please use emdash instead of hyphens. Also when you list units in time, please clarify that this is driving time. (I know it's common sense, but some countries rely on different forms of transportation...)

The hyphens were eliminated in place of a better sentence structure. Mkdw^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I realize that most of these are nits, so my primary objection comes from the weak level of references in certain sections, particularly when facts and data are cited. Having a respectable number of references overall doesn't necessarily make this a well-referenced page. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed many of your observations are changes that are simple to make, and would be far less work to change them than to write an explination here. As a suggestion, you could change them and save the work as some of these suggestions are perhaps too specific to be notable in the judgement of a feature review. Mkdw^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In a number of cases the intent of the author needed to be determined, so I wasn't about to make those changes. In others I lacked information that the article should have provided. But I have to respectfully disagree that a notability filter should be applied to a FA review. You're clearly posting under the premise that this is one of the best articles that WP has to offer. So I should expect to find zero issues with the content. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection — The flora section needs editing. For example, most of Vancouver wasn't covered in "temperate rainforest" prior to settlement(although this is a common idea). In fact, the average precipitation over most of the city is 40-60", not enough to qualify as temperate rainforest. Large, moist forests dominated the area, but most ecologists would not use the term "temperate rainforest" to describe an area with less than 80" of rain per year. True temperate rainforest can be found on the west coast of Vancouver Island, or futher north in places like North and West Vancouver which receive precipitation in excess of 80" per year.24.84.208.246 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have the location of Vancouver confused with other areas. The City of Vancouver is included in the Pacific temperate rain forests (the largest temerate rain forest zone on the planet). The Pacific Temperate Rain Forest stretches as far north as Alaska, through the Yukon, British Columbia, state of Washington, down as far south as northern California. Stanley Park is a 1000acre park in the middle of downtown Vancouver which is officially noted as a temperate rain forest. Vancouver Parks Board. Mkdw^talk 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my post. I am aware that there are large tracts of temperate rainforest on the West Coast of North America, but there is not a continuous band of temperate rainforest stretching from Northern California to Alaska. Because most of the Lower Mainland of B.C. is protected to some degree by the mountains of Vancouver Island, it does not receive the full brunt of Pacific storm systems, and receives about half the rainfall actually necessary to support a true "rainforest" ecosystem. This is a generalization of course. Some areas of Greater Vancouver, such as North Vancouver and West Vancouver get heavy enough rainfall to qualify.24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't say this without a citation. It would appear to be original research, especially if the source contraticts with what you say. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I am one of the editors who improved the article. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  
• Support - Vancouver has several articles, many of which are extensions of sections are they have become to elaborate. The article is well referenced and accurate. The article has been changed to accommodate the oppositional points for improvement. Also many of the oppositional points are invalid as responded to. Vancouver's original forest bed and categorization as a temperate rain forest cannot be solely based upon rain fall accounts today. It does also state, as Mkdw said, that its categorized by the Vancouver Parks Board as a rain forest. The other points such as 'wet' and Colombia versus Columbia are not correct and do not warrant with-holding this article as a featured article. Lily Towers^talk 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But rainfall IS the indicating factor here. Should we state that the dry oak meadows of southern Vancouver Island and parts of Puget Sound are "rainforests" simply because they are located on the west coast? They are not. Nor is most of Vancouver city proper. Are we not striving for accuracy here, rather than popular conception?24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does not claim "all" of Vancouver was rainforest, so there is room for those drier spots. Again, the offending sentence is not referring to modern day Vancouver. There's nothing inaccurate about that sentence and the issue is not about "popular conceptions," but about an accepted classification.Bobanny 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The dominant tree throughout most of the city of Vancouver prior to human settlement was Douglas Fir. This is not consistent with a "temperate rainforest" ecosystem. Thus, Vancouver is not and never has been dominated by a temperate rainforest ecosystem in the scientifically ACCEPTED sense. Parts of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, yes. Much of the exposed coastline of British Columbia, yes. Downtown Vancouver and areas south of that? For the most part, NO. If you want to change the article to say that "Parts of Greater Vancouver once supported a temperate rainforest ecosystem" then please be my guest. In fact parts of the region still DO support such an ecosystem. But the city itself, as I have tried to explain, never did, in terms of an "accepted classification", and I think that the article needs to be accurate.24.84.208.246 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests actually specifies that a temperate rainforest must receive 2,000 mm of precipitation at a bare minimum in order to qualify! Again, Vancouver city proper does not come close to qualifying in this respect. Certain select parts of Greater Vancouver may qualify, but that doesn't justify a blanket statement in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.208.246 (talk • contribs)

Could you please provide some references to back up your statement as you do not have any to support your argument compared to several citations provided by the City of Vancouver in that section. Furthermore, there is no recorded levels of rain fall in the time, 'original' forest, as talked about in that particular section. This argument is highly esoteric, possibly incorrect under original research without citation, to with hold an article from Featured status. 142.35.144.2 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not an ecologist, but as a Wikipedian, that sentence is up to snuff, has a citation, and isn't a good sticking point for an FAC evaluation. You write as if you know something about this stuff, 24.84.208.246, so if you're correct, it shouldn't be too hard for you to at least hint at a source more convincing than the City of Vancouver. As it stands, 'unregistered, anonymous Wikipedia user' is not a credible source, even if you do manage to win the debate here. And as a counter-sidenote, that same Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests does list Douglas fir as indigenous to temperate rainforests.Bobanny 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. Anon has not yet provided a source for his argument, plus he dosen't have an account. As far as I'm concerned, Vancouver is a temperate rain forest, since that's what it says in the only citation provided so far. Arguing that it makes no scientific sense without providing a reference can easily be seen as original research. Who says this? Is it published in any reliable journal or website? Ironically, saying Vancouver is NOT a rainforest would mean this FAC would be less sucessful. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Vancouver should not be a featured article, simply that asserting that the city was once a temperate rainforest is inaccurate. Here are some sources for precipitation requirements: http://www.wtrc.org/temprainforests.htm ... http://davesgarden.com/terms/go/2897/ ... http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/biomes/rainforest/temp_rain/temprain.html . The LOWEST of them say 60 inches...your own Wikipedia article cites 80 inches as the minimum requirement. In any case, the City of Vancouver gets an average of about 48 inches (again according to your own article - Environment Canada actually says 43 inches or so...in any case a good 20 inches less than even the very lowest estimates as to required precipitation). As for Douglas Firs, of course they exist in the temperate rainforest, but are they dominant? Again, I am not against featured article status, I just think that particular item should be changed to say something like "Parts of Greater Vancouver are..." rather than "Vancouver was once..." if you get my drift.24.84.208.246 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you did "object" to Vancouver being a featured article so I wouldn't say you didn't when its written above =P. The davesgarden is a personal website and the definition written there is by a user called Terry (which cannot be counted as a credible source). I looked into your source The Rain Forest Atlas which on its map lists the area of Vancouver as a "developed rain forest" and "coastal temperate rain forest". Furthermore none of these articles have anything to do with the original state of Vancouver before settlement or developement. Stanley Park is the only forested area in Vancouver, to which is labelled a National Park and temperate rain forest. I agree Vancouver could not be called one as it is a city, mainly made from metal and concrete, but then again that's not what the statement says. Unless more evidence from notable sources (Oxford or Websters English Dictionary, Canadian Government, City of Vancouver, Universities) these current sources listed by you are countered by more credible sources and even some of your sources support our argument. Thank you for your efforts though. Mkdw^talk 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to my source, Douglas Fir didn't dominate, but rather it was a mix of tree types, including Douglas Firs, and others, like the Sitka Spruce, that apparently are typical of temperate rainforests. Bobanny 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support What Lily Towers said. 142.35.144.2 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support What a great article, I honestly feel it's a lot 'tighter' than Ann Arbor, Michigan, which I used for comparison here. Just a few, very minor issues:

• More citations in the Economy subsection, please. I think you should have a reference for each statistic you give - regardless of whether these are cited in the main Economy of Vancouver article.

I believe this has been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the Economy subsection: The 1986 World Exposition was held in Vancouver. This World's Fair was the last to be held in North America and was considered a success. Just seems a little abrupt - maybe one sentence more to round it off.

I've expanded the last sentence to end the section smoothly. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• And again in the Economy subsection: It should be noted that a number of municipalities in British Columbia within 2-3 hours from Vancouver, such as Whistler, Victoria, and Langley, have average house prices... I linked Whistler and Victoria, but I'm not sure if you mean this Langley or this one.

I've taken care of this 205.250.109.113 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I also removed Whistler from the list of average priced housing sectors as Whistler is now among some of the most expensive and desired areas to buy property. Primarily due to the massive expansion of Whistler in the last 20 years making it a world class resort as well as the 2010 Olympics. Mkdw^talk 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you can probably tell that I'm nitpicking :) It's a fantastic article, good work, everybody. Those were the only minor things I could think of that I couldn't clean up myself - I did a bit of spellcheck and some punctuation changes to make it flow better. riana_dzasta 10:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Concerns - many of the points raised by Tony1 in the first FAC and Never_Mystic in the second FAC have not been answered. Could an experienced contributor go over these and attempt to rectify them? riana_dzasta 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of Never Mystics's concerns have been taken care of. Just a couple more things. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they have, and thanks for your support vote and recommendations. =) Mkdw^talk 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very thorough, lots of refs. - Mike | Talk 05:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support complete and detailed article with many good and on topic subpages. The citations have been greatly improved. 24.80.158.47 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support this article has very good refs, very informative. Dan M 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Although the article is well referenced and the use of summary style is commendable, the article is overall too long. Here are some specific objections:
  • The article is comparable in size to featured article cities.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does have a size recommendation for the express reason of encouraging articles to be divided into subpages. The WikiFoundation has recognized that some articles cannot meet these size recommendations. Vancouver is a complex article covering a huge amount of topics while still trying to give a comprehensive breakdown of all its areas, subpages, and signficant content. The 32kb size recommendation has been void in many cases such as this, as you can clearly see on many other featured articles. Any reduction in many of the articles of this article would mean a loss of integrity. Mkdw^talk 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Acronyms such as BC, US, RCMP, COPE, VVN, NPA should not be used. If they are used, they sound be appropriately introduced: e.g. "British Columbia (BC)"
     • I've fix some of the acronyms you've suggested. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • And I fixed the rest (think I got them all). I checked, and the Wiki style guide permits acronyms, but with the intro you suggested.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. The prose is flaccid. Statements need to be sharpened, words need to be pared, ideas need stronger connections. In short, it needs a good copyedit. For example, "In more modern times, other industries have become proportionately more significant, such as film production; Vancouver is the third largest centre for US-based productions after Los Angeles and New York, earning it the nickname Hollywood North;" "Some actions have be taken by various levels of government to limit the problem." Too colloquial in places: "Those unfamiliar with the region may be surprised to learn that Vancouver is not on Vancouver Island;" "The city's popularity comes with a price." The article is filled with little errors of grammar, punctuation and word choice.
  3. The intro is much too long.
     • The intro was expanded in response to other reviewers who said the opposite. Again, it's comparable to the introductions for other cities.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • The introduction is comparable size-wise to many other featured articles. Using other featured articles for comparison is the recommended approach. Mkdw^talk 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. History: too long, and does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts! What about Vancouver's recent massive population growth as an immigrant hub for the Pacific Rim? What are the causes, what was the effect on the city?
     • Recent history, such as Vancouver becoming a hub for Pacific Rim immigration, is covered elsewhere in the article. The history section was also expanded following comments from reviewers. Are there perhaps items in the history section that are not significant enough for inclusion in your opinion?Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) It also doesn't seem to be out of line with other cities, including featured ones (Detroit's is much longer for example, apparently because its history section does go up to the present). As for content, it covers the formative years of the city, which is the most important for a history section to cover, IMO (it does go into the 1930s, btw: 1929 is just the last date mentioned).Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • As you said, this article could be shorter and to reduce the size the History of Vancouver was created to be a more complete and comprehensive article. If you wanted to include all of Vancouver's history on the page you would be increasing its size by almost a 1/5th. Mkdw^talk 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Geography: shorten.
     • It's not much longer than other sections, and it seems to me that geography is one of the more notable features of the city. Again, perhaps if you indicate what you believe to be insignificant information, this would be easier to act on.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • The geography of Vancouver is responsible for Vancouver's tourism industry, hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, ranking among the top five World's Most Livable Cities, second largest film production center, third-largest US-base for productions, second largest port in North America, and forth largest cruise ship terminus. All those reasons naturally makes the geography section the largest and most important to the article. Mkdw^talk 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Demographics: perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that the Chinatown is, if I recall correctly, the second largest in North America, after San Francisco?
     • New York, Toronto, and other large cities have more extensive Chinatown's than Vancouver due to their larger population sizes. Although it is rumoured that Vancouver's Chinatown per capita is the second largest in the world, much of 'Chinatown' has dispursed to other areas such as Richmond. Mkdw^talk 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I removed this recently when going through the article to add citations. A google search indicated that there is no consensus on this point (Toronto and New York are also given this status in various places). Moreover, the sites that came up were primarily tourist-type sites. Granted, I didn't spend a lot of time hunting down the info, partly because I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that a previous version of the Vancouver article seemed obsessed with ranking. That there's a lot of Chinese people in Vancouver is covered elsewhere.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Education: the first paragraph only tells you about the administrative structure of schools in Vancouver, it says little about the actual schools. Perhaps mention the locations of UBC and SFU, which are interesting and relevant (as it is, it could be interpreted to say that only the satellite campuses are in Vancouver proper, which is not true for UBC).
     • The main UBC is technically its own municipality, governed by a board of governors, not the civic administration of Vancouver proper.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • Well I'll be damned! –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • Well, technically, UBC is located in the University Endowment Lands, which is not a municipality but rather an unincorporated community. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
         • Ah, yes. A company town. Definately not a civic democracy for the folks who live out there.Bobanny 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
           • Yeah... well, at least the UEL isn't fully controlled by the university but rather the province. However, there's been talk about the UEL turning into its own municipality or joining with Vancouver. The Province had a little blurb about it several months ago. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Architecture: the skyline section is actually quite interesting, though could use an edit. The rest seems like an aimless list of interesting buildings in the city. It needs some sort of narrative structure, either in terms of architectural style, chronology, or something.
     • Narrative is a very unconventional style of encyclopedic format that often leads to POV issues. Remember that this article is based upon an informational motivation rather than interesting reading. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • Actually, I think you would find that a majority of people on FAC would like the FAs to be both informational and interesting reading. –Joke 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Arts and culture: principally seems like an aimless listing of attractions. Needs narrative structure.
     • Again, narrative is highly uncommon for encyclopedic articles often leading to POV issues. This article is for informational and research purposes rather than interesting reading. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sports: as with the rest of the article, cut down on lists like: "The 18 kilometres (11 miles) of beaches that surround Vancouver include English Bay (First Beach), Jericho, Kitsilano Beach, Locarno, Second Beach (Stanley Park), Spanish Bank East, Spanish Bank Extension, Spanish Bank West, Sunset, and Third Beach (Stanley Park)." The table "Professional sports teams" needs to relate to some text, and the table "Former professional sports teams" could probably go into the daughter article.
      • I've taken care of the sports portion of the section. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Media: a list without context or information about the papers. Either remove the section or say something substantive.
      • Wikipedia is based on the foundation of creating an internal linking of all its articles. There is a complete article about media in Vancouver on a separate article. Removing the media section will elminate the means to reaching that related article. Also this article needs to be shortened, thus the point of creating separate articles to handle various sections. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Isn't it part of the MOS that external links should be avoided inside the main body of the article? (e.g. the links to "From Grief to Action and Keeping the Door Open")
      • I was slapped on the hand by User:Carson Lam for changing them to refs. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The way it is now conforms to the Wiki style guide.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Are people likely to care about such things as: "In 2006, the police department established its own Counter Terrorism Unit, which led to speculation of a rift between the Vancouver Police and the RCMP because the latter normally handles national security matters" or "Air quality measurements for the Lower Fraser Valley, including Vancouver, are updated and published every hour online by the Greater Vancouver Regional District." Why are they included? Is it just by chance that some editor happened to add them randomly, or are they signficant enough that they ought to be included? If so, it is not obvious from the article.
      • I'm not sure why you feel these are less significant than the other information in the article.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Why would someone in, say, Austria care about random, possibly unfounded speculation? And most cities have hourly weather and air quality reports. It's no big deal. Why is this so surprising? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I can't imagine someone in Austria caring about policing in Vancouver at all, let alone reading about it here. Still, the Mounties are one of the most famous, and perhaps the most recognizable, police forces in the world (tourists have been known to feel cheated coming to Canada and finding that the mountie pulling them over for speeding isn't wearing the red serge, let alone riding a horse). The rift between the Van police and RCMP may not be true (which is why it says "speculation"), but the foundation for that speculation is stated. It could go into more detail, and say that there is a multi-departmental unit headed by the Mounties for terrorism that the VPD seems to be bypassing or replicating, but expanding this point with more detail would make it more prominent than it deserves in my judgment. Is real or perceived rivalry between federal and local police interesting? American cop shows and movies have certainly exploited the entertainment value of this phenomenon, and the mythology that Canadians are not prone to conflict makes it more interesting in this context. It is also suggestive in relation to the larger turf struggle between provincial/local government and the feds. In terms of what makes something interesting about a city like Vancouver, to me and others I believe, is how it relates to the larger contexts in which it and its inhabitants exist, in this case, Vancouver/BC, Van, BC/Canada, Van, Canada/US, and Van, North America/the world. Encyclopedia articles can be engagingly written, yes, but they are also a compendium of information that is often mundane, such as the pronunciation of Vancouver or its population, total precipitation, administrative structure, what kind of trees grow there, the state of its air quality, and so on. Much of this information is neither surprising, nor a big deal, and readers uninterested in certain details generally skip over them. I still couldn't tell you the latitude and longitude of Vancouver even though I've looked at this page a kazillion times.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. In general, it reads much like a tourist brochure. I wish it had more flow and would not introduce so much jargon and so many acronyms that are unlikely to be understood – or of interest! – to the average reader, like "EcoDensity", "AirCare", "smart growth", meaningless PR-speak like "fostering public dialogue." A more encyclopedic tone would help tremendously.
      • I disagree. Most of those things refer to public policy that thousands of people are subjected to whether or not they have cheezy names. (Air Care testing is mandatory, for example). EcoDensity is there to illustrate a government policy to increase urban density. I agree they are cornball, booster, jargon, but they are important to the city. As for "fostering public dialogue," that's what those groups do and what their mandate is. I don't find it's anything more than descriptive, yet more elegant than saying that they "go around encouraging people to talk about the drug issue."Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've explained "AirCare" and "EcoDensity". I'm not sure about smart growth, since it has it's own article (and not Vancouver specific). -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I also strongly disagree. I feel that personal feelings towards this article have made many of your arguments invalid. "meaningless PR=speak" is your own personal oppinion. If you wish to remove those words, you must find more relevent and significant words with proper references that are both notable and credible. Saying you dislike them has no importance to the article or this review. Also you bring up the point that this article lacks narration and is un-interesting. The point of an encyclopedia is to have comprehensive written compendiums that contain information. Novels on the other hand have the express purpose of being interesting to readers. Novels and encyclopedia are not the same and whether a reader is interested or not has no importance to the goal and mandate of an encyclopedia. Also, interest is a relative concept in that one reader may not be interested in physics where the next might be. It would be extremely illogical to change an article and perhaps its relevent terms just to make it 'interesting' for the user who dislikes physics. Please keep this in mind on your future reviews. Mkdw^talk 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. What's with the ampersands? Write out "and."
      • I purged the ampersands.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Nothing is mentioned about food and cuisine. Vancouver is a manifestly food-crazy city.
      • I'm not sure why you think this; most cities are food-crazy in terms of having lots of restaurants and a variety of dining options. I removed a comment about there being 300 sushi restaurants because there was no citation and I didn't find one, and I don't personally find that an interesting statistic, since the article does cover cultural diversity, and I'm sure there's many more Starbucks and McDonalds anyway.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you'll find that Vancouver is a little different than most cities. Certainly, it has a reputation across the US and Canada for having an extremely competitive restaurant market, with great ethnic food and relatively low prices. On the other hand, it may be that there is nothing verifiable and notable enough to add. –Joke 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't get me wrong. I actually quite like this article and think that with some major editing and minor organizational work it could be FA worthy. Right now, it is not. I think the main point that needs work is: what would someone who is completely unfamiliar with Vancouver find interesting about the city? The names of the newspapers and beaches and the school district number are unlikely to be it. They would find its history and evolution interesting. The fact that there are no freeways through the city is interesting. The fact that it is a city with a very high quality of living and high rents is interesting. The fact that it is in a temperate rainforest is interesting. The progressive politics and large gay community are interesting. The music scene is interesting. Etcetera. There is plenty to put in the article, and much of it is already there, but it doesn't yet sparkle! –Joke 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, I disagree with the comment that this article requires "major editing" to be FA ready. Relative to the other city FAs, Vancouver is ahead in many aspects. While Wikipedia has high standards for quality, especially for its FAs, the details put forth and constructively criticized by you are beyond those expectations. No article will be perfect and every article will have room for improvement from any source. A featured article is a standard put forth by Wikipedia and this article stands with in those recommendations and requirements. The detail to which you speak of would fail most of the articles that are already FAed. Mkdw^talk 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

Size

I'm not arguing for the 32kb size limitation. I'm arguing that as it is, the article is too long and could be pared considerably. The text just doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.

We're working on this, but many of our editors feel that the recommendations to extend and elaborate this article are more important than its size issues. We are working to reduce its size. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

History and demographics

It is absurd to say that just because the history section is long already, you can't cover most of the twentieth century. The History of Vancouver article doesn't cover this era either. Most of the city's history has been ignored completely. In addition to writing something about this era, I would encourage you to consider adding a graph of Vancouver's population growth (I haven't seen one, but I imagine it could be quite informative) and possibly a table showing Vancouver's demographic makeup.

It's not 'absurb'. We are attempting to shorten this article to a more managable size as recommended by you and several other people. However, we on the opposite side from you and those same people are saying to extend the article. This will simply be a case where both recommendations can be precisely improved, but not ultimately satisfied. Sorry. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinatown

Fair enough (although I don't understand how a Chinatown can be second largest "per capita"). New York's Chinatown is one of the major centres for Chinese-Americans, but not many can afford to live there (at least with anything resembling a normal standard of living) any more, and many have been displaced to Queens. I don't think that New York's Chinatown is at all comparable to Vancouver's, but I could be mistaken. Still, this issue aside, I don't think the article gives a clear impression of the scope of the effect that the massive influx of Chinese immigrants has had on the city.

The way per-captia works is that Chinatown Vancouver in a local with in the City of Vancouver which has roughly over 500,000 people. The measurement would be done in population density, commercial enterprise and relating businesses owned or operated by Chinese-Canadians and thus compared to the rest of the overall population. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrative

Look narrative up in a dictionary. It's what seperates an encyclopedia from a mere random agglomeration of facts. Right now many of the sections have little structure, where you are left with the feeling that one sentence has no relation whatsoever to the next. This is critically bad in the "architecture," and "arts and culture" sections, but it needs work almost throughout the entire article. This has nothing to do with writing a novel.

Well, in fairness to this response. All defintions of narrative and narration do not support this argument. Narrative has very few meanings: A narrated account; a story. I would not categorize this article as "mere random agglomeration of facts" and I also feel that that comment is not beneficial to this review. If indeed this were the case, creating a narrative would not resolve this issue. The correct definition of an encycopedia mentions no such mandate to create an interesting piece of work, but rather: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. Comprehensive in this case, as an adjective, meaning a broad coverage of all topics. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the OED has the perfect definition: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them." That is precisely what I think is done poorly in parts of this article. We are not judging FA's by the dictionary definition of "encyclopedia." We are judging them by the FA criteria. In this case, I believe Vancouver fails 1(a). –Joke 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that an article should not be well written and comprehensive. Narration can be problematic in many cases causing the unnecessary expansion and size of the article with out contributing to the article in means relevent to an encyclopedia. Many point of view issues arise with narration in the form of tone, word choice, perspective, and that narrative is usually defined as an account (singular). By keeping this article out of narrative it allows for a more factual presence in its content. A clean precise article with out being overly and unnecessarily wordy is preferable. Articles can still be 'well written' with out narration. On a side note, my copy of the 2006 OED does not have the same definition you quoted above. Mkdw^talk 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, you have to be careful when writing an article to ensure that tone, word choice and perspective are in accordance with NPOV. To say that these points prohibit narrative, however, is spurious. It merely means that you need to exercise care not to introduce any novel interpretations. Incidentally, I think there was such a thing in the previous intro, where Vancouver's high homeless population was associated with high rents. (There is no 2006 edition of the OED. Perhaps you are using one of the other Oxford dictionaries. My source was the online edition, which includes draft entries. I don't, however, believe that "narrative" has been updated in some time.) –Joke 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

Writing an encyclopedia article is indeed different from writing a press release, political speech, urban planning study, brochure, travel guide or list of links. It is also, as you noted above, different from writing a novel. Try to avoid introducing jargon unless it is absolutely necessary, and use clear and precise English terminology. Don't use extra words. Look at some of the stuff I removed when I rewrote the intro: "Recent development strategies have increased Vancouver’s greenspace." I have no idea what that means. Does that mean there are new parks? Does that mean existing parks are being better used? Private developers are setting aside more land for public spaces? The definition of greenspace has been changed? What is greenspace anyways? Is it more precise than "park"? Or: "The city has been selected to co-host the 2010 Winter Olympics along with nearby Whistler, influencing economic development because of government spending to build infrastructure and venues, and also because of escalating realty values associated with Olympics fever." Why "escalating realty values"? Is this the same as "increasing real estate prices"? "Olympics fever"? Is that a medical term?

The use of fever has been in the North American vocabulary for quite some time. It's actually listed among the various definitions of the word in conjunction with an object. The term came to popular use during the Gold Rush, where 'gold rush fever'. Defined as an: -verb (used with object) intense nervous excitement: The audience was in a fever of anticipation. . Green space is another word found in the dictionary: a plot of undeveloped land separating or surrounding areas of intensive residential or industrial use that is maintained for recreational enjoyment. . For lack of a better word, values is the most accurate in this case. Realty prices and realty values are two different words that have separate, but similar relations. Prices refers to a direct numerical sum placed upon a piece of property or land. Values on the other hand refers not only to numerical values but property, personal, investment including overseas investment and interest. Both are related to numerical sums in that usually when overseas investment and interest increases, so does the numerical value of the property. To describe the increase of interest in a place such as investment we look at value. While prices are increasing the value has a life of its own. Many investors are expecting (this is only speculation) that the Vancouver "buble" will pop and thus there is developing a hestitation to further investment. Also many of the apartments in Yaletown are owned by overseas owners and are holding them for investment purposes, thus increasing the property price, but not the value as other related businesses are finding those areas not as invaluable since many of them sit empty. It should definitely be elaborated in the Demographics of Vancouver, but that is another article for another day. As long as we stick to regulations of WP:NEO the most appriopriate words are our best asset to creating a well informed article and leave the finer details to the subarticle. Mkdw^talk 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you think about the tone of your responses? Suggesting that I'm writing my suggestions are invalid because of my "personal feelings about the article" is nonsensical. Of course, they're my opinion, but I think they're opinions about how to write encyclopedic prose shared by many other FAC reviewers and a large body of thought about English writing. Look at Strunk and White or Politics and the English Language or The Economist's style guide? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of people have put a lot of time and energy into this article and at times there seems to be no end to this FAC process, so perhaps some frustration is unfairly coming across that predates your feedback. That said, some of your comments have been worded very sharply with the liberal use of adjectives like "flaccid," "meaningless," and "aimless" to describle the article. If any of us could write like George Orwell, I'm sure we'd be out writing best selling novels that could change the world instead of editing Wikipedia. As it is, the article has been a collaboration over a considerable time by people from a variety of backgrounds, ages, levels of formal and informal education, and world views. Even with this mix, I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that the article, as it stands, could hold its own next to a commercially produced encyclopedia; it shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that the implication that the quality is atrocious and we need lessons on the fundamentals of English-language writing might not be well taken. Your feedback generally has been thoughtful, constructive, and I think well-intended, and so far has led to improvements, but some of it has also been vague and comes across as subjective value-judgments that are more provocative than helpful.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my frustration earlier, it was unprofessional nor constructive. My responses were to many of comments that appear to also be highly unconstructive: "doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.", "does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts!", "unlikely to be understood – or of interest!", "meaningless PR-speak", "Is that a medical term?". We can both work on the tone of our comments and I will try my best to look objectively at these points. Perhaps a note to all editors and reviewers is to keep the interest of the article at hand before personal interest and bias. It is my own strong oppinion to keep this article as encyclopedic as possible and keeping our responsibility to this encyclopedia by fulfilling its definition. Some of the points of removing sections, appropriate words, information for the sake of interest is something I will campaign against as that is going against express purpose of an encyclopedia as defined by several sources including this own encyclopedia. Creating an interesting article would be beneficial though, but not at the cost of losing information. Hopefully we will be able to come to a concensus with out reducing the integrity of this article. Mkdw^talk 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your frustration. It is hard to get an article to FA status. I know that because I have tried and failed to do so in the past. I agree that my comments can sound deprecatory. I'm sorry, and that is not my intent. It is my intent is to express clearly and honestly what I think the flaws of the article are, and how I think it can be improved. I certainly don't think the article is atrocious, but I do think it needs a thorough, dispassionate copyediting and, as I have said, more narrative structure. I looked at the two most recently promoted featured articles for cities – San Francisco and Belgrade – and frankly, I think they are much better than this article, for many of the reasons I have outlined.

I'm not trying to assert that you need lessons on the fundamentals of the English language. Most people are bad writers. Most Wikipedia editors, myself included, are mediocre writers. We could all stand to improve by reading well written things and thinking about our own writing. There's a big difference between writing a grammatically correct sentence and writing prose that is compelling, even brilliant. –Joke 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing this since Summer. It get more difficult, after all the effort into this article after replying to objections, it seems as though there is no end. If Orwell quality article we're to become the standards for FAs, there wouldn't be alot of them. Most of us aren't professional writers. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A very thorough and well-researched article. I may have lived in Vancouver for the past 18 some odd years, but I've still found new and interesting facts throughout the article. Definitely worth Featured article status. smileydude66 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection Someone included this in the main Vancouver article transportation section:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s. Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

The last sentence is pure opinion and should be removed, whether it is cited or not. This is a bone of contention in the city. For example, I live in Vancouver and my opinion (and those of many others I know) is that the lack of a freeway system, coupled with the lack of an efficient transit system, reduces the livability as it takes far too long to move around the city. Provided you don't need to travel outside of your neighborhood, the lack of a freeway is good. However for most of us who live there it is not the case. Just to travel 5 Km between Vancouver and North Vancouver can take up to an hour because of the poor road system.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is, that the last sentence should be removed so as to read like this:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s."

This is fact pure and simple.

This should be removed:

"Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

It is someone's opinion. comment left by User:Theshowmecanuck.

Removed. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support EXCELLENT article, good job workong on it guys. Stormscape 04:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support great and conprehensive. Lot of facts.Canadianshoper 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support despite some very knit-picky objections, I feel this article in comparison to other featured articles is in excellent shape. 24.81.192.195 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are too many level 2 headings, Maybe transportation, "law and order" would go under infrastructure, as well as the missing health care section. Photo in arts and culture is a different size . Photo in Flora could be placed higher (it pushes the Demographcs title in wider displays), some pictures are plain unsized thumbs, could use some consistency (of course, excluding the panoramas). History cut-off at 1930 is weird indeed. Otherwise coherent, well structured and well references article, would Support if I could log in. --69.19.14.18 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The level 2 headings are gone. No two images will be sized the same due to the initial image quality, original size, and article layout. The photo in the flora section using Internet Explorer, Safari, and Mozilla do not seem to have this affect between the resolutions of 1024 X 768 to 1280 X 854. Perhaps you are using a lower resolution. Resolutions below 1024 X 768 became uncommon with the advent of better monitors and standards 6 years ago. The smallest image on the article is the coat of arms in the information box. I could not imagine wanting it any larger as it would blow the imformation box out of proportion. Most information box images are below 200 pixels. Mkdw^talk 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think concerns have all been sufficiently addressed. Carson 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, I am using a 1440px wide display; however, it's fixed now with the inclusion of flora in Geography section; I took the liberty of re-aligning one last pic. Support FA. --69.19.14.21 13:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tally as of Monday, November 20th, 2006. 16 Support and 4 Object / Weak Objection. Mkdw^talk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing Comments

I would like to thank everyone who showed their support for the article. This has been one of the most elaborate and lengthy FAC's I have seen yet. The contributions and massive improvements seen because of this FAC have been enormous and would not have been so successful with out the help of our many editors. If you would like to contribute more to Vancouver-related articles, please visit the WikiProject Vancouver. Thank you again for all your support, contributions, and recommendations. Mkdw^talk 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Chalukya dynasty

The article went through its peer review. Some changes were recommended and in accordance, required adjustments to format, content were made.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Have not read the whole article. Some observations:

1. Lead is too big. It need not have the description of so many conflicts. Please try to summarise. The description is expected in the main body later on.

   Thanks. Lead has been summarised now (yesterday and today) and some information which are not really required in introduction have been moved to later sections of the article. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2. "The progenitors of the dynasty are called the Badami Chalukyas." Here, Badami Chalukya needs to be wikilinked/explained.

   I have included a sentence explaining the name. Badami Chalukyas is another name applied to the original Chalukya dynasty. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3. In the lead itself Pulakesi II has been called as Pulakesin II. Please stick to one spelling. Same for Chalukyan and Chalukya.

   Thanks. This has been taken care now. - KNM ^Talk 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Kubja Vishnu Vardhana - wikilink.

   It has been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

5. "...they were natives to the Karnataka region." - would it be natives or native?

   The word has been changed to native. - KNM ^Talk 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Seleukia, Ikshavaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khusro II - wikilink.

   Seleukia, Andhra Ikshvaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khosrau II wikilinks have been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

7. ometimes, superscripts for citations have been placed wrongly. Please place all superscripts immediately after the punctuation marks, not before. Please see this in Wikipedia:Citing sources.
8. It is prefereble to use Template:Cite book, Template: Cite web, Harvard referencing etc. Also, please provide ISBN for all the books cited. In case of web sources, provide the access date. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the books published in India do not contain ISBN. - Parthi^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. That's a problem with some of Indian books. Anyway, available ISBN numbers are to be given. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with previous revewer about lead. Do you want to do it or others to help and have a go? Looks promising though...Cas Liber 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been taken care now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I will take care of the lead paragraph. If it is still unsatisfactory, go ahead and help out. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lead- I have removed moved the lines recommended for removal and the reference notes to a more suitable location.Dineshkannambadi 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinesh, I believe you wanted to write the word "moved" instead of "removed". Can you please verify again? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply Sorry, I meant moved NOT removedDineshkannambadi 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All the recommendations from the FAC review have been met. Please advice what needs to be done next.Dineshkannambadi 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

oops!! Kappe Arabhatta needs to be linked. Will do it soon.Dineshkannambadi 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some more comments

1)"The elephants were intoxicated prior to battle." - why?

comment This is mentioned with no real explanation. I can only guess that they were intoxicated to make them more aggressive. I have included citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2)"At the lower levels of administration, the Kadamba style fully prevailed." - what is Kadamba style? (Hope I've not missed it if you have mentioned the style in some other part of the article)

The Kadambas were their early overlords. The Chalukyas just maintained their administrative methods, after overthrowing them. I have added more info regarding this with citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3)"Some kings had concubines (Ganikas) who were given much respect, sati was perhaps absent, as inscriptions speak of widows and devadasis' being present" - inscriptions speak of Devdasis and widows that's why it is concluded that Sati was perhaps absent? Also, Sati wikilinks to a disambiguation page. Please correct the link.

I have corrected wording structure and added citation. Sati now does not link to disambiguation page.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

4)Some more citations are probably needed in the section "Badami Chalukya Government"

I have taken care of this. Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

5)There are some instances of overwikilinking. For example, in the section "Periods in Chalukya history", Western Chalukyas has been wikilinked thrice, Deccan has been wikilinked five times. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed some repeat wikilinks to Deccan, Kadambas, Pulakesi I etc.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I forgot to log in during previous replies to comments by Dwaipayan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs)

• Support very interesting read. Rama's arrow 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Article on one of the prominent dynasties in Indian history. Peer review comments and FAC review comments/recommendations (mentioned above) have been incorporated. Would make a good FA. - KNM ^Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (minor contributor on the article)

• Strong Support - per above. Sarvagnya 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - A well written article on a Indian History. -- Naveen ^(talk) 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - Section In popular culture is too short. Addition of some more relevant information would be appericiated. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work throughout the section. I strongly support it to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - web links in "Notes" and "Citation" are still not upto the mark. All web sources should include all the detail available (author, publisher, publication date etc) as far as possible. Only a single line description of the web sources describing the heading of the article/report is ok in "External links", but not in Notes and References. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - All points raised were effectively addressed. Nice informative article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Local Government Commission for England (1992)

Self-nomination. Been working on-and-off on this one for a while. Finally realised I had acess to an online newspaper archive so I could make it properly complete. Only comprehensive treatment of this topic on the interweb that I've seen. Oh, and it has 114 references. Morwen - Talk 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel the lead is very comprehensive on what this government organization does. Can you fix this? - Tutmosis 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cetainly see no problem with expanding the lead - I'll try - but 'what it did' is make proposals and consult, and I'm not sure how to say much more than that without getting into details? How is lead now? Morwen - Talk 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On first glance, I see messy footnotes throughout: please correct the footnote punctuation. The text has redundancies throughout, quick example: He greatly accelerated the programme of work, directing the Commission to start reviews of all remaining shire counties the next month, and that they should be finished by the end of 1994. One-sentence paragraphs, in succession, including this one: The commission published draft proposals on these districts in September 1995, recommending that of them, Blackpool, Blackburn, Halton Northampton, Peterborough, Thurrock, Warrington and the Wrekin should become unitary authorities, and also that Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham should unite to form a single unitary authority. (Do we need all of the words "unite", "single" and "unitary"?) Just samples: please run through the entire text again with an eye for redundancy. Sandy 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall endeavour to fix the footnotes/punctuation thing. There are some words that could be cut and I shall look at this. The repetition you identify there is not as bad as you make out - "unitary authority" is a stock phrase, and is not redundant with "unite" or "single". As to unite and single, maybe, but this helps with emphasis in showing we are talking about two things merging here. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead still doesn't explain what this is. Just answer this question: Local Government Commission for England is responsible for...? - Tutmosis 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was responsible for reviewing the structure of local government in England from 1992 to 1995, and subsequently did redistricting. The intro says that, doesn't it?

I've removed some redundancy and have tried to fix the punctuation issues. Morwen - Talk 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref/punctuation issues should be resolved now. Gimmetrow 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In the Timetable section it would be nice if the areas mentioned in the text were highlighted on the maps. At the moment it is not obvious where these changes are being made, especially as the maps shown are quite small. CheekyMonkey 08:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I shall certainly do that. I'll make the new unitaries yellow and the rump two-tiers blue created in that year? Morwen - Talk 09:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This matches the key used above, so sounds good to me. CheekyMonkey 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did this now. Morwen - Talk 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks really good. I have another (nit-picky) comment regarding two of the sub headings. Could 'Start' not be renamed to something like 'Establishment' and 'Table' renamed to something like 'Summary of Commission proposals'? CheekyMonkey 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Morwen - Talk 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article is comprehensive yet concise and I now Support. CheekyMonkey 10:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I like this article and I think it is close to being featured but there are a few things to tweak at this stage.

1. Can we get a source for Michael Heseltine's favouring unitary local government?
2. It had also long been Labour Party policy to favour unitary local government in principle, which was one reason why the government thought they were not doing anything politically risky. I can try and hunt out sources for that.
3. Were the court cases fought by aggrieved County Councils reported? If so this would be a useful link.
4. The section headed "Implementation and Cooksey commission" is too long and could be split up.
5. It would be a good idea to explain why more police authorities had to become joint boards. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1 and 3 both have sources in newspaper reports which are indicated? Laying out Labour's position would be good - we'd probably need to find a source that analysed their behaviour : from my reading they regarded it as a big gerrymandering campaign to start with, and a total shambles at the end, but supported specific bits of it. To 4 and 5 yes and yes. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By 'reported' in 3 I meant 'legally reported', eg 'Lancashire County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1 EWHC 789'. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There seems to be something here about that, but I don't know how to cite that. Morwen - Talk 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few more bits about Labour's attitude at the time. Morwen - Talk 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So this seems to have stalled now - I think I've fixed all outstanding points (bar the legal citation thing) - but I've not got many positive supports... is this topic just too boring? Morwen - Talk 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is pretty comprehensive and well referenced, the maps are excellent and the "timetable" section is laid out in an innovative and clear manner. It's generally very good, and I'll be happy to support if some of these small suggestions are addressed:
  1. Could the first sentence be a brief statement of what the Commission was? Currently, the process by which it was created is given first, followed by wording from the Act which formed it - this may not be entirely clear to the casual reader.
  2. Also in the introduction, "rewarding" is slightly confusing as it suggests that some sort of prize was given! Perhaps either "re-warding" or a short phrase would be clearer for the intro?
  3. It would be good to have some explanation as to why the Commission was formed. It seems to have had entirely new personnel; why did the Government not use the old Commission?
  4. Is it correct that Banham was named chair before the Commission was formed? This seems presumptuous - was it commented on at the time?
  5. With regard to Lancashire and Derbyshire CCs' court case, do we have the text of the sentence in dispute? It seems that it should be central to this paragraph.
  6. It would be interesting to have something more on the Commission's reasoning in the very different proposals for different counties - for instance, what reason did they give for recommending the abolition of Berkshire and Dorset CCs, when they recommended the retention of so many others?
  7. I imagine that worries about legal action may have led to recommendations to leave so many counties unchanged despite Gummer's advice - is there any sourceable speculation on this (or any other possible reasons)?
  8. Banham resigned in 1995 - who took over as chair?
  9. The "other changes" section has no sources - the first paragraph, at least, could do with some.
  10. What did the Commission do after 1998? The intro states that it wasn't replaced until 2002 - was it entirely inactive?
• I hope to see this become a featured article soon. Warofdreams talk 02:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Good comments, I shall try to see how many of these I can address. Morwen - Talk 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that several of these points have been addressed, and work seems to be progressing on several others. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect to the remaining few: 3) he was named to the post in November according to a newspaper article the next year. this made no splash at the time, apparently : i'm not even able to find contemporary news reports about it, only after-the-fact ones. can't really work that into the article. 7) yeah, the court case had a big impact in what the commission was recommending. i'l try to source something about that: you'll note for instance in Derbyshire that its proposal under the re-review was in fact more conservative than the 1st proposal. Morwen - Talk 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support an excellent article about a difficult-to-write-about subject. Rama's arrow 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pending The first paragraph under "establishment" is a little confusing, because it first says that "Initially [when?] the Secretary of State was Michael Heseltine" and then jumps back to consider the history of counties since 1972. You might want to hold off on mentioning Heseltine until the second paragraph. On the whole, though, this is a very thorough, well-researched piece that doesn't deserve to have been stalled as a FAC for as long as it has been. I will look to see if I can find anything else that needs fixing, but am planning to support. MLilburne 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Point. I'll fix that. I'm also just about to address User:Warofdreams's point 7 above. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The prose should be fixed. Overall, it's not bad, but there are little glitches throughout. For example, in the lead:
  • "The Act allowed the Secretary of State to order the Commission to undertake 'structural reviews' in specified areas, to create unitary authorities in the two-tier shire counties of England." (Third sentence from the top.) To ... to ... is unclear. Should the second one be replaced with "as a prelude to creating"/"as part of a program of creating"?
  • "After much political debate, and several legal challenges, the Commission's proposals resulted in ..."—Why not remove the first comma?
  • "The Commission continued in existence reviewing electoral arrangements"—"Continued in existence reviewing" is very clumsy.
  • "led to creation of unitary authorities"—THE creation?

