Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 13 December 2007

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Phi Delta Theta Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/List of works by William Monahan Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Muskrat Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Trent Reznor

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

The article was promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.

Loveless (album)

check links LuciferMorgan 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination This article (about a very influential and critically-acclaimed album by alt-rock band My Bloody Valentine) has been part of a months-long collaboration between me and fellow WikiProject Alternative music members Ceoil and Brandt Luke Zorn. It was one of the project's Collaborations of the Week back in August, and the page has been recently promoted as a Good Article. We've worked hard on the article, and now feel it's ready for FA status. Any concerns should be addressed promptly. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments I'll make comments here as I find things to comment on;

• "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar as he strums, which contributes, in part, to the band's unique sound." - The fact this contributes to the band's alleged (alleged since I'm unfamiliar with the group) unique sound is the opinion of Jim DeRogatis. The statement should reflect this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the defining trait of My Bloody Valentine as described by a number of critics. It's been ripped off a lot since then, so maybe it should be rephrased to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan's suggestion is best in this situation, especially with an easily-misleading statement. Find several sources that agree for the sentence to remain the same. NSR77 _C 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's generally pointed out by sources as the band's definiing trait (for example, the McGonigal book spends a chapter on it, and guitar magazines always describe it). As there is a consensus of sources, I'll just change it to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Despite a severe shortage of money, Creation funded a short tour of the north of England late in 1991." - Do your sources support using the word "severe"? LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to ask Ceoil about that, but it is established by a number of sources that Creation was in dire financial straits at this time. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer, I'll have to check tonight if the word severe is used on the cited page, but the preceeding chapters detail Creation's near bankrupt situation in fine detail. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the accuracy, but am merely wondering if the word "severe" is warranted. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Source uses the word 'crippled', and has this quote from mcgee about shields: I went to the wall for you. I stole my fathers money for you. I think severe is implied. Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Per my GA based review, I have no issues. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:

There is inconsistency when introducing direct quotes. Some sentences introduce a quote with a colon, others with a comma.

I'll fix this soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The commentary for the "Only Shallow" sound sample needs to be attributed to a source (I believe that is ref #32) in order to qualify as fair use. Just need to add that source to the sample box is all, so that someone, such as I, won't have to search within the body for verification. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a reference because the information listed in infobox comments is right next to it in the paragraph about the drums on the album. As the body of the article discusses this, it qualifies under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it qualifies under fair use and I see the ref, I found it in the text. My point is that I had to look for it. It's just a minor thing. Simply add the ref (32) to the sample box as well, which would make it easier for any reviewer to navigate to it, rather than having to search for it in the text.

Support. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support with comments - I gave the article a light copyedit (that was all that was needed), but a small issue remains:

The beginning of the second paragraph of the "reception" section states: "reviews of Loveless praised the album for its groundbreaking nature." That's a little POV ("groundbreaking" is a peacock word), and should probably be truncated to read "reviews of Loveless praised the album." Edit it how you see fit.

Reworded with reference. With "groundbreaking" I was trying to sum up what reviewers generally said about the album, but no big deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)  Done

The article is comprehensive, informative and engaging. I'm sure the above-mentioned issue will be dealt with swiftly, so I'm giving this article my full endorsement. Grim (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments/questions: these are really requests for clarifications, since I'm not sure if they're mistakes or not. As such, they may all be non-actionable:

First, I take it that the use of "nineteen" in the Lead ("between 1989 and 1991 in nineteen recording studios") is just aesthetics, to avoid "1989...1991...19". Right?

Yes. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In Recording and production, the name "The Elephant and Wapping"; is/was that the actual name of the studio? It's just that it looks like the name of a pup, and I was wondering if the basement studio was in the basement of a pub of that name, rather than that being the name of the studio.

It was the the name of the studio according to sources. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A google shows it may be the Elephant Recording Studio in Wapping, but google results aren't related specifically to this album or group, so your printed sources are probably to be preferred. Carre (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Same section, "Dutt admits being desperate 'to leave'" – why is "to leave" in quotes generally, and why in single quotes specifically?

Good point. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, same section "to Creation's dismay, he needed 13 days; rather than the usual one." – don't think the semi-colon is needed or adds anything.