Please get someone else to run through the whole article thoroughly. Tony 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest where I can find "someone else" to do that? I am unaware of any "requests for copyedit" page. Morwen - Talk 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing a full copyedit myself : but I was not able to identify as many problems in the article as you seem to have identified in the lead. Maybe the lead prose was worse? Or maybe I am not a professional copyeditor :) Morwen - Talk 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to find collaborators to help with the prose. Tony 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object I fixed the ref punctuation to agree with WP:FN. I concur with Tony that there are extensive prose issues, calling for a thorough copyedit; an overuse of "this led to" and "as a result of" also makes the prose repetitive and uncompelling. It is unclear why basic sentences require four cites, or why links to some of the references (The Guardian) aren't provided. Sandy (Talk) 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The guardian news archive isn't online that far back, as far as i am aware. As I noted before, if there are suggestions as to where I could go for a copyedit I will take that. Unfortunately, I can't magic up the copyediting fairy. I will try to fix every actionable specific objection, but the phrases here identified only happen a few times. There is one case I agree with removing in that it repeats this phrase in the next paragraph, and I shall do this. Morwen - Talk 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, with respect to references, I don't see any particular problems here. In some cases, entire paragraphs cite several sources: one or maybe two primary sources (Hansard), and a couple of news stories, which often aren't duplicates of each other anyway (guardian will say ABC, Times will say CDE). It seems sensible to cite a range of sources when alleging political motivations - if the Times and the Guardian agree on something then it is probably true. Morwen - Talk 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions

previous FAC

Music of the Lesser Antilles

I've been working on this article and its subarticles for a while now, and I think it's ready. It's a very interesting topic - includes calypso, for example, but also spans some more obscure subjects (Dutch Antillean music). Also, though the Lesser Antilles is often treated as a music area, this is more of a convenience than a real musicologically relevant division. Much of what unites the islands is shared with the non-Antillean Caribbean, and much of what separates them associates them with non-Antillean areas. Anyway, it is a common and useful division, and I think this article is about as good as it can be. Tuf-Kat 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very good article. I have a question, did any hip-hop, pop, rock etc. work its way to this islands, or are they isolated music wise? - Tutmosis 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's a bit of hip hop and such, but it's not especially important and is not really relevant to the "Lesser Antilles" as a unit. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, very well done. It would be nice if a picture could be found to appear alongside the introduction, though I'm unsure what sort of picture would be used. In any case, the article is well-written and well-referenced. —Cuiviénen 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A larger picture than the one's shown would be nice in the lead. HornetMike 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that pictures would help a lot here. I've been keeping my eye on free pics at Flickr and such, and will keep looking around for something better. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pending The citations are not properly formatted. I strongly recommend using Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Mkdw^talk 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this has been fixed. Joelito (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Citations such as: Manuel, pg. 208, and Cameron, pgs. 549 - 582 are the most referenced citations. These citations are invalid as they do not refer to anything and do not have enough information. Publisher, Date, Author, Title, ISBN (if possible). Otherwise these citations have no validity. Please track down this source so we may view it and check its information and credibility as a reliable source. Mkdw^talk 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Those're both in the references section. The notes give the page number, the references gives the rest of the info. Tuf-Kat 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I note that this article is categorised under "articles with invalid ISBNs". This isn't a big problem by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be worth checking out. MLilburne 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Joelito (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joelito! Tuf-Kat 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

This is a self-nomination. It currently has "Good Article" status, has been peer reviewed by the WikiBiography Project, and all suggestions have been implemented. It is thoroughly referenced, and (I believe) it complies fully with Wiki style. Thank you for your considerationJeffpw 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do like it, but I'm withholding support for one quick moment because I'm not sure that the book covers are appropriate given WP's rules on fair use. A quick look hasn't uncovered anything, and I'm not sure if someone has already taken a look at them and said "Yeah, they're fine." Once that's resolved one way or another, you'll have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, BDJ. No, nobody has said anything except that I should add book covers and find a fair use rationale. I thought since there is a book cover option in Fair Use Rationale to tick, that it was automatically Fair use. If you click on the pics, it shows the licensing with Wiki's Fair Use rationale. Please let me know if you find anything that says otherwise. . While I think they add nice visuals, and the titles are discussed in the article, I am not opposed to deleting them if they do not comply with Fair Use. Jeffpw 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgot to add: Thank you for your support:)Jeffpw 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding of Wikipedia fair use is that if the image is not being used to describe something in the article (and the article only somewhat discusses the books), it's not a good rationale. I'm confident that someone with a better knowledge will come along and correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that I had an issue with an article because of placement of FU images, and a quick shift to where they were relevant to the text fixed the issue. With band articles, I know photos of album covers to go along with the discography is a no-no, but this is more than that, but less of a discussion. So I'm a little confused, but you certainly have my eventual support on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct. The use of book covers requires discussion of the book, not the mere mention. The book cover seem to violate FUC#8 in this instance by only contributing to the appearance of the page, rather than contributing to the understanding of the content. I'll see if I can get some one else to take a look though. Jay32183 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I concur. With a discussion of the book, it may be appropriate to include the book cover attached to that specific paragraph. Note that it may be difficult to find a replacement image to depict the person as, I understand, the person is dead. This means that WP:FUC is relaxed a bit, but we still may not use a book cover except to illustrate the book. Overall, though, this is reason to remove the image (or move it, at least), not necessarily to fail it for featured-article candidate, at least as far as I understand. --Yamla 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • As I see it (and please correct me if I am wrong), the only book cover image that might need deleting is the one for "Adrenaline". The image for "Tim And Pete" is in the "controversy" section, which is 4 paragraphs, all of which are about that book. So it seems logical to show an image of it. The image of "Boy Wonder" is in the legacy section, and there is a paragraph solely about that book, listing it as his most popular and his Magnum opus. That to me seems like enough of discussion to keep the image. If necessary, I can add to that paragraph, and also add analysis of the book "Adrenaline". The image of Baker himself I can actually get permission for, from his estate, if it comes to that. I should mention I only put the images in because more than one person assessing the article said it needed visual content. So as far as I'm concerned, if the consensus is to delete them all, I am OK with itJeffpw 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is now a long, sourced paragraph about Adrenaline and its themes, showing how Baker built on what he began with this book in all his subsequent novels. I now think that every image qualifies under Wiki Fair use, though I am the first to say I am not objective. Jeffpw 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First image still does not qualify as it is part of the infobox and so is being used solely to depict the person. It may be free use if it truly is the front cover of the book and if the image is moved down to the section that talks about that book. The rest of them look good to me. --Yamla 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, Yamla, that is the back cover of the book, not the front. It has been published in newspapers, though. Does that make it Fair Use? I honestly didn't think that photo would be a problem. FWIW, the literary executor of Baker has seen this page, and didn't have an objection to that photo being used. Can I simply ask him for permission? Really, where am I going to get a picture of a dead person, otherwise? And thanks for checking and endorsing the other book cover images Jeffpw 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it cannot be used under the book license. Ideally, if you could get permission under a free license, that would be perfect. But if that does not work and given that it is not really reasonable to find a free image, I think it would be reasonable to use this under the promotional license if the literary executor has no problem. --Yamla 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The back cover should be usable under {{promophoto}}, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will email the literary executor. If this particular photo cannot be used (I don't know if he took the pic or not) I am almost certain he will grant permission to use a personal photo that is on his own official website. I probably should have done that in the first place, but had no idea using pics was so complicated. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jeffpw 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a pain in the behind. But using a freely licensed image on that page would be a very good thing. Thanks for working so hard to understand the requirements here. --Yamla 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ron Robertson has given me permission to use that image, so I am changing the licensing to add "Used with permission" and his (redacted) email. Now it seems all the image issues are sorted out. Jeffpw 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article seems comprehensive.--Yannismarou 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support to make things clear. The photo thing is cleared up, and the article is well-written and comprehensive, and a proper size. Thumbs up! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-sourced, and very interesting. I'm no image expert, but I think objections to the book covers are going too far. He was a novelist and these are covers of his novels, which are discussed in the article directly adjacent to where the covers are shown, and they were a major part of his life. It would be good to get a free-license image of the person, if possible, especially given the literary executor seems to like the article, which suggests he'd make one available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article has improved in leaps and bounds recently. It is well-written and comprehensive, with a particularly impressive treatment of the literary criticism and legacy of Baker's works. MLilburne 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Good work Jeff. I have placed a fact request beside could be considered "transgressional fiction", as it is the sort of claim that requires a source. A small thing: when inserting words that you feel have been elided in quotes, do it [like this] and not (like this). Marskell 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference at the end of the paragraph covers all statements in the paragraph after reference [5]. For the sake of clarity, I added that reference after "transgressional fiction", as well. Also, thanks for the change in the brackets. Is that just Wiki style? I ask because I just cut and pasted the quotes.Jeffpw 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, well it's prose style in general. If it's bracketed (like so) the words should actually have been spoken/written. Where the words were not actually spoken/written, but have been added to make the sentence grammatical, do it [like so]. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed to be the latter case in the instances I changed; if the context of the sources suggest otherwise, you can change it back.
    • Anyhow, Support. An interesting read, well-paced and balanced, covers its topic. Marskell 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Three examples:
    • "was just a sweet old woman putting up with a lot of (stuff) that I couldn't even imagine." Why is stuff in brackets here? Did he perhaps say "a lot of shit" and the word was altered at publication? It should probably be [stuff].
    • "...is there a point at which such invective (and such suggestions) become simply counterproductive?" This is a quote from a critic and we can assume he is deliberately using a paranthesis, so (leave as is).
    • "I felt like a door-to-door salesman going to all these [story] pitch meetings." This I changed, because I can only imagine [story] was added after the fact to unpack pitch.
    • So there's some (picky) examples for you ;). Marskell 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • :-) Thank you for the picky [helpful] suggestions. In that first example, I thought as well that the LA Times had substituted a word. With example 3, too, I thought the writer had added "story" for clarity. As I said, the () were from the Times, not me; but your suggestion was helpful, since I wasn't aware of that rule. And thanks for the support on the article. Baker is a very underappreciated writer who deserves a wider audience. Jeffpw 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good work and well referenced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Glynn Lunney

Self-nomination. This article reached GA status at the beginning of September; it has been significantly expanded since then. It has been through a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, and I have taken all of the suggestions made there. MLilburne 10:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article. It's a good read with a sensible structure, there are many public-domain pictures that illustrate important events in Lunney's career, and it's definitely well-referenced in terms of both quality and quantity of sources. I made a few minor grammatical changes, but nothing that would have kept me from supporting this candidate had these slight problems still existed. -- Kicking222 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support very well done. Rlevse 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pending Support: An obviously important person who deserves a full article, but I have some concerns that I feel stand between what is at present and what should be. I never quite get a sense of the summary conclusion that would leave a reader with a full sense of the historical importance of the man. Additionally, here are some generally minor problems that should be addressed:
  1. Nasa career: There is a tiny paragraph that seems to be floating. The text says that Lunney's "first job" was measuring reentry profiles, but we have to assume that this was his first job at NASA? Was NASA even organized at that point? How did he join the agency? This is before "Mercury" and "Gemini," which make more sense, so we need some additional material to explain this brief bit. E.g. "Lunney's first job out of college was for X (USAF? the newly designated NASA? we learn later that it's NACA? what?), where he worked studying the problem of reentry heating...."
  2. Gemini: It's interesting that he chose black as the team color, but is it pertinent? If we don't get the context for this decision and significance, it's probably extranneous information.
  3. Apollo: the article says that he was in charge of the boilerplate tests at White Sands. Would that make him involved in the "plugs out" test that was a disaster for Apollo 1? One way or another, the Apollo 1 tragedy had to have had an effect on his career, so that's sort of a gap.
  4. Apollo: "His Black team" is a bit chummy and informal, as well as grammatically incorrect (either Black Team or black-team or "black team"); it's probably best just to say "his team of X."
  5. Space Shuttle: "tasked with": I don't want to meddle, but "tasked with" is pretty gauche to my ears. Can't we use one of the many alternatives?
  6. Personal life: Big, big tense shift. I had to look up at the top of the lead again to make sure Lunney wasn't dead, as he was now in the past tense with his pleasures, for example.
• Again, though, in the end, I wish that a conclusion gave me more conclusions to take with me about the man and his career. Geogre 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I will merge the "early life" and "NACA career" sections so as to make the structure more self-explanatory.
2. He was not involved in the Apollo 1 plugs-out test, and as far as I can tell wasn't around Mission Control at the time. In fact, there isn't very much information available about Lunney and the fire, so I didn't discuss it. I could provide a paragraph, but it would be a largely negative one, with only a couple of short quotes. Would you like me to see what I can put together? Actually, I see how I can work it in. Stand by.
3. Some readers may remember from the Apollo 13 movie that Gene Kranz's team was the White team, which in fact has its own Wikipedia article. (A very bad one, to be sure.) It may be trivia; I thought it was interesting trivia, but will take it out if you feel it's particularly problematic.
4. Fair point. It's not all that relevant. I've taken it out.
5. Changed this.
6. Have tried to shift this more into the present tense. Does it look better now?

Finally, yes, I would like to be able to draw more conclusions about the historical importance of Glynn Lunney. Unfortunately I'm limited to what the secondary sources have said (and I've studied them pretty thoroughly), so I don't want to go introducing any editorializing into the article. Some of the lack of long-term perspective is probably due to the fact that this is very recent history and he is still living. I hope you understand. MLilburne 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Folded reply: I understand, of course, about the need to remain within citable conclusions, but I worry that we're so compelled now to stick to them that we neglect our function as critical synthesis. An encyclopedist does get to synthesize and draw some conclusions based on facts that have been or can be carefully cited. For example, and this is not a suggestion, one could easily conclude that Glynn Lunney is one of the driving forces behind the development of NASA's manned space flight program, from its inception to the Space Shuttle. Such a conclusion locates the man in the world, gives the reader some capsule to walk off with, and is pretty inarguable. At any rate, it was a perceived need. About #3: I'm sure you're right about the white team, but it seems like either we need a header or sentence setting up "Development of the black and white teams" to let us know that this was an important functional division within mission control (not just a name or a gaming clan, so to speak), or, if it's to be in passing, a simple "Lunney was responsible for the fact that his group would be called the Black Team within NASA's mission control," just so it doesn't give the appearance of a tossed in kitchen sink. If I have more to suggest, I'll do it on the talk page.

Thank you for elaborating. I take your point about the Black team reference, and will remove it, as I can see that it doesn't add all that much for the article. I also do see what you're getting at in terms of critical synthesis. The example that you used, although not a suggestion, does come fairly close to the truth. I will think about what sort of general summation I can offer to the reader. Any other comments that you have will, of course, be gratefully received. MLilburne 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to include a little more assessment of Lunney's importance in historical context. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. MLilburne 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: We are in an age of explorers, and yet we are paying as little attention to them as the first age did. Articles like this may help us avoid the problems contemporary scholars have with knowing anything about Cortes and Verazano. Geogre 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article! I really enjoyed it and this does not happen to me very often!--Yannismarou 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. A great example of an interesting, informative, and well-cited article about a notable, living person. Cla68 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Atangana

Self-nomination. Peer review was helpful but has petered out. The article's about a Cameroonian leader who served under both the Germans and French. He opposed armed resistance to the colonials and instead tried to work within the system to help his people. It's an interesting story, and I hope others will find it worth their time to read. This would be my first Cameroon-related FA, so I hope folks'll find it worth the star. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nicely written article. Very intresting man but forgive me if I missed it, but who gave him the name 'Charles', since you say his birth name is 'Ntsama'? Also 1 sentence struck me as akward 'Nevertheless, he was never loved by everyone.' Anyway thanks for writing this wonderful piece for a man I would never had found out about without wikipedia. - Tutmosis 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. He took the German name Karl upon baptism and this was changed to its French version, Charles, when France became the colonial power in East Cameroon after World War I. I'll take a look at that sentence; it bothers me a bit too. Perhaps a suitable replacement would be, "Nevertheless, some of his subjects opposed his reign." — BrianSmithson 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, no complaints. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The only thing that broke the narrative flow for me is "Sso initiation ritual", which is neither linked nor described, so I ended up fruitlessly looking around the page for more information. - BanyanTree 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, a pleasure to read. --Robth^Talk 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and highly informative, combined with good referencing. One (very minor) issue, the photograph used to illustrate the head of the article - I would suggest that it be increased in size, to about 250px width - make a bolder initial impression. In an ideal world I would suggest that you might think about replacing that photograph with one which is less indistinct and fuzzy, perhaps also think about finding some more for the Later life section. Having said that, I readily appreciate that photographs will be pretty thin on the ground for this subject matter. All in all, good work.

Xdamr^talk 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've incorporated the suggestions folks have made here so far. The Sso ritual may very well deserve its own article; Quinn mentions it only briefly in his biography, though. He seems to go into more detail in this journal article, but I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment and can't learn anything more. At any rate, I've tried to define it a bit better. As for images, I agree more would be better and some of the ones that are there leave something to be desired. When I get back to Cameroon (someday), I plan to visit and photograph the Atangana monument and palace, but that could be several years. Quinn says that Atangana had several photographs made while in Germany; some of these are presumably still available somewhere, but probably only in German sources. I promise to add anything I find, of course. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Marvelous article! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. - for the moment by the following issues: Support
  • Remove redundancies of vague terms of size, such as much, some, etc. For instances, (I picked them randomly)
    • "....was the paramount chief of the Ewondo and Bane ethnic groups during much of the colonial period in Cameroon." → try to remove "much of".
    • "...appointed Atangana interpreter for some 500 Bulu hostages,..." → well, it has an exact number, why would make it more ambiguous?
    • "...received some sort of administrative post,..." → try to replace "some sort of" with "an".
    • etc. There are a lot more. Copyediting is really needed to improve the prose of this article.
  • I guess at FA level, redlinks are bad. It means to point a reader to something that does not exist yet. Just create a stub of 1-2 paragraphs article, if editors think that certain terms are needed to be explained more in other article. Otherwise, remove the redlinks.
  • Per WP:LS, the lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate. I found several sentences that should be sourced in the lead section. For example: "He proved himself an intelligent and diplomatic administrator,...", "His loyalty to the German Empire was unquestioning,..." , etc.
  • An encyclopaedia item should be accurate whenever it will be read in the future. Please avoid using inexact words to state a time, per WP:MOS. For instances, today, present-day, now, soon, etc.

— Indon (reply) — 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Good comments, but a couple of points. Redlinks aren't a problem under the Featured article criteria; also, if something is sourced in the body of the article, it doesn't need to be sourced in the lead. --Robth^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. The lead section should be sourced, although it's taken from the body. A reader reads the lead section first, and may raise a question about its source. (S)He is not reading directly to the body. Per WP:LS, the lead section should be able to stand at its own; thus it should have proper citations. The redlinks, though are not listed at WP:WIAFA, they are bad, because an FA article will be put in the main page. Is it so difficult to create a stub article? — Indon (reply) — 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of WP:LS does not require citations in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article; as such, it should be drawing on information supported by the citations and sources in the rest of the article. This is fairly standard practice. Now, if a quotation is used in the lead or something like that, it then becomes appropriate to cite. --Robth^Talk 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you insist. It's okay. Now let's see in this article. From the lead section: "He proved himself an intelligent and diplomatic administrator,..." → It's a definitely unsourced claim, but I can't find anywhere in the body. — Indon (reply) — 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Robth's right. The lead does not need inline citations; it only summarizes information that should be properly cited in the body of the article. And red links are not against the criteria. They may be used to justify not putting the article on the main page, but they can't be used to keep it from attaining FA status. At any rate, I'm busy trying to turn them blue, so that shouldn't be a worry. As for your other points: "Was paramount chief of the Ewondo and Bane during the colonial period of Cameroon" does not give the same information that "during much of the colonial period" does; one is vague, one is more specific. He "received an administrative post" sounds okay, but "some sort of administrative post" better describes the vagueness of the sources on this issue in my view. The 500 hostages number is not precise. It could be changed to "about" or something, but "some" sounds better to me. I won't dispute that a fresh pair of eyes going over the article could help it, but the "vague terms of size" that you mentioned seem justified to me. But I'll give it another look over today. Thanks for the comments, — BrianSmithson 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; missed your latest comment. The "intelligent and diplomatic' bit is inteded to summarize anecdotes from the article, but a source can easily be found for the specific text. I'll add one later today. Thanks again, — BrianSmithson 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, citations unnecessary in most cases in a lead, and there's no strict rule about this. Redlinks best minimised, but not actionable. Why not create stubs for at least a few of them? "much of the colonial period" is OK to me in the lead, provided we're given the chronology in the body of the article. Tony

(reply to Brian, indent to the left for better reading). I see it now. At first, I thought myself when I was reading the article, that it seems the article has vague sources. Now you stressed it that indeed sources are vague. All right then. Now, I'll see your changes today first, before I change my vote. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to Indon; de-indenting more) No, no, your comments are good. I'll be out of town this weekend, but I am taking your comments very seriously. I've got a printout of the article with each vague size term and reference to "now" or "today" highlighted. I've already killed some of them, and I'll take a long, hard look at the others once I get back home and to my sources this Sunday. It's possible some of the vague time references have more specific dates that can be substituted, others maybe not so due to the vagueness of the sources. I can also provide sources for a couple of summarizing sentences in the lead.

I have to confess that I'm at a loss for a way to replace "what is today Yaoundé" and "present-day Limbe". Does anyone have any suggestions, or is it okay to refer to the present day in instances like these? -- BrianSmithson 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced any vague language that the sources allow; anything that remains reflects the vagueness of the sources used. I also added two references to summarization in the lead that wasn't directly citable from the body of the article itself. I still don't know how else to say that Victoria is now called Limbe and that Atangana was born in a place that is now called Yaoundé without referring to "now" or "today". But I hope your vagueness objections have been taken care of. — BrianSmithson 08:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. More information is needed to establish that the images are in the public domain. When was the book they're from published? Who took them? Haukur 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer the article have no images, or that it use images that were taken back in the 1910s? — BrianSmithson 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that came off as more curt than I intended. The books and websites do not give information on the original source of the images. They are all clearly from the German colonial period, which ended in 1916 or so. If necessary, I can axe one of them and claim the other two as fair use, I suppose. Seems like overkill, though, for images taken so long ago and probably published in German sources long ago. What would be the proper course of action in a situation like this? — BrianSmithson 07:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can establish that the images were published before 1909 they are definitely in the public domain in the United States. If you can establish that they were published before 1923 they are probably in the public domain in the United States. If you can establish that an image was taken by someone who died in 1935 or earlier (what the tags currently claim) then it is in the public domain worldwide. If you can not clearly establish any of these things then add as much information as you can find and use a tag like Template:Fairold. I don't want you to remove any of the images but I would like the licencing information on them to be as clear and informative as possible. Haukur 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the photographs' licensing tags to address this issue. Unfortunately, none of the sources used gives detailed information about the dates of the photos or the photographers. I have added as much information as possible and changed the tags as per your suggestions. Thanks again, — BrianSmithson 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Objection struck. Haukur 10:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Inline citations need specific page numbers when using a book source. LuciferMorgan 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The article does give page numbers unless the source is a web page. — BrianSmithson 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I contacted LuciferMorgan about this on his talk page, and he is indeed referring to the web references. These, of course, have no page numbers. LM is currently on wikibreak, so I thought I'd mention this with the link to the discussion. -- BrianSmithson 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well-researched, well-written article. A minor point: my curiosity is aroused by the statement that 'the the nationalist scholarship that blossomed after Cameroon's independence in 1960 resurrected his story', but the article doesn't say anything about this nationalist scholarship. If it's possible to find sources on this, I think it would be an interesting angle to add to the article. — mark ✎ 10:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Óengus I of the Picts

I'm nominating this article because it is clearly of FA quality. The topic is a very demanding one, and the research for the article more thorough than WP can reasonably expect to have on such an article. The nature of the topic may mean that at times the article can be unavoidably technical in style and it may not naturally interest all general readers, but the text is tight, the explanations clear, and the article as a whole very well balanced. It is an almost perfect way to start research on the king, which is precisely what WP is supposed to be about. The achievement of the article thoroughly deserves FA recognition. The article has been under peer review for a while, and because it has already reached FA quality for content and is generating no more comments on style, it is now obviously time for the FA nomination stage. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It is about the most comprehensive coverage of this remarkable ruler that I've ever seen. Bravo! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article. One minor quibble, though: the first map needs a caption. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article.Kaisershatner 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, outstanding article. Kyriakos 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support...ditto. Comprehensive, well-written, lead OK Cas Liber 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very informative and well written. Also, all sources are cited. Yono 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Some great research here. Good job! Some specific comments:
  • Caption for the first image could use some work. Some readers who jump straight to the picture without first reading the article may be confused by "the royal figure". Identifying it as Oengus would be better IMO. Also, what is a "kaiserfibel" and "imitatio imperii"? It may therefore be taken... - ambiguous use of "it".
  • The last three paragraphs of Sources and background could use some citations.
  • Óengus was middle-aged by the time he entered into history and his early life is unknown. Chronology of that sentence is a bit weird... How about this: "Much of his early life is unknown; Óengus was middle-aged by the time he entered into the annals of history."
  • On 12 August 729 Óengus defeated and killed Drest at the undentified Druimm Derg Blathuug "Unidentified" maybe? Still confusing though...what is "Druimm Derg Blathuug"? A battle site?
  • The story of the foundation of St Andrews, originally Cennrígmonaid, is confused... I'm not sure "confused" is the right word to use there...
  • The amount of information that has come down to us about Óengus... Avoid first person Gzkn 03:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll try to address those helpful remarks. Thank you. As for a kaiserfibel, I believe that it is a brooch like the one Justinian is wearing on the San Vitale mosaic in Ravenna (see here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Revised to meet Gzkn's concerns; hope I succeeded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My concerns in the peer review have been answered. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support because, per Calgacus, this article is clearly worthy of FA status. It is well-written, comprehensive, concise, and has a superb amount of fact-filled notation. And in my opinion, those who want to contribute to making an article worthy of FA-class should examine this article—this is how you do it. Cliff smith 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Just plain well-done. Canæn 03:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

Self-nom. This article has been peer-reviewed, in the GA process and through a number of copyedits by independent reviewers (thanks to Yomangani, Wayward, ONUnicorn and also others); now it's time for FAC. I've tried to expand a little bit, but now it seems that all materials needed for the subject are already written there. Any comments for further improvements are very welcomed. — Indon (reply) — 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A well researched and presented article. Well done Indon. (Caniago 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))
• Comment - This is a fine and fascinating article, but I don't beleive it comprehensively covers the topic. It appears to only really cover the 1815 eruption. There is the date 1967 in the infobox for the last eruption, but no mention made in the text. Has the volcano erupted anymore times? What about the parasitic cones mentioned in the geological formation section? When did they appear? My advice would be to compare this article with the Mount Pinatubo article and fill in what is missing. I might also suggest that the 1815 eruption be broken off into a separate article, perhaps one that might even merge with the article on the Year Without a Summer, being that it is such a major event with worldwide implications. One other minor quibble, the second sentence should include what volcano erupted in 181 AD. The way it is written gives the impression that it was Tambora rather than Taupo. Indeed, what is written is very good, but I don't think all angles have been explored. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the article has been properly expanded. Nice job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Answer: Thanks for your comments. It's a good comments. As per eruptive history, I've added one section about that. I have tried to find information, regarding its geological informations, but that is as far as I can get. Most Mount Tambora information in peer-reviewed journals only cover the 1815 eruption, and that's the problem. About the splitting the article, I would disagree about that. The 1815 eruption in this article only focuses on the eruption itself and one section about the long-term global effect, but I put it as a summary style. Take a look at Mount Pinatubo that most of its part explains about the 1991 eruption and its global effect. I have also clarified the second sentence you mentioned. I am going to try my best to find sources for the other angles. — Indon (reply) — 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further answer: I have expanded the article to get more angles as you have mentioned. It has now Ecosystem and Monitoring sections to describe the current situation in the mountain. — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well presented. Well done Indon SatuSuro 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo. SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I chose Pinatubo was that it is a featured article on a volcano. Indeed, I did miss Mauna Loa when I was searching for an article to compare this with. Certainly Mauna Loa is also a good volcano article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object - Comprehensiveness, as per above. Fieari 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC) I'm satisfied now. Fieari 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support a very deep and still readable article. However perhaps you can expand on the "Archaeological evidence" se~ction. Meursault2004 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection per Ganymede's concerns - once these are fixed up, I think it will make it. riana_dzasta 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I might will go through more thoroughly when I have time. riana_dzasta 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have rephrased the lead section. You're right about the abrupt flow. I have already expanded the article, but forgot to rewrite also the lead section. — Indon (reply) — 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good work, Indon, it's very nice now. I just have a few more minor things that should probably be cleared up.

• From Global effects: 1816 was the second coldest year in the northern hemisphere since AD 1400 (1601 was the coldest following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru). This sentence is confusing - it should be expanded and cleared up.
• From Chronology of the eruption: Darkness enveloped an area as wide as 600 km (370 mi) away for up to two days. - Area should be quoted in sq km or sq mi, not 'km away'. Alternatively, don't use the word 'area' at all, and rewrite the sentence.

These were the only issues that I couldn't take care of myself, I made some minor grammatical changes. riana_dzasta 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot riana_dzasta for your copyedit. I have fixed two sentences you asked above, after I checked and re-read the source again. Please take a look again. I hope everything has been cleared now. — Indon (reply) — 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent work, Indon and others! riana_dzasta 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and well-researched. I found it a fascinating article. I've done some minor copy-edits, but it reads well and is supported by good quality images and inline quotations. --Bwmodular 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and interesting. I have done some copyediting on it but only to correct minor typos and phrasing. Yomangani^talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support A really good article, well written and very comprehensive. The images are good too, make the article even more interesting. Well done! Imoeng 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've been watching this article's development; it's really come a long way. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bill (2003)

Self-nom. I finished the article a few weeks ago, and I was going to wait until my other FA was finished, but I can handle two FAC's right now. Bill's article is very comprehensive, well-written (IMO), and it has pictures. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Suppport. Wow... íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Commment External links come after refs. Rlevse 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written, developed, with many terrific images. (Note: I contributed one image to this article.) Hello32020 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - May I note also that WikiProject Tropical cyclones knows its stuff, and doesn't kid around when it comes to nominating FACs. Every time they submit one, it's already ready already, almost no changes required. Good work guys... Fieari 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yea, the project aims for very high standards for articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Why the hell can't every single topic on WP that isn't hurricanes/tropical storms have half as many high-quality editors (and high-quality articles) as storms do? -- Kicking222 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/conditional oppose - many of the NDCC links/refs for the tornadoes don't seem to be working. – Chacor 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Popups problem. Support, as the links in the refs section work. – Chacor 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yet another excellent hurricane/tropical storm article, great job Hurricanehink and Titoxd! Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Create articles for all redlinks, especially ones inside the lead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather than creating articles for the red links, I switched them to an existing wiki-links. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Man, the tropical cyclones WikiProject just keeps churning out high quality FACs! A caption question: is it supposed to be Damaged trees from a tornado? Also, one of the captions has a period at the end while the others all don't. Might want to make them consistent. Gzkn 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Mike | Talk 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per most of the above. Impressive amount of refs; good job. Cliff smith 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Edith (1971)

I finished this article a few weeks ago. It's well-written, factually accurate, comprehensive, neutral (IMO), stable (I've been the main editor, and Titoxd copyedited it, nothing else really), conforms to the correct style, 2 images, and good length. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very informative, and comprehensive details. Hello32020 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rlevse 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, with good details. Must_WIN 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. A job well done. Cliff smith 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with the obvious conflict of interest. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Make Way For Ducklings

This article is incredibly well-written and deserves to be the first children's book to become an FA. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article uses excellent references, and provides great information of the plot and critical reactions of the story. It analyzes all of these points in depth, while still maintaining a short page length. Though I have never read the book, I feel that after reading it I have a comprehensive understanding of the title. I support this article's nomination for a Featured Article.-Hairchrm 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work this article has, terrific referencing, and fantastic structure. Hello32020 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• SupportMild Object This can be FA with some tweaking. a) It is underlinked. Entire sections have no wikilinks. b) The lead does not summarize the article (ie, no mention of criticism and culture). Lead should be 2, probably 3 paras, and summarize the article, not be a collection of facts. Other than that, I think this is very well done. Rlevse 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have summarized the criticism section in the lead, and I am working on the culture section. --Thelb⁴ 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. By the way, did the source really criticize the illustrations for the Mallards "often showing the same facial expressions"? These are quite strange grounds for disapproval considering that the Mallards are, you know, ducks. Andrew Levine 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent analysis of the book, and a map of their routes? I like this quite a bit. The book is a classic, and an appropriate first. --Iriseyes 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A very nice article; short, but nothing seems missing. My one concern is that the "Use of page breaks" section needs trimming. If that's copyedited to get rid of repetitions like "enhancing the sense of motion... enhance the surprise... enhancing the sense of surprise" and "forces the reader to quickly turn the page... forces the reader to change the page quickly", then this will definitely get my support. —Celithemis 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Biased Support as main author of the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On Rlevse's a), I went through the article, and found nothing which could be reasonably wikilinked that wasn't already. The concern is understandable, but not much can be done, IMO. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; any improvements that can be undertaken from here are minor tweaks. Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why is For capitalized in the title? It's a preposition and should be lowercase per WP:CAPS. Prolog 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's capitalised in the first para, and lower in the second. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For is capitalized because it is the title. The title capitalizes For, so we do. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following. You moved the page from for to For with reason: "proper capitalization". However, this is in fact incorrect capitalization per Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines. "For" is not capitalized on book titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization goes by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Prolog 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• The book's title is "Make Way For Ducklings" as listed on the title page in the Library of Congress information. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a special case, so there is no reason to override WP naming conventions. Besides, even Library of Congress uses "for" 13/14 times at least on www.loc.gov [2] Prolog 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're misreading the guideline which says, "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt of "lowercase second and subsequent words". In other words, book titles are capitalized how they appear in the book. WP naming conventions state that book titles are exempt, so this point is moot. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lowercase second..." is obviously not for books/films/albums, but you're discussing the wrong part of the naming conventions. Book titles are capitalized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which says In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and). "For" is a preposition with three letters. Prolog 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Case in point: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Capitalized in the book so capitalized on Wikipedia.— Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Over" is functioning as an adverb there. In that case, capitalization is justified and that doesn't need to have anything to do with how it was originally capitalized in the book. I also noticed there is another McCloskey "for" book on Wikipedia: Blueberries for Sal. This is a good example why naming conventions are useful. If we can't keep consistency within one author's work, it's gonna be hard within the whole project. Prolog 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, seems as though I'm out gunned here. I only changed it one night because of what the book had, but it appears even the Library of Congress is against me here. Just one thing: let's wait 'til after the FAC is over to move it. It may be messy to move in the middle of a candidacy. Agreed? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't mean to make a big deal about the capitalization issue, so sorry about that. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it might be just me but 'Background' seems to fit better before 'Plot'. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Inappropriate for a featured article candidate. Not now, but maybe in the future. --SunStar Net 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentNot a viable/actionable objection. All articles are eligible for FA. If you have concerns about the article, they need to actionalble and specific. Rlevse 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-referenced and has a very nice layout. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Was Make Way For Ducklings ever adapted? (eg. into an animation) - Malkinann 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it seems like a small movie was made by Weston Woods. That important section was added by someone after this FAC. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Banksia integrifolia

A comprehensive and well-written article on an important Australian tree. I can't see any way to improve it. WP:BANKSIA self-nom. Hesperian 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support as co-nominator. Hesperian 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator Gnangarra 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've looked the article over, and am deeply impressed by its depth of coverage. Wouldn't have thought that there'd be so much to say about a species of tree that it would warrant a sub-article on the taxonomy alone. Well referenced, well written. Support. Fieari 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator. I feel it fulfils all criteria. The article has been thoroughyl analysed and is comprehensive and fulfils wiki-style critera that I can see.Cas Liber 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The words gnarlier and rangy caught my eye as they sounded a bit un-encyclopaedic at first but I've checked my dictionaries and see that I was wrong yet again. A very nice piece of work worthy of any encyclopaedia. — Moondyne 05:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; looks great to me, though I know nothing of plants. The leading sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is a bit awkward to me, however. I assume that the comma is necessary between "published" and "by" (that is, that others besides Linnaeus published the other three of the "first four"), so I'm not exactly sure what can be done about it. If there's a synonym for "published", that could be used effectively to reorganize the sentence to something like this: "...collected by Sir Joseph Banks in 1770, and, published in 1782 Carolus Linnaeus the Younger, was one of the first four species to be <insert synonym of published here>." Not a big deal; just something that could stand an improvement. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's better now. What do you think? Hesperian 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead seems weak and disjointed, with oddities like: "Banksia integrifolia, commonly known as Coast Banksia, is a species of tree in the plant genus Banksia." - Do we really need to spell out the meaning of Binomial nomenclature in the first sentence? Shouldn't we be talking about the plant itself? I'd lose it or add it to the later section about Linnaeus. There's other instances of poor phrasing as well: "Because of its wide range, it would have had a name in a number of indigenous languages; for example, it was known as Birrna in the language of the Gunai people of Gippsland." - don't say "would have" about known facts. It *had* a name in a number of indigenous languages.

The section beginning "B. integrifolia's placement within Banksia may be summarised as follows:" would look a lot better as a side box, and, on the whole, it just needs another copyedit. Vanished user ^talk 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

response the use of would have is more correct as the following sentence in the article states that -- Unfortunately, most indigenous names are now lost... Gnangarra 10:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "had", though. less weasely, and the explanation is fast enough. Vanished user ^talk 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, four points: (1) I agree with your comment re: redundancy in the first sentence, and will address it. (2) I agree with Gnangarra that "would have" is more appropriate, as it correctly indicates that our sources are largely speculating on this point. (3) I tried the sidebox idea when we took Banksia brownii through FA, and it didn't look as good as i thought it would. (4) Tony1 has undertaken to give this another copyedit as soon as he can find the time. Hesperian 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Weak Support, then. I probably should have said "Weak Oppose" anyway - it IS a very good article, just seemed to need a couple tweaks. I've changed the names section a bit - I think the major problem was that a specific example was given in a place where it made the rest of the commentary seem odd. With it removed, it works. Vanished user ^talk 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Support: All issues addressed. Vanished user ^talk 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support meets all requirements. The subject is very well explained.--cj | talk 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to me. Trebor 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent and comprehensive article. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, an excellent, well written, comprehensive article --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A fantastic article from a fantastic group of editors in Wikipedia:Wiki project Banksia Todd661 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. How many Banksias are left to do? Can we have some other plants, too? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• there are 76 species of Banksia, only Banksia brownii is FA, so including this nomination theres 75 species still to go. Then there are the other taxonomical levels, botanist, illistraters, publications etc so about 100 articles. Gnangarra 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellently written and researched article. It is informative, even to a botany novice like me. I never knew there was so much to know about Banksias! Well done. JROBBO 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahmose I

Ahmose I has been under construction for several months now and is basically complete. Ahmose I is not the world's most well attested pharaoh, and this page contains basically everything of note about him. It is more exhaustive than any topical paper encyclopedia, from Shaw's "Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" to Redford's three volume monstrosity. Certain places are vague, but with egyptology that is the nature of the beast. His dates, his campaigns, his sucession, his family -- all these things are not perfectly understood, so effort was made to include the major reconstructions on each point. All in all, anything wrong with this article is of a minor blemish sort, and those kinds of objections can be dealt with quickly here. Thanatosimii 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article. A few minor points that I think can be improved, though:
  • The alignment of the two hatnotes should be identical.
  • I'd use {{details}} instead of {{further}}.
  • Drop {{cquote}} in favor of regular blockquote formatting, perhaps?
  • The page number should always be in the same place from citation to citation; at the moment, it moves around quite a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought of the quote bit too, the problem being that I don't know exactly how to do that from a technical standpoint. I'm getting on the page numbers now. Thanatosimii 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just enclose the quote in <blockquote></blockquote> tags instead of the template. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, done that Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the hatnotes. — Editor at Large^(speak) 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent! Some comments:
  • During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region and restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan. IMO, this sounds better: "During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt, and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan."
  • as his much-wounded mummy gruesomely suggests <-- nice :)
  • Might want to wikilink "regnal year". Also "stele" in the caption and the first instance of "stelae" in the text.
  • Despite this, it is interesting to note that only three statuary images... I generally advise staying away from phrases like "it is interesting to note that", as they are almost always superfluous.
  • ...it is quite likely that it was one of his subjects who developed the craft. Source?
  • In Upper Egypt he built at the temple of Amun at Karnak and the temple of Monthu at Armant. Is it "built at the temple" or just "built the temple"?
  • The city of Thebes became the capital for the whole of Egypt. Does this mean it became the capital under Ahmose's reign? If so, might want to make it more explicit ("Under Ahmose's reign, the city of Thebes became...").
  • This jumped out at me: "believed to be monuments to the kings who built them rather than their tombs. Ahmose's pyramid is like these cenotaphs, but because it has a mortuary temple, some believe that in this case it was built as a tomb.[38] However, the pyramid is believed to have had no interior or subterranean rooms; this has led other Egyptologists to believe that it is a cenotaph"
  • Ahmose I's mummy was discovered in the Deir el-Bahri Cache above the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut, revealed in 1881 Kind of awkward and ambiguous. "...Hatshepsut, which was revealed in 1881" might be better.
  • Finally, there is the fact that Ahmose's wife... --> "Finally, Ahmose's wife..."
  • Overall, great work! Well researched, well written, and a very interesting article. Gzkn 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have incorporated/changed the text thanks to Gzkn's keen editorial eye. Thanatosimii: The only bit I didn't chage/update was reference wanted for the assertion that the craft of glassmaking may have been invented during Ahmose's reign (point #5, above). I would guess that the same reference provided for the previous sentence would apply, but I don't have that book and didn't want to leap to that conclusion. Captmondo 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is the same source. I put the same citation on that sentance too now. Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes look great...except for: The fact that Ahmose's wife, Ahmose Nefertari, was called both "King's Great Wife" and "King's Mother" in two stelae which were set up at the limestone quarries of Ma`sara in Ahmose's 22nd year. <-- incomplete sentence. Oops! My recommendation is to get rid of "The fact that"...see Strunk and White. :)Gzkn 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that" duly removed. Thanks again. Captmondo 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well researched and using recent sources. I will come back with any comments that I have, but I want to clearly support before making them. Geogre 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Its good to read a well written article; writing on this period must be like constructing a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

A few typos:

Centre and center – two different spellings used

Under the heading Art and monumental constructions:

The art during of Ahmose I's reign harkened

Under the heading Succession:

wouldn't should be would not

Lead – should be led

Good work Raymond Palmer 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

These issues have now been adressed. Thanatosimii 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I caught the "during of" that Thanatosimii missed (he focused instead on the slightly archaic "harkening", replacing it with "was similar to") and I removed the superflous "of". Thanatosimii has taken care of everything else. Captmondo 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops.. I can't believe I missed that. Ah well, it's fixed now. Thanatosimii 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very intresting article. The prose issues above appear to have been dealt with. - Tutmosis 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, interesting article. One minor suggestion - have a separate Notes and References headline, with the latter listing all the major reference work, so that interested parties dont have to hunt through all the footnotes to see what books they should consider reading. Abel29a 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checking: would the example at the bottom of Pericles be a good model? Am not sure I can divide things evenly into Primary and Secondary sources (I think most are primary). Just looking for a good model, as the last time I did an FA submission (Delrina, some time ago), I suspect this type of referencing format wasn't available. Captmondo 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pericles article illustrates what I mean, but you wouldnt necessarily have to divide them into primary and secondary. If they are all primary just list them all together under references. Then again most FA articles recently uses the method already used in this article, but personally I find it easier to see with a glance what references are used, instead of having to read all the notes. This FA illustrates how I prefer it Kochi_(India). Abel29a 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it better to have the bibliographical information for only the cited books in such a section, or should we compile a list of works that ought to be consulted for further reading, although were not of use in composing this particular article? Thanatosimii 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have compiled a separate "References" section, and re-titled the previous section to "Notes". I think this is sufficient for FA purposes, and I leave it to Thanatosimii if he would like to add a purely optional "Further References" section. Captmondo 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah excellent. It's much more accesible now. A "further reading" section would be nice for those wishing to delve even deeper into the matter, but it certainly isnt required. Abel29a 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written and comprehensive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellent article (although the Temple of Montu at Armant is still cited as a major monument in the infobox without being mentioned at all in the article). Yomangani^talk 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we just found a missing slash in a "</ref>" which was hiding that reference, along with two other paragraphs. Whoops. Thanatosimii 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work from all involved Markh 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. No problems here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

This article has come a very long way since I last nominated it. It has passed GA-status and now contains everything a featured article should have, including almost 50 sources and lots of good stuff that the Patriots and Bears articles have incorporated in them. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support As a New Jerseyan and a sports fanatic (though I'm not too big on hockey), I was ready to critique this one somewhat harshly. However, I can't find any real problems. There's a bit of enencyclopedic prose in places (I made one correction myself), but everything is very well-sourced, all of the images are illustrative and contain fair-use rationale, the lead is good, the article is broken down into sections in an excellent fashion, the prose is generally fine (and the writing is completely neutral), and the article is extremely comprehensive. My only genuine concern is that there are too many red links, especially for the owner, who does not (but should) have his own article. -- Kicking222 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You motivated me to finally start Vanderbeek's article. I also created stubs for the two redlinked head coaches. There's only one redlink left in the article, and that's a relatively non-notable player. – flamurai (t) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Man, that stub is so good, it almost persuaded me to add "strong" to my "support". -- Kicking222 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As someone who's done some work on this page with Sportskido8, I'm happy to see it come this far. Everything looks as it should, and perhaps we can start work on another hockey team page once this one is done (methinks the Original Six teams would do well to have extensive articles). Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support... but could use a bit of help with the overall flow. I did fix a couple of sentences but the prose isn't exactly brilliant. Still, impressive article with lots of nice stuff without being overly detailed. One thing that should be mentioned (although one would probably need a reference) is that Lemaire's implementation of the trap was so successful in New Jersey that the whole league started to play it. Which also helps explain why they were viewed as the source of all evil in the NHL at some point. Also, one could perhaps point out that Lamoriello is extremely respected within the league. Again, there's an issue of finding a good reference but his reputation in hockey is very very good. (And I'm not a Devils fan). Pascal.Tesson 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I dont know that much about the topic but the layout, flow, and general apperance of the article is beyonf reproach. -Husnock 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although I am a Ducks fans. It's still nice to see such an excellent article on an Ice Hockey team. Well Done.--Skully Collins ^Edits 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, noting that the article has been very extensively referenced. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very comprehensive, beyond that of a good article. Hello32020 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is pretty good, but I think can be more comprehensive (such as sports/financial side of things). Despite the Devils successes on the ice, it seems their attendance is rather poor. [3] What is the value of the franchise? Is the owner turning a profit with the team now? How much revenue is the team getting each year? How about player salaries? Television deals? Perhaps, we need some more details on the financing of the Newark Arena? These are some aspects that I think can be covered better. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Devils used to be the Patrick Division, right? --Aude (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple more things I can think of that deserve mention...
    • I recall after the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1995, there was a bitter dispute between the Devils' owner and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority over the team's lease at the Brendan Byrne Arena. McMullen made serious threats to relocate the team to Nashville.
    • ~1997/98, McMullen put forth plans to build a new arena in Hoboken.
  • I remember these were in the newspapers a lot back then, so if anyone has access to any newspaper archive database/service, I think that would be a good place to look. Some discussion of this aspect of the NJ Devils franchise history, I think, would add a lot to the article. --Aude (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. I was in attendance at the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals and we would chant things like "Nashville sucks!" when Christie Whitman, former NJ Governor and continuing Devils fan, would enter the arena. Nothing ever came of it, though, so I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it says something about the viability of the market. If the team wasn't so successful on the ice, what might attendance be? I know the owner and general manager have also been very good at managing the team's finances, putting a good team on the ice without spending a whole lot of money over the years. (e.g. while the Rangers spent huge amounts for big-name stars, they struggled) This aspect about the Devils is something important, I think. This is somewhat similar to what the Oakland Athletics did (see Moneyball). --Aude (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, it is mentioned somewhat in the article with a link to a story that explains it. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why is the Devils logo a .gif? Neutrality^talk 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume it's just how all the NHL logos were originally uploaded. – flamurai (t) 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see a good hockey article. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment although I supported the move to FA status, I have to say that Aude makes a solid case about the article not being comprehensive. I just have to agree and the article should probably adress this before this debate is closed. On the other hand, it's important to keep it concise. It's one of the articles strongpoints that it's not overly verbose. Pascal.Tesson 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Axis naval activity in Australian waters

I believe that this article on the Axis naval operations in Australian waters during World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article status. The article has been through a peer review and has been assessed as an A-Class article by the Military History WikiProject. The article's content and structure is stable and all images used in the article are free of copyright restrictions. This is a self-nomination. --Nick Dowling 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, well referenced, and an informative article. Cla68 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Large number of sourced and is very well written and has good structure. Probably the best Australian military article. Hossen27 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• A few minor points:
  • The dates in the headings would look neater in parentheses.
  • I would replace {{main}} and {{further}} with {{details}}.
  • Can we get rid of the "See also" section? Most of the links appear to already be present, and can be just trimmed; is there any way of working the others into the text? Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support now that these issues have been fixed. One further thing to look at: would it be possible to remove the article self-reference at the beginning of the "The Australia Station and Australian defences" section? The first paragraph isn't too bad—although I would change "entry" to either "article" or "narrative"—but the second one is, I think, quite unnecessary. Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Response Thanks for that suggestion Kirill. I've updated the article to clarify why the many Japanese naval operations in Australia's colonial possessions in New Guinea have been excluded from the article. --Nick Dowling 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Hossen. Nick has done a great job. As I have said elsewhere, I think the separate year headings "1939-41", "1942, "1943", "1944" and "1945" are unnecessary, but that is a minor quibble. Grant65 | Talk 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good article that is well writen and sourced. Hello32020 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Well written and well referenced. A minor thing: under 1943, you say: "The IJN also conducted a diversionary bombardment of a small West Australian town." Which town? Broome? — Moondyne 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • Per WP:LS, there should be a bold title in the lead section. The lead section does not also give some information of who the Axis is. I know that it has wikilink, but since the term is the first word of the title, it would be better to briefly explain about it.
  • There are a lot of red links. Is it difficult to create a little stub article for them? Giving links to nothing is not a good way for a reader of a FA-level article. For example, in the first section, it mainly explains about the Australia Station, but it links to nowhere.
  • I found also a mixing of two citation styles: footnotes and embedded links in the body. Please choose one, per WP:CITE.
  • Images are good, but I found they are just simply put there as decorations. Some captions are not really describing the text/paragraph/section where they are placed. One image at the bottom is really awkward of what the purpose of it.
  • Please refer again WP:MOS of how to sectioning References, External links and See also. Mixing External links inside the list of sources is not preferred.
  • Please fix References. I see some uninformative entries. For instance, only a url link information, an entry of only author and title without information of what kind of publication it is, etc. There is a preferable WP:CITET templates if editors want to use it, but it is not mandatory. Try to give enough information about the source to mantain its verifiability.
  • "A map of the Australia Station is available between pages 52 and 53 of the first volume of the Official History of the RAN in World War II." → is not a good sentence. Why don't use ordinary citing? Then the pages, publisher, etc. will be given in the References section.
  • Some jargons are needed to be briefly explained. I am baffled with the meaning of "IJN".
    • IJN=Imperial Japanese Navy. — Moondyne 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please also reduce entries in External links. I found entries in the External links that are used already as sources. Entries in See also are also wikilinks that are not yet linked from the main article. It is not good to point to an article so many times for a reader (see Kirill comments above).

As overall, this is a good article. I only commented some technical issues above. — Indon (reply) — 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Response Thanks for all your votes and comments. I've removed the see also section and the red links which I don't think will ever have an article (eg, articles on individual naval captains) and created some stubs as suggested. I'm a bit confused about Indon's comments on using references, however. I don't believe that there are any examples embedded links being used in the body of the text and the only references which provide minimal details are for sources which were fully referenced the first time they were used. Could you please provide some specific examples and perhaps an example of an article with the referencing style you prefer? --Nick Dowling 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The embedded link is now gone. It was the external link in the main article of the sentence: "A map of the Australia Station is available between pages 52 and 53 of the first volume of the Official History of the RAN in World War II." that I reviewed before. Citation style is okay right now. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good article, very well referenced, on a theatre that sometimes gets less attention. Buckshot06 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. However, I think there's a bit of an over-saturation of images in the first section. michael ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is very comprehensive, is extremely strongly referenced and makes good use of public domain material. The only improvement I could ask for would be a map noting the general location of incidents and engagements, although I appreciate that would be difficult! --bainer (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Tamil Nadu

Self nom. This article has gone through a peer review. I think this article is a concise and comprehensive account of the long history of the state of Tamil Nadu and documents its rich political and cultural history. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support I've been watching this article during the FA drive and feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it's the best single resource on this subject available in the web. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Mandatory disclosure: I did some copyediting of the article.

• SupportObject Very good except the web based footnotes are highly inconsisent. Strongly suggest converting them to cite php (cite web) format and being consistent (word name for link, access date, publisher, author if known, etc). Rlevse 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  The web footnotes have been standardised not now. I have also standardised the citation of the author's name for some of the repeatedly cited books. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think Parthi meant "now" and not "not" above. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Oops again. I think I have typing dyslexia! Thanks Sundar! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Web footnotes are better, but not there. All web pages have a publisher. For example, fn 20 should have a "publisher = TamilNation.org" parameter. Ditto for several others.Rlevse 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now added the publisher info for all the web citations. The offline citations all have the full information in the Reference section. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. citation problems appear to have been worked out. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please modify the footnotes as suggested by Rlevse. The size of the article is big. Can it be condensed to some extent? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations have been fixed. The size of the article reflects its scope. It is in summary style and cannot to easily condenced further. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the footnotes (such as 36 and 66; there are others) still have issues with being incomplete. There's also a likely typo in footnote 30. The problems are minor, but they're still there. —Cuiviénen 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! missed them. These three issues are now fixed. Pls tell me if I've missed any more. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very good article, adheres to standards very well, however, someone could consider condensing it, and then merging it with the main Tamil Nadu page... -HuBmaN!!!! 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  If I understand you correct, you want a summary of this article to be added in the ==History== section of Tamil Nadu article. Am I right about that? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Merging it would be absurd, so I hope that's what he meant. —Cuiviénen 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Sundar. Rama's arrow 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support --Blacksun 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A well-written article, which provides a good overview of the key points in the region's history. I'll also add that the footnotes show that it's used the standard reference books on the topic as well as more specialised material on specific issues, which really makes it one of the best-sourced articles on Indian history on :en. -- Arvind 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent prose, well-reference. Well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment before objecting. I don't want to object here, but there are obvious citing deficiencies. In "Age of empires (600 - 1300)" most sub-sections are undercited or not cited at all and in the next section "European colonization" there are similar problems. The fact that there are other main articles for most of these sub-sections does not mean that we shouldn't properly cite them. I think that the citations should be added before this article becomes FA.--Yannismarou 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will add the citations today. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better right now. Now, if you also properly cite "Anglo French Conflicts", you'll have an unconditional support from me!--Yannismarou 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: It covers the topic in a comprehensive and accurate way. --Bhadani 12:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Alain Prost

A lot of work has been put into improving the article. It met GA standards after some corrections; I feel that it has reached FA now because I feel that everything has been referenced and that I've covered Prost's rivalry with Ayrton Senna pretty well.--Skully Collins 11:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Support and Nominate --Skully Collins 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Good job. But you need to work on the prose in the middle of the article. It reads as if you are giving a time line of his career: in 1980 he did this; in 1981 he did this; in 1982 he did this.... It gets choppy and tedious. It doesnt hurt to combine years; you already have grouped them under several 'themes' like "1980: McLaren." You don't need to separate every point, every year. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well that's what I did with the Damon Hill article. But I guess that fact that Hill only had seven seasons in Formula One to Prost's 12 seasons. But the reason it's split like that is for the sake of the reader, like if somebody wishs to view Prost's actions in the 1989 season, then it's easier to find. I'll leave it for now and see what others think--Skully Collins 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Well then, if sections worked for that article, it may work for this one. Give me a while to reread it and I'll give you my vote. OK? Orane (talk • cont.) 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah, sure. Take your time.--Skully Collins 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and comprehensive. Meets all criteria. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and meets criteria. Leidiot 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comment Oppose many section stubs, and I'm worried about several of the sources used in the article, YouTube isn't a realible source per WP:RS and I'm not sure about Prostfan.com nither which is a fan site, can you use the two written books in further reading as sources. Some sloppy writing in places as well like make-or-break, passive voice. Could use some trimming from 56KB. No proof that Image:AlainProstGP.jpg is copyrighted free use nither. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The YouTube source is a video of an Official review of the 1993 season, while ProstFan.com looks pretty reliable, as the profile page has hardly any POVs IMO. As for the other two points (Writing & the Image) I'll look into it later.--Skully Collins 07:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Removed Image:AlainProstGP.jpg. Can you give me some examples of "Sloppy Writing" and "Section Stubs" please? --Skully Collins 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Opps on the section stubs, I confused all those years as them, crossed out, as for the sloppy writting, some sections do need a copyedit including the Rivalry with Ayrton Senna section, crossed out to comment. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-written the rivalry with Senna section. Alexj2002 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very informative yet still not overlong. Meets the criteria.--Diniz 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

This article is rated A and I beleive the content in this article is good enough to be a FAC. Since his death, the article has stabilized and now I am submitting it for FAC. Mercenary2k 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - Wiki-newbie 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Sections "Alleged links to al-Qaeda" & "Alleged links to Saddam Hussein" seem like large blocks of text, can these be broken down into smaller sections or some of the images moved into them?

• Done. Let me know if you are satisfied with these changes. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Other incidents" section is lacknig sources for all points.

• Done. Got them all cited. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some sections contain citations in the center, is it because the sources doesnt cover all of the paragraph or is the citation in the wrong place?

• Done. Fixed them all. Citations appear at the end of each sentence. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• The biography section contains red links toward the bottom, can the wiki links be removed or stubs created for these people?

• Done. De-wikified some links. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some dates seem to be wikilinked and some not, this should be made uniform throughout the article.

• Done. All dates are wikilinked. If I missed some please let me know. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Succession" section has no sources.

• Done. Added sources. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Claims of death" section, May 24th note, paragraph contains no sources.

• Done. Added sources. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Reports of Zarqawi's death, detention and injuries" -> "Missing leg" -> paragraph 2, Newsweek is italicized, this seems to be repeated once or twice but not consistently. This should be made uniform.

• Done. All Magazines, Newspapers are italized. If I missed any let me know and I will change them. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Many paragraphs made up of 1 or two sentences in the Biography section, can some of these be merged and written in a paragraph form.

I will give it a more detailed read over later. --NuclearZer0 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Fixed the biography Paragraphs and merged them into bigger paragraphs. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Second paragraph in Biography has no citation.
• Cause of death at end of biography has no citation.

Nice work on the other stuff Mercenary2k, you may want to just read through it and check to see if the ends of paragraphs are cited. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Added 20 new citations throughout this article and made sure that each paragraph was cited. Let me know if you are satisfied with this. Mercenary2k 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support pending someone with editorial skills giving it a read over. Nice work again Mercenary2k --NuclearZer0 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Great article. There are a few points that I hesitate to correct myself; if anyone goes ahead and corrects them, I will support the nomination.

• There are a few errors in the references causing the template name to appear, not exactly sure why this happens. For example, refs 8, 10, 12.

• Done. Fixed these errors. There were also some references which repeated so I added a reference name and joined them together. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are far too many wikilinks: many links to irrelevant subjects and many articles which are linked more than once. I have removed some of these (Jordan for example was linked about 10 times) but there are many more. Please see WP:CONTEXT.

• Done. You are right, there were a lot of repetition. I removed a lot of them. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "According to the Bush administration, the training camp specialized in poisons and explosives." Is there a particular reason that this claim is attributed to the Bush administration at large?

• Done. Changed the wording of this. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Zarqawi is believed to have had two wives...": This paragraph needs to be rewritten.

• Done. The paragraph was written in a confusing manner. Re-wrote it. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. This paragraph is still weird. It says nothing about the first wife and the stuff about the second wife is pretty trivial. --Zvika 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

--Zvika 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Critique - Concerns. These are my concerns:

• Mainly prose issues. For instance, "Post U.S. Invasion of Iraq" is full of huuuge quotes. The same with "Alliance with al-Qaeda" and some other sections. I don't think that this is good for the article flow. There is almost no prose there! Just quotes! I don't think this is recommended for a FA. That is why I think that these sections need rewriting so that the quotes to be shrinked wherever needed or to be better incoroporated in the prose. Minor thng: I think that italics are not recommended in quotes.

Comment. I removed all the italics from the quotes. As for the quotes themselves, I don't think there is anything wrong with having them as they very nicely summarize parts of this article. If I had to remove the quotes, I will probably have to re-write the quotes with a citation on each sentence. So I think this avoids all this hassle. Mercenary2k 10:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Other incidents" is listy. It should be turned into proper prose.

• Done. Re-wrote that section into a paragraph format. Mercenary2k 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Reportedly captured and released" is far too stubby. Merge or expand.

• Done. Expanded the section. Mercenary2k 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "See also" section should be trimmed. This two existing links should easily be linked inside the main prose. So, why do why need this section? To relink already linked things?

• Done. Got rid of this section. Mercenary2k 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And something else I want to point out: According to FAC "Before nominating an article, you may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review." Peer-reviews are not a prerequisite for FA status, but wouldn't it be better if the editors of the article had got some review-feedback before coming here? I think they lost a chance to have the article already much imroved before coming here. Thanks!--Yannismarou 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. As fas as the italics are concerned I quote from MoS:

"There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later."

• Done. I removed all italics from the quotes.

Until this issue and the other more important issues I've mentioned are settled, I obviously object. By the way something is wrong with this nomination: When I try to edit it through WP:FAC I go to an empty page! I can only edit it through Abu Musab article. Please, fix this problem that may discourage other reviewers to edit.--Yannismarou 08:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Fixed this problem. Mercenary2k 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Turn to very weak object, because I still think that these successive long quotes in "Alleged links to al-Qaeda" interrupt the prose and in "Other incidents", instead of having this huuuge paragraph, we could have a nicer layout. But, of course, I admit that the article, in general, is well-written and well-citated.--Yannismarou 10:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Semi-Done. I fixed up the Other incident section by dividing it up into parts and I am gonna work on the huge quotes to trim them down. Mercenary2k 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) and I fixed up the long quotes section. Let me know if you are satisfied with this. Mercenary2k 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Great Work! Flubeca 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but reading this article more closely, I have to object. The biography section is a lot better (although see my new comment). However, the Terrorist and guerrilla attacks section is suspiciously short. Surely there are many more incidents outside Iraq performed by this guy. Some of them (the Radisson Amman plot) is even mentioned in the biography. Also I bet there is some stuff from the Afghanistan period. I still think this article can make it to FA, but I agree with Yannismarou — it should first be sent to peer review. --Zvika 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to some answer to Zvika's content remarks, before I decide if I'll change my vote to support.--Yannismarou 08:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I expanded his section about the wife and added more clarification. I expanded his terrorist attacks section by adding more terrorist attacks he was involved inside and outside of Iraq. I think all issues have been addressed. Mercenary2k 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclone

This is without a doubt a Self-Nomination, as I have put in a substantial nuber of edits to this article (currently my most editid article actually) along with Thegreatdr, just to make it clear. I'm nominating it as it has come a long way since it's successful GA review, with stylistic and content contributions, as well as additional sources. I believe that as a scientific subject that would normally be explained in an incridibly complicated and jargony manner, it is presented in terms that are about as simple as they can possibly get without loosing the encyclopedic standard of accuracy it deserves. It covers every significant facet of Extratropical cyclones, and the language used has a minimum of redundancy with an optimal flow. The images (and their captions) are informative and descriptive, and tie into their appropriate sections well. Those items of jargon which are nessecary have either been explained, or wikilinked to a page/section explaining the term. I honestly believe that it meets FAC criteria, and while there may possibly be one or two issues in places, I don't feel that there's anything there that needs significant and exhaustive work. Please accept this nomination, and I look forward to reading (and responding to (in words or in work!) your responses where appropriate. --Crimsone 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per above. CrazyC83 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments From a user who has very little background in meteorology.
  • An extratropical cyclone, sometimes inaccurately called a cyclone, is a synoptic scale low pressure weather system that has neither tropical nor polar characteristics, being connected with fronts and horizontal gradients in temperature and dew point otherwise known as "baroclinic zones". That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").
  • These are the everyday phenomena which, along with anticyclones, drive the weather over much of the Earth. I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?
  • I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.
  • I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.
  • The figure given by the study of the Northern Hemisphere may call into question that yielded by the study of the Southern Hemisphere. How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.
  • I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Gzkn 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").

Will get back to that one. Done

I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?

Done.

I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.

Done, except for that last sentence. I don't know how that could be better put, but I'll think hard about it.

I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.

Intense extratropical cyclones can be difficult to recognise apart from subtropical ones for lay people looking at sattelite photo's. I don't know about those in the US, though I've seen something similar ofer there, but on TV weather forecasts in the UK, a map like is often shown and would be recognised instantly for what it was. It's also taught in highschool geography. It's there really because it's the best and clearest descriptive image of what an extratropcal cyclone is.

Ah I see. Yeah, I definitely would not be able to recognize it as such (I'm from the U.S.) I'll leave this up to more meteorological minded people to debate. Gzkn 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.

It appears that the source for the southern study had been incorrectly read. What it actually says though is slightly more complicated. lol

I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Done - there was no valid reason for it.

Thanks very much for the input :) Crimsone 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was quick...I got interrupted in the middle of my reading so I actually still hadn't gone through the entire article. Will post further comments below:

- "warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

- Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

- This theory still retains much merit over continental landmasses. I'm assuming this means when the cyclones are over continental landmasses and not when the theory is...

- Might want to give the first names of Shapiro and Keyser and some information on who they are.

- A warm seclusion is the mature phase of the extratropical cyclone lifecycle conceptualized by Shapiro and Keyser after the ERICA field experiment of the late 1980s, which produced observations of intense marine cyclones that indicated an anomalously warm low-level thermal structure, secluded (or surrounded) by a bent-back warm front and a coincident chevron-shaped band of intense surface winds. Quite a long sentence.

- The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

- OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

- First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

- OK. All done for real! :)

Gzkn 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

Not really. I've removed it :) Done

Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

I think the only reason for it is to set meteorological terms apart from the text to avoid confusing the reader. Of course, it may not be nessecary, and I've not seen it elsewhere on wikipedia. I'll leave it to whatever consensus says. Italics have been removed for now to maintain consistency of style. Done

Quite a long sentence.

I agree. I'll see if it can be shortened. Split sentence into two sentences. Done

The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

I (or somebody else) will take a look. I've added sources for two of those aragraphs. For now, I've left a "citation needed" tag on the third in the hope that another editor might know the source. If not, I'll continue looking myself. Done.

OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

Cyclone is a bit of a 'catch all term. It's quite common in meteorology or common language alike in such a situation to refer to the full descriptive term at first to ensure that people are looking at the right thing, and then to use the general term from then on. Really speaking though, they are the most "basic" type, and so are sometimes incorrectly considered as just Cyclones for that reason. That's not what the article is doing however - after beign defined as "extratropical", each time the word cyclone is mentioned without a qualifying term, it refers to the type of cyclone the reader is reading about. To add "extratorpical" in every iteration of the word cyclone whould be quite tiresom on the reader, and make the subject appear (aesthically speaking) very complex.

First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

No, I must confess, I have no clue either. Maybe another editor will. a quick google tells me what they are. I will wikilink it. Done.Crimsone 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, red links definately are not disqualifying for featured article quality. Warm core is a needed article in my opinion, or an article distinguishing cold core/warm core systems. Maybe that red link should stay. -Runningonbrains 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Questions Why is there so much on cyclogenesis in the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section...seems out of place. Also, I removed the reference to Shapiro and Keyser as it doesnt even seem relevant, so that should no longer be an issue. -Runningonbrains 09:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually not had much to do with the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section other than sources and stylistic issues. Being part of the structure section, it's trying to explain how the windfield changes. Of course, that's hard to do without mentioning anything to do with cyclogenesis. There is a lot of repetition though, and so I am taking a look presently. I honestly don't know though what I can seperate out and remove, so I don't know whetehr I will be able to make any significant change to that section myself. As I said though, I'm taking a look now.Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After much effort, I believe I have now resolved this issue. Please feel free to say otherwise If you still see a problem with it. Crimsone 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Severe Weather section is quite US-centric (I removed a reference to UK tornadoes because it was incorrect, and the correct statement isnt very relevant). Anyone have any ideas/international examples? -Runningonbrains 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The widespread severe floods of Europe a few years ago may be an example. In terms of national examples though, the Great Storm of 1987 may be fitting, and readily available on Wiki, being particularly potent as an actual Extratropical cyclone causing widespread damage at enormous cost. Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added sourced paragraph on the Great Storm of 1987 to section.Crimsone 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could some of the out-of-place sections be split into new articles?? --SunStar Net 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see any out of place sections in the article. Could you please explain? Crimsone 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. About the italics: I was the one who added them, following the style used on Eye (cyclone). Mostly, I've italicized all meteorological terms that do not have an article, and that are defined within a section; the same is done in the copyedited sections of Tropical cyclone, and I'll do the rest of that article as soon as I can get around to it. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am satisfied with the improvements. Well done, everyone. -Runningonbrains 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Me, too. I'm too lazy to strike out my individual comments above though. :) The only thing I see is "£1.2 billion" could use the US dollar amount in parentheses. Anyway, congrats on a well written technical article that is remarkably clear to laypersons. Gzkn 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mind, but I've just saved you that particular effort and struck out the answered comments - just for clarities sake :) Crimsone 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks! Gzkn 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

Selfnom. This article existed, but I have pretty much rewritten it from scratch (re-using the nice first sentence). That's not because it was so terrible or anything, but it was basically unsourced, as well as a bit fragmentary and uneven. Bunchofgrapes drew the fine maps. Bishonen | talk 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

• Support I must say that I eyed this many times on RC patrol and wondered why such a well written article remained in user space. Well written, well referenced, well illustrated. Looks fabulous -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent. Borisblue 07:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • "squalid suburban slums surrounding" Made me want to support instead. :D
  • Question: would it make more sense to use "the city" instead of "the City"?
    • Comment The city of London and the City of London are not the same thing. Although the usage is odd, it is correct. MLilburne 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks. :) Ignorant American --> Gzkn 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Co-ordinated firefighting efforts were simultaneously getting underway... avoid forms of "to get".
  • In the event the medieval street plan was basically reconstructed, and still prevails today. Is there a missing comma after event? Also, should it be "after the fire" instead of "In the event"?
  • Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up. By the 1660s, London was by a huge margin the largest city in Britain, estimated at 300,000 inhabitants[5]—10% of the population of the entire country[6]—which made it the third largest metropolis of the Western world, surpassed only by Constantinople and Paris. This one is especially rambling: London, for seven centuries an old Roman settlement, had become progressively more overcrowded inside its defensive City wall, and had pushed outwards beyond it into squalid extramural slums and former manorial provinces such as Shoreditch, Holborn, and Southwark, and reached to physically incorporate the originally independent city of Westminster. Yikes! :) The City was then as now the commercial heart of the capital, the largest market and busiest port in the kingdom, dominated and politically controlled by the trading and manufacturing classes, including skilled craftsmen of all kinds as well as tradesmen and wealthy merchants.
  • The definition of "the City proper" could be moved up to where it appears earlier.
  • Put inline citations at the end of sentences.
  • A variety of unsourced statements. Some random examples: Pepys comments in his diary on how nobody was trying to put it out, but instead fleeing from it in fear, hurrying "to remove their goods, and leave all to the fire". Later, In the early evening, with his wife and some friends, Pepys went again on the river "and to the fire up and down, it still encreasing."
  • Consider putting the references into two columns.
  • Overall, very well-researched though! It's close to FA in my opinion, but not quite there.

Gzkn 08:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Unsourced statements: fixed. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, especially in the case of a day-by-day description largely based on diaries (Pepys' and Evelyn's); the date itself, which is always apparent from my narrative, stands in for a page reference to the diary. The date not only saves a footnote, but is actually better than a page reference, since the date is the same in any edition the reader may be using, and also much easier to locate on a webpage.

The footnote numbers already are at the ends of sentences where possible; but where clarity requres is, they're in mid-sentence. It looks ugly and I've tried to avoid it, but clarity is king, and it's standard academic practice, too.

I'm afraid I don't agree with the stylistic suggestions, as long sentences don't in my opinion equal "rambling" —roundabout, directionless, wordy , digressive, disconnected—sentences. For my taste, the sentences you quote seem directionfull and connected. I believe chopping them up to would result in poorer flow, not better. But that's me, YMMV. I don't personally hold with any mecanical embargo on the word "get", either. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

• Support I'll make the required edits to change it if there's consensus for what's mentioned above. SunStar Net 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An extremely impressive article. MLilburne 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: From the point of view of prose (tone, variation of sentence structure, variation of verbs, avoidance of serial to-be verbs, well-chosen adjectives, vivid description, structures that move the reader quickly toward points), this is one of the finest articles we've had on FAC. From the point of view of the subject matter, it is one of the most important events in London history, and yet it is covered fairly ("fully" would need a book). From the point of view of scholarship, the article employs up to date references, avoids the tired "it's all for the best" stories that riddle most accounts, takes account of the dispossessed and uncounted, and sets the central event in a local historical context. From the point of view of appearance on the page, it is illustrated well. Geogre 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just excellent. However, a few things need fixing. The date format in the first caption is different from that in the first para. The second para is crying out for one or two references. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "i. e." needs to be "i.e.,". A pity not to get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to run through it. Then it could be used as a model WP article. Tony 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping sombody would fix the mysteries of WP dating, yes. But I believe that crying sound you hear from the lead section is rather because any footnotes have been forced on it, considering that it summarizes stuff which is properly sourced below. The reason I put in any notes at all in the lead was that I thought some of the relevant notes below were awfully far away, mainly those in the "Deaths and destruction" section at the end. The question whether or not to have notes in the lead section is a vexed one, without consensus AFAIK. I believe, for instance, that Raul654 is on record recently stating that he thinks inlines are unnecessary in the lead. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

I guess the crux of the matter is whether the information is referenced further down. If so, not a problem. (I wasn't on the look-out when I read through the article, I must admit, and I was guided to make that comment because other paragraphs in the lead are referenced.) PS As usual, I didn't check who nominated the article when I made the comment: it comes up to your usual extremely high standards, and despite my quibbles, is a pleasure to read. Tony 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object; excellent article in almost every respect, but the date formatting really must be fixed. The first sentence, in particular, has such an absurdly convoluted form ("Sunday 2 to Wednesday 5 September 1666") that it's difficult to understand what it actually means on first reading it. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Krill, I actually don't mind it—this is a common British/Australian format for dates. Perhaps just adding another "September" after "2" might satisfy your misgivings? Or change to the "nd", "th" method, although I prefer the numeral alone. Tony 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another "September" would be an improvement (although, if we're going to do that, we may as well add the needed links for date preferences to work); should it have some commas in there, though (i.e. "Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666")? Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been fixed, so support from me. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, That logic works fine for a static article, but not for a dynamic encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You could be hit by the proverbial truck tomorrow, and years from now, all editors currently involved in the article could be gone from Wiki, leaving new editors to try to determine which statements are covered by that sentence and what was added in the interim. Citations should reflect the dynamic nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Begging your pardon, but that's just silly. Samuel Pepys is singular. There is only one work by him, and there is universal agreement on the text. I don't even think one needs to cite the diary at all, because anything attributed to Pepys is from the diary. There simply is nothing else, has been nothing else, and, if there ever is something else, it will be that which will require citation. Any scholarly book you read will simply refer to facts taken from Pepys, much as one would from Anthony Wood. The covering note is a belt with suspenders, and you are suggesting that it's just too insecure? Honestly, there is just one Pepys. Geogre 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm usually a completist when it comes to citations, but when it comes to Pepys' diary, citing a day is more than enough even for me. MLilburne 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Par for the course of Bishonen's work. Highly re-searched and well written. I don't understand the quibbles above as the article meets all criteria more than adequatly Giano 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An outstanding example of the type of work Wikipedia should produce. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent work, especially with the pending daughter article on the aftermath and rebuilding. (As an aside, I note we're missing an article on Wren's churches, which we should probably have...) Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We are missing it, but we do have Category:Christopher Wren London churches Giano 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Normally, I would ask that images be reduced in size and have a standardized size throughout, but something about this article demands a larger image in the lead and a mixture of others elsewhere. Superb.--MONGO 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article undoubtably meets the criteria. With more text than most it is very well written. It is well illustrated using free images (I'd like to see the pano image with a live link to the original or the image displayed on the image page nm I didn't see it, maybe it should be at the Commons though). It is well referenced and from a variety of sources. It has an interesting topic and finite scope - with only a few days recieving most of the coverage it has enormous depth while suggesting more to be written. I wish the opposers had commented (or edited their concerns), as oppose is such a strong term for what seem like minor points of contention. DVD+ R/W 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• An admirable discourse, as one Chief Secretary to the Admiralty used to say. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Outstanding article. If being hypercritical, it ends a little suddenly and could do with a photo of The Monument. --Dweller 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Super-duper Support, this article was the original reason I first viewed Wikipedia. It wasn't all that stunning, at the time. Nice job improving it :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I have done a light copyedit - not that it needed very much - and have left a few minor comments on the talk page, but this is superb. I understand that there is intended to be a separate "rebuilding of London" article, which explains why the last section is so short (and in any event, this article is about the fire, not what came next). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better: Outrigger and Aloan seem to have picked up all of the ce needs I noticed. Were it not for recent firefighter deaths in the USA due to arson, I would thoroughly enjoy reading this superb article. I still can't support this citation style, though (example, "This subsection is based on Tinniswood, 1–11, unless otherwise indicated.") This method leaves the article open to problems down the road if the original authors and editors become uninvolved, and new editors make unsourced additions. Some may argue we can always chech history or revert should that happen, but FAR experience shows this is easier said than done when the original editors go missing. At least three things could help resolve my concerns: 1) add at minimum a cite to each paragraph (using named refs, that will not overburden the article), 2) cite any data, numbers or extraordinary claims (example, I noted that London as the third largest metropolis after Constantinople and Paris isn't cited), and 3) expand these footnotes to be more specific to the text they cover, in the event sections or text are moved in the future (example: The subsection London in the 1660s is based on Tinniswood, 1-11, unless otherwise indicated). Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to be pedantic, but the featured article criteria seem to indicate you should judge based on the current state of an article, not based on fears about a hypothetical future state. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, not to be impolitic, but go ahead and object on your private criteria, if you choose, but they're not FA criteria. Your version of "copy editing" is demonstrably incorrect, and many of the changes you are applauding violate grammatical rules, stylistic best practice, and common sense. At least two of these should be defended. Geogre 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Drat, there goes the neighborhood: a perfectly fine candidacy turns argumentative. George, these copy editing "changes [I am] applauding" are curious, since I didn't specify any. When I came to discuss the ce issues I had seen in my partial read of a hardcopy the night before, they had already been addressed: please take up any other ce issues with Aloan and Outrigger. I have suggested some exceedingly trivial tweaks that will satisfy me that the current 1c requirement is met: it's hard to imagine why changing wording like "this section" to specifically say which section is problematic. Since the Hilary Putnam debacle, I try to avoid FACs which turn argumentative: it would have been a pleasure to support this article, I haven't lodged an Oppose, and the article is doing just fine without my support. Molehill --> mountain, not worth it. Best, and congratulations to Bishonen on a fine article, Sandy (Talk) 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazing that I could think that someone who offers no actual issues to improve and yet states the need for "copy editing," when what is being advocated is not copy editing but stylistic alteration to suit a personal and idiosyncratic vision is simply trying to mark territory and might lack an appreciation for fine writing. I must have been imagining things. Being ignorant of scholarly practice is well and good. Being ignorant of it and insisting against it anyway is another. I loathe the smugness of "copy edit" needed, when the person saying so could as easily do some work, the amazingly delusional "copy edited" when what has happened is a wikilink inserted (to something quite important, like "plague" or "year"), so when these two tendencies meet, it's not surprising that I'm viscerally offended, but what is surprising is that, for a person avoiding contentious FAC's, you seem to do so much to create them by using tracer paper sheets and failing to do any editing or accepting that substantives require discussion on talk pages. However, feel free to vote to oppose on "ce" grounds (or XP grounds or NT grounds), or, if you believe that the author is to be congratulated and that it is undoubtedly fine prose, you could vote to support and demonstrate how truly above the fray you are and how much less immature about these things than I am. <shrug> My version was that your "ce" concerns were irrelevant to FAC standards. Geogre 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your assertion that the "copy edits" don't amount to much is (really) disingenuous. A number of editors have/had improved the style. I've certainly seen the edit summary "copy edit" used loosely, but it hasn't been used loosely with this article, and it seems the nominating group here is sufficiently territorial to get worked up about it (as did I, when I saw all the reversions). So, I guess you can keep your sentence forms like "Flight from London and settlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II...", and "In the event, London was reconstructed...", and "...rumours arose of suspicious foreigners deliberately setting fires" (much scarier than the other rumours in which foreigners were accidentally setting fires). My opposition on this basis (and I never got far beyond the lead) would only be continuing my talk-page bad mood of the night before, so... good day. –Outriggr § 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And, if you confined yourself to removing passives, no one would have a word to say about it. However, is drought important? The "group" doing the nominating is one person. However, when people decide that, simply put, it cannot be passable if it has not been passed through their system (cf. how "the group" deals with others when they have objections; I'm right up above withholding support on stylistic grounds for an article slathered in Gibbonisms), then you might not be surprised to see some tight scrutiny in return. If you would actually go to oppose as opposed to merely not supporting on the basis of such trivialities, then I can at least be relieved of any charge of being the petty one. There are many nearly passing articles on FAC right now that can benefit from some significant linguistic surgery, but these get either no comment or the most bizarre of automatonic objections, while a masterful synthesis of a complex and often-told narrative in well written (brilliant) prose gets a flock of ducks pecking about (no point, but lots of hammering all the same), so that, too, would tend to increase rancor. Geogre 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • On your later points I agree. Perhaps you should just take the gathering "flock of ducks" as a compliment. I'll keep your comments in mind, and try to limit my future contributions—which likely will never be of the building-FACs-from-the-rubble variety—to stub-sorting and reverting vandalism. We can't have people pooling around quality stuff to make it even better. Sigh. –Outriggr § 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a fine piece of work and an excellent article. Greycap 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Seems I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'm concerned about the images: my screen is set to 1024 x 768 pixels and that first one takes up around half the screen when Firefox is maximized. Anything less and the page is really messed up. Consider using the thumbnail option and setting the image to 300 px or so. I'm personally a fan of consistent image sizes, perhaps one size for the landscape-oriented images and another for portrait-oriented ones? I also disagree with the presentation of the panorama: use of the regular image tag with the thumbnail option, at an appropriate pixel setting (e.g., 800 px), would be fine. My stance in general is that if someone wants a full image, they'll click to see. The article shouldn't shove images in readers' faces. On a related note: captions are tricky to get right, but the first image's is too much. Perhaps: "The Great Fire of London, by an unknown artist, as it would have appeared on the evening of Tuesday, September 4, 1666. On either end are the Tower of London and the London Bridge, and surrounded by the tallest flames, is St Paul's Cathedral." Other captions could be trimmed (and unnecessary bolding of "Firehooks" removed), and the image of Pepys moved up to "Firehazards." The Duke of York gets an image but not the new St. Paul, the Monument, or Wren? The prose seems flabby to me, at least in places, and I would like to see citations for Charles' proclamations, James' offer of the Life Guards and the like.--Monocrat 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The image problems you mention rather come down to personal computer preferences. I'm unsure what exactly do you mean by "flabby prose"? Finally, the new St. Paul's, the Monument, and Wren are nothing to do with the reality of the Great Fire of London they all came as a result of it it, but years later. This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years Giano 08:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years." Yet you discuss The Monument in "Aftermath." At the very least, I would like to see the portrait of Wren. Will there be movement on citations for the King's proclamations and the like?--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of prose really requires examples and a statement as to how widespread the problems are. WRT your comments on the images, please consider upgrading your computer. Tony 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the prose is fine. There is some discussion on the talk page, but the remaining issues are, to my mind, matters of style rather than substance. I have tried to tweak the image sizes and positions (although Bishonen won't like it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ALoan, thank you for taking care of the images. They're much better. But I'll confess that I perhaps erred in my suggestion for the panorama image. The wide-image tag might be better. I'm no longer sure and will henceforth defer on that issue.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I normally respect your points, but if you're going to tell me to upgrade my computer, are you going to tell that to every reader viewing from a public library or an older computer? What about accessibility for those with poor eyesight? "Consider upgrading your computer" is neither helpful nor especially polite. Your point about examples of the prose is fair, and I will heed it if time permits. Otherwise, disregard it.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I second ALoan's point about the prose. Yes, Mono, you're right—we need to be more inclusive WRT technology, and I probably shouldn't have made that comment. Tony 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] No one should tell anyone to get a new computer, but we have to be realistic about images, in particular, just as we have to be realistic about browser software. There may be people reading Wikipedia using Netscape 4.2 or Internet Exploder 3.0, and there may be people with low resolution CGA monitors, but we can try to make our articles accessible to those people without necessarily saying that our articles cannot be featured without being pleasing on those platforms. Monocrat has the right to wish the images smaller, but not, I think, to suggest that the article is not Featured quality because of the idiosyncracies of a public library. (user:Eternal Equinox famously liked to shrink images to look good on his Toronto school library computer, never mind what it did to every other computer.) No, we cannot, in my view, make the possibility of someone out there with lynx (browser) or a GOPHER program shape our requirements for an FA. Geogre 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, a lot of the people who are complaining about the prose are complaining opposite to academic and professional standards and finding themselves pleased by moving toward bad writing. There are people currently inserting passive voice constructions to make things "better." People are weakening verbs ("London experienced" is new; this is the pathetic fallacy at best and a weak indication at least), changing punctuation into what they think is the more correct but isn't (e.g. changing every "Charles's" to "Charles'"; despite popular misperceptions, it is absolutely not true that genitives of singular nouns that have an -s ending are without an additional -s; if people were to look at, oh, grammars, they'd find that the rule is far more complex than that and that it is hypercorrective error), and generally making the sentences more windy and weak. If anyone wants to assert that her or his knowledge of grammar and style is so good, so refined, and so offended by a well written article that she or he must object, then that is fine. All of these "fixes" are not fixes, and the people doing the complaining do not seem to actually go in and get ink on their fingers by doing improvements. Geogre 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; main issues cleared up. Thanks! Object. I'm not going to object over prose (it's fine, perhaps just at a higher register than most of us at Wikipedia are accustomed to) but I think it's a bit redundant in places. See the talk page for that. A couple possible issues:

• Why have English units before metric ones? Isn't England using metric these days? I see that Celsius takes precedence over Fahrenheit; that's good.
• Any citations for nearly all of "Tuesday" and the second paragraph of "Wednesday"?
• There are some Pepys quotes in "Sunday" that aren't cited. This is critical; any reason for the omission that I'm overlooking? There sure is. Duh.
• Should "Gluttony" be capitalized at the end?