Removed. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it. As I say, these are requests for clarifications more than anything else. Ta. Carre (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. Carre (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I've made a few (light) copyedits throughout the past few days, and really I can't find anything that strikes me as incoherent or inconsistent. NSR77 _C 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why is there no credits/personnel section? "160 thousand pounds was the most" - why not £160,000? I think the lead could use another paragraph (its a huge article), with more about the production and the music. Also, the "make tea" quote seems out of place in the lead. Why is the bit about their live shows in the reception section, if it can be expanded it could have a section of its own. Tommy Stardust (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MoS says spell numbers greater than 9. Actually, I agree about the lead. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The credits listed in the album sleeve have been proven to be largely arbitrary, and in some instances it's unknown who actually contributed what. As for the pound amount, that's a direct quote, so it won't be changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just two short comments:
  • In the third paragraph of the "Recording and production" section Anjali Dutt is quoted as calling Bilinda Butcher, Belinda. Is this misspelling really used in the original? If so, wouldn't adding a be appropriate?

No, thats a typo. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Same thing goes for the "whats" in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section.--

Carabinieri (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another typo. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Further comments

• The tour saw My Bloody Valentine accused of criminal negligence by the music press, who took exception to the long period of extreme noise played during You Made Me Realise, referring to it as "the holocaust". - needs a reference. Link you made me realise.

Same ref as the sentence below it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• That para also uses a couple of unnecessary "the"s - the american flautist, the critic mark kemp.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• MOS fixes - "with 'Loveless' you..." and "'Loveless' ups the ante," "'Loveless' is the outermost", "Collapsed Lung's 1996 single Board Game", Audio samples of 'Loveless'

Fixed. In the case of the reviews quoted, the reviewers put Loveless in quotation marks, per British grammar conventions. Thus when quoted, this article accurately uses quotation marks in those instances. And with the sample box, that seems to be some sort of flaw in the script, because it's definitely formatted to render the album name in italics. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• What the hell is "The Scene That's Delighted To Eat Quiche"?

It's a dismissive comment about The Scene That Celebrates Itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Rolling Stone gave the album four out of five stars. In a review that also covered Creation labelmates Chapterhouse and Velvet Crush, reviewer Ira Robbins" - i needed to read that twice to figure that Ira robbins was the rolling stone reviewer... the two sentences need to be clubbed better.

I think it's pretty apparent. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "a hard sell" - seemes colloquial - could you rephrase it? or maybe link it.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Loveless's influence" - extra "s"

I believe British grammar uses the extra "s", but I'd appreciate clarification on that by someone who uses British English. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the extra s if you would say it as in "Jesuses ball". Do not use an extra s if you would not say it as in "Socrates ball". So in this instance use the s. That's British grammar. Hiding T 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar" - why the sudden change to present tense?

Because it's referring to the music on the album, which exists in the here and now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't mention the word "shoegaze" in any form - that seems odd. the lead can be expanded into 3 paras - 1st one for production, second for music and the third for reception, legacy and influence.

There's really no good place to list shoegaze in the lead, and it is largely incidental to the rest of the article, so it's not imperative. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• consistency - 8 out of 10 score, four out of five stars, peaked at number twenty-four. - Tommy Stardust (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support with pleasure. I gave this article a thorough once-over and found it very readable and very well flowing. I also found it a very well-sourced article and that they're quite reliable. Given that it is one of my favorite albums and a shoegazing masterpiece, I would be pleased to no extent to see it pass as an FA. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:39, 18 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre

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

The article was promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.

Battle of Albuera

check links

Self nom. Another Peninsular War article, this one on probably the bloodiest battle of the whole war. I'm a little less confident on this one passing, but let's see what people think. Current GA, been copy-edited, MilHist peer-reviewed, and all the other usual stuff. Carre (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I passed this for GA and did some minor copyediting and peripheral work, but I think this is an excellent piece which fully qualifies as an FA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: very good! --Brískelly 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A well written and intresting battle. Kyriakos (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a well-written, well-referenced quality article. Some comments though:
  • The captions for the pictures for "Nicolas Soult" and "William Carr Beresford" do not mention their ranks but "Captain-General Joaquín Blake" does. Is this intentional ?

• Not intentional. Captain-General wasn't really a rank, per se, more a position. I can remove it, or add ranks to Soult and Beresford if you'd like though.
• Y - "Captain-General" removed. Carre (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • For the reference for "Weller, Jac (1962), Wellington in the Peninsula, Nicholas Vane." - consider adding the ISBN for the 2006 reprint (1853673811)

• I don't think I can do this. The volume I used was the '62 edition (printed before ISBNs were invented), and I have no way of knowing if the pagination in later reprints is the same. Therefore to give the 2006 ISBN wouldn't necessarily be accurate.