Also, strong agreement with Geogre on the use of passive voice and genitives of singular nouns ending in -s. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer for the English (Imperial) units vs. metric is that.... Well, it's haphazard. Kilometres are rarely used, but tempratures are almost always in Celsius, for instance. Packaging is in grams, but pounds and stones quite commonly used for humans. I'd leave the units as they are. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: the UK has obligations under EU law to use the metric system, and is moving towards widespread usage of it. The metric system should be used first, with the US/Burmese/Liberian equivalent in parentheses. Tony 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody else feel there would something wrong and artificial about listing metric units first in an article about 17th century England? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do! The whole idea seems excessive to me. MLilburne 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps we should be more flexible: I see the arguments here. But please do provide a Celsius equivalent in parentheses. Tony 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article. Member N 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are still unreferenced paragraphs. Please reference them; once refs density is increased I'll be happy to support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Density of references?! Are there any particular facts in those paragraphs that you think must be cited specifically? Do you think they would not be found by looking in the general accounts that are cited numerous times already? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• General comment from nominator. Thank you very much all who've paid my work nice compliments. There are three unresolved opposes right now: Gzkn's longish list up top ("lot's of long sentences that could be broken up", "rambling," "a variety of unsourced statements," "avoid forms of 'to get,'" etc), that I've partly fixed, partly replied to, and not heard back about; Monocrat's "flabby prose", dislike of the delimitation of the content and images, and request for more specific citations; and now Piotrus' wish for greater density of references altogether. That makes, basically, two opposes based on poor prose plus poor citing, and one oppose based on poor citing alone.
  • Prose. I don't know what to do about the imputed rambling and flabbiness, especially since the way of writing is singled out as excellent by some supporters. I see little middle ground for pleasing both groups.
  • Inline citing. The non-footnoted facts in each section are cited through a "covering note" of the form "The section "Wednesday" is based on Tinniswood, 101–10, unless otherwise indicated," now more specifically phrased, according to Sandy's suggestion. Only the sections that have any otherwise unreferenced facts get these covering notes. I suppose Piotrus and I just don't entirely agree about what is and isn't referenced, not that I mean to be difficult. I bet some of the disharmony is Pepys' fault. As indicated in note 14 and discussed above,[4] [5] [6] stuff that's shown in the text to come from Pepys and that's clearly dated by inference, doesn't get any further referencing than that. Large portions of the section "Sunday" are straight from Pepys—I hope it's apparent and delimited which bits they are—and therefore that section is rather lightly footnoted. I don't see footnote density as a beauty per se, but anybody who believes it would be informative can easily add five or ten notes stating that various facts and claims in "Sunday" come from Pepys' entry for Sunday. It doesn't have to be me, it won't take any research or anything. Further, I don't quite understand Piotrus' request for a minimum of one note per paragraph. Notes are to do with facts, paragraphs are to do with layout. And, well, I've just never seen a one-per-paragraph "rule" before this discussion. It was formulated a bit further up by Sandy, who did not choose to oppose over it, but Piotrus does. Incidentally, for the general point Sandy makes about the problem of the "covering note" in a dynamic editing environment, I understand it, but they're kind of an emergency measure. If I didn't have them, and also wasn't ready to take even agreed-on historical facts as established, which Monocrat, Gznk, and Piotrus seem to imply I shouldn't (if I understand them), I'd need rather more than one note per sentence. At that point it might be time to stop talking about "prose" at all, and to envisage FA texts as mere grids or warps for a rich, deep weave of footnotes. Wikipedia's best?
  • Featured? This drift towards deeper and deeper layering of FAs in the paraphernalia of scholarship is one of the reasons I'm no longer any too invested in having this article Featured, so from my POV none of the above is much of a big deal any more. (Though it will be or it won't be, in either case quite without reference to my feelings, as is proper.) Another is that I foresee this article will be difficult to maintain at FA quality, and it's not a job I'd apply for. It's a popular subject that all the British and many other anglophones probably read about at school, and it's likely to always attract plenty of editing: improvements, but also drive-by additions of speculation, misunderstanding, and random, unreferenced factoids. The "main contributors" to FAs seem to be expected to keep the articles FA quality (at least this expectation is frequently reiterated on the various FA and FAR talkpages), and yet these contributors are particularly susceptible to charges of "ownership." The tightrope act of fixing up without offending and without getting called too many names has gone well enough with "my" other FAs, with their odd and to most people uninteresting subjects, but with this one it's already not looking like my kind of job. I don't think I was born with the tact for it. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, I apologize again for any insult I may have offered. The prose is quite good in general. I merely think there are a enough instances requiring clarification to make me unable to support the article. The image concern has been addressed. While I'm not keen on the use of such a broad covering note, especially since you're drawing from a specific edition and volume of the The Diary, I haven't made it an issue. (Perhaps you could note in the References section the relevant range of pages from the copy of the Diary you're using? See Template:Cite book for how to do that.) I've only asked for two specific citations (and a few for the several instances of the King's proclamations), as opposed to Piotrus' desire for greater density of them. It seems like I've heard elsewhere that human teeth can survive extreme heat, but I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Since their ability to do so seems important to the hypothesis that casualties from the fire were greater than believed, I think a request for a citation is reasonable. I suspect that the King's proclamations and the Duke of York's offer of the Life Guards comes from Pepys. In that case, the covering note is sufficient for those.--Monocrat 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • (Outdenting.) Sorry, no, I'm afraid I won't give the page range for Pepys' diary entries for September 2– 7, 1666, as I don't think the result would look professional or creditable for us. I suggest you do it, if you think yourself a judge of the effect, or somebody else—it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit. I certainly don't regard this as "my" article, and the information will be very easy to find, once you have the book. (I'd have to go back to the library for it just like anybody else.) Why does it have to be done by the person who's convinced it's a bad idea? Did you click on my links above? They lead to where Geogre and MLilburne explain what's wrong with giving page refences to Pepys. Giving the page range you request would look rather like giving a page range for Exodus from a particular edition of King James' Bible in the context of discussing Moses. (=It would look bad.)
  • Since the Duke of York's offer is part of a narrative where Pepys tells the King about the fire, and note 14 says "All... details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to", the Duke's offer is indeed from Pepys' diary, yes. I certainly don't want anybody to doubt it, so I've put in a note refering to Pepys' diary entry for Sunday, September 2, for that whole paragraph. If it makes people long for similar references for all events involving Pepys, they should just add them.
  • No, Charles' proclamations aren't to do with Pepys, they're covered by the covering notes for the sections in which they appear. They're also official state papers, it's not like there's any room for doubt or disagreement about them. In fact they're mentioned at some length in all my print sources. Anyway, I think I do cite them.
  • The entire bit after note 47 (as of this moment) is referenced by note 48. In other words it's from Hanson, including the details about teeth being the most heat-resistant part of the body, and about the 1666 London poor mostly not having any. I'm not a fan of the common Wikipedia way of referencing whole chunks or paragraphs by putting a note at the end (or sometimes the beginning) of them, as I think it's a bit sloppy and can easily leave areas of ambiguity. (I'm fussy about clear citing, believe it or not; I'm not actually indulging some whim against scholarly citations here—they're pretty much what I do for a living—only resisting what I see as empty formalia.) I did think it was clear enough in this instance, as the passage starts with Hanson, is devoted to describiing Hanson's unique theory, and keeps quoting and mentioning him. It's all on pp. 326–33 in Hanson's book, as stated in the note. If you want me to do more about the teeth, you'll have to tell me what.
  • Please take the time to read the discussion here, and the article as a whole narrative, and I think you'll find your objections are in fact already met. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

The trouble with covering notes is that sometimes, just sometimes, it's unclear exactly what is covered and when. (One moment of unclarity and spoil moments of otherwise crystal clarity.) I'm unfond of covering notes generally, and I personally disagree with you that numerous footnotes are or would be a bad thing in this context, but that really is neither here nor there vis-a-vis my objection. Thank you for sorting out the citations issue. The point about the page range was a suggestion only. Disregard it as you see fit. Now, the only bone of contention between us lies in a few elements of unclear or confusing prose.--Monocrat 08:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And so you will remain with an "Object" because of you wre confused by some of the prose? When there is a problem with reading, one must always ask, "Is it me, or is it the author?" If it's the former, you will be unable to find a rule to explain the problem, and no one else will notice it. If it's the latter, you will be able to explain coherently and concisely what the problem is. The author, trying to please readers, has to ask, "Is it me, or is it the reader?" At this point, she looks somewhat absolved. If you "cannot support," then that is not the same as lodging an "object." The citations you seek are in some cases really counterproductive. Citing page numbers in Pepys? If a person had cited, in the text, "Matthew 6:1-12," I would find "[edition] p. 632" silly, if I ever even looked at the note. I would grab a Bible or go to Wikisource and look at Matthew, chapter six, not go to a library or bookstore to hope to find the edition the author used. A singular work without any textual variation is itself. At any rate, there is a big difference between being constructive and being picayune. Geogre 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Outstanding FA material in my opinion. For the life of me I don't understand what all the fuss is about the prose - "Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up"; surely forcing a short choppy sentence style runs counter to "brilliant prose", of which this article seems to be an excellent example? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

This article is a product of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, the same team that assembled Featured Articles Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, Psittacosaurus, and Albertosaurus. It is certainly factually accurate: it uses citations from published paleontological papers: from Marsh's original description in the 1800s, to Fastovsky and Weishampel's 2005 plate analysis. It's well referenced: we generally used professional papers for the citations instead of web-sites. The article is neutral: it presents various theories, specifically in relation to the dermal plates, without giving undue weight to discredited ideas.

In the article's last Featured Article candidacy, several objections were raised. These have been addressed:

"The article is too listy"..."more prose would be advisable"

• The list of species has been converted to prose. The sections that were short have been filled out. One list of four items remains, for clarity.

"The article needs to be expanded, I'm sure there is more information available."

• This article is as long (or longer) than Featured dinosaur Articles Psittacosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Velociraptor. For comparison with other animal articles which are Featured Articles, it is also longer than Emu, Marginated tortoise, Cane toad, Green and Golden Bell Frog and many others.

"The popular culture contains a whole lot of trivia"..."The "Popular culture" section is a third of the entire article"

• There is still a pop culture section. However, this section comprises only 1/10th the length of the rest of the article. Actually, it was never a third of the entire article. All trivia has been removed; what remains are important pop culture references: Gary Larson's Far Side comic, which gave the animal's tail its scientifically recognized name, film appearances in King Kong, Jurassic Park, Godzilla, etc.

"Was stegosaurus really the shape indicated in the scale picture?"

• Yes it was.

"The sections feel all together too short"

• Sections that were short were expanded; a few were merged.

"footnotes follow punctuation, please read WP:FN"

• These have all been corrected. New footnotes added also follow the convention. (Self-nom)Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Support a team of people did alot of tweaking after the last nomination by me failed, and I think the summary above is good. (I couldn't have said it better myself......)Cas Liber 00:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent dino article and has all the ingredients to be a fine FA. All the objections made at its first nomination have been properly addressed. ArthurWeasley 00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. WikiProject Dinosaurs members include actual vertebrate paleontologists, PhD students, and amateurs. These individuals have come together to create this article. (for the record, I am a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rlevse 02:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Jay32183 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral→Support. I'm only voting neutral for now so that my concerns will be heard & acted upon. Okay, firstly, this is a good article. However it needs some pruning. I'd like to see the opening 3 paragraphs combined into 2 paragraphs, as 3, although acceptable, is kinda weird considering that the info can easily be moulded into 2. Next, there are too many 1 or 2 line paragraphs throughout the article. Either combine them with the others of it's kind or expand them a bit. Lastly, The sentence "Juvenile specimens of Stegosaurus have also been found. One sub-adult specimen, discovered in 1994, is 4.6 metres (15 feet) long and 2 metres (7 feet) high, and is estimated to have weighed 2.6 tons while alive." needs a bit of reworking. It's too short to be alone in a paragraph & where have the specimens been found? If these are addressed I'll vote support... Spawn Man 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(OK, I've added a bit. Is it long enough yet?)Cas Liber 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Yep - 3rd para slots nicely onto first come to think of it. Consensus?) Cas Liber 04:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There is still too many 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Merge these with other paragraphs or expand them. I feel that 3 sentence paragraphs would suffice. This article about 90% FA quality... :) Spawn Man 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Could you be more specific about which 10% of the article you feel could be improved upon? Mark t young 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated above, just the short paragraphs around the show.... Spawn Man 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • • Changed to support. Article is now practically devoid of 2 liners... Spawn Man 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Interesting read well put together I have a couple of concenrs with the descriptions this sentence in particular the bold section The tail appears to have been held well clear off the ground, while the skull of Stegosaurus was positioned relatively low to the ground.[3]. Then combine this with the next/opening sentence of the following paragraph The skull of Stegosaurus was long and narrow and held probably no higher than 1 m (3.3 ft) above the ground suggest using a comma(,) instead of two "and" also while the preceeding sentences is positive and certain as to the head position, this one is vague. Gnangarra 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(You're right. It is (was) a bit clunky. This is as a result of 2 paras coming together without a bit of tweaking. I have tweaked it now to make it read more smoothly and remove reduplicated bits.)Cas Liber 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support change from neutral to support Gnangarra 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article has imporved greatly since it was previously submitted for FA status. I personally feel that it is one of the best dinosaur articles of Wikipedia, and that all the contributions made have created an article that is both factually correct and accessable to a non-professional audience, but does not suffer the bain of "dumbing-down". Excellent work. Mark t young 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Tremendous improvement since the last FAC. Very well written aticle. Hello32020 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great to see one of my favorite dinosaurs featured in such a high quality article :). Gzkn 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Great article. I have only a couple of nitpicking issues, not serious enough to oppose, and easy to fix. Neil916 (Talk) 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. Neil916 (Talk) 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please review the "Units of measurement" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The article should have its units of measure spelled out (metres rather than m) in the text, but conversions in parentheses should be abbreviated. At times, the article switches between metric and U.S. measurements (tons and grams used in the same sentence in the description section). Make sure all the measurements have conversions for metric-impaired readers like me.
• Beware of switching back and forth between British English spellings and American English spellings. The majority of the article seems to be British English, so beware of spellings like "centimeter" (in the Plates subsection of the Palaeobiology section). Unfortunately, as an American, it's much easier for me to spot British spellings in articles using American spelling than vice versa, so I can't come up with any other examples.

I believe Mark t young has fixed all of the mixed measurements, added conversions, and fixed the mixed British/American spelling to British English. Like you, I don't spot Americanisms very easily. But it appears to be all fixed now. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a few more, which I've hunted down myself, and I'll take your word on the spelling issue. Neil916 (Talk) 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I did an automated check on words like "color" and "armor". The only instances found were in the titles of books (which obviously shouldn't be changed) and in the name of the state of Colorado. "Meter" also shows no results. Again, thanks for the fixes. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice article.--Rudjek 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. —ExplorerCDT 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bette Davis

Self nomination. I think the article is thorough and equal to the standard of other featured articles for performers in the arts. It is rated as "A" class on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography assessment scale, and it has been selected for inclusion in Wikipedia:Version 0.5 and also rated as "A class" on their assessment scale. All information has been carefully sourced - I've checked and double-checked everything. I look forward to comments. Thanks. Rossrs 01:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Support Well written and researched.
  • Some statements could use citations; do you still have easy access to all those books in the references? Also, when there's a citation at the end of the paragraph, but not for any of the other sentences, does that mean the whole paragraph comes from that one source? Anyway, some examples:
    • She auditioned for admission to Eva LeGallienne's Manhattan Civic Repertory, but was rejected by LeGallienne who described her as insincere. (have expanded LeGalliene's comment and added citation)
    • She later recounted her surprise that nobody from the studio was there to meet her; a studio employee had waited for her, but left because he saw nobody who "looked like an actress". (covered by existing cite, but I have changed the page number as this point and the "I thought I would die" quote were on different pages, but part of the same text)
    • She recalled being hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline, only to be rebuffed by the director William Wyler, who loudly rejected her with the comment, "What do you think of these dames who show their chests and think they can get jobs?" (added a citation for this + also expanded this section slightly)
    • The director, John Cromwell, allowed her relative freedom, and commented, "I let Bette have her head. I trusted her instincts." (covered by existing citation)
    • E. Arnot Robertson wrote in Picture Post, "I think Bette Davis would probably have been burned as a witch if she had lived two or three hundred years ago. She gives the curious feeling of being charged with power which can find no ordinary outlet". (covered by existing citation)
    • Hastings urged the court to "come to the conclusion that this is rather a naughty young lady and that what she wants is more money". He mocked Davis's description of her contract as "slavery" by stating, incorrectly, that she was being paid $1,350 per week. He remarked, "if anybody wants to put me into perpetual servitude on the basis of that remuneration, I shall prepare to consider it". (covered by existing citation)
    • She won a second Academy Award for the role, but Selznick ruled her out of contention for his film, deciding that she was too identifiable as a personality, and that the character should be played by a lesser known actress. (changed this to something more succinct - ie Selznick didn't want her. and provided citation)
    • She commented that she had a "nerve" playing a woman in her sixties, to which Laughton replied, "Never not dare to hang yourself. That's the only way you grow in your profession. You must continually attempt things that you think are beyond you, or you get into a complete rut". (covered by existing citation)
    • The last two paragraphs in Success as "The Fourth Warner Brother" need some sources.
    • Criticised by Jack Warner for her tendency to cajole and harangue crowds into buying, she reminded him that her audiences responded most strongly to her "bitch" performances. (covered by existing citation)
    • Davis later commented, "There are few accomplishments in my life that I am sincerely proud of. The Hollywood Canteen is one of them." (covered by existing citation)
    • The first paragraph of Personal and professional setbacks
    • Davis later explained her actions with the observation, "when I was most unhappy I lashed out rather than whined." (covered by existing citation)
    • Davis described the script as "the best I ever read" and during production, she... (covered by existing citation)
    • She said later that the role "brought me back from the dead"... (I can't find a citation for this so have removed it)
    • The director, Robert Aldrich, said that the actresses were each aware of how important the film was to their respective careers and despite their mutual dislike worked together in a tense but professional atmosphere. (quoted Aldrich and provided citation)
    • Davis was pleased, and commented to an interviewer that for the first time, her grandson considered her to be "cool". (couldn't find that exact quote, but rewrote would I could find, and cited accordingly)
    • Several of Davis's friends commented that Hyman's depictions of events were not accurate; one commented "so much of the book is out of context". (covered by existing citation)
    • Reviewers such as Edwin Schallert for the Los Angeles Times praised Davis's performance in Mr. Skeffington (1944), while observing, "the mimics will have more fun than a box of monkeys imitating Miss Davis", and Dorothy Manners writing for the Los Angeles Examiner said of her performance in the poorly received Beyond the Forest, "no night club caricaturist has ever turned in such a cruel imitation of the Davis mannerisms as Bette turns on herself in this one." (covered by existing citation)
  • Is it really necessary to have all those "Davis recalled later" statements? In my opinion, it might increase readability if sentences like, "She recalled being hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline..." were changed to "She was hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline...".
  • I'm fairly new, so I'm not yet very familiar with WP policy. Is the lead in WP articles exempt from inline citations? I've seen some other articles also go without any in the lead. Gzkn 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say how much I appreciate the level of detail you have gone into. It makes it much easier to respond to -so thank you. With regards to the statements you have listed, I will go back over the article and ensure that everything is covered by a cite. Usually, if there are a number of points all covered by one cite, I cite it once at the end of the applicable section. I guess this can be confusing for anyone looking back over it, but I don't know how else to do this, without ending up with 4 times as many cites, as I currently have used. If there is a cite at the end of a paragraph it should be safe to assume that all points, even comments or quotes from different people, are covered. I've included page numbers so sometimes there is a range of pages from which the total information is drawn. As I said, I'll double check, but I'm 99.9% sure I've picked them all up. I don't know if that's the right way to do it or not, I just can't see another way that is not highly cumbersome. To answer your question, yes I own all the books cited, therefore checking is no problem, and it will just take a little time.

I've gone through and addressed each of the points you made regarding citations. I have commented after each point. Rossrs 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Yeah, I think this is more of a problem with Wikipedia's way of citing more than anything else. While citing everything would be desirable from a verifiability standpoint, and leaves it less ambiguous to readers as to what exactly is cited, it definitely leads to huge readability issues. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bette recalled ... yes there are a few of those, and probably too many. I can easily rewrite them, but the difficulty in that is that they then become written as facts. As written, they are Bette Davis anecdotes, which may or may not have been exaggerated for dramatic effect. Example - the comments on the Dick Cavett show about "being laid on a couch and testing fifteen men". There may be some basis of truth, but Davis obviously expected a laugh from the way she presented it. I'll trim down those that I can - most of them should be quite easy, but I think there will be a few that should stay as they are. The example you gave is awkwardly written, I agree.

I have rewritten the section you mention, and I think it's greatly improved. I have left some examples because I think they are necessary, but please let me know if you disagree. Rossrs 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that cites are not desirable in the lead section because it spoils the "look" of the section and not necessary as it is intended to be a summary of the article that follows. Therefore nothing should be in the lead section that is not in the body of the article, where it should be cited. Let me know if there is anything written in the lead that you are specifically unhappy with, and I will attempt to address it. Rossrs 11:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've seen leads both ways, so that's why I asked. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's my understanding, too, Rossrs. Everything in the lead should also be in the body of the article. To source it twice seems distracting and overkill, IMO. Jeffpw 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'll be the first to support this remarkable article! A well-done article on a magnificent lady. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• One comment, though. I don't believe that Bette's name needs to be bolded in the first sentence of the Background section. It only needs to be bolded in its first occurance in the introduction. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should include her whole name in the lead to read Ruth Elizabeth Davis known as Bette Davis. Then the first sentence of the Background section would begin "Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis, ...". Sorry to be picky. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'm pleased you like the article. I've taken your suggestion regarding the name, with a minor variation, as per the Boris Karloff suggestion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I think because the stage name is so much more famous than the birth name, it should go first .Rossrs 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support and commment. Very nice article. I just think the last paragraph in the lead is two short and should be merged or transferred in the main article.--Yannismarou 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an afterthought doesn't it? Maybe it should be removed from the lead. After all, it's just one of many forms of recognition she's received since her death, albeit a particularly credible one. It's mentioned in the article so I'll remove it from the lead, and if anyone thinks it should go back.... Rossrs 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the manual of style, articles about American subjects must use uniform American English spelling. Andrew Levine 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand this and tried to comply but it looks like I missed some. eg I used "color" rather than "colour", "favorite" rather than "favourite" and "Defense" rather than "Defence", but because I'm Australian and spell British English, I don't necessarily know every word that should have an American equivalent spelling. If you can give some examples of where I've gone wrong that would be appreciated, because I thought I got them all, and to my Australian eye it all looks fine. Obviously it's not. Thanks. Rossrs 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've started to go through and made a lot of changes in the first few sections (for example -ise to -ize, theatre to theater) and will have the rest done soon. Andrew Levine 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you. Whew, there really were a lot! I'll go through and see what else I can see, now that I know what I'm looking for. Americans just love using the letter "Z" don't they? ;-) Rossrs 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the rest of the article, and changed what I detected as incorrect. Hopefully there shouldn't be too many errors still hiding in the article. Rossrs 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just paste the entire text into a Word document, change your SpellChecker preferences to AmEng, and run it. Windows ... Start --> Control Panel --> Regions and Languages (then adjust two of the three tabs). Tony 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Tony! I'll be using that in future. It took no time at all and I found 13 typos and spelling problems - and this is after two people had copy-edited it. Now the spelling must be right! Rossrs 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Only two trivial problems: 1) it's a bit lengthy (but that's no big deal because the information there seems vital and the writing seems focussed); and 2) You could have used 'op cit' and 'ib id' when formatting the sources, instead of repeatedly giving complete bibliographic information for the same books. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Orane. Would 'op cit' and 'ib id' still show page numbers? Rossrs 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Instead of:

• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 254-255. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, p 241. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 246-247. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.

you'd have:

• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 254-255. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, p 241.
• ^ ib id, Spada, pp 246-247.

(Or you could omit the op cit/id ib and just write the last name (an example of this is the Mariah Carey article).)

Like I said, however, it's rather trivial. You don't have to change it if you don't want to. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will change it at some point because it may make the article easier to edit, but as it's not a major issue I'll leave it until I have a little more time. Rossrs 11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - Really good. It's verifiable, some of the prose made me sad at times, and fair use rationales for images. Wiki-newbie 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

West Wycombe Park

I started this page a couple of years ago when I was very new to Wikipedia (another name ago) since then it has been edited by many others. A month or so ago I completely re-wrote it, expanded it and referenced all the facts, and took out those which were dubious or just completely unfounded. So it's sort of a self-nom. Surprisingly almost unknown outside of it's immediate locality, it's an interesting house architecturally as it is mongrel of many styles carried out in a theatrical way for a very interesting and notorious man. It seems to me to meet all the criteria for a featured article. Giano 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I read the first two sentences and found a problem. "The first impression of West Wycombe is that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto, or perched as an aristocratic summer retreat looking over the sea in the Crimea." The first impresion by whom? Why should it be situated in the hills? Just scrap this sentence, too much personal opinion for my tastes. Joelito (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed both offending sentences, allthough I think "should be situated in the hills of the Veneto" could be re-instated as the reasoning is explained later in the text, and the lead is merely summarising what is cited laterGiano 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have given this one a light copyedit too, although some infelicities no doubt remain for the eagle-eyed, but this is an excellent article on a beautiful house. I'm sure Giano will find a citation for the "first impression" - it is a quite extraordinary villa to find near a lake in the English countryside. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• An excellent article overall (as if there were any doubts regarding Giano's writing), but a number of little things that need to be cleaned up:
  • The image stacking is so dense as to cause gaps to appear in the text; some of the images should really be interleaved onto the left margin.

I don't see any gaps Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The "References" section needs to be properly formatted and alphabetized. (And why the strange "20.VIII.06" date style? I don't believe I've ever seen Roman numerals used for months, only years.)

Numerals for months is standard British legal formatting, but if you hate it you can change it Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The footnotes should be cleaned up to have proper spacing and punctuation; in particular, "p57" should be "p. 57" or "57", and so forth.
  • The "See also" section should be eliminated; most of the links are already present in the text, and any that aren't can probably be worked in without too much difficulty. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have eliminated the "see also" as suggested, the only problem with that is that people often come along don't know such pages as List of films shot at West Wycombe Park exists, don't bother to read the page and then just insert their film in the wrong place, usually in my experience when a film is shot somewhere like West Wycombe it means there is one distant shot of the house a mile away for 2 seconds, and the interiors are all in a studio in America, which is why I seldom insert such trivia myself, and like to have a separate clearly visible page for such information - but anyway that is my reasoning but I have removed that section as that seems to be the majority view. Giano 08:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that either of those lists really needs to exist; they seem rather like unexpandable trivia to me. But that's not really in issue with this article. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The images look ok on my screen, but I'm sure they can me moved around a bit. I have hacked the references and see also about a bit. A patient person still needs to add dots and spaces in the notes. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted the footnotes, I think they are all OK now. Giano 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine now, as do the images, so support from me. Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I'm always happy to see articles about architecture at the FA level, especially the ones written by Giano. This building was unknown to me too until this article, which is not just about architecture, but also history, and biography. DVD+ R/W 18:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not good enough. Not nearly. Not for a while. Sorry. Policratus 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Crossing out comment from indefinitely blocked troll.[7] Bishonen | talk 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

• • In what way is it not nearly good enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor formatting, too verbose, etc. Policratus 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear, not a lot we can do about that then, never mind some you win , some you loose. Giano 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• You mean lose, not "loose," I think sir. Policratus 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sure! Giano 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Lovely article on a house that may be lovely (I'm at work and my company blocks the pictures, alas).

• I, too have an issue with the sentence "The first impression of West Wycombe is that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto." It throws the reader a bit. Perhaps a solution would be to have it read "Built in the style of Palladio's Venetian villas, West Wycombe Park gives the impression that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto." Better? Maybe?
• Just curious, is much known of the manor house that this replaced? Should an earlier history of the park be added?

I'll cnhange it as per your suggestion Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is known, just what is stated, probably another boring square box I expect

• "The Greek Doric of the house's West portico is the earliest example of the Greek revival in Britain. Only Lord Burlington's Chiswick House, or Mereworth Castle, attempt to so faithfully replicate the classical ideals" - should be cited.

Sentence has gone Giano 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Kirill on the images. I would suggest moving three of the image as follows:

• Frescoes in the Villa Farnesina moved to just above the paragraph starting with "West Wycombe has been described...".
• 1781 view of the south façade moved to the left.
• Wycombe's Blue Drawing Room ceiling moved to the left as well.

I think moving these images would solve the problems of the gaps in the text.

I don't have any gaps in the text, it all looks fine to me - I don't know how to place images, I just stick them in and hope for the best. Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe it's my browser. I'm using Internet Explorer...if you'd like, I can shift the images a bit and see what happens. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, like Kirill, I think the See Also section can be incorporated into the article.

I've absorbed the see also and deleted it. I don't think it was a good idea as the two pages are directly concerned with West Wycombe and will never be searched for elsewhere, but if that is what people want so be it Giano 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend for you to do away with the links, just place the garden one in the garden section and such. Indeed, they are important and should be in the article, just not a section to themselves. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Giano, despite my picking and the picking of others, this is a fine article. You certainly have blessed us with marvelous articles on architecture (this one is no exception!) and I thank you for introducing me to the fascinating Dashwoods. They've somehow slipped under my radar and I will certainly pursue some research on them. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can dispense with see also, I don't think that was part of my input, I may be wrong, I've forgotten Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I tweaked one pic a bit and now it looks fine to me...I hope it works for everyone else as well. Marvelous work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Quick Comments I was only able to skim through, but it looked good in general. I also made some light copy edits.
  • Only Lord Burlington's Chiswick House, or Mereworth Castle, attempt to so faithfully replicate the classical ideals. Is Mereworth Castle another name for Chiswick House? If so, it doesn't need to be linked again does it? If not, than it should probably read "and Mereworth" without commas.
  • "John Donowell" is linked three times (twice in close proximity).
  • Perhaps "Greek and Roman mythology" can be changed to "Greek and Roman mythology". Gzkn 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I've addressed all of your points and fixed. I've removed the offending sentence about Chiswick and Mereworth becaise I'm not sure I 100% agrree with it - so it's out. Giano 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe...thanks for the talk page message :). Read the article over again and changing to Support. Gzkn 10:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very fascinating read from start to finish, and another great job. You're a machine! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see some personality in the writing for a change; "his risque devotion to that goddess of love" alone makes it worthwhile. I'd like to see an inline reference for the "Interior" section though (I assume it is from Knox). Yomangani^talk 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article, good writing and images. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support with a couple of comments. Two images - Image:Palazzo_Chiericati.jpg and Image:Farnesina_frescoes.jpg - severely overlap and crowd each other into the text at resolutions at and above 1600x1200. The text is over-linked in places; I don't think satellite is what you meant to link to, and why link things like guns, champagne, prop?? Lastly, while the writing is very good and surprisingly engaging, there are a few instances of editorializing, eg "Palladio would have placed the main entrance on the first floor reached by an outer staircase", "brutally cut", "the atmosphere...is not overpowering", etc. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the links, as a non native English speaker myself "prop" was a word I had to look up after living in England and speaking fluent English for three years so I have left that linked for the benefeit of others like myself, regarding other links, I beleive they are supposed to be linked. Palladio would have put the entrance on the first floor, so I have left that, but reowrded it to be clearer. The images appear fine on my screen, and I have fixed them for two editors who commented above - I don't know what to do about your problem, could you have a go yourself, that may be easier, I don't really understand pixels and sizes etc. The satellite link is what I meant to link to, isn't that an idiom in English too? Giano 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Check User:Opabinia regalis/Sandbox - the images now arrange properly on my screen, but I didn't want to bork the formatting for more common resolutions. Yes, smaller subsidiary buildings can be called satellites, but the article satellite is about celestial bodies. I don't really see the benefit in linking to a totally different use of the word just because they're metaphorically related. "Prop" maybe, but... guns? Pineapples? Antique? There's no need to link these, because the only thing about them that the reader has to know in this context is the definition, and these are not uncommon terms. I've seen the delinking folks remove things like "X is a protein found in plants". Opabinia regalis 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a look, and there are no white spaces but the problem ism the exterior section instead of beginning with a nice clear shot of the exterior, now begins with an interior shot (ie Frescoes in the Villa Farnesina) there is so much text above, cannot it somehow be absorbed in that, as it it on other screens. I have delinked pineapples etc etc, allthough I suspect someone will link them all back within a month. Thanks for trying with the images. Giano 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Way too minor to fuss over, but bear in mind that the exterior section doesn't begin with a nice clear shot of the exterior for users browsing at 1600x1200 or above. I'm not sure how big a population that is overall. Opabinia regalis 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support but: 1) Architecture: Exterior: 2nd paragraph: There are references to "this" side and "this" portico; I see that it's the "west," but it seems like we're talking about a specific design crisis/time that isn't clearly enough delineated for me (was this a particular time? was this part of his opening of bidding/redesign?); 2) Dashwoods: Lax sexual morality: It's an interesting time, and, in fact, sexual morality was not very lax except among the rich at the time; in fact, many moral crusades were underway, including George Whitfield and the Methodist awakening, so someone like Boswell could be doing fairly offensive things and feeling no guilt, but the nation itself was growing more scanalized, and therefore things like the Hellfire Club were political statements either against the new "dissenter" inspired religious movements or as a demonstration of how the rules wouldn't apply to nobles; my point is merely that I'd love to see "lax standards" removed or conditioned. A great article with a very full narrative of both the technical, historical, and family stories that have gone into one of the most visible and frequently seen examples of 18th century architecture. Very well done, well researched, and well presented and organized. Geogre 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Geogre - I understand your first point, I've addressed it but please have a look and see if I have understood you properly - the sexy bit I have fixed - I could make that longer in explanation but the architecture is sexy enough for me Giano 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Really nice fixes, Giano. No hesitation on my support. Geogre 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another great article by an author is who is rapidly becoming one of the most prolific FA producers in Wikipedia's short history. Normally I scan articles for their content, but this drew me in because of how well-written it was. Kudos to you, Giano! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

---

Lead(II) nitrate

Note: WP:FFA, has been on main page.

Last year, this article was promoted to FA (see previous FAC). A recent Featured Article Review was not attended well, and resulted in a demotion of the article because concerns were not addressed. Now, with the help of other editors (Tony being very helpful for final smoothing), the article is, in my humble opinion, at least back at its previous FA level. Since, the FAR process can only demote and not promote, I hereby propose the Lead(II) nitrate article for FA again. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

• Support. (Nominator) Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
• Oppose Problems mentioned at FAR not fixed. Referencing is not FA standard, too many short paragraphs and not comprehensive. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out opportunities for further improvement. Specifically, would you please be so kind to indicate in which way referencing isn't FA-standard, so that we can actually address the issue? Wim van Dorst (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

In what sense it is not comprehensive? What would you like to see included? Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a few unreferenced paragraphs. The FAR says why the article is not comprehensive. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• All sections are well-covered by appropriate references. There were two paragraphs in the Aqueous chemistry section with information that in the field of chemistry is considered basic knowledge. These are now also supported by appropriate references.
• The insufficient comprehensiveness as pointed out in the FAR was taken already handled by 135 edits to the article, enlarging the article by several topics and a sizable amount of information.
• If you have additional concerns, feel free to point these out well. If not, I hope you will adjust your vote. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

• Support. Well assembled and manicured article that illustrates the scope of inorganic chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom as concerns have been well-addressed. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I would like to see this more comprehensive, is such possible?-
  "The production process, from lead and nitric acid, is chemically straightforward." being part of "History" section makes me wonder about the details to this - How was production in those times different from our own times?
  lead poisoning is a very large problem (isn't it?) - how does this compound fit into that?
  --Kiyarrllston 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Kiyarr. I have copy-edited the history section to better point out why and how the production process is so straightforward then, as it is today. And yes, lead poisoning is a major problem, that's why the Safety section explicitly indicates Lead poisoning to be the main article on the issue, and why half of the whole safety section is about that topic. The comprehensiveness of the article is well discussed in the FAR. Experts in the field indicate that there just isn't more to tell about this compound. I hope the copy-editing and the explanation here are helpful enough for you? Wim van Dorst (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - The article is improved in an impressiv manner. Some of the conserns about comprehensiveness is still not met. The weak oppose is because it is a point it not easy to find information about the compound, I can't tell where to find it. But it is produced bags up to 1100 kg of the compound for commercial sale. It have to be more to tell about the production. What countries have highest production/Where is it produced? How is it produced (don't tell me it is made tons of lead nitrate in the lab for commercial sale)? It is to easy just to say it isn't more to tell. The article, like it looks today, it is more a GA than a FA. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seconded comments from Grrahnbahr--Kiyarrllston 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is no large scale production of lead nitrate. Lead and lead compound producers in China and India typically offer the products in 25kg bags; no serious offers of larger bags can be found. It really is produced in small batches only, using the technology pointed out in the article. I hope the you can agree with me that is is hard to give a reference or hard information about something simply not existing. In my humble opinion, the article well states that the production is small-scale only, and in this aspect is therefore as comprehensive as can be. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

• In my humble opinion the article is not comprehensive and does not look FA. With my humble opinion I heartily agree with "It have to be more to tell about the production". --Kiyarrllston 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Boldly, I have copy-edited the 'Preparation and production' section to show all information about production. Note that I have not found serious offers of bulk (i.e., 1000 kg bags or larger) lead(II) nitrate, just the obscure Chinese or Indian supplier's hype that they can 'supply any quantity required'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose Now Weak Oppose After all changes, ultimately became Support - I believe that this article does not reach FA standards under attribute 1. IMO, the writing can be improved, and some of the chemistry content is questionable from a technical perspective. There are some minor formatting errors that should be fixed (and as I have edited v. little of wikipedia, I'm not sure how this is done), and sections that seem to add little useful information. There is repeated content, and content that I don't understand - and yes, I am a chemist. Having said that, I think the basic content is OK, but not FA standard. Some specific examples:

• Initial sentence is "Lead(II) nitrate is the inorganic salt of nitric acid and lead". Firstly, 'inorganic' seems an odd modification for the term 'salt', which is defined in wikipedia as the product from the neutralisation of an acid and a base - but lead isn't a base. It also seems strange to indicate how it can be made in a definition, rather than focusing on what it is. A better start might be "Lead(II) nitrate is an inorganic compound comprising one lead(II) cation for every two nitrate anions".

• Done: Copy-edited the lead, with better definition. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Next sentence is "It is a colourless crystal or white powder and, unlike most other lead(II) salts, is soluble in water". This sentence can be simplified be rearranging it to "... and is soluble in water, unlike most other lead(II) salts", improving the writing. The assertion that it must be solid is also technically incorrect. Maybe "Under standard conditions, it is a colourless crystal or white powder which is soluble in water, unlike most lead(II) salts."

• According to guidelines, the lead must be a summary of the article body. Therefore details, such as 'standard conditions' need not be repeated here. The by-phrase 'unlike...' is at this place in the sentence for emphasis. For clarity, I have added 'it', although I doubt that it is an improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
• I still think the emphasis leads to an inelegance of language, but it isn't important enough to be worth debating; however, I still object to the statement as overly broad. Considering further, my problem is the 'is', because it makes it like a definition. What about something like "As a solid, it occurs as a colourless crystal or white powder...", or maybe "It commonly occurs as ...", or "It can be found as ..."? By the way, I agree that the extra 'it' isn't an improvement, and would have no problem with your removing it. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done as recommended, on both points. Thanks for making the point clear. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Properties in box at RHS. The unit for the litre is L, and thus the mililitre is mL - not ml as is used here. Solubility box at bottom of section is mis-formatted, as data for 'in alcohol' and 'in methanol' do not align to the corresponding statements in the LH column. Stating that it is 'insoluble' in nitric acid is also too broad, as the extent to which solid lead(II) nitrate would dissolve depends on the concentration of the nitric acid. Data for in 'alcohol' and 'methanol' are surprisingly different, even if we ignore the fact that methanol is an alcohol (as the link provided proves) and assume that 'alcohol' is meant to mean 'ethanol' in this case (1 g per 2500 mL in ethanol but 1 g per 75 mL in methanol is a big difference).

• Of course the unit for litre it not L: we follow SI units here, where lowercase 'l' is the proper unit. I adjusted the link for the 'alcohol' solvent to better indicate that ethanol is intended, and adjusted the vertical alignment. And yes, it is a big difference. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Neither l nor L are "units", they are symbols for the liter, and both are acceptable according to SI guidelines.[8] That said, I think most people nowadays prefer L to avoid confusion with 1 or with I. --Itub (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I am an Australian, and was honestly unaware that l was widely used in Europe - a student using 'l' in place of 'L' would typically be corrected here. Given that, as Itub has noted, both are accepted symbols under SI, I withdraw this objection. However, I still much prefer L, and have noted its use on other wikipedia pages. Perhaps some general consensus for wikipedia would be helpful? For that reason, I have raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals EdChem (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the lowercase is definitely preferred in Europe. Given the spelling of the article (Br-Eng), I would prefer 'l'. Details can be found in Non-SI units accepted for use with SI. For various sciences, e.g., chemistry, there is already some consensus defined in wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style_guidelines. Going for WP:CHEMS (short for the Chemicals wikiproject is indeed a good idea. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Wim van Dorst, will you please point me to a refernce on the solubility data in methanol and ethanol? EdChem (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was this very old edit of mine that added the info. I'll try to retrace the exact ref. Note that I wrote 'methane': the methanol was a later correction by someone else. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
• That wasn't hard to find: first ref added in that edit: the MSDS by Iowa University. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

• I suggest that we remove the information about methane or methanol until a decent source can be found. The Iowa State Uni MSDS actually says "methan", which is truncated and unclear. The solubility difference of methanol v ethanol has my chemical instincts twitching, and the possibility it means methane - a gas at RT - has me even more concerned. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your asking specifically for corroborative data got my attention, and I searched some more: The MSDS van Sciencelab and the product spec of Jinyuan Chemicals provide similar or equal information. So although I don't have any real scientific citation, I think the data is not wrong, and therefore I left it. If you have contrary info, feel free to edit. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

• Having now seen something that does unambiguously provide those data for EtOH and MeOH in your links, I am OK with the information being left in. EdChem (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Supplementary data page has essentially zero data - why is this included? And anyway, surely some of the thermodynamic data - like enthalpy of formation and molar entropy of the solid - are known.

• The datapage is not the FA candidate. It is intended as standard data collection point for information which would clutter a compounds article. Please be referred to the WP Chemicals style guide and Chemical Infobox directive for further details. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Your point about the supplementary data page not being the FA candidate is well made, but I am still left wondering why the tables include links to pages with no data are provided (like the thermodynamic properties), or where no meaningful data could be provided (like NMR spectral data for something like lead(II) nitrate - I realise you could get a lead-207 spectrum, or maybe a nitrogen-15 spectrum, but is that what this NMR link is meant to mean?). EdChem (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is part of the Wikipedia Way: you include all relevant links. Although the currently nearly empty datapage does not provide extra data yet, in the future, those tables may be full and complete. And those datapages (created by a template) are part of how information is provided on chemical article pages: see wikipedia:Chemical infobox for further details. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• OK. I have some issues about the infobox, but they aren't relevant to a discussion of the FA candidature of the lead(II) nitrate artivcle - so I'll leave comment on this topic on the infobox talk page. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, Aylward and Findlay's SI Chemical Data lists an enthalpy of formation for lead(II) nitrate - would this be an acceptable source for adding the value into the supplementary data? EdChem (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it would: go ahead. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Will do when I have my copy and the computer at the same place at the same time! EdChem (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aqueous chemistry section: The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO₃)₂ solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution. The links in the formula Pb(NO₃)₂ go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions. The start of the following paragraph is repetitive: "Apart from lead(II) nitrate, lead(II) acetate is the only other common soluble lead compound. Nearly all other lead compounds are insoluble in water, even when coupled with commonly very soluble anions" - the fact that most lead(II) compounds are insoluble is already stated in the lead-in, and the solubility of lead(II) acetate seems of peripheral relevance, unless connected to the importance of lead(II) nitrate for metathesis reactions given there are comparatively few alternatives. Further, lead(II) chloride has an appreciable solubility at RT (unlike the article implies), and the crystal formation characteristics of lead(II) halides seem irrelevant to the aqueous chemistry of lead(II) nitrate - and isn't 'can be beautiful' a judgement, as opposed to a more factual 'have been described as beautiful [ref]'. In the final part of this section, the concentrations of the added hydroxide are irrelevant to the chemistry being discussed, and should be removed - the same chemistry would occur with other concentrations. There should also be no 'surprisingly', as this begs the question of 'to whom?'. Simple statements "Lead(II) nitrate solutions form basic nitrates when hydoxide solutions are added. The mixed salt Pb(NO₃)₂.Pb(OH)₂ predominates to the half-equivalence point, with Pb(NO₃)₂.5Pb(OH)₂ then formed until well past the equivalence point. No simple Pb(OH)₂ is formed until the pH exceeds 12." are sufficient.

• Done as recommended: removed repetitive text, toned down solubility stated, added additional details, removed judgmentalw words, replaced with the objective use of the effect, removed irrelevant numerical data, rm vague words. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Some good changes, but some bits not done: Firstly, as I wrote, "The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO₃)₂ solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution." This raises two points: (1) I am uncomfortable with neutral species equations such as the one used in this case - they mislead students by obscuring the chemical process occurring. Both this fact, and my point about colour, could be avoided if a net ionic equation were used: Pb²⁺(aq) + 2I⁻(aq) → PbI₂(s). Has there been discussion about using such equations? If there is already a wiki-consensus, then I'll defer to it, but equations like this one should IMO be discouraged. (2) The statement about the similar reaction on grinding in a motar and pestle - how about adding a comment that the resulting colour is much paler, due to the presence of white solids in the resulting mixture? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• (1) and (2): Done as recommended. There is no consensus on how reactions are written, but your accuracy on this specific one is appreciated. Other context may, however, lead to different outcome, e.g., when the solids are reacting. But that is a beside, better discussed in WP:CHEMS. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• I also commented that "The links in the formula Pb(NO₃)₂ go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions." If there is no lead(II) ion page, I suggest no link at all - having a link to the element page for lead is misleading, as that is not what the formula means. If a lead link is maintained, then shouldn't the nitrate link actually be a nitrogen link and an oxygen link? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are different views (see talkpages/archives of WP:CHEMS) on wikilinking formulas and reactions. My personal view is not to obscure reactions with wikilinks that (as you point out) might even direct you wrongly. So with pleasure, I added this extra adjusted to the same sections. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• I have followed advice (below) and boldly made some changes to this section of the article, presenting the chemistry in a way I believe is now accurate. Any comment? EdChem (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Crystal structure section asserts "All N–O bond lengths are identical, at 125 picometre", but the bond length is given as 127 pm in the supplementary data.

• Corrected in the article, based on the reference of dr Walker, who copy-edited this into the datapage. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Decrepitation part needs change. Article states "When heated, lead(II) nitrate decomposes to lead(II) oxide, dioxygen and nitrogen dioxide, accompanied by a crackling noise referred to as decrepitation. But, linked wikipedia page for decrepitation states "Decrepitation is the breaking of a substance usually accompanied by the emission of a crackling sound". Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what 'breaking of a substance' means, it isn't clear whether decrepitation is the sound or the 'breaking'.

• Done as recommended: Decrepitation is the noisy falling apart of crystals under heat. I copy-edited the Oxidation and decrepitation section to better point this out. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Preparation section: not sure what 'chemically' is doing at the start of "Chemically, the compound can be obtained ...". Later, it is not clear why the low solubility of lead(II) nitrate in nitric acid means that the anhydrous crystal is necessarily obtained, rather than a hydrate.

• Done as recommended: removed 'chemically', as well as 'anhydrous'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Applications re-states thermal decomposition equation (redundant), and asserts it allows for 'pure' dinitrogen tetroxide, which is a nonsense given its equilibrium with its monomer - an equilibrium stated in the article! Further, NO₂ / N₂O₄ mixtures undergo photochemical processes - such systems, when cooled, produce a blue liquid (dinitrogen trioxide), for example.

• Done as recommended: removed 'pure' from the section, twice. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

• Also, "Due to the toxic nature of lead(II) nitrate, it has limited industrial application" is questionable as there are plenty of industrial compounds which are much more toxic. Perhaps this means to say that lead toxicity to humans means there is a preference for using alternatives, but that isn't what is actually written.

• Done as recommended: copy-edited the section to better phrase the development. Explicit ref added. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

I could probably go on, but I hope this provides enough to make the point that FA is not presently justified, and to indicate some areas for improvement, separate from those previously raised. Please note that this is not intended to be critical of those who have worked on the article to date, but that there is room for further improvement. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, and for making your first ever edits under this user name to place your point of view in this discussion. Feel free to join us at WP:CHEMS if you wish to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia articles about chemical compounds. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I definitely frown upon commenting negatively under a sock puppet account, I have taken your recommendations seriously, and enhanced the article in line with your recommendations, or even as recommended. Most issues you brought forward were, in my humble opinion, not major blocks against FA status, but indeed are appreciated improvement recommendations. Please be invited to add more to wikipedia, per Physchim62, especially here with lifting your Opposition, or otherwise pointing out which issue would otherwise still prevent re-promotion of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Physchim62, thanks for the comments. I have used wikipedia a lot, but not edited much before. Thanks also for the suggestion to join WP:CHEMS, although I have no idea how to do that. Help! EdChem (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Aha, this is the easy part: just go here and add your name to the list of participants (table format). And then be bold and start editing articles. Pick any article, e.g., one from the worklist of on the WP:CHEMS page. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Done - I have joined. EdChem (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wim van Dorst, as I have only one account, and have only just dipped my toe into the wikipedia editing pool, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet account. I started with a chemical topic as I felt that I was on safe ground (knowledge wise). Instead of just jumping in and changing things I consider chemically wrong, I voiced suggestions. Believe me when I say that I am not trying to rain on your parade of pushing this article back to FA status - to me, this article had a variety of small flaws and inaccuracies. It is, in my opinion, getting better; however, I will not remove my 'oppose' just because you want me to; I will do so when I believe that a change in position is warranted. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Typically, a new user starts with editing an article in a small way, not by commenting on FA candidates. However, your recommendations were (as pointed out) appreciated. So keep going until convinced of FA-quality yourself. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• I guess I did start with a jump into an unusual place - but it was this discussion that moved me from just using Wikipedia to actually editing. FYI, I did feel bitten (or at least nibbled), and that you were trying to force me to remove opposition. I think we are now working well together, so I'm just adding this so you are aware how I felt - whether you choose to give that any thought is your choice, of course. Anyway, I'm now changing to 'weak oppose' as I think it is nearly there, and I'm going to try a bit more boldness. EdChem (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments As prompted by nominator, here are a few comments (beware, I'm far from being an expert in chemistry). I'll maybe add more comments afterwards.

• Can we have a 3D visualization of the mocule?
• Why is "probably carcinogenic to humans" in italic?
• Can we have a picture, for example, of the "precipitate of the bright orange-yellow lead(II) iodide"? That would be nice.
• The link "lead oxide" needs disambig.
• Should 27 picometre and 127 picometre be in plural?
• I think a citation is needed for "Because of this property, lead nitrate is sometimes used in pyrotechnics such as fireworks."
• You talk about taste in the article, why not put it in the property box?
• Sometimes you use abbreviations and sometimes not (25kg, 100 gram).
• Maybe be more specific when saying "in classrooms". Universities?, highschools?, all over the world?
• Shouldn't "mole/l" be "mol/l"?

Randomblue (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Randomblue, some good comments. FYI, a 3D visualisation isn't possible as lead(II) nitrate isn't a molecular material - it is ionic, and hence represented by a crystal structure such as the one included in the page. The picometre question really points to the inconsistency of unit usage - these should be pm. But, you're right, if spelled out, they should be pluralised. On the "mole/l", you are correct that the abbreviation "mol" should be used, but this drew another point to my notice - we have g•mol⁻¹ for molar mass but g/cm³ for density - shouldn't we be consistent and use g•cm⁻³? PS: This is another argument for 'L' not 'l', as it allows for mol•L⁻¹. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional to EdChem's comment:

• 'probably...' is italic, as it is a formal category as defined by the IARC. It needs standing out, so it either italic or quotes.
• The picture of PbI2 would go to the article of PbI2, not here.
• Plurals of units should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. Corrected.
• Citation is added
• The format of the Chembox is strictly defined, after due discussion in WP:CHEMS and WP:CHEMBOX. Taste was decided to not be included.
• Full text should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. 25 kg corrected.
• Classrooms all over the world, where solubility is being explained, with my personal experience both in high school and in university. It is so striking that is an old-but-goody. I don't how to be more specific than 'classrooms'.
• Should be mol/l. Corrected. And I implemented the mol/l elsewhere, too, to make units usage consistent. (ps. when used, it should be &middot; (·), not &bull (•).)

Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

• Support An already very good article has improved significantly. I still don't think the concerns about comprehensiveness are addressable, as there is no evidence that the information requested actually exists in a way that we could use. Some of it may be trade secrets, or be buried in primary sources such as patents or financial reports. As an example, while trying to find more info on production, I found some old patents, but there's no way of using them without risk of OR. For example, there's no way of finding out whether the methods described in the patents are actually used in the present, unless an industry insider tells us... Would anyone call the Coca-Cola article non-comprehensive because it didn't include the secret recipe? ;-) --Itub (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Follow up "Each month, thousands of tonnes of lead nitrate solution are produced and shipped by tank trucks throughout Europe." - from (already a reference) Product catalog; other products. Sidech. Retrieved on 2008-01-0 - ... this seems to speak to a rather great use of this product - I would like this article to be comprehensive in terms of this. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the nominator in regards to this.--Kiyarrllston 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• The remark on the website had caught my eye too, but it did not give me a reliable impression: world's leading bismuth producer with a production of 1200 tpa stating that a hazardous by-product amounts to tens of thousands of tonnes per year? Therefore I personally contacted the responsible marketing manager of Sidech, asking for more details, both on the production process (if there is one) and on the amounts mentioned on the website. As this website is the only one I could find suggesting anything else than 25kg bags, I thought it worthwhile to follow-up. Didn't get an answer to my email yet, but will act on its outcome. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

• Thanks as ever to Wim for his perseverance (and expertise) in getting to the bottom of industrial chemical matters. To put this supplier's claims into perspective, I have found one statistic (Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.): in 1974, the U.S. consumption of lead compounds (excluding pigments and gasoline additives) was 642 tonnes. It's an old statistic, to be sure, but it doesn't really fit well with "thousands of tonnes per month" of lead nitrate being shipped across Europe: if anything, consumption of lead compounds has dropped over the last thirty years, not risen! Physchim62 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate both your efforts. I thank you for your responses.--Kiyarrllston 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree the article have been greatly improved, it is a lot of work done there. According to this site "Sinosale" it is possible to order "woven bags , 25kgs , 1000kgs , 1100kgs net each or according to the user¡¯s requirements ." I don't know how serious this site is, since they also sell caps and stuff, and I have not tried to order. It is some minor issues:

• The article doesn't tell whether it occours naturally or not.
• Use for pyrotechnics should be mentioned under applications.

Another exempel of an article that is good written, but don't meet the FA criterias because it is not enough available reliable sources, is Ununoctium. This article could be compared to that one, but I'm pretty sure it is even more difficult to get good sources at the other article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Sinosale website is exactly one of the abovementioned Indian and Chinese chemicals supplier where things on offer are not necessarily realistic. One shouldn't be surprised to learn that filling a 1000 kg bag is actually being done by emptying forty 25kg bags into it.
• Both edit recommendations are now included in the text
• The Ununoction article is interesting, but that one isn't at FAC. I agree it will be hard to improve that article to FA level. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
• PS. No feedback from Sidech yet. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

• Follow up Wim van Dorst, another query: When talking about the lead halides, the article states "these crystals appear suddenly, when the solutions dip below the recrystallisation temperature". Recrystallisation temperature seems wrong to me - it is a term I have only seen used in relation to metals and alloys, not cases like this. Would you please provide further comment, or consider a change to something like "... suddenly, requiring only a nucleation site once the temperature of the solution has fallen sufficiently for the solution to be supersaturated"? EdChem (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-edited as recommended: good improvement! Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

• Also, please check formatting on crystal structure and complexation headings - they display in a way that seems out of place on my browser, given the location of the image of the srystal structure. EdChem (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's typical for wikipedia articles, and all other articles on websites: one cannot fix the layout so that it always works optimally: there are always people with other browsers and setting combinations. For reference: a shot of my screen. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

• OK, thanks. Following all of the work that has been done, I am now comfortable with the content of the article, and am changing my position to Support. I have modified the start of my initial comment to reflect this fact. EdChem (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The article has good information; however, the prose does not stand out as "brilliant." Also, the article is somewhat on the short side, with several short paragraphs. Perhaps the lead could use some inline citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you would be so kind as to point out which prose isn't up to your expectation of brilliance, then the remark would be addressable. The article is indeed smaller than the current trend to make article well over 50k. Since the subject is a small subject, the size of the article is intentional. And according to wikipedia standards, a lead text does not have citations, unless the subject is controversional. The intention of the lead is to give a summary of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Copy-edited the lead again, to be a good summary of the article, which has changed since the beginning of this FAC. Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Much improved since the FAR. My support will have to be a weak one as I know nothing of the chemistry. On the History and Safety issues, it seems to meet 1B. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support if the following are improved:

• referencing information in the infobox like names, solubilities, densities, crystalline structure
• add thermodinamical data to infobox: including enthalpy of formation
• melting point in the infobox reads "470 °C (Decomposes above 290 °C)" at least a note describing what id decomposes it into, and how was the 470 found out (maybe under high pressure?)
• sabout production:add selling price, and how much of the lead consumption goes through the nitrate; also explain why is it advantageous to synthesize and distribute lead through the nitrate as opposed to other compounds (solubility in water and price?)
• article has ONLY 1 picture! surely there can be more pictures added, such as in the complexation section, or in the toxicity one
• aqueous chemistry and appication sections are under-refferenced
• external links section is a bit long for the length of the article

Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I do agree with you when it comes to referencing in the infobox. It's not added in the FA about different elements. I can't say I see the point of giving up a price for the compound, since it can go up and down. The price is interesting for some elements (gold and platinum f.ex). When it comes to meltingpoint for the compound, I strongly agree it have to fixed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• so how do I know that for example, the names aren't just made up? the comment about the price was more because of a comment in the history section(something like the total workdwide production of lead is x tonnes, implyinig that everything goes through lead nitrate. and I didn't ask for a specific price, but for a very orientative one - more like the order of magnitude)Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Nergaal, Grrahnbahr, Thanks for the support and improvement recommendations. Your points: Referencing in the chemical infobox is not standard, and it would definitely mess up the layout. But it is a nice idea, that we should discuss in the WP:CHEMS (the defining wikiproject). Most items, such as the names that you mention, are explicitly referenced in the text body. --- The thermodynamic information (and similar advanced information) is by definition of the chembox part of a secondary datapage. And EdChem added that info a week ago. --- Pictures are a nice addition: the article has two, btw. Other encyclopedic pictures I haven't found, and simply for illustration is not correct (see WP:Images, section 5.1). --- Also the length of a particular section is in itself not negative, is it? I moved several of these links to their proper places are references. --- And I added a good reference (Thanks dr Walker) to the aqueous chem section. --- Pricing is typical for laboratory chemicals: 100 to 1000 dollar per container (100-2500 g) and variations thereof (simply googled that). This isn't a commodity product with a global market, so I agree with Grahnbahr that adding this kind of info to this article is not helpful. --- The melting information is indeed doubtful, although often published. Old publications indicate only decomposition about 470 °C (often copied into the 'melting point field') and recent references also show decomposition (sometimes 'flash point') at 290 °C. I made the article show no melting point, and a range of decomposition at 290-470. So I think all you requested points have been implemented or otherwise addressed. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

• Since the reaction with iodide is discussed more or less extensively and the reaction is visually attractive, perhaps a picture such as [9] would be nice to have (of course, a free version would have to be found). However, I don't see this as a requirement. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support (contributor) I think the article covers the material as comprehensively as is possible from normal library sources. I have searched several databases of millions of articles, and found only a handful of relevant ones (which have been included). Regarding length, this is a narrow topic, rather like Jordanhill railway station, so it should be short and sweet! Walkerma (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Fin Whale

This article originally attracted my attention when it was linked from Wikipedia's main page relating to recent news about Iceland resuming whaling activities. At the time, it had been listed as a featured article candidate (link to previous nomination) very prematurely. The article has subsequently been overhauled and refined and has been peer reviewed (link to most recent peer review, link to older peer review). I believe that this article now meets the standards of featured articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice, I Like!. - Tutmosis 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support To continue with Tutmosis's statement, high five! -- Kicking222 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

high five! great success! - Tutmosis 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The only issue I noticed was that the foreign language links were out of order (they were ordered for the editor rather than the reader), but I used AWB to fix that for this nomination. Jay32183 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great job! Very comprehensive. The first paragraph of Taxonomy and first paragraph of Habitat and migration could use some sources though. Gzkn 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the moment, until the following issues are resolved: → Support
  • Per WP:LS, lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate. For example, there is a statement that fin whale is the second largest whale and living animal, but it is unsourced. I can't find it anywhere in the body. There are also similar sentences in the lead section that should be sourced.
  • Need some copyediting by someone who is not familiar with the subject. For example, in the following randomly picked sentences:
    • The family Balaenopteridae is believed to have diverged from the other families of the suborder Mysticeti as long ago as the middle Oligocene. → found a weasel word, unsourced, missing commas and redundancies.
    • On a global scale, populations of the three groups rarely mix, if at all. → is a bit odd and I think "population" is already in plural form, cmiiw.
    • Subspecies in the northern hemisphere are known to reach lengths of up to 24 metres (79 ft), and the Antarctic subspecies reaches lengths of up to 26.8 metres (88 ft),[6] although the overall average size of males and females is 19 and 20 metres (62 and 66 ft), respectively. → it is a confusing long statement. The conjunction word although there makes me confused about the comparison between maximum length with the average lengths. Also why are males and females average size compared with the maximum lengths in the first clause of that statement?
    • It was hypothesized to have arisen because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and circles to the right often while at the surface, presumably above a prey patch (circular feeding). → weasel words and unsourced speculation statement.
  • Per WP:MOS#Date_and_time, please remove these vague words to state a time: at present, to date, in recent years, etc.

— Indon (reply) — 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply: Taking your points in order:
    • Lead section has been sourced.
      • Sourced and corrected the evolution statement, but no commas are necessary in that sentence. Removed weasel word.
      • Simplified that statement.
      • Split the long confusing sentence into two easier-to-read sentences.
      • Not sure what to do with that one. Nobody can explain the asymmetric coloration, though several theories exist. The article has three sentences explaining this, and the citation (Tershy, 1992) is at the end of the third sentence.
    • Removed vague references to time.
  • Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks for your help. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's good enough now. However, I still don't understand the sentence that begins with It was hypothesized.... Perhaps, my lack of English or I can't understand it because I'm a non-specialist reader of the subject. But I changed my vote. Good job ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I rephrased that sentence to hopefully make the point a little clearer. See if it's better now. Neil916 (Talk) 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I see what you meant. Perhaps, if the sentence is rephrased as this: "There is an hypothesis among scientists that the asymetry is due to evolution, because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and it often circles to the right while at the surface above a prey patch.", it would have better reading, IMHO. — Indon (reply) — 10:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive and several of Indon's suggestions have been applied to the article. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of the USA

Self-nomination. Current GA on Girl Scouting in the USA. Had a peer review but little input was received, although what was suggested was taken in and improved (Wikipedia:Peer review/Girl Scouts of the USA/archive1). Darthgriz98 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose with a general read I found a few significant issues.

• American Heritage Girls (AHG) started in 1995 by some people concerned with the current program of the Girl Scouts. needs a cite or it reads as a POV statement on who these concerned people are, also is this still the "current program" or has that changed in the last 10 years.
• History lots of facts and figures but only one cite doesnt appear to support stats being quoted as it quotes 3.3 million members article quotes 3.7 whats the source for this.
• Activites - section uncited, maybe a news/media reference
• Awards and badges - section uncited, should be a hand book that could be quoted.
• Image:Gsusa.JPG is of an indentifiable but unknown person no release for use of their image

I'll have a more in depth read over the next couple of days and list any further concerns. Gnangarra 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Re: Gnangarra the image was an upload by the subject of the image (who is also the FAC nominator) and is a PD-self release. I don't understand what the problem here is. Please elaborate. Rlevse 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, the girl in the picture is indeed myself, I give release and will give release on the page if need be. I have also reworked the American Heretiage Girl part it now is POV free and cited. Darthgriz98 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The reason for noting is that the image appears to be a candid shot not a staged shot and as such author(photographer) of the image wouldnt normally be the subject of the image. Gnangarra 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• She added "The subject gives her release to be on Wikipedia freely as the subject is the author." Is this sufficient? I'm fairly certain the photographer gave her the photo to keep herself.Rlevse 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• the copyright license(PD) says I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. If shes the creator/author of the image then she can release the image as PD. In this case she's the subject, not the creator/author as such she doesnt have the right to release as PD with such a statement Gnangarra 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• So she should get the photog to release it and state that in the tag? Rlevse 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• {{norightsreserved}} would be ideal if possible with a release statement from the photographer, otherwise {{Fairuse}} with a statement similar to this, The subject of the photo is myself (User:Darthgriz98}, and the photographer took the photo at my request, while I have released the image I am unable to indentify the photographer to obtain a Public domain release, that photographer may choose to exercise their rights. Gnangarra 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have cited the 3.7 million, the article before that cited that there were 3.3 million Scouts in the 1990's, so now there is an official GSUSA statement from 2005. I have also cited the awards and badges. Darthgriz98 15:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, to see your working so diligently in addressing concerns, Gnangarra 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the tags. Darthgriz98 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support changed my Oppose to support, and congratulate the editors on their eforts in addressing concerns raised. Gnangarra 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Controversies - Creation of Studio 2B - This section has one footnote, but this leads to an article that doesn't mention the controversy itself. Thus the opinions and actions in the controversy are unreferenced. Kingbird 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Studio 2B controversy section has been removed from the Studio 2B and the GSUSA articles as it is uncited and no citations can be found for it after multiple searches. Also, citations have been added for both the activities section and the Destinations section. Darthgriz98 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article. Kudos to Darthgriz98 for rapidly fixing Gnangarra's concerns. Sumoeagle179 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment Since your working so hard to improve the article and address concerns raised here are some more to think about.

• In the lead three sentences begining "The GSUSA" makes it a repetitive read early and discourages further reading.
• The redlink of Senior Roundups if you think its worthy of a full article either create a stub or delink and expand the sentence to a paragraph. Same applies to other redlinks. They always be linked again once the articles are written.
• Section on segregation I copy editted the first para, the second needs to be rewritten just disjoint facts(well cited) which doesnt make good prose.
• The promise is a significant official statement by members of GSUSA and therefore to say variations of the promise is okay, needs a cite from an official document.
• In age levels there been changes to the divisions in 1938, 1963, 1984 and 2003 as well as mention of a "current revision" these changes need to have cites.
• Awards and Badges is great place to get some 3d party cites from media or other organisations.

After your worked on these suggest that you put a request to User:Tony1 for an opinion if hes the time available. Gnangarra 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of. All citations for years are now in place, promise and laws have been cited, copyedits are taken care of, redlinks are gone, and honor pin is now cited. I am going to try to find some other award citations as I go. Darthgriz98 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • What is the GSUSA useage of Native American? I ask because the BSA preference is American Indian, and is based on feedback from the community. The American Indian Scouting Association is a BSA/GSUSA program.
  • What is a Roundup? This needs a definition.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The deffinition of Roundup is now in the article. I am assuming that they would be called American Indians due to the program then. Darthgriz98 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I already changed it to American Indian. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• No official stand on sexuality: the last sentence needs at least two cites- one for each position. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, note to whoever wrote that section of the article, if you have a source for those please step up, because I have never heard anything about gays before in Scouting in my experience. But in the meantime, I will look for a source. Nevermind, I found two.Darthgriz98 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• References: Book references on GSUSA and Other referenced sites- The book references have specific pages noted, but I don't see how this works into the article. I think the parts in quotes are chapters or sections. These should be put into standard citation templates or removed.
• Other referenced sites- These can probably be worked into the article as standard references. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Uniforms: I don't know how important uniforming is to the GSUSA, but it at least deserves a mention.
• Training: Is leadership training available for youth and adults?

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments I have a few concerns:

1. The title "Girl Scouts of the USA" should IMO, be "Girl Scouts of the United States of America." I don't think the acronym "USA," which is informal should be used in the formal title. Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. 2 paragraphs are necessary on the impact of Girl Scouts on American life. There are so many famous people who've been girl scouts. The organization is a big part of American life - there is also a light-hearted rivalry with the Boy Scouts. this must be covered.

Please see what can be done. Thanks, Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with spelling out the name is that the formal name is "...USA", NOT "...United States of America". Griz will work on your second paragraph's issue. Rlevse 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)...PS, a redirect already exists from the spelled out version to the USA version. Rlevse 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the chartered name is Girl Scouts of the United States of America [10]. Perhaps the name was changed, or this might be a DBA (doing business as) name? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a DBA name as I've never even seen the Girl Scouts org use the spelled out name. Anyway, no one uses the spelled out name.Rlevse 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have started a section on the impact of GSUSA on America, I will work on this more over the next few days as I attempt to balance my school time, so if I slow down on my edits, that's where I am, I won't give up though. Darthgriz98 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-Do you know of any sources saying that there is a friendly rivalry between BSA and GSUSA? Darthgriz98 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Naah... that was a shot in the dark based on some of the deriding jokes men crack like "What are you, a girl scout?" Rama's arrow 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was friction between the two early on. See History of the Boy Scouts of America#Early controversies, last paragraph. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support --evrik ^(talk) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support good article. I suggest improving "Impact on American life" to bring it equal focus to "Controversies." Rama's arrow 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the article still needs a decent copyediting before it's ready for FA; I played around, but it's been well over two months since I've actually done a copyedit of this style. — Deckiller 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article also needs a merge: Wing Scout should be merged into the article. The information can easily be compressed and worded into three paragraphs of FA-quality prose, which will only extend the article by 1-2 KB and give the article a complete feel. That should be it for orgnaizational and content issues (as far as I, a person who knows nothing about the details of scouts, can see). — Deckiller 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tackle this latter either today or tomorrow. Darthgriz98 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is there anyone opposed to the merge of Wing Scout with GSUSA? Darthgriz98 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if it can be done as proposed, otherwise it'd be a mess. Does Wing Scout warrant 3 paras in this article? Was it of that importance? Rlevse 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about for now then I re-write the Wing Scout section so it doesn't sound like a campy brochure, and then see latter about mergeing it. The whole WS article needs proper citations as well if it eventually were to be merged. Darthgriz98 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rlevse 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed up that section. It needs citations, and for some reason the only thin I can come up with from Google is the year Mariner and Wing Scouts started.Darthgriz98 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prose comments — if possible, can some others critique the prose of this article? I went through it fairly quickly, so I'm not sure how everyone else feels. If necessary, I can allocate further time to this one. — Deckiller 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Basiliscus

I feel this article might meet the criteria for a FA. I enjoyed writing it, I hope people will enjoy reading it. (Self nominated) BlaiseMuhaddib 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I found this informative, very well written, and very well sourced.Jeffpw 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support and comment. One of the first articles I tried to review! It is very nice to see it here. I think it is a nice article. Can you just rearrange or possibly merge these four citations in a row at the end of "Religious controversies". It is not nice the way it looks now.--Yannismarou 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  I modified the position of the references, I hope I addressed your concern.--BlaiseMuhaddib 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I found this to be a well written, well sourced article. definetly meets the criteria of a fa Pigottsm 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well done! Some minor quibbles:
  • When the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer, deposed Western Emperor Romulus Augustus, sending the imperial regalia to Constantinople, Zeno, who had just regained his throne, could not do anything more than appoint Odoacer dux of Italy, thus ending the Western Roman Empire. That sentence confused me...is there a missing "he" before "could not do"?
  • Avoid passive voice when possible. For example, However this interpretation is not accepted by all scholars, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus. "However, not all scholars accept this interpretation, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus." is stronger. Note also the missing comma.
  • The number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as the expenses of the expedition, have been differently calculated by historians.--> "calculated differently" sounds better IMO.
  • Caption: Hagia Sophia (here showed after the reconstruction ordered by Justinian I)... should probably be "here shown".
  • Maybe it's just me, but the last sentence seems an odd way to end... Gzkn 05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review. I tried to address your points:

  • I rewrote the sentence in a (hopefully) clearer way: "Zeno had just regained his throne, and he could only appoint Odoacer dux of Italy. So the Western Roman Empire ended."
  • I introduced your sentence "However, not all scholars accept this interpretation, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus."
  • I reworded the sentence to avoid passive form. It now reads: "Ancient and modern historians provided different estimantions for the number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as for the expenses of the expedition."
  • Obviously it is "shown". Pardon.
  • I like that sentence, it sounds like an epitaph. However, I am keen to remove/reword it, if it is necessary.--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 07:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• No motion, yet, but there are quite a few archaisms, possibly drawn from sources like Gibbon, and inversions. I am lending my shoulder to the stone, but I think the mock-Latinate structures are serious interference to readers and therefore cannot support without a thorough updating of syntax. As for sources, I do wonder about using Gibbon after all these years. I won't say that Gibbon is wrong, and this isn't an academic paper (where old references are rejected), but shipping Gibbon into one's article is like transporting nitroglycerine: one needs to be very careful and thoughtful about it. Geogre 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I used Gibbon because I like his prose. Wherever I found the primary sources for his words, I used them. I also used more recent secondary sources to support his claims, when it was possible. Consider also that Gibbon is necessary only in a limited part of the article, the anti-Vandal expedition, and that I found no ancient or modern source confuting his claims (otherwise I would have dropped him).--BlaiseMuhaddib 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I like Gibbon's writing, as well, although I prefer the more direct structures of Swift and clearer periods of Addison and see in Gibbon one instance of the overly florid style that would culminate in the calumny of Macaulay, but the point is that Gibbon's style is off-putting when mixed with contemporary prose and is faulty in a short, informational article, because its archaisms (and they were archaisms in 1780) are spice that, in his works, flavor the buffet but, in our short articles, merely jar. His validity is still secure as it has ever been, but he has been corrected enough in enough areas that he should be understood as a man who is synthesizing ancient secondaries. He is limited by his own sources and his assumptions, and therefore it's at least worth letting the reader know that you're using a fellow whose work may carry its own limitations. Geogre 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Would you be so kind to tell me exactly which archaism are present? I would gladly accept collaboration on this matter.--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, I would never dream of objecting on those grounds, and, as I said, I am trying to help. My initial comment was more a hope for spurring you on and an explanation of the use of Gibbon. I was saying, essentially, "I endorse, except that we probably need to finish combing archaisms and strained structures," and I definitely include myself in the "we." Geogre 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Don't worry, I understood your reasons. My problem is that I am not a native English speaker, so I do not recognize the archaisms you were talking about.--BlaiseMuhaddib 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very informative, well organized, nicely referenced, deserving of featured status. Hello32020 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. The references should be updated: Western historiography has evolved a lot since the 18th century. The image of Hagia Sophia is both irrelevant and annoying. It could be appended to any article about a Byzantine emperor. One thing which I don't appreciate about Wikipedia is that an article about a minor figure (such as Basiliscus) may take twice as much space as an article about an emperor who reigned for decades (such as Zeno). As a result, historical perspective tends to be distorted: unexperienced readers would assume that Basiliscus is more important than Zeno. This is a general comment, not a problem of the nominator, of course. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • As regards references: Secondary sources used are dated 1923, 1998, 1998, 1788, 1986, 2003, 1980, 1917, 2001, 1870, and (in notes) 2002, 1998. Gibbon is presented as a source per se, Smith is a good summary of ancient sources. I think they should be removed only if their statements have been rejected by modern historiography, a thing I am not aware of.
  • Hagia Sophia image is relevant, as Basiliscus hid in this church to avoid popular lynching. I do not know any other Byzantine Emperor so related to this church, apart Justinian, of course.
  • You are right about Zeno's article. The only thing I can say is that having this article clearly marked as FA would help readers to understand its quality is higer than Zeno's ;-) --BlaiseMuhaddib 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I removed Gibbon from the references, substituting him with primary and more modern secondary sources. Let me know.--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notes & queries: I am endeavoring to update language where I feel it is incommunicative, but I welcome the principle author's review; I try to use edit summaries that enumerate changes. Questions: 1) Rule: Those subsections create some very, very minor subheads. I would prefer that this be one section. 2) Rule: Corruption & Fire: "ith the help of the Prefect, and Verina's longtime favourite, Epinicus": Is Epinicus the prefect and the favorite, or did the emperor perform the extortion with the help of two persons? 3 Ibid: Is "extort" really accurate? If so, can you not give us some means by which he could exert such force? What was the threat he held? A single clause could do the trick, and it might help contextualize the religious controversies, later. 3) Rule: "raise to the purple." I made this change once, as I regard it as an archaic circumlocution, but it is used a second time in the "Contrast with collaborators" section, where what seems to be implied is that Verina was going to bring her lover to replace Basiliscus, but "purple" is also a term used for the senatorial rank in different eras; because the phrase is euphemistic, we can't be sure what she was planning, here. 3) Rule: Contrast: There are two "unavoidable" statements made, with citations. I understand the literature saying that it was virtually unavoidable that there be these conflicts, but to actually be preclusive is strong enough to challenge readers. Mediate a bit with something like "It may have been unavoidable that these crises occur, as Patricius...." 4) Rule: Controversies: Probably wise to link simply to Monophysite controversy and let that article do the heavy lifting and concentrate instead on how the political implications played out at Byzantium. That's pretty much it. Geogre 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Some answers:

  1. I feel the division of "Rule" section is more functional, as it helps to point down the main issues.
  2. Epinicus was both Prefect and favourite
  3. "extort" is the exact word used by Friell, but I did not find any other reference
  4. "purple" is here always used in the sense of imperial dignity
  5. I reworded the bit about unavoidability
  6. The explanation of the Monophysite controversy was required in a previous peer review.

  A question: I did not understand the edit about Peter Fullo, what was the problem you solved?

  Thanks, BlaiseMuhaddib 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to change the Fullo business back. My thinking was that we had a rush of names involved in the Monophysite controversy. Some of these people were very important and importantly controversial and active, some less so (from the point of view of our articles). Aesthetically, I always feel that a list of "Tom Jones, Sam Cooke, and Abraham Lincoln" loses the significance of the figures somewhat by having a solidly blue line. To break up the blue line, and to have people see a link when they'd be most curious, I put the link to Fullo away from the others. Again, it's purely an accidental and nothing more. Geogre 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support on one condition: If we can heal that "with the help of the Prefect..." sentence to clarify whether we're talking about one or two people, I support. It's an interesting article on a very peculiar footnote of Byzantine history. All qualms aside, the article does its job. Geogre 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Somewhat too short, but good writing and sourcing, as well as the subject generally justify considering it a good work meeting the criteria. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I changed it to "with the help of the Prefect Epinicus, Verina's longtime favourite". I hope this addresses your concern.