• Fair enough - It is often the case that the pagination is changed and, given the time gap, it's likely that the book has been re-edited - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Per the notes in "Aftermath" section I think that the the French casualties in the infobox should read "5,936–7,900 dead or wounded" rather than 5,3936-7,000

• That's a good point. I don't remember why I left the infobox at 7,000, rather than Oman's 7,900. Perhaps because 7,000 has more support among historians than the 7,900 figure. I'll change it, anyway.
• Y - 7,900 in infoblot now. Carre (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Carre (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All happy now ! A great article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ian Svenonius Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/International Speedway Corporation

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

The article was promoted 20:23, 16 December 2007.

Youngstown Ohio Works

I'm nominating this article for featured article because of the relatively high quality of writing, excellent citations, and depth and scope of an article which one would generally assume would have little content. User:Twelsht authored most of the content and is known as a highly detailed author, using many historic news articles and similar sources from the time period. With that in mind, I believe that this article meets all FA criteria. I encourage your support. Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I noted in the peer review, I believe this page is of FA caliber. Support. Titoxd 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I also thought it was very close indeed to FA quality at peer review. User:Twelsht has addressed various editors' comments and incorporated much new material (at blinding speed). --ROGER DAVIES  00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure if the nominator can vote, but if so, I offer a resounding support. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Well, it is implied that you are supporting the nomination if you submit it... Titoxd 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I also peer-reviewed it, but it was so good I didn't have much to say. This article is well referenced, well written, and very comprehensive. Well done! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:23, 11 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dick Rifenburg Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Herpes zoster

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

The article was promoted 20:23, 16 December 2007.

Godsmack

I'm nominating this current good article for featured article because... I have been working very hard on the article for the last month, and it has come a very long way. The article meets all standards and deserves to be featured.
Thank you,
Skeeker  03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support as GA reviewer, minor copyeditor, etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow. This article has come a long way. Good job. MrMurph101 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't use consistent numerals in all places. From the introduction, for example;

• "The band, led by founder, frontman, and songwriter Sully Erna, has released four studio albums, one EP, three DVDs, and one greatest hits collection."
• "Godsmack has sold nearly 10 million albums in the United States."

From other places;

• "The album debuted at number 1 on the Billboard 200, selling 211,000 copies in its first week."

The article needs to be consistent - it either has to use one or 1, not a mixture of the two. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• "In the same year the band entered the studio for the first time, recording its first CD titled All Wound Up, with Erna playing drums and the rest of the band playing their respective positions." - People play instruments, not positions. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's generally better to spell out the smaller numbers, under 10, and write larger numbers in number form. To me this is a little too nit-picky but I guess it is a matter of opinion. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment is there an official rule to the numbers, if ther is I will change them.
Thank you,
Skeeker  21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well referenced, fairly well written and informative. Funeral 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Great article, well written, and really has improved since I last came across it. Just a few comments to make.

• The lead is very short. I think in order to summarise the article properly, an expansion is in order. You may try to expand the first paragraph using this:

• The band is lead by songwriter Sully Erna, and consists of guitarist Tony Rombola, bassist Robbie Merrill and drummer Shannon Larkin. Since its formation, Godsmack has released four studio albums, one EP, three DVDs, and one greatest hits collection. Or perhaps instead of discussing their releases at the start, you could talk about their genre and style of music.

• followed by a tour that would go on through August 2007, – try "followed by a tour that would continue until August 2007".

• In some sections, some of the paragraphs could look better if split. Under "Early works", you could try splitting the paragraph just before For the next two years, . In addition, there are a few paragraphs that consist of two or three small sentences that could be merged. I can see an opportunity in "The Other Side EP (2004–2005)".

• Any numbers below ten should be written in word format, e.g. one as one, and above ten should be written in numeric format, e.g. eleven as 11.

• I'll have another quick look through the article and make any obvious fixes. If you can fix some of the things I suggested, I'll support. Good work overall, though :) Spebi 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have it all taken care of. Some of the paragraphs have nothing to dea;l with the one before it so I couldn't merge them all.
  Thank you,
  Skeeker  22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good article, good refs, written well. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed. "The band, led by founder, frontman, and songwriter Sully Erna, and consists of guitarist Tony Rombola, bassist Robbie Merrill and drummer Shannon Larki". Doesn't read well (After removing the subclause "led by.. ", you're left with "The band and consists of", which is poor grammar). Suggestion: "The band comprises founder, frontman and songwriter Sully Erna, guitarist Tony Rombola, bassist Robbie Merrill and drummer Shannon Larki". CloudNine (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Done.
    Thank you,
    Skeeker  18:38, 16 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 20:23, 16 December 2007.