• Support, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Fabian

Self-nom. I just finished redoing this article by adding loads of information, and I believe it adheres to the featured article criteria; I think it's well written and it had a copyedit, it is very comprehensive (perhaps too much so, but I'll address that in a moment), every last statement is sourced using {{tl:cite web}}, it is neutral, it's stable as I've been the main person editing it recently, it has a good lede section, good headings, not too long of TOC, images (two of which are Fair use and have fair use rationales), and good length. It might seem like it is too long with unnecessary detail, but I tried to give thorough information on the hurricane to make it more realistic. If an article only gives statistics by saying "The hurricane caused $300 million in damage, destroyed X houses, killed four, etc." it would be boring and not representative of what the storm did. The hurricane is one of Bermuda's worst natural disasters, and I wanted to emphasize that. So, without further ado, Support for it to become an FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose on criterion 3, neither of the fair use images really adds much to this article, neither of those articles is in any way iconic. The only real encyclopedic value to them is the images contained within them, the remainder of them do not add anything. As AP photos they aren't usable to discuss the storm, the press coverage is not significant enough to justify one let alone two images. I'd rather have no images than two bad FU images, free images of the damage can be obtained.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only two images? Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I got a response from one; didn't want to. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them?? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove both, they aren't that helpful. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If they reply and agree, you can always add other pics in the future. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well made article on a subject that is hard to find information on. Giving my support. Hello32020 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support for becoming the best resource available for an important storm yet difficult to find information on. Good job! CrazyC83 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Weak oppose per User:Nilfanion. Let's wait until the emails to the flickr image-holders are answered. It won't be the end of the world if this article is promoted a couple of weeks from now. It'll certainly get there, and exacting quality matters more than whether it's there now or in half a month. --Zantastik talk 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed those images, given that they either said no or took too long to respond. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, these hurricane FACs seem almost unfailingly good. I don't know about the copyright status of the images; intuitively I would think it's problematic, but I also really like the idea of using newspaper clipping images. I don't think I've seen that done before, and it's a neat way to add an extra dimension to the content. I'm supporting in spite of that lingering issue because I trust that the authors will resolve it correctly. Everyking 08:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 47 sources on a hurricane I don't recall? My goodness. Very impressive, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as the image issue is now dealt with. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, brilliant article, particularly comprehensive. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Self-nomination. Article has reached Good Article status and has had all issues raised during a Peer Review addressed. I have checked it against each of the FA criteria and believe it meets them all. I feel it is ready to be considered as a candidate for FA status. Alexj2002 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Object.Support Good work, and I think this can become featured, but it needs some more attention first. (1) First, the article needs to be rewritten slightly to be more accessible to those without a good background in racing. Specifically, specialized terms (like "Qualified in pole") are used without context, and there is a general lack of wikilinks to general topics on car racing. For instance, there should be a link to Formula one in the lead. Terms, not just proper nouns, should have wikilinks when there's an article on them. The introduction of all those names was a bit overwhelming to me. I would suggest, since the race results are given at the bottom anyway, not to list the drivers who merely "won points" in the lead. (2) General writing issues: the word "Imola" didn't have any context when I read it in the article: it never said the race took place in Imola, except in the infobox. Also, I feel like the word "whilst" is being pounded into my head in certain sections, and I find it very odd: to me (I realize this may be a British/American English thing), "whilst" is evocative of old language, often used to make something sound more refined. The British/American usage aside, I think this indicates that the sentence structure is a little too repetitive in the article. (3) Images: I find the images somewhat unsatisfactory -- the two maps are good, but the screenshot of Senna's crash is terrible, I can't make out anything, and it seems like there are other windows in the shot that aren't relevant. There are plenty of other things that could be illustrated with images here: a real picture of the racetrack, or the trophy, a picture of some of the key players (especially Senna). This may be the hardest of my comments to address, but I really do think it's critical: in a subject like this we should have pictures. (4) Minor points: why "legacy of the race"? Seems sort of heavy-handed; why not simply "legacy" or "aftermath"? Similarly, why is it "Classification" rather than "results"? Finally, I don't understand some of the stuff written in the notes section: those should be incorporated into an actual paragraph. Okay, that's all. I'll be glad to support if these points are addressed. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for your lengthy list of suggestions, you've raised quite a few issues that didn't come up in peer review so I'll try and work on the weaknesses you suggested. Classification is used because that's what was decided by the Formula One Wikiproject (here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Example race report) so standard amongst all F1 race reports and is also the official term used when the results are shown at the end of each race on the TV. Alexj2002 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've added wikilinks to most of the technical terms and/or tried to explain them better in the article. I've put Imola into context in the opening sentence and replaced 7 of the 8 whilst's in the article (yeah there did seem to be a lot in there). The points scorers have been removed from the lead. The notes section has been re-done and the "Legacy of the race" heading has been changed to "Post race". I've left classification in, as it's the term used by the sport's governing body, the FIA: [11]. The only thing left to address now is the pictures. It's quite difficult finding a suitable freely licenced image. There are pictures of the drivers available, but wearing a different team's overalls and I think this would be confusing/misleading. I'll keep checking commons and a few other places and see if any suitable ones come up. Alexj2002 18:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I agree that all my objections have been dealt with except for the pictures. At the very least, the trial picture should be edited so we can see just the crash occurring: that picture is just bad as it is. Mangojuice^talk 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the trial picture and I've instead put in photos of some of the drivers involved (Barrichello and Senna) which I believe are suitable. Alexj2002 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's better. I still think the article could be better illustrated, but I think this meets the FA guidelines now. Changed to support. BTW, I think "not guilty" is preferable over "not-guilty". Mangojuice^talk 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: A memorable Grand Prix and a great article!--Skully Collins 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support with comments. Firstly, this may be a matter of personal preference but low ordinal numbers look better written out, for example "third" is better than "3rd". Secondly, an important source is not referred to in the footnotes and possibly has not been checked for important information: Professor Sid Watkins' book "Life at the limit" (ISBN 0330351397). Thirdly, as I remember, the BBC's own camera at the Grand Prix was an innovation - they had only just managed to persuade their bosses to allow them to have a camera, and San Marino 1994 was the first Grand Prix at which it appeared. This is probably worth mentioning. David | Talk 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'Comment I thought something simular with the BBC camera. It would have made sense, seems as it was the first GP of the season to be held in Europe. If a source could be found, it can be included in the article. Alexj2002 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember where I saw this - might have been Murray Walker's autobiography. David | Talk 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Is this really how these words are spelled: "tyre", "kerb", and "nosecone"? What's a "chicane" and a "paddock"? Is it "pit-lane" or "pitlane"? Did anything else happen with Érik Comas? The prose needs some work as well; sentences like "Pedro Lamy, who started behind him, was unsighted and hit the back of Lehto's car" ("unsighted"? even if we call that a real word, who was doing the seeing?) and "There was to be one more incident, when" (all of this can be deleted without effect). Overall though, not bad. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, that is how those words are spelt! In UK English anyway, which is what most of the F1 articles are written in (longstanding convention!). Use of UK spellings is, of course, not a reason for objecting (unless usage is inconsistent, of course). 'Unsighted' is fairly common journalistic usage for precisely this situation - meaning that the person who was unsighted cannot see what is in front of him. However, that can be changed fairly simply to something more easily understood by all. I'll have a stab at it now, as well as clarifying some of the specialist terms you mention. 4u1e 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - done. Better? Open to suggestions if not! 4u1e 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see anything about Érik Comas—did he hit Senna's car? Or almost hit it? I'll support once I'm done with the copyedit, but this looks good. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That I don't remember, I'm afraid. I think probably not, it's probably just that it's completely unacceptable to send a car out under red flags - a really big no-no because of the danger to the marshals. Anyone got the reference for this bit? --4u1e 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't hit Senna's car because Senna's car was off the track. He reached the corner where Senna's crash had taken place however before stopping and there were several medical cars he came close to hitting. There is actually a video of this on Youtube: [12]. Alexj2002 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That part feels a little disconnected; it seems like the story is going to tell us that Comas smashed into Senna causing even more problems. A brief phrase clarifying that nothing actually came of it would be good to add. One more thing:

• "The incident brought out the safety car, which picked the field up at the end of the pit lane after the debris on the start/finish line and during this period tyre temperatures dropped." An incident can't really bring anything out; the safety car is responding to the incident. What does "picked the field up" mean? And what on earth does it have to do with tyre temperatures? This is sort of explained in the following sentence, but I get the impression that one needs to understand the function of a safety car to understand what this is saying (and I don't). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the article the word safety car in the section you quoted is Wikilinked to the Safety Car article. I'll have a go at rewording the other bits. Alexj2002 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Spangineer - I linked it after he raised the point!--4u1e 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've clarified the Comas incident, and reworded the safety car bit to clarify a few things. Alexj2002 10:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Nowhere near a "professional" standard of writing as required. A particular problem throughout is the underuse of commas that almost all readers would agree would make it easier to read. Here are examples:

"The race was eventually won by Michael Schumacher giving him a maximum 30 points after 3 rounds." (Schumacher,)

"Schumacher said however in the press conference" --> "Schumacher said, however, in the press conference", but smoother to start with "However, Schumacher ...".

But that's not all. Here are examples from the lead.

• • "It was the 3rd race of the 1994 Formula One season, and the first race of the season." 3rd/first—choose one form or the other and be consistent. Spelling out for less than 10 is standard.
  • "The race weekend was marred by the deaths of two drivers and numerous other accidents and injuries, and was described by BBC Television commentator Murray Walker as "the blackest day for Grand Prix racing that I can remember".[1] Austrian Roland Ratzenberger and three-time world champion Ayrton Senna were the two drivers who lost their lives, Ratzenberger during a qualifying session and Senna during the race." Why not treat the "two drivers" all at once, and relocate the other info ("other accidents", "BBC") after this?
  • "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and many track layouts and car designs were changed." Keep the grammar consistent for our poor readers: "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and the changing of many track layouts and car designs."
  • "Since the race, numerous efforts have been made to slow Formula One cars down and new circuits such as Bahrain International Circuit designed to incorporate large run-off areas to slow cars before they collide with a wall, should the driver lose control." Not a grammatical sentence, and short of commas.
  • "to conclude including"—it's what Fowler called a "jingle", even with a comma after "conclude". And why not remove "to conclude" anyway? Makes no difference to the sense.
  • "following the original not guilty verdict." I think that all English speakers would want a hyphenated "not-guilty" here. Tony 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll take your suggestions onboard and improve the article. The only point I disagree with is your final one. I think not guilty is the correct usage (without hyphen). The Wikipedia article Acquittal uses no hyphen, but that can't be regarded as a reputable source. I believe however that the usage of "not guilty" by organisations such as the BBC [13], CNN [14] and the UK Government's Criminal Justice System [15] would mean that the hyphen is not require, and definately shows that not all English speakers would want a hyphen. Alexj2002 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the points you brought up. If you want to reword/change any parts of the writing you believe are weak in order to improve it to what you'd regard as a "professional standard" that'd be great. Alexj2002 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the hyphen. I looked it up on the phrase checker ([16]) and found only one instance with hyphen (an American one, at that). I'd use it, but you don't have to. Tony 05:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Object at present. I'd like to see a picture at the top of the page - either a photo of the actual grand prix (which doesn't appear anywhere in the article at present) or a larger map of the circuit. The pictures of Senna and Barrichello aren't put in context - were they even taken around the same time as the grand prix. Maybe it's just my eyes, but the writing on both the maps showing the location of the crashes seems slightly small. Is there anyway to graphically show the change in design of Imola after 1994. But other than that, it is well written and well referenced in my opinion and close to being FA standard. Trebor 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've altered to captions to give more context - more what you meant? The pictures are not from the time of the GP, but I know Alex has put much effort into locating pictures with suitable licensing and it appears that better are not available. 4u1e

I've had another trawl through Wikicommons, Flickr etc and can find nothing usable of the circuit itself. There is a diagram showing the circuit changes, which I have added, but it presumably suffers from the same size problems as the others. 4u1e

Sorry, I realised later my response was rather harsh. I'm neutral at present - I think the article looks slighly odd without a picture from the race, but if nothing usable is available then obviously it can't be improved. You're right, I don't think the map of the circuit changes adds much as it's quite hard to see what's changed. I do think it is written and referenced well, it's just the slight incongruence of the images to that (which is not your fault and I'm sure you've done your best). Trebor 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I could easily increase the size of the text in the maps if it's too small. Just let me know. Alexj2002 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just the "Villeneuve" and "Tamburello" which are slightly hard to read on my screen. Trebor 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've increased the size of both. Alexj2002 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's better. By the way, it's your call as to whether the map of circuit changes is worth putting in at the bottom. Now it's there, I'm not sure how much it improves the article.Trebor 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Just realised I never actually added my support. Good treatment of one of the most important (in terms of worldwide news coverage at time) sporting events of the last 20 years at least. Good work has been done to make the article accessible to non-motorsport fans. 4u1e 16:30, 24 October 2006(UTC)

Strong Support A fantastic article, very detailed, a pretty concise adaptation of a very dark weekend. I don't believe it to be over complicated either, the terms mentioned are not excessively jargonistic. These terms are easily picked up if not previously known, to change them would be dumbing down a well written article. Gdkh 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There is problem with note 5. It should be fixed! Take care of this minor things!--Yannismarou 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks. It's actually ref 4 again. Ref 7 doesn't seem to be quite finished either though - we'll get that fixed. --4u1e 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Rossier

Self-nomination. Recent research has revealed much new information about this previously little-known but significant photographer who was the first to produce commercial photographs of China, Japan, the Philippines and Siam (Thailand). He also trained many of the first generation of Japanese photographers, thereby helping to kick-start the history of photography in Japan. Rossier's story is interesting and the article contains nearly all of what is known about him, and I believe the article would make a good Featured Article. Pinkville 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article seems to meet all the criteria. -- Hoary 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment please fix references at the end of sentences. The superscript should follow the period.^[1] -- Samir धर्म 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some kind person appears to have already acted on this suggestion. -- Hoary 06:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I've been testing an automated tool to fix the refs in accord with WP:FN. Gimmetrow 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is good stuff! Well written -- Samir धर्म 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pinkville 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Even the first line does not conform to WP:MOS. Red links should be eliminated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose you mean the first line of the text. What you see there depends on the size of your browser window, etc.; I see (after markup stripping) Pierre Joseph Rossier (born 16 July 1829 - died between 1883 and 1898) was a pioneering.... and I don't know what's wrong with that. And either the string "red" doesn't appear in WP:MOS or something's wrong with my browser's search function. Where are the beefs? -- Hoary 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming the objection to the first line is based on the uncommon dates format for Rossier, these are the most accurate dates available and of far more use than any alternative I can think of (e.g. 16 July 1829 - death unknown, et al). I can't see anything that goes against the Manual of Style, though, can you be more specific?. As for red links, Wikipedia has relatively few articles dealing with 19th century history in Asia (in contrast to articles on the Final Fantasy universe, for example), and one possible benefit of FA status for this or any other article in this field is that it may encourage other editors to turn those red links blue. Also, between now and some future date when this article might find its way on to the Main Page, at least some of those red links will turn blue anyway (as part of an ongoing personal and small group project). Pinkville 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I changed the first line per WP:DASH and revoked my vote. I don't know whether there is any specific guideline (WP:CONTEXT?), but red links look slovenly to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, well [cough], I wouldn't rush to disagree, but I'm a little surprised that you of all people would say that.... Hoary 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • And what is wrong with me? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Erm, nothing, nothing, but by your own choice your own link is a bit reddish. -- Hoary 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Nope, your comment would be valid for User:Blnguyen rather than me. These are different shades of red, you know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now all the red-links are blue... Pinkville 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• nice photos in the article; two wishes: a reference to where would be many more of them; a photo of the photographer to start off the article. Hmains 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have the same wishes, unfortunately there is only one source of Rossier images on the Internet: Terry Bennett's excellent site - Old Japan (from which these were taken - there are only two or three more Rossier photos on the site). Bennett has a new book coming out this fall with much material on Rossier, so there may be more images available in the not-too distant future. As far as I know there are no known images of Rossier himself. Pinkville 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Hmains 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful read, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice concise well written article. To the point and well referenced. Giano 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really interesting article that chugs along in a nice style. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We need more FAs on art topics, and this one is really good, to me because of the subject. The article looks a little lean right now, so don't let what looks like a successful FAC keep you from expanding and adding more text. I would like to see Stereoscope and Stereoscopy linked and more discussion of early photography. DVD+ R/W 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. "Stereoscope" is linked through the term "stereographs", though perhaps more could be said on the subject in this article. As for early photography... I'll see what can be reasonably added in the context of Rossier/China/Japan. Pinkville 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there it is. But still, please expand some before it is on the main page. For some reason I want to read about the relevant technical photographic history, but there could be other ways to expand it. Odd that there aren't any in other language links. I ran check usage on the images and found nothing. It'll be translated eventually I'm sure and I'd also like to see the zh: and ja: versions. DVD+ R/W 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. The vast majority of the information in this article has only come to light in the past 2 or 3 years and nothing longer than a few pages has been published on Rossier, so this and the Bennett online article are the two most comprehensive and accessible sources on the photographer. There are some brief online references to Rossier in French and Italian, but that's about it. And there is material in Japanese which has yet to be translated into English. The only confirmed Rossier images available online are those on Bennett's site and one thumbnail on a Swiss museum website. I uploaded the images in this article myself, so they're only recent additions to the Commons. But if you're referring to a lack of articles on early photographic techniques and technology, then that's also not surprising because there are only a handful of Wikipedia editors who have touched the subject. Most photographic technical subjects that have been covered in WP tend to concern current or recent photography and often deal with camera brand names, etc. Please set me straight if I've misunderstood your comment. :~) Pinkville 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to say that I wanted to read more about it, that's all. DVD+ R/W 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a couple of us are very slowly filling in some of the gaps in Japanese photography. I'm particularly interested in early photography in Asia and related issues (like hand-colouring). So by and by... Thanks for your comments. Pinkville 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on zh:WP but as for ja:WP, photography -- even photography in Japan or by Japanese people -- is only sketchily represented. A lot of the articles that do exist on Japanese photographers are little more than entries for the tersest and driest kind of traditional biographical dictionary ("born there and then, graduated from this univ, won that prize"; that's it). Not that I have any right to complain, as some articles I've written here are just as bad. (Semi-relevantly, here's a surprise.) -- Hoary 06:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hurley article is a surprise. I have his English article on a to do list (at least to add some info). Pinkville 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert

Probably one of the best short biolgraphies of W.S. Gilbert out there. Detailed, covers all aspects of his life and work (which few short biographies about him do), and uses a format developed for the article after that of Demosthenes that I think works really well. Has had two peer-reviews, of which I think everything was dealt with. Of course, this is a self-nomination. Vanished user ^talk 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I urge to remove the list of Gilbert's works into a separate page. You may check Nikolai Gogol (which I just completed) to see how this may be implemented. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Query: We have removed most of the works to another page, what remains is a list of those with articles (or those so important that they couldn't be left off): should this simplified section still be removed? It certainly can be, but... Vanished user ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Ah, well. Fixed. Vanished user ^talk 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much nicer this way. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can we just hang on for another 3 days, just to tighten up the references and prose? Once that's done, the article will look truly magnificent. Moreschi 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The FA status is supposed to take a week or so anyway, I think, so it'll be fixed up by then. Vanished user ^talk 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(For those confused, I invited Moreschi into the project to point out everything he thought needed citing that wasn't - it's hard, when you're too close to the subject, to know what might jump out to other readers. Then I went through reference works and cited everything. The footnotes grew from 15 three days ago to 41 now, many of those footnotes containing multiple cites - an effective citing up, I think. Vanished user ^talk 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is the BIO peer review, which is only a week old. It is helpful to reviewers to link to old reviews, so we don't have to do the same work twice. Sandy 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I apologise for not linking. I think, however, that everything that came up was dealt with? Vanished user ^talk 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All the concerns of the two Biography reviews have been addressed.--Yannismarou 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• SupportOppose. Not enough refs: there are still entire unreferenced paragraphs. Please add more inline references, I'd be happy to support than.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Added a few more refs. If there's anyhing else, tell me - should cite the Who's who bit, but I'll get that Wednesday or so. Almost sure it's in Stedman, but better to check first. Vanished user ^talk 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Great, looks much better now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Did the pragmatic thing and temporarily removed the Who's Who bit: It can easily be added back in later, when referenced, and since I think it's the only non-cited, non-trivial fact, I didn't want it holding up FA. Vanished user ^talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a contributor, but I can confirm that these references have been checked, and that the authorities in the field agree with the bibliography. -- Ssilvers 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well worthy of featured article status. A thorough treatment of the whole of Gilbert's life and literary career (not just the G&S years). Heavily referenced too. Obviously a lot of hard work and research has gone into it. My congratulations to the authors.--Folantin 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Reads well and easily. Informative and seemingly well referenced. Good job.--Monocrat 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as involved party. All my requests for cites were met and I've tightened up the prose. It looks good. Moreschi 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and very informative, covering his life and the full range of works and not just those for which he his best known. PaulJones 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is the very model of a modern Wiki article. Guy 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, follows MOS, easily understandable, well-organized and well-referenced article. --Drenched 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Boshin War

Detailed article on the little known subject of the Boshin War (the 1868 Japanese civil war that led to the Meiji restoration), with lots of related links. This article clarifies some of the historical background to the 2003 Hollywood movie "The Last Samurai". Essentially self-nom PHG 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support- This war has been a HIGHLY ignored subject in Japanese and world history, and I find it HIGHLY ironic given how formative it was to be on the subsequent decades, as well as the historical discourse that emerged on the period. I'll support this nomination one hundred percent. -Tadakuni 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written, pictures, links, sections, references - even references in Japanese. Ooh. LordAmeth 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: where are the citations? (A map would be nice too, but not necessarily something I would object over.) Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• The citations are at the bottom of the page under "Notes", and growing. Should you wish any particular statement to be qualified, please advise. Regards. PHG 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• General growth is fine; I'd like to see, on average, at least one citation in every paragraph, as otherwise it's quite difficult to guess where the material is coming from. (Are there no other major works on the conflict, incidentally? I would have expected that this topic would attract a greater variety of historians; is this not the case?)

• Essentially done for the citations. Surprisingly very little English material is available on the subject (the French have more, due to the involvement of Jules Brunet). A search for Boshin War on Amazon gives nothing specific on this subject.PHG 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• "The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 5: The Nineteenth Century" devotes a page to the conflict (page 358, which is in Chapter 5, "The Meiji Restoration," by Marius B. Jansen).

• Aside from that, I'd also suggest increasing the lead to at least two paragraphs, and staggering some more images to the left margin, as the right one is getting quite crowded. Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done (longer introduction). Moved a few images on the left. Regards. PHG 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good. Is there any chance of working the links from the "See also" section into the text and eliminating it? Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. The links are in the article now. PHG 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, support from me, then. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Terrific article of high importance. Very many details and good pictures. Hello32020 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is superb. Rlevse 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The lead is great, the vocab exact, and the significance understandable. The paragraphs are laconic, which initially made me feel alarmed, but said all that they needed to say. The use of piped links is subtle, but to me, a sign of professionalism. Good work. Gracenotes ^T § 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per Tadakuni. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since I didn't see the article go through peer review, most of my comments are the sorts of things that would have been mentioned there.
  • First, there are both US and Commonwealth varieties of English in the article. These should be made uniform, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, they should be the variety used in the first substantial contributions to the article. Examples of words in one or another variety include "favorable," "burnt," "harbour," "defences."

• Done (I think). PHG 12:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The term kangun is first introduced in the caption of a photo. It would be best to introduce it in the main text or to eliminate it, e.g. in favor of a term in English.

• Done. I dropped the premature mention in the caption.PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The terms "shogunate" and "bakufu" are used interchangeably. Readers will find it easiest to follow the article if one term is used consistently and the other eliminated. Since "shogunate" contains the word "shogun," it's easy for non-specialists to understand (in my opinion).

• Done. I followed your advice and harmonized with "Shogunate". PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The closing sentence of the lead section reads, "facts which tend to be overlooked in modern history." This is opinion about modern history, not fact about the Boshin War, and I recommend removing it from the article.

• Right. Dropped it. PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The same person has two names in the article: Keiki and Yoshinobu. It's easiest for the reader if you select one and use it consistently.

• Done. Used Yoshinobu thoughout.PHG 11:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Political background
  • Early discontent
  • "Unequal treaties" should be lowercase.

• Done.PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Sonno joi is described in parentheses with the abbreviation "lit." I recommend spelling the word "literally" in full.

• Done. PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Barbarians" should be lowercase.

• DonePHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Words like "ronin," "samurai," and "daimyo" are English, but I recommend forming plurals without adding "s."

• DonePHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Southern coalition
  • Inserting "British" to make "the British bombardment of Kagoshima will remind the reader of the reason for the word "ironically."

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Satsuma and Chōshū are "southern" here but "western" later (see Aftermath:Pardon, and Westernization after all, "The western fiefs of Satsuma, Chōshū and Tosa...). For clarity, directions like these should be consistent.

Done PHG 11:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Surrender of Edo
  • "Eight" should be lowercase.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Resistance of the Northern Coalition
  • Substituting "managed to procure two of the three Gatling guns in Japan as well as 2,000 modern French rifles" is smoother.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Daimyo of Nagaoka" has uppercase "D" but elsewhere "daimyo of X" has lowercase; this should be made consistent.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Creation of the Ezo Republic
  • The phrase "handful of faithful French military advisers (notably Jules Brunet)" is a literal repeat; it would be nice to rephrase it.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Naval battle of Miyako Bay
  • The "rebels" organized a plan, but which side is the rebels at this time and place?

• The Shogunate side. Done. PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Battle of Hakodate
  • "Although Enomoto had resolved to fight to the end, and had sent his valuables to his adversary for safekeeping ( ... ), the general of the Imperial troops Kuroda Kiyotaka." -- this sentence is incomplete.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Aftermath
  • Pardon, and Westernization after all
  • "Arguably" is what Wikipedians call a "weasel word." Consider whether the sentence is true or not, or rephrase the sentence in a way that it's true without "arguably."

• Thanks. Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Later depictions of the war
  • "In modern summaries, the Meiji restoration is often described as a "bloodless revolution" leading to the sudden modernization of Japan." This is opinion about modern summaries, not fact about the Boshin War, and I advocate removing it, along with editing the beginning of the next sentence. "Admittedly" is unnecessary and I recommend deleting it.

• Took away "Admittedly". However I would tend to think that a discussion of modern accounts of the Boshin War also deserves mention in a comprehensive article on the Boshin War. PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Later Japanese depictions of the war ..." is a statement about (need this be said?) later Japanese depictions, not about the war. Is it necessary in an article on the war?

• Same as above. I would tend to think that a discussion of later depictions of the Boshin War deserves mention in a comprehensive article on the Boshin War. PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Cinematographic adaptations
  • This section is cursory and Western. "The Last Samurai" is worth mentioning, but many additional films treat the subject, which is a recurring topic for television drama as well. This is an excellent opportunity to introduce the English-speaking reader to the body of Japanese work on the subject. One recent example is ja:壬生義士伝, a January 2 ten-hour production starring Ken Watanabe.

• Done. Thanks. PHG 11:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Most of these comments are minor. I expect that this outstanding article can become featured very quickly. Fg2 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the great and highly detailed feedback! PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Enthusiastic support and thanks for a great article! Fg2 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The caption for Image:Land & Naval Battle of Hakodate.JPG is gargantuan and creates an image jam in the text. Should be pruned. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the side of the image and shortened the text with a reference so as to avoid the image jam. Thank you. PHG 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I'd like to support this, but I can't just yet. The prose is a little rough and flabby. The parenthetical statements in the very first paragraph need to be cleaned up, and some verbiage could be trimmed. The phrase "In a final chapter to the war, the Commander-in-Chief of the Shogun's Navy Enomoto Takeaki" is used twice verbatim within a few paragraphs, suggesting that much more copy-editing needs to be done. Also, once Yoshinobu surrendered and the resistence declared a republic, can they still be called a "Shogunate rebels?" I'd like to try my hand at the copy, if you'd not mind. Other, random issues: When, where, and how was Yoshinobu captured? What was the role of the foreign powers? (I know that the Europeans withheld a warship from the Imperial faction for a while, until the government gave assurances, which they reneged on, that it wouldn't be used in the conflict. See: Keene's Emperor of Japan.) Could we get an English term for "Kangun," and paralleling "Shogunate" in the infobox, how about something like "Imperial faction/court?" Meiji and those surrounding him surely had things to say or rescripts to issue. "Later depictions of the war" could probably be combined with "Cinematographic adaptations," retaining the former's title. Also, I'm worried about the images: perhaps it's just my browser, but some of the text seems obscured by one or two. The second image of Enomoto could probably be cut without loss, and the very last image's caption seems a little big. Lastly, perhaps you could use Template:nihongo for all the kanji? --Monocrat 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and edits. I think most of your points have been addressed by now (I am not sure how to deal with the Nihongo Template though). The warship you mention is the Kotetsu, which was released after the Meiji government was established in October 1868. I added elements on the diplomatic position of foreign powers throughout the conflict. Regards. PHG 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a bunch more edits for content, but the prose still needs a lot of work. There are some untranslated kanji, such as 公議政体派. Could you give me romaji, and I can fiddle with the template? I'll leave more comments on the talk page.--Monocrat 06:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits. The romaji for 公議政体派 is "KōgiSeitaiHa". I'm shifting to the talk page as well. PHG 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Full disclosure: I've worked a lot on this over the past few days. There are a few minor things, like missing page citations, that I would like to see. An extra set of eyes copy-editing would be a good idea, too. But I think the article is ready to be featured. I might add one or two more things here and there when I get a chance, but they're small. One note, though: I would exercise caution in adding more images or changing the settings of existing ones.--Monocrat 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for all the great edits! PHG 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I don't think we should consider an article about a military campaign featured class until it has a map. There are also some unreferenced paras; please increase referencing density. 'Franco-Japanese relations' section is a stub section, please expand or merge.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea, map done, paragraph merged. Essentially all paragraphs have now one or several references. PHG 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza

Self-nomination. An article on the viral disease influenza. The article aims to be both comprehensive and approachable and contains 36 kB of text. This article is currently GA and has recently been peer-reviewed (Link) Thank you. TimVickers 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support: Support: Quite good. However, I sense that the tone is ambiguous at times. For example, "Vaccination against influenza with a flu vaccine is possible and in many cases recommended." In what cases would the vaccine not be recommended? Is vaccination possible (as in theoretical), or does it actually exist? The second question is answered later, but such ambiguousness hurts the article a bit.

Also, it might be good to integrate content from tributary articles into the main one. Don't just mention something; describe it in, say, a sentence or so. For example, the article mentions Pathogenesis in the "Research" section. I happen to know what pathogenesis is, and how it might affect flu treatment, but I would suggest explaining how pathogenesis is important in Influenza Research for those who don't.

On the positive side, if I were doing a report on the Influenza, this article seems authoritative and a spring board towards other useful sources. I would suggest improvement, however. I remain a "Weak Support," which may either become "Strong Support" or "Oppose" as the week continues. --Gracenotes ^T § 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC). Done. Influenza has never looked so good! ... 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro to Vaccine section now reworded. 'Research' section also reworded and expanded to give some concrete examples. TimVickers 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This is my opportunity to point out that {{main}} is used incorrectly throughout this article, as in many others on Wikipedia. Can we either clarify the usage information on the template to permit its use in what seems to have become convention, or change the template used to, e.g. {{details}}? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed usage of {{Main}} to {{Further}}, after reading Wikipedia:Guide to layout. This does seem a bit of a jumble of usage in Wikipedia, as there seems to be the {{main}}, {{further}}, {{see also}} and {{details}} all used for exactly the same job. However, this isn't the place to discuss general issues. TimVickers 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems very good to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one comment though: I don't really like the 'the CDC says' thing used a few times. There could just be a reference instead. --WS 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of these have been removed already, I have cut another from the vaccine section. TimVickers 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And what is known about the properties and structure of type B and C viruses? There is only information about type A in that section. --WS 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Added note that other strains are similar in structure to type A. TimVickers 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems very good and comprehensive. PHG 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good structure, with many details and information. Hello32020 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Tim, you're like an FA machine :) A few comments:

• Do you know the magnification of the image in the infobox? (Also, is it my imagination or do the HK viruses in the second image have tails?)

Rod-like forms are pretty common, so I suppose they MIGHT have tails. magnification added.

So there is a rod-shaped form of the virus (or a rod-shaped assembly)? Is that what the long rods in the H5N1 image are? Maybe there should be a mention of that in the structure section... I would've guessed influenza viruses were always spherical. Opabinia regalis 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of rods added to intro of structure section. Thanks. TimVickers 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• The nomenclature image appears (for me, at least) before hemagglutinin and neuraminidase have been introduced in the text.

Added note to textbox below image referring reader to discussion below.

• The tag for Image:Flu_und_legende_color_c.jpg is out-of-date.

Replaced with new image.

• "H7N7 has unusual zoonotic potential" - this statement also appears in the H7N7 article, but in neither case is the reason described. I guess this is really a criticism of the H7N7 article, but it would still be nice to have an explanation, or a citation to a place where it could be found.

Ref added.

• Similarly, why the lower mutation rate for B?

Good question, I don't think anybody knows! The ref for this observation to a paper published in April of this year, so give them time.

• The description of the infection mechanism really should explicitly mention the fusion peptide. It doesn't need great detail, but without this description readers might wonder why a cell would "voluntarily" import a virus.

Added.

• The graph of H5N1 cases is a bit confusing - why include the regression line if it's only going to project another month into the future?

I think it is more to smooth the data than make a prediction.

• "Here, the novel influenza spreads uncontrollably, causing a pandemic." - makes it sound like a pandemic is inevitable every time reassortment occurs.

Good catch, reworded.

• "children of less than 59 months" - kind of awkward wording. (A bit off topic, but why would they choose 59 months? Weird number.)

Reworded, yes a strange number. TimVickers 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure the CDC knows what they're doing with the H5N1 micrograph, but it seems odd to me. If it's colorized so that viruses appear gold, what's going on with those long rods?

Overall, great job (again)! Opabinia regalis 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oct 25

Comments before support. Sorry to come late to this — just a few questions/comments before I support:

• Further reading is massive: is all of that really seminal, important and necessary, or has it acquired some spam/advertising/cruft? If you say it's necessary, I'll take your word for it :-)

Removd some that were duplicated in the reference list.

• See also is a bit unwieldy; that's not an objection, but would you consider developing a template? I can help if you're interested (see Template:Topics related to Tourette syndrome).

The list of serotypes is duplicated in the template at the bottom of the page. Removed.

• I'm wondering why History is at the top of the article, vis-a-vis WP:MEDMOS. I know following MedMos doesn't work for all articles, but wonder still why History is needed at the top of the article: I'm disposed to the view that History at the bottom works better for encyclopedic articles.

History is pretty important here because of the episodic nature of pandemics and the poor public awareness of the 1918 pandemic. More so than for other diseases that have constant levels of infection.

• In the chart in Epidemiology, can you convert the external jump to a footnoted reference? The problem with the reference being an external jump is that future editors have no information for tracking down the reference should the link go dead; converting it to a bibliographic ref helps avoid that potential future problem.

Converted to ref.

• I see some redundancy and questions (I'm not sure on some of this) that can be addressed via copyedit — things like:
  • Influenza, commonly known as the flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals and is caused by an RNA virus of the family Orthomyxoviridae (the influenza viruses).
  • In more serious cases, influenza causes pneumonia, and this (which) can be fatal, particularly in young children and the elderly.
  • Commas goofed up here? This huge death toll was caused by an extremely high infection rate, of up to 50% and the extreme severity of the symptoms.
  • The severity killed? Not sure that works, not sure how to fix it ... The unusual severity of the disease killed 2.5 % of those infected,
  • Influenza capitalized here, but not other places? Check through entire article for consistency? This is unusual since Influenza is normally most deadly to the very young (under age 2) and the very old (over age 70).
  • Take care with consistency in UK or US English (not sure if there are consistency problems, but just came across this and wanted to make sure you had checked): Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who showed that the virus lost virulence when it was cultured in fertilised hen's eggs ...
  • Not sure on capitalization: sometimes orthomyxoviridae is capped, sometimes not ? Similar for other viruses (see for example section Types of influenza virus).
  • This statement can become outdated (needs some time reference?): H5N1 is the current pandemic threat.
  • They can ? Influenza C viruses are known to infect humans and pigs. It can ...
  • Emergence ? Also, avoid "discussed below" as some future editor may come along, long after we're all gone, and change the order of sections. This is important in the emergance of pandemics, and is discussed below.
  • ugh ... According to the on-line version of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy: ... they are so often wrong— can this possibly be sourced to something more reliable? Perhaps this is a personal dislike, since they are so dramatically and emphatically wrong on TS, and have made no attempts to correct their misinformation over many years.
  • Somewhere above says "sneeze", this says coughing, list below this mentions both, inconsistency in text should be worked out: The virus attacks the respiratory tract, is transmitted from person to person by saliva droplets expelled by coughing,
  • Not sure about hyphenation here? Seasonal changes in contact rates from school-terms,
  • Avoid "above" or "below" in case a future editor changes section order: Every ten to twenty years a pandemic occurs, which infects a large proportion of the world's population, and can kill tens of millions of people (see history section above).
  • I'm not sure on hyphenation? The most dangerous side-effect
  • Are these generics - should they be capitalized ? Antiviral drugs such as Oseltamivir (trade name Tamiflu) and Zanamivir are

Sandy (Talk) 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Corrections made. TimVickers 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, that was fast, you are an FA machine! Sandy (Talk)

• Comment

H5N1 is the current pandemic threat.

Just to check that you don't want to replace "current" with something more precise and lasting. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed three occurances of this phrase, replaced with "2006-7 flu season" TimVickers 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Only one comment, there's an image superimposing a table in the "History" section. Nat91 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What's your browser and screen resolution? I'll need to reproduce the problem to fix it! TimVickers 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox, 800x600. Nat91 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's optimised for 1024x768, but I just tried your settings and had no problem on my monitor. Did the new nomenclature image fix the problem for you? TimVickers 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so. I don't see the problem anymore. Nat91 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article! Broad coverage of relevant topics (without being too long or technical); should be intelligible to lay-people. I don't like "TimVickers, FA Machine" as a title — how about "Mr. FAntastic"? ;) Willow 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to see a section about economic impact of influenza, past and present.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added such a section using content from Social impact of H5N1. Probably should be further edited ... WAS 4.250 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Economic impact" section refers to the impact of animal (avian) influenza for most of its duration. Shouldn't the "Infection in other animals" come before the recently addended section upon the economy? I've changed the order, and if you object, post something here and revert it. Thanks. --Gracenotes ^T § 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done formatting and some editing in this section. A whole new section in just 4 hours! TimVickers 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, if it can be expanded to past influenza's impact it would be quite comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is amazingly little published research on this area, however I found one paper and have added some discussion of the economic impact of the 1918 pandemic. TimVickers 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job - I support now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oct 28

• Support, This is a great article and seems to meet all the criteria. I do have a few small things I question.
  • There are a lot of long sentences. These sentences tend to use parentheses rather heavily. And in other places parentheses are used where I would generally put a piped link. I wonder if these things should be handled differently, but I am not sure they are wrong.

Replaced parentases in first paragraph of intro with piped links, thank you, a great improvement. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Long The most common human vaccine is the trivalent flu vaccine, which contains purified and inactivated material from whatever three flu strains are judged the most useful to put in a vaccine for that flu season (typically, two types of influenza A viruses and one influenza B virus).

Cut into two sentences and re-ordered. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Long Since it first killed humans in Asia the 1990s and became epizootic (epidemic in nonhumans) and panzootic (affecting animals of many species, over a wide area) a deadly avian strain of H5N1, called HPAI A(H5N1) for "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1", has posed the greatest influenza pandemic threat.

Cut central clause, since I don't think H5N1 avian influenza is epidemic in humans. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • On the piped link; would In people, common symptoms of influenza are fever, sore throat (pharyngitis), muscle pains (myalgia) be better handled like In people, common symptoms of influenza are fever, sore throat, muscle pains; I don't know.
  • Terminology on avian flu is not consistant. It fully introduced twice. It is called "avian influenza", "HPAI A(H5N1)", "H5N1", "H5N1 avian flu" and "avian flu H5N1" at various points. In "Infection in other animals" I get the impression the above terms are not interchangable, but they seem to be used interchangably throughout the rest of the article.

Standardised either on "Avian influenza" when talking about influenza in birds in general, or H5N1 avian influenza. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I think the article needs to be rechecked that linked terms are linked at their first use and only their first use. - User talk:BirgitteSB

I disagree that we should only link technical terms once, since some readers may not read the entire article (for example skipping the technical section on Viral structure and going straight to Treatment and Vaccination). However, I've been through and removed some duplicate links in the same section. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to fix some of these things but thought better of it, as I'm better at gathering data than word-smithing. I agree with the piped link comment. The two long sentences are my fault - I expect they'll be fixed by Monday by someone on a wikibreak. I disagree totally with only linking terms when they first appear - more than once per paragraph is too much and once per section is generally best. See avian flu and H5N1 for their meanings - they are definitely not interchangable. For example LPAI A(H5N1) exists in North America; nonavian H5N1 is theoretically possible but does not yet exist; A(H5N1)=H5N1; H5N1 is the virus while H5N1 flu is the disease; flu=influenza; avian=bird; all subtypes of Influenzavirus A have strains that are endemic in birds and thus are "avian flu viruses" but the stains are viruses not flus and the subtypes are not "avian flu viruses" because some stains of those subtypes are not endemic in birds but instead are endemic in other animals (humans, horses, dogs, ...). WAS 4.250 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, avian flu is avian. Only birds can catch it, lest there be the necessary mutations for it to be successful in human hosts. The HxNy notation describes the two main aspects of the serotype, i.e. the glycoproteins (iirc) that the immune system latches on to. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 11:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Only birds can catch it" is incorrect. Humans have caught and died from the current Asian-lineage HPAI A(H5N1) which is an avian flu virus - the "A" in HPAI stands for "avian" (but the "A" in A(H5N1) stands for "Influenzavirus A" or type A or species A or Influenza A virus).