Constantine II of Scotland

Hurrah! A change from Anglo-Saxon kings. I must start by acknowledging the generous assistance of Mike Christie, Ben MacDui, and Ealdgyth with the article, and the previous help I had from the Deacon of Pndapetzim. If you don't like it, that'll be me.

The subject is about a century later than Wiglaf of Mercia, Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex. He's most similar to Egbert in that he was seen later as a founder-figure of sorts, although unlike Egbert he wasn't an ancestor of many kings.

It's unlikely that our readers will be terribly familiar with the context, so the article does have quite a lot of that which should eventually be forked out into Scotland in the Early Middle Ages and related articles. Context can be expanded almost indefinitely in this kind of article, so if more context is needed more can certainly be added. I confess that the article tends to rather oversimplify and gloss over the historiographical debate. However, that is mainly peripheral to the subject, and where it isn't it's generally mentioned here. Any dissonance between the article title and content is entirely intentional. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I did a review of this article on its talk page, and Angus has addressed every concern I had. This is fine work. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Objection
  praise: well -referenced, well-written.
  problems: -bad pictures, -no subpages organization, -a lot of the article talks about other people/events instead of about Constantin.
  --Keerllston 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I could be biased here, but I feel that the material covered by the second and third objections is context rather than unnecessary detail. If the articles on Edward the Elder, Æthelflæd, Æthelstan, Ragnall, Sihtric, Gofraid, Amlaíb, Viking Age Northumbria, the battle of Corbridge, &c, &c, should ever reach an adequate standard, then some of this could be done in summary style. If...
• Can you be more specific regarding the illustrations? The maps can be improved, as can the family tree thing. The others are more of a problem. There are other free pictures of the Moot Hill at Scone, but they're all rather un-hill-like. There's a another image of the Monymusk Reliquary - Image:Brecshot.jpg - but I think that's not as good as the one in the article now. We have Image:DUNNOTTAR CASTLE Large.JPG. The castle is much later, but the site is rather similar I imagine. There's Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg, but I don't see that image as being "appropriate to the subject". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No problem - if working on other articles makes this one better - do so.
• Illustrations - no illustration of the illustrious king himself - not even a fictional post-life or approximation - or even just what he would have worn. Ugly (completely imo POV :D) graph of family tree. The rest have little to do with the king himself - perhaps similar to the previous case and should really be part of other articles (which are currently amiss)- Wherein lies the inappropriateness of Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg? - it looks fitting as a main picture to me.

--Keerllston 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to require that other articles be improved in order to pass this one for FA. On the other hand, Angus implies that some of the material could be condensed if the other articles were better; I'd suggest that this article should be written assuming those articles are good. (I don't see anything natural to cut, but perhaps you or Angus do see some fat to trim.) In either case I think the article needs to stand or fall at FA on its own merits. I will also just add that some background detail is quite common in this kind of article, because the period is not familiar to many readers.

With regard to the illustration Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg, this question has come up before in other medieval articles. That image is an imaginary depiction, probably from the 1911 Britannica, and has little or nothing to do with how Constantin looked. Our FAs on these kings have generally not included pictures unless they are interesting in their own right, as artwork; see Penda of Mercia and Ælle of Sussex for examples. Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As to my comments regarding the prerequisite consisting of the improvement of related articles, to achieve FA status - I want to note that for this article to reach FA status it is necessary to improve it to FA quality, and that what I said was if improving other articles (leads to/is necessary to) the improvement of this article then improve other articles - if not (which I though was a rather un-constructive avenue of thought - less articles improved total :D - and also creating argument for little reason) then just improve this one -unilaterally --Keerllston 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Which parts of the article do you think could be slimmed down? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Continuation of Objections
  nominator's blurb notes " gloss over the historiographical debate" - is it possible to create a section called historiography and adequately treat historiography therefore?--Keerllston 00:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• At present I can't find anything discussing this in any depth. The article covers the main points of recent historical debate, or at least it does since I added something on Constantín's imaginary brother "Domnall son of Áed" just now. Compared to "Kenneth MacAlpin" or Giric/"Gregory the Great", there doesn't seem to be much in the later medieval and early modern mythopoeia that passed for Scottish history at the time concerning Constantín. Victorian accounts differ mainly in that historians then tended to see the "kingdom of Alba" as being almost indistinguishable from the later "kingdom of the Scotland". What early/mid C20th historians said, that I don't know. But when I find out, and if it's of interest, I'll certainly add it as appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and fascinating. Knowing nothing about the subject matter, I was able to jump right in and comprehend the history and significance. I see no problems with the images themselves, but I would suggest featuring Image:Early Alpinid kings.svg more prominently. Albeit not visually stunning, it's a very helpful visual aid, especially to those like me who are ignorant about every other word in this article. :) When the image is that small, however, the writing looks like chicken scratch and (to me, at least) it only makes sense to view it with the prose. When it's opened it in a new tab or window by itself, there is no context, and switching back and forth between two tabs (for me, at least) is tedious and disorientating. I have only one note on the prose: there's an issue of repetition of the phrase "came into conflict" which appears twice in two back to back sentences in the lead. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Repetition fixed. I'll replace the current family tree with something more legible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. For the record, and as noted above, like Mike Christie, I made some pre-FAC editing suggestions. They have been dealt with and I too think this is fine work. I had a hunt for some images, but the best I could up with was a modern one of Bromborough cross, and I fear the mock-Tudor background would not work well here. I look forward to the improved family tree. Ben MacDui/Walk 09:07, 14 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Green Wing Special

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

The article was promoted 23:59, 14 December 2007.

Allosaurus

Submitted for your approval, Allosaurus, another production of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is extensively cited and provides thorough coverage of a topic that turned out to have a lot of facets (in fact, one facet was split off during work and became the GA Species of Allosaurus). Images are useful, germane, and go beyond the standard dinosaur article fare, with a scale diagram of several different specimens, a map of quarry locations, and a scary-cool depiction of a possible hunting strategy. A tried and true dinosaur article format is in place, there is a selection of pertinent external links, and it has been stable. It's also had some attention from a non-WP:DINO editor.J. Spencer (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Is this image Image:Allosaurus.jpg really out of copyright. The author, Charles R. Knight, died in 1953 (less than 70 years ago). Bluap (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looking at it, I think that the pre-1923 tag is the one that should have been used. Knight did several versions of this tableau, some of which are on Commons as pre-1923s (including an uncropped version of this image with another allosaur on the right side). I'll swap it out for a version with a pre-1923 tag, if you'd prefer. J. Spencer (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued checking... this appears to a lightened and cropped version of the allosaur illustration in William Diller Matthew's 1915 Dinosaurs (which can be viewed at Project Gutenberg). J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just changed the tag to PD-US, it's at least from 1919. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I am a WP:DINO contributor but I haven't touched this article. In fact, I've always been kind of afraid to work on it, so I'm very impressed by the work J and others have done. Thorough, informative, and pretty well-written too. It's got a scale diagram, it's got a map, it's got a subarticle which reached GA status. Plus a picture I took is in the taxobox! The only thing I can think of is that in both the Discovery and Paleobiology sections, there is a subheading immediately following the heading. Is that kosher? I'm not saying it isn't, I just don't know. Sheep81 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have a problem with subheadings below headings if called for. Great work on this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - One of the only dinosaur articles I can support right off the bat. No quarrels here and I don't think the subheadings are a problem - most articles do have them and adding a paragraph in between only creates a stubby small paragraph that doesn't give any real information. Well done JS! One of the finest dinosaur articles. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The introduction to the section on hunting is a bit confusing "Sauropods seem to be likely candidates as live prey..." and "Allosaurus seems an unlikely predator of sauropods..." appear to contradict each other. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some tweaking to it (specifically, a "fully grown" was inserted before "sauropods" in the second example). Does that help? J. Spencer (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, now I see what you were meaning I tweaked it a bit more. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, pending removal/resolution of the dubious tag on that sourced section. I was going to wait for more feedback from the community on this one, but I got tired of waiting. Full disclosure: I am a member of WP:DINO, and I worked a bit on this article, but between 42%-83% of the article was done by J.Spencer alone. Meets the comprehensive criteria: the longest article on any dinosaur genus, dethroning T. rex. Blows Britannica's 250-word "article" and Encarta's single paragraph on this genus out of the water. Well-sourced, from 84 peer-reviewed journals and books. No dead links (one soft redirect won't go away). Written by a subject matter expert, copyedited by user:Circeus and others unfamiliar with the material. Dashes are correct, and formatting is good. The article is neutral and stable: I particularly like the way the synonymy is handled in this article: the potential junior synonyms Epanterias and Saurophaganax are presented, but not given undue weight. I'd like to see a size graph similar to that seen on Tyrannosaurus, but it's not necessary if unavailable. Prose seems readable and fluid. Run-on sentences have been quashed. The lead seems to cover the major points of the article. Both Fair Use images have detailed rationales provided. One image is indisputably in the Public Domain, created before 1923. Are we sure DOIs are in place for all newer papers? I see only 7 papers with DOIs. No other issues for me. Excellent work, J. :) Not that you don't know that already... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Was just checking the links; I can get the endocast article all right, and while the JSTOR links admittedly do not take you to the actual article (unless you have a subscription), you do get the first page and abstract for the two articles so linked, so the problem the link checker has is misleading. It's a nifty tool, though. J. Spencer (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, there are some fair use images with insufficient fair use rationales (no valid back link, for example), I'll fix those so they don't get deleted. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the templates, Funky. Greatly appreciated. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for the assist! J. Spencer (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome brother, awesome. Shiva Evolved (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a support? Spawn Man 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually neither supports nor opposes count per number - but as they reflect the quality - and they do so as they reflect the authors of the said opposes and supports. - So yes - it counts as a support.--Keerllston 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: Can the lead editors check the relevance of these Auto Peer review comments and address those that are relevant? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 08:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing seems really relevant there. The automated comments asks editors to expand the lead on the article, but WP:LEAD states articles greater than 32k should be 3-4 paragraphs. There are 3 paragraphs in Allosaurus. The automated peer review says to use standard abbreviations for measurements, but the article actually uses the style recommended at WP:UNITS, for example: a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The only exception in the text is Short ton, which has no universally recognizable abbreviation (it's just called a ton in the US, but it might confuse non-U.S. readers to abbreviate it like that, and who uses S/T)? The automated review advises not to use -th on dates, but I ran an automated search, and found only three instances: 20th century, Forty-Seventh Annual Field Conference, and Sixth Symposium, none of which are dates. The automated peer review reminds editors not to use the name of the article in any of the headings. This warning is entirely irrelevant, as the name Allosaurus does not appear in any of the headings. The automated bot recommends use of subpages if possible; a subpage has already been created for the various species. The automated review reminds editors to use either British or American spelling. I have difficulty spotting this, but I ran an automated search for behaviour, metre, -our, and -ise, and found no results. The automated bot says there is an instance of wouldn't in the article, but I found no such instance in the article. I'm wondering if the bot was run on the current version of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sheep already got to the one "wouldn't" and an Allosaurus in a heading. J. Spencer (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. My bad! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Seems like MoS issues have now been more or less fixed. Great article!! - ¿Amar៛ 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I fixed a stray imperial only-unit (ton) Jimfbleak (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 16:46, 23 December 2007.