Genetic factors in distinguishing between "human flu viruses" and "avian flu viruses" include:

PB2: (RNA polymerase): Amino acid (or residue) position 627 in the PB2 protein encoded by the PB2 RNA gene. Until H5N1, all known avian influenza viruses had a Glu at position 627, while all human influenza viruses had a lysine.

HA: (hemagglutinin): Avian influenza HA bind alpha 2-3 sialic acid receptors while human influenza HA bind alpha 2-6 sialic acid receptors. Swine influenza viruses have the ability to bind both types of sialic acid receptors.

The HA changes have not yet occured in any sequenced H5N1 virus - even ones from humans that died from it and the PB2 changes don't stop it from being a flu virus endemic in birds (the definition of "avian flu virus").

Further, pandemic flu viruses have some avian flu virus genes and usually some human flu virus genes. Both the H2N2 and H3N2 pandemic strains contained genes from avian influenza viruses. The new subtypes arose in pigs coinfected with avian and human viruses and were soon transferred to humans. Swine were considered the original "intermediate host" for influenza, because they supported reassortment of divergent subtypes. However, other hosts appear capable of similar coinfection (e.g., many poultry species), and direct transmission of avian viruses to humans is possible. H1N1 may have been transmitted directly from birds to humans (Belshe 2005). Recent research of Taubenberger et al has suggested that the 1918 virus, like H5N1, could have arisen directly from an avian influenza virus. WAS 4.250 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Perhaps, instead of having all of the images in the article at the top right corner of sections, there could be a bit of variation. Maybe the image code could be implemented after the first paragraph of a section. Perhaps the image could be left of the text. That sort of thing. Gracenotes ^T § 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, done for two images. TimVickers 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

A large group of biography and football editors have thoroughly reviewed this article over the last few months, and I think it has reached a stage where it meets the standard required of featured articles. The main work has been in expanding the biography career. After that, a fair amount of work went into improving the grammar and removing all of my accidentally placed POV claims.

The article draws help from the only other featured soccer player article, Denis Law. The lead section includes Gilberto's career highlights and his roots in Brazil, and also has a length in-check with the size of the article as a whole. The biography has a comprehensive childhood section, leading into two neat sections about how his career began and then progressed thereafter. I feel that the prose creates a good feeling of 'story' as the article progresses into the modern day, sticking to the major points in his career. The whole biography is referenced very thoroughly. The images all CC licensed, and all have fitting captions.

I hereby self-nominate the Gilberto Silva article. Thanks. -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see no serious problems. Looks like a very good sports biography article, and kudos on the images, I know how hard it is to get free images of athletes.

Thanks for your kind words - and thanks for making some changes to it! The sentences which you changed now flow much better.

• Per WP:MOS#Time "Avoid words or phrases like currently, recently, last year, soon, modern, and new." so the section "Recent career" needs to be renamed, I just can't think of what to.

Good spot. We had some problems with that header before. I'll change it to "senior career" for now. If you think of something more fitting, feel free to put it.

• Article Mentions the game he debuted in with Arsenol, but not the date. This might be a good idea to include.

Good idea. Done.

• "At first he struggled to adapt to life in London", "his off-field problems continued" - a bit confusing. Were his problems just limited to not getting full payment on his contract? Language is a bit vague, especially "he struggled to adapt to life in London", could just use a bit of clearer explanation.

I've done two things to fix this. I've written why he struggled to adapt to life in London (it was because of the change from a small town to a bit city). I've also changed 'off field problems' to 'legal problems'. I hope that makes the distinction between the two 'problems'.

• "Gilberto sustained a serious injury, fracturing his back" could use just a bit more detail on how he was injured

I've expanded the sentence to say how the injury started as a pain, and turned out to be a fracture.

• "His absence as a first team regular could be explained by his lack of games, and thus match fitness, for Arsenal during the season leading up to the tournament." So he didn't play a lot of games because he wasn't in good shape because didn't play in a lot games? Sounds like circular logic. In addition to being confusing, this claim is uncited. nevermind, I misread, --W.marsh 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Seems okay to me. --W.marsh 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I've seen this article grow over time, and have re-assessed it a couple of times thanks to a great job by GilbertoSilvaFan. This article definitely is FA-class. – Elisson • T • C • 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and well-citated.--Yannismarou 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great level of detail and due diligence has gone into this article. GilbertoSilvaFan's attitude towards this has to be commended too.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: → only for the copyvio images problems. Support
  • Image:Gilberto_Silva_Against_Villa.jpg has a possible copyvio. The image is tagged with CC-BY-SA license, but it is released under "All rights reserved" license. I've put the possible copyvio tag there.

    This image issue is being handled outside of this page.

    but, it does not mean that you can include copyvio images in this article. Not for FAC. Please read WP:WIAFA, criterion 3. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    I understand - I didn't mean that the copyright problems won't be an issue - I just said "this is being sorted elsewhere", because we were discussing it on our talk pages. Ok, about the image. I really am a bit stuck. What is the best way to prove that the image has been authorised by the photographer for use on Wikipedia? The author of this image and the one below have both released the image under the creative commons license; how do I prove this? Is there a way? Shall I copy and paste the emails which grant permission? Thanks for your advice.

    Well, you can remove the image from the article first and let the copyright issue be solved in the image "space". If you insist to put the image in the article during FAC, then there is no way this article will be granted an FA status. — Indon (reply) — 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    Done. I've replaced the images with ones I took myself. I hope this helps to clear the way for the article to pass FAC. Thanks for all your messages in this nomination, Indon; much appreciated. GilbertoSilvaFan 10:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The source of Image:Gilberto_Silva_Streetleague.jpg image cannot be verified. The link goes to an empty page.

    So is this one.

    so is this one (criterion 3, WP:WIAFA). — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    See above. Image has been switched.

  • There is no source in the statistics, performance and list of honours.

    Statistics and honours have been sourced. Do the performances/goals list need to be sourced? I can add a soccerbase link for each one if needed, I'm not sure if it would be too messy though... Please let me know.

    Yes, the whole data and statistics should have reliable sources. It is not enough to say Statistics correct as of October 14, 2006,.... Says who? If you want to compare, then read the bottom of the table in Dean Smith article, that I'd just fixed it. However, I see inline citations have been put at the top of the table header. That's okay for me. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Cool - I'll source all the individual performances and goals. I'll create a little row below the table like you have done for dean smith. Edit: I decided to source each game individually since Soccerbase doesn't let you link to a range of data.

  • I found inexact words to state the time, that should be avoided in WP, because all facts should be accurate whenever an article is read, either now or 15 years later. Here are the words:
    • "currently" in the lead section,

      Changed. :-)

    • present tense of this statement: "He plays for Arsenal as a defensive midfielder." in the lead section,

      Changed wording.

    • "by today's rates." (when is today?),

      Poulsen changed this - thanks Poulsen!

  • Copyediting is still needed, especially for putting commas for better reading. For examples:

    Poulsen has changed all these comma issues too - thanks to Indon too for spotting them.

    • "When not playing football Gilberto's father taught him furniture making skills that he would come to use in the following years." → needs a comma to separate sub-sentences.
    • "In 1991 Gilberto's father retired leaving the fifteen year old to provide financially for his whole family, a task made more difficult by his mother's ill-health." → needs a comma and I found many of this similar sentence, that starts with time.
    • "Because of the low wage at América Mineiro he was forced to quit football to take various jobs as a labourer, a carpenter and a worker in a sweet factory." → needs a comma
    • "During Gilberto's third season at América Mineiro (their second season in Série A)..." → please choose one, third or second season and also a comma is needed after the time clause.
    • "In 2000, aged 24, he joined rival club Atlético Mineiro where in his first season for the club he fractured his right tibia and, as a result, missed a number of games." → chop this long sentence.
    • "He made his international debut against Chile on 7 October as a substitute, and on 7 November he made his full international debut against Bolivia."→ redundant international debut and what's the meaning of full and without-a-full international debut?
    • "Upon signing Gilberto Arsené Wenger said, ...." → now this clearly needs a comma. Otherwise one would think of a person, named Gilberto Arsene Wenger. :-)
    • ... and many more.
  • This following part of a paragraph:

In 2002 he was a surprise inclusion in the Brazil squad for the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Korea/Japan. He was expected to play a bit part in the tournament. However, defensive midfielder Emerson was injured in training just before the first World Cup game. In light of the setback, coach Scolari called upon Gilberto to fill the gap which Emerson left. Gilberto ended up playing in every minute of every match of the tournament, which Brazil went on to win.

is unsourced, and has an unencyclopaedic - with a strong POV writing - in the last sentence.

Poulsen sourced the sentence.

• • "Football pundits labelled Gilberto as one of the major factors of Brazil's success in Japan." --> needs a source for this fact.

    While this sentence was kind of sourced by the 'piano carrying' quote, I deleted it anyway.

  • In the last paragraph of the Early career sub-section, I found it confusing to understand about Ronaldo and Rivaldo role there. There's some information missing.

    How exactly should I change it? That quote is complete, and I think it's a fairly common phrase. If you carry a piano to somebody elses tune, you do the hard work of carrying a huge piano to a concert, while the pianist (in this case rivaldo/ronaldinho) gets credit for the lovely tunes which it plays. Could you elaborate on this point? Thanks.

    To be honest, I still don't understand. Perhaps my English is a bit lacking to relate between piano and football. It is just the assertion of the quote makes it hard to understand. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ok, it's just a little analogy. The author in Veja Magazine used a 'poetic' way of explaining how Gilberto did the 'dirty work' while the attacking players got the credit. I think it's a good way of explaining it.

  • A smalll typo: "Being used to life in small Brazilian towns, ...". Shouldn't it be "to live"?

    Good spot; I've changed this to be more clear.

— Indon (reply) — 02:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support: The images, as descriped by Indon, should be sorted out. Other than that, I vote support. Poulsen 09:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Footballers usually have very small articles, this one is a shining beacon of hope to us all. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I like this article Kingjamie 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An excellent article, definitely FA standard. Oldelpaso 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Tenaru

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for Featured Article consideration. Self-nomination. Cla68 10:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Date links...I believe full m/d/y dates should be linked, but not m/d only links. Rlevse 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  Nope, any link containing both a month and a day is subject to the user date preferences, and needs to be linked (e.g. 2 June versus June 2). Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object — Overall it's pretty good, with only a few issues that I think need to be addressed. Neutral because of the image quality. Support
  • The first paragraph should clarify that this battle took place on the island of Guadalcanal.
    • Done.
  • The image at the top has some distracting scanning artifacts. Can a better-quality image be provided?
    • Unfortunately, I can't fix this one at this time. I've searched all over the place and can't find a better copy.
      • There's a slightly better copy on a fortunecity site.[17] Is there not another image that could be used? — RJH (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I just uploaded a much clearer image. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What is an "Element" in this context? Is that a battalion-strength battle group?
    • "Element" was the word used in Japanese communications at that time to refer to this detachment from Ichiki's regiment. The use of the word "element" was probably due to the fact that the size of the unit was larger than a battalion, but smaller than a regiment. I've added some clarification to the text.
  • The info box lists 777 Japanese killed; the introduction: 900-128=772 killed. Which is correct? I know it's a minor difference, but it's good to be consistent.
    • I was rounding for aesthetic purposes in the intro, I've now changed it to read 917. I know that 917-15 (captured)-128 (killed) doesn't equal 777 but that's what the source states are the numbers. The source admits that the numbers don't completely add up but it's the best that can be done with the surviving primary source available.
  • The map is a little difficult to decipher, being in black and white and apparently showing both U.S. and Japanese attacks (even though the legend states the arrows shows the "axis of Japanese attacks".)
    • I changed the map to a color one.
  • In the prelude it states that landing took place "without unloading all of the heavy equipment," but later the divisional artillery is used in support. Can the unloading situation be clarified? Was the heavy equipment brought in later?
    • I clarified that paragraph to state that the divisional artillery was landed. It was among the only heavy equipment landed.
  • The "Aftermath" section states that this was a "large land battle", but apparently it was only a battalion-strength attack. Large, to me, usually means a corps or army-level battle.
    • Ok. I removed the word "large."

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I addressed each of your comments above. Cla68 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've resolved your last concern. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Magnifique. Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "That night, as the transports unloaded, the Allied warships screening the transports were surprised and defeated by a Japanese warship force of seven cruisers and one destroyer, commanded by Japanese Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa. Three U.S. and one Australian cruisers were sunk and one other U.S. cruiser and two destroyers were damaged in the Battle of Savo Island. Turner withdrew all remaining Allied naval forces by the evening of August 9 without unloading all of the heavy equipment, provisions, and troops from the transports, although most of the divisional artillery was landed." I know Cla68 is always very carefully citating his articles. I was thus wondering why are these facts uncitated (a minor detail in a great article, but I sometimes stick on details!).--Yannismarou 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I added a citation for that section. Cla68 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good article! Kyriakos 03:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice article. Raymond Palmer 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You need a little work with references. In particular, as you have only one referenced work by Frank, you should reference to it with "Frank, p. 153", not "Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 153". If you refer several times to the same page of the same reference, do not create several notes, but a single one; e.g., the casualities references are actually the same.--Panarjedde 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Platypus

This was made a featured article so long ago that I can't find any record of why it was promoted. Anyway, it was demoted in July this year (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Platypus for its complete FA history). Over the past couple of months I've completely rewritten it - I think it is back up to FA standard now. Yomangani^talk 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. very nice. Rlevse 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated, well-written... overall everything a FA should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs)
• Comment: The image map of the platypus distribution has no information in it, either as caption or in the image description. What does the color mean? I can guess, but since there are 2 different intensities of purple color, does it mean that platypuses are distributed throughout the continent? And also, to avoid WP:OR issue and for the accuracy of the image, there must be a source of this distribution map, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an explanation to the map. The OR concern is addressed by the referenced range details in the article - I don't think it is necessary to cite the map key as well. Yomangani^talk 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but which reference that was used as the source of the distribution image? — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference with a map that duplicates the info shown. Yomangani^talk 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually it should be given in the image description, because then the image can be used in any articles without concerning its accuracy. So, here is my support for such a high-quality article. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let editors know, that I've been bold to edit the image description in its Commons page. — Indon (reply) — 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article. Only two minor comments I wish to add.
  • Can a picture of a platypus egg be obtained? It would be very interesting since it is one of the few mammals that lay eggs.
    • I've only been able to find one decent photo - I emailed the owner for permission to use it but haven't heard back yet. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added an external link to the picture in the meantime. Yomangani^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • One sentences which appear akward to me: The platypus occupies much the same general distribution as it did prior to European settlement of Australia, except for its loss from the state of South Australia. Much the same general distribution is my concern. Joelito (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've slightly reworded that now. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well, that explains the difference between the German and English maps. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent job. Definitely meets the FA criteria. Jay32183 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Support Very comprehensive and well-cited. Some comments:
  • Keep dashes separating clauses in sentences consistent; I spotted "-", "–", and "—" all used.
  • Two red links: "interclavicle" and "defensin-like proteins".

Overall, good job. -Gzkn 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed [[defensin-like proteins]] to [[defensin]]-like [[protein]]s. There's really not much I can do about the interclavicle link: an interclavicle exists in certain animals, so there's no use not having an article about it (not double negative because "not having" refers to nonexistence and "no use" refers the futility thereof; not entirely canceling each other out), but I wouldn't know enough to start an article about it. I also eliminated dash variation by removing the dashes (where they served as conjunctions) and finding a more appropriate way to logically connect two independent clauses. See here On that note, I

Support: Nice article. It's good, it's factual, and the popular culture section is intelligible prose, not just a list. Well done. Gracenotes ^T § 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough information for both interclavicle and defensin-like protein for them to have their own article, which is why they are linked even though those articles don't yet exist (both are on my redlink list to be filled sometime soon). Yomangani^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I am disclosing I did a bit of editing on it as well but I reckon it satisfies all criteria - neutral, comprehensive, succinct and readable. Cas Liber 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very good. Wiki-newbie 09:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support and a congratulatory salute for saving yet another neglected or demoted featured article. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Nat91 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice!--Yannismarou 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well writen, interesting, well cited, and has good pictures. Well done. Darthgriz98 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Self-nomination. Drastic improvements in coverage, references, layout and consistency since I started seriously working on the article, and if I may say so myself, I feel it meets all the requirements. It should be stable now that I've stopped re-wording the biography section, which I felt needed work before FA nomination. ~ Gromreaper 14:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now You note in your nomination itself that the article is instable. You've made so many changes in the past 36 hours that it fails WP:FA? right off the bat. However, I love Weird Al, and the article looks great, so if you just let the article lie for a couple of weeks, I'd possibly (if not probably) support. -- Kicking222 16:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." from WP:FA?. All my edits were the subject of suggestions on the article's talk page and does not reflect instability, which refers to edit wars and the like. ~ Gromreaper 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed the talk page suggestions. My bad. Opposition stricken. -- Kicking222 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral until I have a chance to really read it, but leaning toward support. Oppose as long as fair-use cover art is used in the discography table, which is contrary to Wikiproject Music's MUSTARD guidelines (see WP:MUSTARD#Images and notation and WP:MUSTARD#Discographies). Additionally, the other images used in the article lack sources and fair use rationales; and, regarding the image in the infobox, photos of living people are considered "easily replaceable fair use" and there's currently a debate over whether they're suitable for use in Wikipedia. That's just the images, though — I haven't gotten a chance to read it thoroughly yet, but the text looks good at first blush. --keepsleeping slackoff! 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Is that adequate? I've added fair use for the DVD covers. I'm not good at copyright in any way, and I don't know what constitutes a "free" image. Any help? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I've sort of been using the Elliott Smith featured article as a guideline for this, and the image rationale for his infobox seems to be the same kind of justification as the Weird Al infobox. ~ Gromreaper 03:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Elliott Smith, unfortunately being dead, isn't easily photographable. Yankovic, thankfully being alive, is :) I've left some suggestions on your talk page about replacing the fair-use image with a free one (and even found one that would work). --keepsleeping slack off! 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Image replaced. --keepsleeping slack off! 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  I would suggest merging the sections "Awards and album certification" and "Discography", like current Featured Article Marilyn Manson (band), which would eliminate both the MUSTARD problems and the redundancy of having all the album titles listed twice. --keepsleeping slack off! 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've removed the images and merged and culled the section. Wasn't sure whether to include the Canadian certification with the US, so I kept it separate for now. Any other suggestions? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The instability thing means that there are no edit wars or POV issues in progress or potentially brewing. I've passed three FAs with over a hundred edits made the day of nomination, so unless you're making some caustic assertions in the biography section, it should be okay. --Zeality 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clear-up...Kicking222 had me worried. ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectMild support Support For now, at least. I'm a big fan of Weird Al though, so I'd love to see this brought up to FA status. Some comments:
  • Unsourced statements:
    • -Yankovic commented, "Millions of girls actually found me hot for the first time!"
      • Replaced with another sourced statement ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Furthermore, most novelty artists are often one hit wonders, but Yankovic's continued success (including a top 10 single and album in 2006) has enabled him to escape the "one hit wonder" stigma often associated with novelty music.
      • Now sourced ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Kurt Cobain called Yankovic an American "rock genius" in his private journals.
      • Couldn't find a source, so removed for now. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Their mission is to "solicit, collect, and raise the necessary money, and to compile the information needed for the application to nominate 'Weird Al' Yankovic for a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame." and most of that section.
      • More sources added...seems the weirdalstar.com link was removed a while ago. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair, he is often seen with a goatee; most notably, on the album art for the 2006 release, Straight Outta Lynwood. - Second clause is not an independent clause, so that semicolon is out of place.
    • Re-worded to Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair he is often seen with a goatee, including on the cover for 2006's Straight Outta Lynwood. I hope that's what you wanted addressed... ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yankovic is best known for his song parodies... - Be careful when using the phrase "best known". Aim for more factual statements such as "While his song parodies have proven more popular according to the charts...".
    • Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yankovic's recurring jokes include the number 27 and the names Bob, Frank and Leroy Finkelstein. - Might want to give some example songs (in parens) in which these occur.
    • Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the misattribution issue on file-sharing sites really merit a spot in the intro? Seems kind of trivia-ish to me...
    • I figured since it has an entire section devoted to it, it should be mentioned in the intro. I was following WP:LEAD. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The first half of the "Songs" section ventures into a non-NPOV territory, at least to me, as it delves into analysis of his music. Not sure what WP's policy is towards analysis of music in articles though.
    • I'll work on this tonight. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Done. ~ Gromreaper 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Analysis of a musical style is totally acceptable if not recommended. We could discuss where it should be placed (here or in a seperate section), but, in any case, it definitely adds to the article's comprehensiveness and quality. Under the term, of course, that it is balanced and NPOV. I think that it this case we don't have such problems and the analysis is well-done.--Yannismarou 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • My only comment about the "Songs" section is that the two first pars are unreferenced.--Yannismarou 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well in that case, I guess I'm reluctantly OK with the analysis (I've definitely seen far worse and for more biased analysis on Wikipedia). There are, however, only four sources in the entire section, although this is probably to be expected in analysis (another reason I tend to dislike analysis). Gzkn 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I've added some more references and re-worded the paragraph about the way his parodies are recorded. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Looks great. Changed to Support. Gzkn 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ref number 41 no longer works.
    • You mean the E article about the star? Now fixed ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gzkn 06:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Look forward to seeing how the "Songs" section turns out, as that and the unsourced stuff, which are now fixed, were my main objections. Gzkn 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Under the term that "Songs" will be properly citated, I support the article. But I underscore the conditionality of the support!--Yannismarou 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Full support from me.--Yannismarou 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Songs" now has some references and re-wording of the way his parodies are recorded to sound less amaturish and POV. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support While the article is a bit unstable, I am in support of it becoming a featured article. And I am a Weird Al fan. Karrmann 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question What's with that vandalism template? I couldn't easily find its placement in the history. Was the article really getting vandalized, and how far ago was this? --Zeality 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was vandalised many times by IP users after the White & Nerdy music video was released and the Atlantic Records page was vandalised and protected. Those that couldn't vandalise Atlantic Records went to Weird Al's page instead and added the text "YOU SUCK" (as in the video), oftentimes deleting entire sections. It was protected about a week ago, I think ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Template was added on October 24th. Michael Greiner 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Well done. -- Kicking222 12:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - Only thing stopping me from support is that you have failed to follow the idea of putting citations at the end of sentances. When moved I will change to support. Inform me on my talk page.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Issue addressed; all citations are now at the end of their sentence. ~ Gromreaper 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to Support My only concern has been addressed--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - well done. Satisfies criteria - easy to read, comprehensive and comes across as impartial. Cas Liber 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article is well written, well cited, and interesting.HeBhagawan 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, easy to follow, very accurate, and very comprehensive. --Elvis 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for FA consideration. Although not as long as some battle articles, I believe it includes all of the relevant information for an encyclopedic article on the event. Self-nomination with helpful polishing from other editors. Cla68 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I can get behind this. Short, but seems to contain all the information the other FAs on battles have, so I guess it's comphrehensive. There's just less to be written, is all. It's well referenced, detailed, well written, properly organized... yeah. I can support this. Fieari 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Its short it still meets all the criteria. Kyriakos 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Consecutive article, apparently passed the A-class nomination. Nice image set. --Brand спойт 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, all the issues raised in the peer review and A-Class review have been resolved. Another outstanding article from Cla68. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice good, compact, article that meets all of the criteria for featured article status. Hello32020 00:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Short and sweet. Well-linked as well. Gzkn 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support but please move External links out of References (unless they were really used as References, in which case they shouldn't be listed as External links). Sandy (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They were used as references. I've always divided up my references into "Books" and "External Links." Do you feel that the web references should be in a section with a different heading? Cla68 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at WP:LAYOUT. All references used should be listed under Notes/References; External links is a separate standard heading which is not normally used to describe Notes/References. Perhaps you could say Book References and Web References (or something along those lines), so as not to get tangled up in standard Wiki headings? Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Overall a nice piece of work. To put things in perspective though, the background section could use an overview map that clearly shows the locations of Rabaul, Guadalcanal Island, and possibly the battle of Coral Sea. (But the map on the Guadalcanal campaign page is a little too large a scale, and, besides, it's hard to read. :) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Myth and misinformation is the norm in most published literature about Tourette syndrome; I hope you will find this to be a well-referenced encyclopedic entry that helps clarify some of the common misconceptions about the condition. There is a very old peer review; the article is selected as one of the best at the medicine portal, conforms to the Manual of style for medical articles, has had several independent copy edits, and is extensively cited. The size is a respectable 66KB overall, with 37KB of prose. Self-nom, about 95% written by me, with lots of vandal patrolling by my Wikifriends (please help me watch for the expected coprolalia-related vandalism while it is here at FAC). Thanks in advance for your comments, Sandy (Talk) 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support : I've been watching this article and your work for a long long time. One of our best (if not the) scientific articles. Perfect job! NCurse _work 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support : Wow, finally it's in FAC. Have watched the article for a long time. Great job. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Example of some of the best work on Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Are all of the (R)s in the Management section really necessary? --198.185.18.207 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the registered trademark on medication names (®) was first added by an editor from one of the pharmaceutical projects who reviewed the article months ago for me: if it's a problem, I can ask one of the drug guys if the registered trademark is required for copyright legal reasons. Sandy (Talk) 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I asked at WikiProject Drugs. In case no one answers, I've checked several generic drug entries, and the brand names seem to always have the trademark sign. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I received a speedy response from a helpful Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), who suggested a means of removing the trademarks for better readability. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. They were in the way. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 12:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about moving one of the images to the left? Shake things up a bit, ya know? --198.185.18.207 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will do that today, Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, I think images are all solved now. Sandy (Talk) 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I've been watching how much careful work has gone into this article by a star editor to bring it up to an exemplary standard. --apers0n 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm with NCurse and Wikipedical, definitely one of the best medical articles on WP. No redlinks, perfect ref placement (little things that usually bother me), relevant "daughter pages" – excellent. Fvasconcellos 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per apers0n, I have also seen Sandy working hard on this article, and, in all honesty this article is quite brilliant. --Alex (Talk) 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful and intellectually satisfying throughout. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I should disclose that I did some copy-editing a while ago on this one. The nominator has a deep knowledge of this area, and it shows. Tony 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly pitched, comprehensive, interesting and even managed to teach me the difference between echolalia and palilalia on the way. Yomangani^talk 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellently written, well-balanced, and an enjoying read. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comments Overall excellent but some suggestions.

• In the introduction, why is a number of schoolchildren sufferers only given for America, which gives no information on incidence. The percentage mentioned later in the article would be more widely-applicable.

• That is the only number (as opposed to prevalance est.) available anywhere in any literature I've seen, and I only found it in new reading this week: if estimates of school children in other countries (other than prevalance, already discussed) are available anywhere, I've never come across them. I wanted something to convey the idea of how "not rare" TS is; that's why I moved that number up. My thinking is that just including the prevalance in the lead wouldn't be "enticing" to the reader, as it wouldn't convey the magnitude of the number. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried a formulation that adds both. Also changed half million to 500,000 as numbers with lots of zeros look larger!

Perfect! Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• You might add an image of the structure of the most-frequently used medication.

• Nice suggestion, will do. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some of these refs contain several papers, was this intended?

• Yes, in cases where multiple (seminal or important) references were used to support one statement, I combined them into one ref tag (something I learned from the Daniel Boone nomination). I think I did that in 4 refs, rather than overburden the text with multiple tags.

• Refs 70 and 71 are duplicates and could be merged.

• Ack, thanks! I double-checked the book to make sure I hadn't made a typo, it is the same page, I'll combine. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Notes" contains the references, so what is the references section for? Is this part of further reading? TimVickers 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Notes are specific inline citations; references are a listing of the broader sources used in researching the overall topic - seminal papers quoted often, reviews, and books on the entire topic - per WP:MEDMOS. References are also used for specific inline cites, but as MEDMOS was explained to me, and as I read it, the overall (general) research materials used are listed in References, while inline citations are at Notes. Those are the important Research works; they can't be listed as Further reading, as they are used as a source. Thanks for the help: going to make your changes now. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TimVickers 12:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Wow, comprehensive and well-written. Great work, Sandy! --Gzkn 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support' Etiology' could do with a link though. JMcC 10:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. I learnt a lot reading through it. CloudNine 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice indeed.--Yannismarou 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding. Rlevse 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support – This article depresses me whenever I look at it and compare it to my own humble efforts. Something to aspire to. I have a few relatively minor comments. The words etiology and modality are a bit erudite for the lead and should be wiki-linked, or reworded. The word "should" is used a few times in the Screening section in a way that appears prescriptive rather than descriptive. I'm not convinced that the recently added image of the Haloperidol molecule is relevant or beneficial. That most people with TS require no medication is repeated a little too often. I appreciate it is difficult not to repeat somewhat, especially across sections. However, it is mentioned twice in the Management section. The second paragraph of Prognosis covers the life-span fact twice. The "the sickest of the sick" is mentioned twice in the Research section. This last section relies too much on one source, which is also perhaps over quoted (making the text harder to read). Are there no specific examples of ongoing or recent research to mention? Colin°^Talk 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for all of that, Colin; I'll get on all that after I've had several cups of morning coffee. (The final source used in Research controversies is so seminal and comprehensive it's hard not to use it all -- it covers all current controversies, but I'll see what I can do there.) Sandy (Talk) 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changes made, would appreciate a new set of eyes to have a look now at Research directions and controversies section. The Swerdlow paper is so comprehensive that there isn't much else to say, but I did add info from another source so as not to overly rely on one source. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question Haloperidol image in the Management section: question raised above as to its usefulness. Opinions? Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's relevant (the Arthur K. Shapiro article does state "a turning point in understanding of Tourette syndrome came...when Dr. Shapiro and his wife... treated a Tourette’s patient with haloperidol"), but as a "pharm guy" as Sandy put it I'm biased :) – Colin's concern (correct me if I'm wrong) may refer to the fact that lay readers may not associate a space-filling model of Haldol with Haldol (or may not recognize what it is). Perhaps linking to "space-filling model" or "molecular model" in the caption? Fvasconcellos 14:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons: I'm not happy having Haldol in there, since it really is a heavy-duty med, with major side effects, is used as a last resort in severe cases, and I don't want the article to appear to "encourage" its use. On the other hand, you are right that it was a turning point in the history. Maybe you can fix the caption? Another option I found, which I like better, is at Adderall: it's a very nice image, and it is important to convey that stimulants are underused in the treatment of TS because of old myths. But, I'm not sure about the licensing tag on that image? Anyone? Sandy (Talk) 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As an image that is very similar to the one that is already used (generic medicine bottle and capsules). I think the Haloperidol image could stay but needs recaptioning. "Haloperidol is used to treat severe cases of Tourette's" tells us neither whether Haloperidol alone is used in this case nor whether it is the only treatment for severe TS. Perhaps even explaining that this is a representation of the molecule might help. Yomangani^talk 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(dedenting)I'd be happy to amend the caption. As for the Adderall pic, I see no major problem with its copyright status. If you look closely, you can see personal details on the prescription bottle have been blanked with White-Out – an indication it is indeed someone's prescription, rather than a commercial image (is this much of a stretch on my part?) Either way, I'll wait for more opinions to emerge, or Sandy's choice. Fvasconcellos 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, because pharmacological treatment is really an issue for the minority, I had left all of that detail in the daughter article, Treatment of Tourette syndrome; now the need for an image may cause med details to come back to this article. Maybe Fvasconcellos can explain better what that image represents - then I can adjust the wording, and later add the adderall image to the Treatment daughter article. (The images in this article have proven to be a bigger problem than the text :-) Sandy (Talk) 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Fvasconcellos 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Space-filling representation of a haloperidol molecule. Haloperidol is an antipsychotic medication sometimes used to treat severe cases of Tourette's.

Perfect, if Yomangani agrees that addresses the textual questions about its use, which I hope not to expand on in this article, rather the Treatment article. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos. Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, now. Yomangani^talk 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks, will ask FV to add. Sandy (Talk) 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandy (Talk) 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused so much of an issue with the multi-coloured sex-toy / space-filling jobbie. Yes, I think most lay people reading this article won't appreciate the subtleties that such a model no doubt informs the pharmacologically minded around here. Given the overall impression regarding medication, I think the one photo of the pills is quite enough for this section. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support --WS 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All weblinks need the date they were last accessed, so that if they become dead they can be retrieved via the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. LuciferMorgan 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Toss me a cluestick: I thought they all had them? (In fact, many of them are to the internet archive stable version.) Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, ha, I did not have access dates on full-text links; now added. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though some techical jargon is a little difficult to follow. I noticed that "comorbid" is wikilinked quite a few times early on (twice in one paragraph) but not again in later sections. I wasn't sure what it referred to when reading the section on "Social impact". Gimmetrow 00:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support – I expected to be overwhelmed by medical jargon, but Sandy has made sure to explain the jargon in laymens' terms within the prose, which is very helpful. In response to the above post, I assumed that the repeated wiki-linking of the term comorbid was unintended and wiki-linked only the first instance of the term. I also noticed that the meaning of comorbid was not explained in the prose like other jargon. Overall, however, this article is very accessible and the quality of the prose is excellent; it seems like a reliable reference point. -- WGee 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on further feedback from Gimmetrow, I moved up and included a brief definition of comorbid, provided an additional link to epidemiology in the Research section, and corrected some redundancy in the Research section. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion on an otherwise excellent article: either think of a better reason for retaining the picture of Mozart, or do away with it. If for example the article were to say The 1978 publication of a book by two eminent neurologists claiming that Mozart had Tourette's -- a claim largely based on a single source now thought to be fraudulent -- gave rise to the widespread belief that blah blah blah [NB this is entirely fictitious!], then Mozart would acquire a considerable (spurious) significance. But as it is, I can't help speculating that some previous editor at one point thought "Let's have a picture here. What can we use? Yes, Mozart! Let's stick in Mozart." -- Hoary 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The lack of good images on the topic has been an ongoing problem, and that does occur/has occurred. On the other hand, google Mozart Tourette— you get 88,000 hits. The rumor is SO widespread that addressing it head on in the article does have a rationale. Comments ? Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a couple of sentences to the text: Hoary, the hypothetical scenario that you laid out above is very close to what did happen. See new text, thanks. Sandy (Talk) 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Much better now. NB I didn't suggest that Mozart shouldn't be mentioned. Now he's not merely mentioned; as you say, the fuss over him is briefly discussed. Good, and now the Mozart pic doesn't seem absurdly out of place. But sorry, to me it still seems out of place. But I could be alone in seeing it this way. (Anybody else care to comment?) Meanwhile, the article is excellent and richly deserves effayfication. -- Hoary 15:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Hoary; if others concur, I'll gladly remove the image, but as you can see, finding images for the article has been a problem. The Mozart editors (several months ago) concurred to largely exorcise the TS text from *their* article — they don't want *that* there :-) There is another Mozart-TS project in the works (can't remember if it's a book, documentary, or what) in addition to the widespread claims furthered by a UK documentary, the work of one individual with TS with little medical input, and my hunch is that it's a frequent query worthy of dealing with seriously on Wiki, and would like to hear from others on the new text and image issue. Sandy (Talk) 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is 71kb long. Am I the only one who finds a problem with this? If I remember correctly, the criteria states that articles should be in summary style. Also, a tedious and exhaustive article cannot be considered "well written." Orane (talk • cont.) 06:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, a tedious and exhaustive article cannot be considered "well written." Respectfully disagree there. Well written prose has little to do with how long an article is. From reading summary style, it seems the article meets that criteria. Note that a good chunk of that 71kb is probably in the references. In any case, I'll let Sandy speak to the article's length. Gzkn 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all we should count prose length and not article length, because counting article length we also count notes, external links etc. (which is not correct). Second, 71 Kb is more than fine, in any case, since some of the recently confirmed FAs were way above 80 kb or even 90 and 100 kb. Comprehensiveness is above length.--Yannismarou 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly tend to agree that a tedious article isn't a good one. I'm also wary of exhaustiveness: comprehensiveness is a virtue, but comprehensiveness needn't and probably shouldn't imply exhaustiveness. Right then: How is this article tedious or [uncritically, tiresomely] exhaustive? -- Hoary 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sandy stated in the nom that the prose is only 37KB. Good referencing accounts for most of the rest. Yomangani^talk 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Decided not to oppose based on Yomangani's point. I would just like to address a couple points however.
    1. "Well written prose has little to do with length?"--Gzkn. Are you serious? An article that is well written is conscious of the reader. No one wants to sit down for an hour sifting through an article that has 10,000 words. Good, clean prose is succinct and precise. Long articles are wordy, unfocussed and are symptomic of poor structure and organization. If length was not an issue, it wouldn't be in the criteria in the first place.
    2. "Comprehensiveness is above length." Again, that is a misconception. There are 4 FA criteria, none of which are more important than the other. To be comprehensive is to touch on all important areas, but a good writer omitts information that contributes nothing to the purpose of his/her writing. In other words, if a writer realizes that his article is too long, he is probably including more than he should, which resluts in a sloppy article. Orane (talk • cont.) 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I disagree with you, but this is not the right place to open this discussion. The adequate length for each article depends. An article with 100 kb can still be comprehensive and not lengthy for its subject.--Yannismarou 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess my take on "well written prose" was just a little more general than yours, which is probably why we disagree. I was divorcing it from the concept of Wikipedia (novels can certainly feature "well written prose" no?). But that's neither here nor there. :) Gzkn 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the input, Orane. Extensively cited articles will have a large overall size, as citations count in the KB. We should avoid burdening the reader with too much prose, which is why prose size is calculated on most long FACs. When nominated, the article was 67 KB overall (not long by current FA standards), with 37KB prose. With the addition of two images and a few lines of text during FAC, the article is now at 71KB overall, with 40KB prose, still well within the norm for most FACs and the limits of readability. If you can point out any sections which you believe need to make better use of summary style, I will see what I can do. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

West Bengal

Previous nomination

A state on eastern India. Capital Kolkata (previously Calcutta). Major works have been done on the article in last 2–3 months. Passed through a peer review and further edits by several wikipedians.

The article failed the previous nomination largely due to the factual inaccuracy in the map. That problem has now been solved. Other concerns raised in the first nomination have also been addressed. Please help this article to become featured. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support: The article definetely meets the criteria. What more can I say? - Tutmosis 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Support. I see no pages in the printed sources which are citated. This should be fixed.--Yannismarou 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply A major source has been "West Bengal Human Development Report 2004" published by Development and Planning Department, Government of West Bengal. This is a printed source, also available online. 6 more books/anthology have been used and cited. I shall try to cite more. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm ok with the number of the printed sources. I just want in these printed sources you already have to mention a specific page for each one. When you citate a book, it is not enough to mention it, you must also specify to which page of this book you refer. Is that clear now?--Yannismarou 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I am trying to fix that ASAP. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Page numbers/ranges, as applicable, have now been included, except in the case of one particular book [Mukherji, S.J. (1984). College Botany Vol. III: (chapter on Phytogeography).]. Another user used this book for citation. I have requested the user to provide us with page numbers. Please see if I've overlooked something else. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the user that used this book for the citations while updating the Flora and Fauna section. The book was borrowed and I should have noted down the pages while writing it. Fortunately, I can get a hold of it again within a day or two and update the reference immediately after. I apologize for the lapse while entering the reference the first time. Thanks for pointing out this important issue. --Antorjal 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the reference with page numbers. I have also verified the information with the newest available edition of this textbook (2000) and changed the reference to reflect this. Thanks, all. --Antorjal 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Support as I did in the last nomination. Very good article, nice work. — Wackymacs 19:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support excellent work. Rama's arrow 19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the pictures have alignment issues - many are clustered, especially due to the size of the Durga pic. Could you please left-align some of them and sort this out? I don't see why the Durga pic isn't enough for the "Demographics," and the same for the RBT in "Flora and fauna." Rama's arrow 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThe Durga image has now been replaced with another Durga image. See if it fits in the resolution you are using. Hmm, the number of images is borderline, I mean may be considered to be excessive. IMO, RBT image is better to retain, rather the forest image can be deleted. However, in culture, trying to retain both images. Feel free to left-allign images, as I am a bit confused while left-alligning. It seems to block the reading speed sometimes! In fact, some editors like Nichalp (talk · contribs) makes it a point that images are right alligned, unless absolutely necessary to left allign them. Your help will be much appreciated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the Durga and RBT to be replaced, just re-ordered. I hate cluttering, with sections thrown out of line - it just ruins the aesthetic value and cohesion. But I'll leave it to your discretion. Rama's arrow 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written  Doctor Bruno  22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written article. -- P.K.Niyogi 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a pleasure to encounter a geography article with such a clean table of contents—a reflection of a well-organized article! Sandy (Talk) 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support : Excellent article, and has improved a lot since the last nomination. --Ragib 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support : A well written article and has improved from last FAC. There is not any points not to be selected as FA.

Sorry I forgot to sign the last support. Amartyabag 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per lacking of unreferenced facts:
  • The whole Culture section is unsourced.... but there are still unsupported qualitative facts. I've put some tags in it.
  • The Media section is a bit akward and sounds ads. There is no source for facts with qualitative words: "popular newspapers", "smaller audiences", "widely popular", "major cellular phone operators", "available throughout West Bengal".
  • Also in the Sport section, there are a lot of "popular" words without any source to support them.
  • A strange citation #47. At the end it says: "Unlisted in this list is West Bengal University of Health Sciences". Why this word is asserted in the citation?

— Indon (reply) — 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Some citations have been incorporated in "Culture". More will be done soon. Most of the qualitative words have been changed/ given citation. However, it is not unusual to assert one or more sentence in a citation. There are many examples of this practice, even in FAs. In this particualr case, as the cited source does not include a new university, that new university has been seperately mentioned (that university has its own article in Wikipedia, with reference). Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very strange and it is an unusual practice of citing source. Why? Why should it be asserted? If it is not in the reference, then why should the editors deliberately write at the end of the citation to give a message "hey, there is one missing fact in this citation!"? Is the source not reliable? Then why did you use it if it is unreliable? — Indon (reply) — 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Ok. The reference has been changed. Now the number of universities are supported by two citations. One citation is linked to the official site of West Bengal University of Health Sciences, while the other citation lists universities. Please see. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Solved. but I have additional comments, see below. — Indon (reply) — 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comments:
  • In the lead section, there is a sentence: "Known for its cultural heritage, West Bengal has been home to legendary poets, writers, artists and performers.", but I can't find this claimed "legendary" fact in the body.
  • I found inexact time information, as this article should be accurate whenever it is read, either now or 20 years later. Here are the words: "recent years" (found 2 in Media section), "at present" (found 2 in the Governments and politics section)
  • In the Demographics section:
    • This sentence: "At 904/km²,...". What does this number mean per squared kilometers? A number of people? a number of houses?
    • This sentence: "The sex ratio is 934 females per 1000 males while the literacy rate is 69.22%." is odd. Is there a contradictory relation between literacy rate with the sex ratio?
  • In this long list of universities: "The state has many higher education institutes of national importance including the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, the first of its kind in India, the National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, the Asiatic Society, the Indian Statistical Institute and the Marine Engineering and Research Institute.", what does "the first of its kind point" to?
  • In the Sport section, I don't get it. Which one is the most popular? Football or cricket?
  • Please supply the source for the [citation is needed] tags that I've put there.

— Indon (reply) — 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Additional Comments Thanks for the excellent review. Following measures have been taken:

• "legendery" has been replaced with "notable". Names of poets, writers are there in the culture section.
• Inexact time information words has been removed/changed appropriately. Please see if some has been missed.
• 904 people. clarified.
• sex ration and literacy. copyedited.
• "the first of its kind" refers to Indian Institute of Management. Clarified.
• Football is most popular. Cricket is also popular. Tried to clarify. Is it ok now?
• citation needed tags - managed. Please see. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Possible copyvio image

I was just going to add this comment from the last additional comments above, but had to run for other thing. The image Image:Victoria_memorial_water.jpg used in this article has a possibility of copyvio. The link to its source in Flickr said that the image is released under "(c) All rights reserved", meaning that the photographer did not irrevocably released all rights as it is said in the license tag. The author's permission (written in the image summary) links to a talk page here, but it is unsigned; thus it cannot be verified whether the message came from the copyright holder. The link in that talk page is also a broken link. Please remove this image first from the article, before the article can gain FA status. Meanwhile, I'm going to tag the image with copyvio message to admin. — Indon (reply) — 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Possible copyvio image Thanks again for pointing out the error. The image has been replaced. However, we'll communicate with the owner of the victoria memorial image to give consent in the proper way so that the image can be used in future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Solved. — Indon (reply) — 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support very strong article. well references and informative--ppm 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I fixed the beguni redlink by creating the article. I dont think there are any more redlinks there.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Lots of imporvement since last FAC.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comments: The last three sections, i.e. Education, Media and Sports, seem to be a big mess of wiki links. Could these links be shortened to look good the page. e.g. instead of Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, IIM Calcutta, etc. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Of course the article would look good if acronyms are used for the institutions. However, there may be a problem. The international audience may not understand the names at one go. If we use the full names, the names are relatively easily understandable. As for overwikilinking in other sections, we'll de-wikilink some words. However, it won't be possible to dewikilink proper nouns, unless already wikilinked upstream in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not unable to understand the problem associated with shortening the name. The link I have provided earlier is not a redirected link. If any reader wants to know the full form of the name, (s)he can know by keeping cursor on the link itself. There is nothing necessary to click the link to know about. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Acronyms and abbreviations in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It states "Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses. This tells readers they will probably find it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it." This article follows the MoS. That's why full names have been used. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Its clearer to me now, I support the article to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Other comments: Now, it's a nicely organized article, but after I read again and again, I realized that this article still looks like a page in a Lonely Planet book. The whole article explains about situations in West Bengal when you're going to live or to visit or to study (with list of universities) there. There's something missing from this article to become a comprehensive encyclopaedic item, as stated in criterion 1.(b) of WP:WIAFA. Here are some missing major facts from the article:
  • Environmental problem. There is an ongoing major environmental health disaster in Bangladesh and West Bengal, where ground water has been contaminated with arsenic. It has been reported in many places, but nowhere it is found in the article.
  • Industrialization problem. In a rapid growth of economy with high dense of population, industrialization becomes a major problem in West Bengal. This includes the land acquisition problem to convert agricultural fields into factories, which is missing in the article.

  — Indon (reply) — 11:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Thanks a lot, again, for drawing attention to this aspect. We shall try to incorporate these things. However, this land acquisition thing is relatively new and needs some time to get stabilised. Still, will try to incorporate. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reply The points raised and a few additional points have been incorporated in the text. Citations have been provided/ texts modified where "citation needed" tags were placed. Please see and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading at the assertion, I'm a bit disappointed for the ground water contamination issue in this article. I am okay with the one-sentence of land acquisition problem, because it is a new issue. However, the arsenic contamination is huge problem in the Ganges river, and it is only stated by a single sentence and a single source. I expect more of 1-2 paragraphs, or even 1 section about Environmental issues. It is not enough to explain about how many people are affected, what are the long-term causes and effects to the health of the people and also to the agricultural products, what are the main cause of this problem, the government response to handle this problem, etc. This is a big disaster for the area, because it is the world's biggest case of ground water contamination. Take your time to dig into references and literatures (I'm sure there are abundant reliable sources for this issue) and present here in a balance weight. Otherwise this article is merely a tourism guide page. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, sections for Indian states are following an established template. The question about arsenic or any other environmental problems the state faces should be proportional to its importance relative to all of "Geography and Climate" of West Bengal. "Arsenic problem in Ganges delta" should have its separate article linked from this article. --ppm 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As ppm has indicated, the article follows the guidelines laid out in WikiProject Indian states and, of course, tries to follow summary style (...staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail...) as described in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. That is why a full section on Environmental Issues cannot be done. And creating 1 or 2 paragraph on arsenic contamination or pollution as a whole would not be proper for summary style. That is why one sentence has been incorporated. The points Indon has raised on Arsenic poisoning are very important, but more suitable for a seperate article probably. Of course it may be stated that this contamination is a part of world's biggest case of groundwater pollution - I am adding that soon. However, if you may attract our attention towards some more problems that we may have missed in the article, that will be truely beneficial for the exhaustiveness of the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is a FAC for Indian portal, then I'll follow the Indian guidelines. Here, I'm just following WP:WIAFA guideline. There was one major fact missing in this article, and now it is inserted as one single line in the article. I still feel it is not enough, compare to the magnitude of the issue. I don't want to attract your attention toward a certain problem, but this issue really relates directly to the WB state. I don't think by giving one section of Environmental issue would distract readers from the main topic. A general reader will be interested to read all views about the state, not only list of universities, list of newspapers, list of cultural events, etc. — Indon (reply) — 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA states that the article "...complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects..." That is why the article tries to follow WikiProject Indian states. And lists of institutions/newspapers/sports venues are provided per the guidelines in this relevant wikiproject.There is no entity such as "a FAC for Indian portal".

Of course, for being "comprehensive", the article has to discuss all aspects of the state. And thanks a lot to Indon for pointing out the major omission of the arsenic problem. But this article is not a place to discuss the details of the problem. The problem has been discussed in the article arsenic contamination of groundwater, and that has been linked to the article West Bengal. May be we have missed even more aspects/problems which should have been there. It would be greatly helpful if those are ponited out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I have no comment about this FAC, neither support nor object. — Indon (reply) — 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary per above. Hope others will study this article and get the other states featured. Saravask 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a and 2a. There's a lot of good in this article, but before I support it, I'd like to see some thorough copy-editing. Here are examples (don't just fix these, please, get a good word-nerd who's unfamiliar with the text to sift through the whole article).
  • Second para: ruled by empires and kingdoms is not quite right, grammatically. Ruled by emperors and kings (and dynasties), yes. Incorporated into or conquered by kingdoms/empires, yes. I'm unsure which is correct. "the reign of the Mughal empire"—nope, empires don't reign, people do.
  • "would serve for many years"—journalistic conditional would be better IMV as simply "served for many years" (not compulsory, though). "ALthough" better in this register than "though" (personal preference, supported by several authorities).
  • In the lead, there's rather too much detail about who governed it when. I'd have thought a summary of this was better in the lead—the region was part of a number of empires and kingdoms during the past two millenia; in ... , the British East India Company .... Also: "Known for its cultural heritage, West Bengal has been home to notable poets, writers, artists and performers. West Bengal has been ruled by the CPI(M)-led Left Front for three decades, making it the world's longest-running democratically-elected communist government." I'd put the culture bit last, and remove the first clause "Known for its cultural heritage", which is implicit in the next clause, and will be fleshed out in the culture section below.
  • No hyphen after -ly words.
  • "date back 4,000 years ago"—Remove "ago", or add "to" before "4,000".
  • "From the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE" and "sixteen"—Please consider consistently doing the reverse: spell out numbers 10 and above, and use numerals for nine and below.
  • Inconsistent use of hyphens, en dashes and em dashes as punctuation for nested clauses. I use em dashes without spaces, but you do have a choice here (en dashes with spaces are acceptable, but not hyphens).
  • WPians all too often use "with" as a connector. It's not classy, and strictly speaking leads to grammatical problems. "Bengal played a major role in Indian independence movement, with revolutionary groups like Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar dominating the scene." Try: "Bengal played a major role in THE Indian independence movement, IN WHICH revolutionary groups SUCH AS Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar dominatED." "The scene" is very informal. There's another "with" connector in the subsequent sentence.
  • "Certain portions of Bihar were also subsequently merged with West Bengal." "Certain" adds absolutely nothing here; try "Parts of Bihar ...". "Also" is redundant and should be struck out.
  • "Over the 1960s and 1970s"—no, "during". Tony 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CommentI have not looked through the list that you've made, but I've gone through the entire article and made as many revisions and changes with words and phrases that caught my attention. I am hoping that I've caught most of your objections without deliberately trying to pick only those out. I'll run through the article once again but in the meantime thanks for the constructive criticism. --Antorjal 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good article. It wouldn't hurt to do a little more to describe the differences between the city life and the villiage life, which are very different. But the article is very good. HeBhagawan 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written and concise. A few points which I feel might be optionally included :
  • Demographics could mention the chinese immigration during the cultural revolution years and the formation of a chinatown.
  • The food section contains a lot of urban food details. No mention of traditionally village staples like pantaa bhaat, or popular rural sweets like pithey or morobba, or rural brews like hadiya, mahua and chhaang.
  • Maybe a line on the role Bengali media played during the Independence movement.

I strongly support the article in its present state, though. Pradiptaray 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support The article is informative and has a good amount of references. But, it needs a thorough copyedit for prose issues. The sentences are long and frequently have separators like mdash; and ";" which make it hard to read. Will fully support once such issues are fixed. I've done some copyedit myself and might work on it tomorrow too, but it would be great if someone else too steps in. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentAgreed. I've revised all sections of the article extensively and substituted commas for semicolons where possible. I've also reduced the number of parentheses, and introduced variants and explanations within the body of the text. There were a few long sentences and some run-ons that I've endeavored to fix. Please take a look at the article again. Thanks. --Antorjal 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Full support now after great copyediting by Antorjal and Dwaipayan. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. My only suggestion is that it could be a little longer to provide more information.HeBhagawan 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for a while, and I believe it is now ready for FAC and meets WP:WIAFA. It has already been reviewed by WikiProject Tropical cyclones and it received an A-Class rating. It also is a good article. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support; nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Titoxd. CrazyC83 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dr. Cash 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support; it's a bit short, but then again it's a subarticle. Would like to see a bit of expansion if possible. Everyking 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article, and rest per nom. Hello32020 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'd like to see more context, like a paragraph about the conditions that support its formation. It doesn't tell me how or why it came to be, just really dry one thing happened after another. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I expanded a little bit the formation section, to address this. Mostly, an upper-level tropospheric trough stopped shearing the system, allowing tropical cyclogenesis to take place. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Do they speak English in What? :) Say what again!. - Taxman ^Talk 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing that was stopping the other thing to get stronger went away, so the other thing strengthened. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • There we go. :) - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What I was thinking was a little broader than the immediate context, something like a summary of the rest of the season, and the things that happened in the season. The article as it is is extemely narrow, so I feel like there's a lot of room for context to expand it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that is well beyond the scope of the article; the relevant article would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which is also an FA, and is prominently linked in the navigation template at the right-hand side of the page. The purpose of the article is to describe the immediate context of the formation of Katrina, as it is a subarticle of Hurricane Katrina itself. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm just a supporter of the idea that every article should be able to stand on its own. I guess it would be a little duplicative, but the scope just feels so narrow as it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's a subarticle of Katrina. Given the topic, it does stand on its own. Any info about the rest of the season isn't about the article title. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure it is. An article about a person should talk about their parents, for example, to be thorough. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; great article (rather ironic that you nominated this for deletion not too long ago!) --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support: The article is fairly well written, but could be improved. Although the information included is quite interesting, useful and important, more could be added. Dhastings 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Gustav (2002)

Self-nomination. Here I am with another article I've worked hard to bring back from the dead. Gustav was a low-impact storm, but there was a surprising amount of information available about it, including some that the original version of this article omitted (quite similar to Hurricane Esther (1961)). I've pretty much finished the article, as I've got all the most important info here, and it's a GA now. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up here, so here it is. :) --Coredesat 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink is annoyed that you took his catch phrase :P It's comprehensive and well-written, so Support. Good work on this one. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work on this one guys. Hello32020 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; all my concerns addressed. Object; too many hurricane articles on the FAC page. =) Actually, this is really good. Fix the units though—sometimes metric is in the parenthesis, and other times English is there instead. I'd rather see metric first, but either way, make it consistent. And don't forget to put in &nbsp; between numbers and abbreviations of units (keeps the line from breaking and stranding a number on the line above its unit). I've fixed a couple of these.

Prose could use a little work too. "Associated" in the first sentence of Storm History is used as a verb, which seems strange. In the next sentence it's used as an adjective. I say change the first one to something a bit clearer. This phrase doesn't make sense: "became extratropical shortly after while over the island." Some people might not know what a "storm-force wind gust" is (link Beaufort Scale or better yet, make it more clear). What does it mean to "nearly disrupt" something? Disruption doesn't imply cancellation (just annoyance), so perhaps "nearly" can be removed. What does "Climatology favors the formation of at least three hurricanes by September 11" really mean? Is that an average or a guarantee or what? Give this a good read over (or get someone else to do it; even better) and fix these and other minor problem areas. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the problems you brought up, and removed the superfluous external links section (there is already a track map, and the summary doesn't have any information that isn't in any of the references). --Coredesat 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"An area of disturbed weather associated with a weak surface trough and a stronger upper-level trough between the Bahamas and Bermuda on 6 September." This is not a sentence if "associated" is used as an adjective—there is no verb. What actually happened on the 6th of September? If "associated" is used as a verb, that's better, but it's an uncommon usage and should be changed (I tried, but was reverted). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A very good read. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Also to clarify to Spangineer: "associated with" was not meant as a verb, the disturbed weather was effectively "caused" by the trof. It was associated with the trof, it didn't associate with it. – Chacor 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support No other option.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound film

Self-nomination. Stable article judged A-class by both WikiProject Filmmaking and WikiProject Films. I'd like to take this opportunity to make note of the significant contribution editor Walloon has made not only to this article but to Wikipedia's coverage of media history generally.—DCGeist 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very long. A lot of images, further reading and external links: care for a cutdown before I support it? Wiki-newbie 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's no further reading section--every item listed in Sources is cited in the text. All external links are to professional sources with valuable detailed information on various aspects of the subject matter; descriptions have been provided in all cases to facilitate use of this section. Article is long because it covers an international topic involving complex developments in technology, commerce, and aesthetics and resolves a large number of discrepancies among published and online sources; can you identify what area or areas of the article you feel go into unhelpful detail?—DCGeist 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I've had my eye casually watching this page for a while now, and it's been a wonder to see it slowly grow into a shining example of quality. Compare this version just before DCGeist started working on it to the current version, and you can clearly see the quality and breadth of work, all clearly referenced and notated. (And yes, Walloon's work and contributions should also be well-noted.) As a member of WikiProject Filmmaking, I'm proud to include this among our articles and believe that it is well above and beyond the quality of all three of our current featured articles (35 mm film, Panavision, and WGA screenwriting credit system). It is indeed long, but considering the subject matter, an appropriate length, IMHO. Were this to be an article on an obscure technical detail or a specific film sound system, I would expect a shorter and more concise article to be enough for featured-status. My only objection is the Aesthetic quality section; the two lists are awkward because one is a POV-list of the most notable silents and the other is a US National Registry list of the early sound films - there isn't a common standard for inclusion between the two, and there is the POV issue. I also disagreed with the assessments on which films would be ranked highly against the silents...just seems a bit too POV. Potentially subjective lists like that also tend to invite listcruft; I'd try to find a way to either make the lists less subjective (both coming from a common authoritative and citable source) or somehow re-edit the section to address these issues. Best of luck and look forward to seeing that star! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for your very kind words. I've sought to address the issue you've flagged by restructuring the lists of historically lauded transitional-period silent and sound films so they both reflect the collective judgment of critics and industry professionals polled in recent years by major Western media entities. Impt point: I by no means sought to restrict the roster of polls considered (currently those of Time Out, The Viilage Voice, and Sight & Sound) to ones administered from English-speaking countries. If anyone could lead me to reliable results (beyond just the top 10) from the polls conducted by Editorial Jaguar (Spain, 2001), FIAF (Franco-American, 1995), Kinovedcheskie (Russia, 1995), and reported international polls held in France, Germany, and Romania in 1995, the article would be most grateful.—DCGeist 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is an extremely comprehensive, well-researched article. Perhaps my only problem with it might be its tone in some sections.

Perhaps Ich küsse Ihre Hand, Madame (1929) would be better remembered today if costar Marlene Dietrich, instead of kissing their hands, had been invited to sing.

Comments like this run up against WP:OR and sound too breezily casual. But again, great article. --Zantastik talk 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for your comment, Zantastik. I'm not quite sure what to do here. The caption might have struck you as a little breezy, but it's anything but casual. It addresses four points pretty efficiently: (a) it acknowledges the oddity of the image (by far the best available) directly contradicting the title; (b) it informs the reader that the renowned Dietrich starred in the film; (c) it informs the reader that Dietrich, renowned for her singing, didn't sing in the film; and (d) it underscores that this historically momentous film is virtually unknown today. If it flirts with OR, it does so only in an uncontentious way that virtually anyone interested in film history might well come up with. Any suggestions?—DCGeist 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC

I was under the minor impression that Dietrich wasn't a household name until 1930 (The Blue Angel). Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. As soon as someone (Von Sternberg) had the bright idea to have her sing on film, both she and the movie (Der Blaue Engel—the first talkie in which you could hear her) became household names.—DCGeist 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well, it is comprehensive and verifiable enough. Wiki-newbie 11:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --WS 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice article, but according to WP:SIZE, the lead should be approx. 3 paragraph long. CG 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 2d lede graf added per CG's comment. The definition of the topic and its importance are straightforward enough that a 3d graf doesn't seem called for.—DCGeist 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: All of the fair use images need rationales. Also some are missing identification of their current copyright holders. Andrew Levine 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, Andrew. Rationales have now been provided for all. Due to the combination of (a) the images' age (one is from 1934; the rest are all at least 75 years old) and (b) the fact that they are all works of corporate authorship (images from, publicity photos for, or posters of commercial films and commercial film systems, except for one magazine cover), it is extremely difficult (if possible at all) to trace the current copyright holders (if any) for most of the images, due to changes in corporate ownership and exchanges of assets over seven and a half decades. By the same token, (a) not one film or other artifact is illustrated more than once and (b) the use of each image falls easily within, even at the very heart of, fair use standards.—DCGeist 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

History of the board game Monopoly

Peer review can be found here.

This is the third article I have brought to FAC, and another true collaboration. Derek Ross must be given a lot of credit for expanding the history section of the original Monopoly (game) article. In doing some research of my own, I also expanded the section to the point where I thought it best to fork off the section into its own article, and thus reduce the size of the main article. "History of the board game Monopoly" has recently reached 38K in size, which is, I think, a testament to the amount of material available on the game. I have acquired many of the sources myself, to use as proper references (including four books by Philip Orbanes, one of which I've owned since it was first published in the 1980s, and even a self-published book on the game's early history, which can be purchased by contacting its author, or finding it on eBay). There are now eighty-four references covering the game's history over the last century. I have also added four images to the page (the patent reproduction image "came with the move"), all of which have proper fair use rationale. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - as far as I can see it satisfies all criteria. Nice intro, flows well and negotiates the story well.Cas Liber 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Kudos to those who contributed to the article. Obviously a lot of work went into it; the writing makes the content lucid. There are many references and more or less appropriately frequent and helpful links. I would suggest adding a couple of more links, but otherwise it's exemplary. 70.101.175.246 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Did I not sign in? Sorry. This is not a vote, but a clarification of who submitted the above one. Good article, by the way. Gracenotes ^T § 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I did not want to make the article "too blue" or "too red" (there are a handful of "red links" which someone might object to...). Which specific names/phrases/etc. would you recommend further links to? --JohnDBuell 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like you went ahead and did them. :) --JohnDBuell 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Name should be sorted out first, should be History of Monopoly which is entirely unambiguous. --Oldak Quill 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After this was discussed during Peer Review, it's been left at its current name. I disagree that History of Monopoly is unambiguous, and the current title is perfectly clear. --JohnDBuell 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the Peer Review and fail to see how it was discussed. The Peer Review is an exchange between you and two other users: one comment with a series of replies. The initial comment says nothing about the title; you mention it in your third response and there is no reply to this. Even if it had been discussed extensively, it would not shut off any discussion here.

The title is clearly ambiguated by the capitalised "Monopoly" without the need to mention it being a board game. Think about this the other way, would you also accept History of the economic concept monopoly? --Oldak Quill 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure (but not positive) that, per convention, the article should be titled History of Monopoly (game). -- Kicking222 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OldakQuill: The discussion about the title was brought up during peer review, and was covered on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly. True no consensus was reached between two of us, but I thought it best to leave it alone with no other votes. And yes I would support the latter, though actually that would probably be a jumping off point to monopolies that were broken up, such as History of the Standard Oil monopoly, History of the U.S. Steel monopoly, etc. I did not like long titles at first, but I do see where they make the topic abundantly clear, which I think WP:TITLE summarizes nicely.

Kicking222: Valid point. Unfortunately I don't see anything under WP:TITLE for sub-pages. I've worked on a number of pages dealing with Science Fiction, and there aren't really any standards as I could see; I just created pages with logical titles, and sometimes long ones. I would not be averse to putting FAC on hold to allow for a discussion on the article's talk page via WP:RM. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I added the page History of monopoly, which differentiates between Monopoly and monopolies (with respect to x, of course). The redirect from History of Monopoly makes sense, since only when capitalized is monopoly a game, but I'm wondering if this Monopoly redirect mess, if any, can be elucidated, and if I helped, or hurt. Gracenotes ^T § 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I had actually thought about making JUST that kind of disambiguation page when it first was brought up, though I fell ill and was not on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Well done. I don't know either if that will help settle the dispute though. :) --JohnDBuell 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point that I don't consider the discussion to have been dealt with either in the PR or on the article talk page. I tried to be bold and move it, but was reverted, and that amounts to little else but a lack of consensus. The current title is awkward and cumbersome. It seems to have been chosen because it looks good in the lead (there are better alternatives for that), not because it's an intuitive title.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I have stated that I agree there is no consensus, and I have stated that I am more than willing to allow the article title discussion continue elsewhere. I have started an RFC (it seemed the most appropriate). Please feel free to vote under any of the proposals on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly#Discussion of article title. Please don't feel that I'm ignoring your opinion or anyone else's, I'm simply choosing to disagree. --JohnDBuell 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The current lead focuses a little too much on the patent/invention issues. It should summarize the information on the localized versions, championships, and other things the article covers as well. Andrew Levine 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the article should make some mention of the spinoff games Parker Brothers made in the 1980s, including Free Parking, Boardwalk, and Don't Go To Jail. Andrew Levine 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro - revised. The spin-offs are in there, and dated, under Localizations, licenses and spin-offs. The spin-offs that have articles are wikilinked. --JohnDBuell 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about the second lead paragraph being too long now. If necessary, the last line, about Hasbro's website only mentioning Charles Darrow, could be moved to the end of the Anti-Monopoly vs. General Mills Fun Group section. I think it would fit fine right after the sentence about Anspach's book. --JohnDBuell 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Really Like Qaanaaq 08:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Rlevse 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice article, but I don't like the images which displays Monopoly sets on a bed sheet. It's really unprofessional. It would be better if taken on a white background. CG 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a large white background at my disposal, nor could I find a free alternative. If anyone would like to try to edit out the backgrounds using a photo program, feel free. --JohnDBuell 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the title is non-standard and would be better as History of Monopoly. I could also live wth History of Monopoly (board game). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:RM doesn't seem to fit, I'm starting an RFC at WP:RFC/HIST. --JohnDBuell 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a great piece of work, but a featured article cannot have a needlessly contrived name. Will support if the name is changed to "History of Monopoly." Andrew Levine 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • History of Monopoly could be misconstrued as refering to the history of the practise of real world monopolies... Fieari 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It could only be misunderstood in Crappy English, which isn't supposed to be the language choice to begin with. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If it's History of Monopoly, which monopoly would it refer to? Yes, this will confuse people, though it may seem obvious to us. As far as I'm concerned, objecting to the name on this basis is non-actionable. Rlevse 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's obviously actionable; the action required is a simple page move. And there's no confusion over the name, since nobody will think it refers to, say, the Standard Oil monopoly if it doesn't have Standard Oil in the title.Andrew Levine 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Obviously a name change is something that can be acted on - I just worry about the precedent that is being set. Several titles were recommended for History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), but nobody voted object just over the title - I've been back through the Peer Reviews and FA candidacies. --JohnDBuell 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Where were the other titles proposed there? I had trouble finding mention of them. The reason nobody objected is that nobody thought that the title "History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)" was substandard. Anyway, I don't see what's so bad about a precedent for having clear titles in FAs, since the article's mame is the first impression we leave on the reader. Andrew Levine 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The only problem with your objection is you're basically saying you'll object until it is the name you want, which isn't fair because reasonable people can disagree about what the best name would be. I have to agree that History of Monopoly is potentially confusing. A lot of titles are capitalized so in a title, capitalizing alone is not enough to clearly designate it as a proper noun. But the point is that can be discussed on the talk page. Objecting because it's not the title you prefer isn't proper. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I concur with Taxman. 'History of Monopoly' seems needlessly confusing. Raul654 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure Andrew is objecting until the article has a name he wants. He's objecting to a name that seems out-of-sync with naming convention and has stated he will be happy with a few alternatives. --Oldak Quill 11:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed names and voting are on the talk page of the article. And sorry, but I have to agree that objecting solely on the name is a bad precedent. 140.32.73.19 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - great article, and once the name is changed, it will be even better. --andrewI20^Talk 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Two minor notes: more pictures would be nice, and note section should be renamed references. But I have a major problem with references: The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, a major reference of the article, is a self-published book (see Xlibris). I'd like to see this ref discussed, and preferably replaced/supplemented with proper peer reviewed sources. Once this is done I'd be happy to support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Two of the books I've used are "self-published" but any of them have flaws. Brady's book told only the "Charles Darrow invented Monopoly" story, as did Gyles Brandreth's. Subsequent works, however, like Orbanes's just published book, build on these (including Anspach's and Sadowski's) and expand further. I've tried to make this article a reflection of all sources, and I HAVE indicated where published sources disagree (like Brandreth and Orbanes). Further, Prof. Anspach himself has told me that his book (now under the title Monopolygate) is being made into a documentary, and may be re-published by a firm other than Xilibris soon.

As far as pictures - I don't have access to any of the antique (pre-Parker Brothers) boards - apparently a number of them are kept by Forbes in New York City. What I've been able to submit I've done from my own collection. Do you have any specific suggestions of anything I could submit, or request from other collectors (provided they are willing to do CC-licensing)? --JohnDBuell 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added images of the first pages of Magie's second patent application, and Darrow's patent application, taken from the USPTO website, and converted to PNG. --JohnDBuell 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While it would be great to get the antique edition photos, an easier thing to do would be to include some (perhaps as a gallery on Commons) of 'theme' editions - like Star Trek Monopoly and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the boards submitted on the List of licensed Monopoly game boards are mine. I'll try to arrange some and add a photograph by this weekend, in a manner similar to the U.S. Standard Editions and International Editions photographs I've already posted. --JohnDBuell 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed Khan

I submit to your attention this article about a key Indian Muslim political figure. Many facts are controversial, but fully researched and cited. I would like your help in cleaning up any/all enduring problems, especially on potential violations of WP:NPOV. I would like to have your support in making this a featured article. Thanks, Rama's arrow 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Wow, thats one of the smoothest, in terms of flow and wording, articles I ever read. Even better it meets all criteria. I got to say Rama, with so many FA drives you really becoming a pro - Tutmosis 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you my friend - I really appreciate it. I've got to say I was a bit frightened when this FAC didn't get a single comment for more than 36 hours! Rama's arrow 16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Great article! Definitely FA material- it is well-referenced and has great formal language. I do suggest that the Hindi-Urdu controversy be improved upon as I don't think it explains enough about how Hindi and Urdu are almost the same language. Thanks! Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't read it all but I am a little concerned with its reliance on internet sources. I would think enough scholarly books (that might be more representative of views about him?) have been written about him to believe that his article doesn't need to be so internet centric. gren グレン 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• There seem to be six non-Internet sources out of 17 total. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• But those are the ones cited less (in general). Also, they aren't necessarily peer reviewed works or... are they well known? I cannot judge that. What is the Gale Research one? It doesn't seem that bibliography entry is full. gren グレン 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I found the article well-written, just a few minor hitches with the images. P0402020301.jpg is most probably from Pakistan. Even though its copyright has expired, the license needs to be corrected. "The Wisdom Fund" is based in Virginia, so images from it can also not be claimed under PD-India. Please check for others too. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A slight misunderstanding - the image belongs to the Social Reformer itself, which is PD-India - its not from Pakistan because the item was published in an area now located in India by Indian citizens. And the "Wisdom Fund" (whatever that is) does not hold copyright on this Social Reformer. Rama's arrow 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Support. A few minor concerns:
  • "His paternal grandfather Syed Hadi held a mansab, a high-ranking administrative position and the title of Jawwad Ali Khan in the court of Alamgir II." - what does the title of Jawwad Ali Khan signify? Was this a positional title, or an alternative name for him?
  • "Subsequent tutors instructed him in mathematics, astronomy and Islamic jurisprudence." - Other tutors, at the same time? Or tutors who came later? If you're unsure, a neutral option would be to make it "Other tutors..."
  • "In 1842, he completed the Jila-ul-Qulub bi Zikr il Mahbub and the Tuhfa-i-Hasan and Tahsil fi jar-i-Saqil in 1844, focusing on religious and cultural subjects.[5] In 1852, he published the two works Namiqa dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh and Silsilat ul-Mulk." - translations? I was particularly intrigued by some words I could recognized, and I'm eager to know their meanings, especially "masala" :) There are also other instances like this such as Tabyin-ul-Kalam etc.
  • In 1858, he was appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Muradabad, where he began working on his most famous literary work. Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind (The Causes of the Indian Mutiny) in 1859, Sir Syed studied the causes of the revolt. - was his most famous work the Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind? Please don't leave any chance for ambiguity
  • "Supporters of Sir Syed contend that his political vision gave an independent political expression to the Muslim community, which aided its goal to secure political power in India." - Muslim political power in India is minimal, and Sir Syed had always feared that Muslims would be unable to gain adequate political representation in India. Do you mean the formation of a separate nation, Pakistan, since the article asserts that he advocated the Two-Nation Theory?
  • Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the fact that he is knighted mean that he is an KBE/GBE in the Order of the British Empire? Or was the current practice not in use in his time? If that is so, then that should be mentioned in the intro, right after his name.

Could you inform me once you're done. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shreshth - thanks for your input. I will answer point by point:

1. "Jawwad Ali Khan" was like a royal name. Notable examples include Shaista Khan and Islam Khan. I've added this mention[18]
2. Also fixed the tutor thing.
3. I'm afraid I couldn't find any Urdu translations of those titles. I could suggest catching hold of someone who knows Urdu or digging up the words in a dictionary yourself, but I would avoid that in case you somehow come up with an altered translation/meaning, which would violate WP:OR.
4. Yes the Mutiny booklet was his most famous work[19].
5. Muslim political power in India is minimal - your POV. The statement you mention asserts that Sir Syed helped create a Muslim political class. Before he did, there were no Muslim politicians/leaders, but his work helped create Muslim political bodies and leaders, whose mission was to secure Muslim power. Also, Sir Syed's life is quite far apart from partition, which was first asserted by Iqbal in 1930. Its not correct to make the assumption that he wanted partition, but it is true that he saw Muslims as a separate cultural, political group.
6. The Order of the Star of India was a different title during India's time as a colony of the empire. Its not the same as the OBE/MBE. Rama's arrow 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
   1. Changed to support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would support now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice now. Rlevse 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I had done an exhaustive review of the article during its PR. I have been going through all my points and also had another look at the article. All those points are addressed now and the article is very nice. Good work. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per lack of reliable academic sources. Wikipedia should add new material online, rather than simply compile data from various websites. Google Books search found "The Life and Work of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan", by George Farquhar Irving Graham (1974), and "Sir Syed Ahmed Khan: The Saviour of Muslim India", by Syed Sami Ahmad (2002). Please use these for referencing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand why you object, but I think that you should word it differently for clearer understanding. Rather than saying that the following works be used for references, it is preferable to point out references you find unreliable, or facts you find needing more reliable/neutral sources. This will both be helpful for the editors (for they would know what to look for), and also more comprehensively satisfy your objection (I believe that if the editors use the sources mentioned just once and sit back, it wouldn't be what you were looking for in the first place). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've addressed your points - about 10 new citations from multiple books, including those you suggested. Rama's arrow 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and well documented. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgrade

The article failed its first nomination a few weeks ago. The issues raised were: the article was listy, poorly referenced, not written in a summary style. Since then:

1. The lists have either been written out or moved to subpages.
2. The article has gone from 60kb to 54kb, and the amount of relevant information has actually been increased.
3. I discovered that the geography section was a copyright violation and rewrote it.
4. There are now 90+ inline citations, compared to 9 before.
5. The external links section has been thoroughly pruned (from almost 30(!) to 5).

--estavisti 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Quick question, how come you guys didn't use Template:citeweb for the references? Just linking a webpage makes it hard to determine verifiability of the sources. - Tutmosis 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the huge majority of sources are either official webpages, or links to articles in reputable newspapers/magazines. As for why "we" didn't use Template:citeweb, that would be because I've been the only major contributor in the past few weeks, and I've never even heard of that template. :-) --estavisti 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I tried to bring this article up to standard by looking at current featured articles about cities, such as Ann Arbor, San Francisco and Sarajevo, none of which use Template:citeweb in abudance. Ann Arbor, three times, SF, four times, Sarajevo not at all. Finally, none of the sources are books, which makes the template sort of redundant. --estavisti 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support well per Wikipedia:Citation templates, citeweb isn't required so I'll let it go. Personally I find it quite helpful because it easily identifies information such as author or publisher of the website page. Also I don't get your last comment about it being redundant because no books are used since this template is only for web sources. Overall I found the article meets the criteria and deserves featured status since a lot of hard work went into it. One thing I have to criticise is the article is very, or even extremely to the point. Therefore I found the flow quite rough as it was one fact after the other. - Tutmosis 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support because, in general, the article is good and it also contain municipality map drawn by me (just a joke). However, somebody really should correct this awfull error which could be seen in Opera browser (603 version). PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is a problem in Opera 603. However, the article page works perfectly in IE 5 -7, Mozilla Firefox 1.5 & 2, as well as in Opera 9, which surely accounts for well over 90% of internet users. It's simply impossible to please everyone, especially as I don't have Opera 6.03 myself, so I can't test what displays well in that browser and what doesn't.--estavisti 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - rather poor layout, particularly due to the large size of the photos. Additionally, some images, such as Image:Dhbs.jpg and Image:Narodni Muzej.jpg, are copyrighted. A free use alternative should be found. Some parts of the article, such as the economy section, are also somewhat short. On the whole, however the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. Ronline ✉ 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is the layout poor? The photos are also about the size of photos in Sarajevo or San Francisco. As for the two copyrighted photos, they have been replaced with alternatives. --estavisti 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see what Ronline means about layout. It's not the size that's the issue, but the placement. Move some around - some of the right, some on the left, some a little bigger, some a little smaller. Do you really need them all?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the placement seems to be the problem. There also continue to be photos with copyright problems: Image:Jevreji.jpg, Image:Belgrad palac1.gif, Image:Hram sv sava.jpg, Image:BGArena1.jpg, Image:Stadion CrvenaZvezda.jpg. Overall, my general impression is that this article is not yet FA status - it doesn't have that "FA vibe". Ronline ✉ 05:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be able to get a few PD photos today, and replace these ones. I really like Image:Hram sv sava.jpg though :-(--estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - much improved over the previous FAC. I'm not a big fan of the list of Sister Cities or the Gallery, though. Surely one of those photos could be used as a main photo in the infobox in the upper right corner of the article?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've used a view from the river, with Belgrade Cathedral prominent. It's a shame, we have an absolutely perfect image, which is unfortunately unsourced, and the original uploader isn't around these days. I'll move the other photos around a bit, to vary it bit. --estavisti 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.Three concerns:
• "Later that day tanks were deployed onto the streets in order to restore order.[24][25][26][27]" Four inline citations in a row in a FAC?! Not nice!
• "Culture" section is under-citated.
• I have the impression that galleries are not recommended for FAs.--Yannismarou 10:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I second Yannismarou's concerns. The pile of images at the end of the page is not good. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image depository. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I rearranged the four citations, so that now there are two at the end of the paragraph. There's not really that much to cite for the culture section. According to WP:Citing sources, sources should be added: "if you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source." I don't any of the stuff about the bands can be disputed. You may not have heard of them, but millions of people know of those bands and their association with the city. However, I'll add some sources anyway. As for the gallery, it's gone :-) --estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If Belgrade passes as featured article, is it possible to target some day in the future? (I am not so familiar with featured articles policy here...) I am talking as the president of Wikimedia Serbia. We can make some promotion of Wikipedia in Belgrade and Serbia if the article passes nomination. However, we need some time to organize it. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The article is not bad, but there are some issues:
  • the image layout looks rather anarchic.
  • some image problems:
    • Image:Pogled_sa_Save-big.jpg is taken from a site which claims "© Univerzitet u Beogradu"
      • Someone removed the image from the article. Nikola
    • Image:Kalemegdan.jpg has no author (there's no equivalent image on de.wiki)
      • I remember that it is the same author as Image:Ruski car.jpg; I contacted the author to clarify the situation. Nikola
        • He isn't, so I replaced the image. He doesn't recall giving the permission for Ruski car, but agrees that the image could be used. Nikola 12:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Belgrad palac1.gif is from a website claiming "© 2002 - 2006 Travellerspoint Travel Community"
      • I photographed the building and uploaded the image at Image:Belgrade Old Court.jpg, and will replace the old image in all articles. Nikola
    • Image:Stadion CrvenaZvezda.jpg is a bad fair-use case.
      • I will remove it from the article. Nikola
    • Image:BGArena1.jpg has no source, also bad fair-use case.
      • I photographed that building too and will replace the old image. Nikola
  • it uses two definitions of the "Balkans": Bucharest is a city in the Balkans, but the left bank of Belgrade is in Central Europe. It should either use the Danube border for the Balkans or it should not. :-) bogdan 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will reword. Nikola

Hm... in fact all the images from Category:Belgrade images should have their copyright checked. bogdan 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if not most then many of them have clear status. Nikola 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • It would be great if some print sources would be used for the history section.
    • Actually, references 1 and 4 are on-line editions of print books :) and references 22 and 30-38 are on-line editions of print newspapers or magazines, and there are more. Nikola 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The bridge photo is awful: it tries to photograph two bridges, but you can't see well either of them. A plain photo of any bridge would do. ;-) bogdan 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will find or upload tomorrow. Nikola 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Would sr:Слика:Th_Mostovi_beograda.jpg fit the bill? Nikola 22:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. Apart from the things I initially mentioned (and are now fixed - thanks for your response) and the possible copyright problems with the photos (I am not an expert in this domain), I also want to point out that the article has no printed sources (books, articles etc.) citated. I know this is not necessarily an obstacle for FA status, but for such a historical and important city I would like to have some verifiable printed sources written by authors who sign them and not just the official site of the city (citated c. 25 times) or all the other sites. Thanks!--Yannismarou 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of 94 references in the article, around 17 (18%) are on-line editions of printed sources. If you count by groups (all references from beograd.org.yu together etc.) percentage would be higher still. Nikola 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the people above bring up a valid concern, and it appears the article became even more clustered with images now. Can we stick to 1 per section, or 2 for a big section. Since this problem can be easily dealt with, I'll maintain my support but I would like to see some reduction happen. - Tutmosis 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I reordered and resized the images. Does it look better now? Not counting the infobox, the twin cities' flags and coats, and "technical" sections, the article has 18 images in 24 sections. Nikola 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I forgot this :) The more I work on fixing the few remaining problems, the more I like the article. It is well-written, I can't think of anything that should be in it but isn't, haven't found anything incorrect in it. The images are nice and well-chosen (I agree with Bogdan about the bridges though). I hope this wouldn't count as a self-vote as I haven't worked on the article for a while, and even before, IIRC, my only bigger contribution was the Architecture section. Nikola 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - good article, well-sourced and the image problem seems to have been cleared up. Just a small thing - I think the photo of the Gazela Bridge in the transportation section would be better replaced with a public transport photo of some sort, either of the Beovoz or the GSP system. I'd be interested to see a photo of the Beovoz :) Ronline ✉ 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got some good PD photos coming in from an acquaintance of mine, should be able to insert them tomorrow. Including a replacement for the horrible bridge photo. :-) --estavisti 00:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, like user ronline --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, nice article, and per Nikola. --Pockey 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support the amount of work put into overhauling this article is amazing. Support as per Nikola and ronline Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I try, I try... It'll all be worth it for the final result. --estavisti 06:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've just noticed the major improvements to this article from the last time I've read it, it looks like FA quality now. // Laughing Man 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The article really changed - it is a much easier read, smaller in size, and actually referenced. A great article. --Krytan 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - a great candidate for a Featured Article. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)