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

Self nomination. An article on a central molecule in living cells, covering all major aspects from its properties, functions, pharmacology and history. Article was recently reviewed as a GA by a reviewer who encouraged me to put it forward as a FAC. It is 46 kb in size, containing 22 kb of readable text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As I think that a WP:Chem core article really deserves to be promoted to A-Class and preferably to FA, I won't deny yet. But no support yet either: there are quite some (solvable) problems with this this article still, where it doesn't comply with several WP standards. I left comments on the talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

• Comments addressed at Talk:Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide/Comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I talked to Professor Charles Brenner on the phone today (a researcher in the field) and he made some useful comments and caught some errors. I'll correct these this evening. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments addressed were my use of the word "coenzyme" when NAD was being consumed as a substrate, missing out Jack Preiss and Philip Handler from the history, not defining mono and poly-ADP-ribosylation clearly, a new paper this October that shows a novel precursor for salvage pathways, and that the cytoplasmic concentration quoted only applied to animal cells not yeast. He also was unhappy with how certain I was about resveratrol's function, so I still have to reword that - I over-simplified that a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Corrected the resveratrol section. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments while I briefly poke my head in here again:

• Does the 'DPN+' notation need to be mentioned in the lead? Not sure where else to put it, but the last sentence of the first paragraph seems like an odd place for such a tiny little nit.

• Moved to chembox

• 'concentrated in the cell nucleus, which may reflect the high level of ADP-ribosylation reactions in this organelle' - not quite sure which way around this goes. Sounds like you mean something like 'may be due to' instead of 'may reflect'; currently it sounds like the high level of ADP ribosylation is a cause rather than a consequence of the salvage enzymes' presence in the nucleus.

• Changed to "which may compensate for the high level of ADP-ribosylation reactions in this organelle"

• A better image of the NAD+ binding site illustrating the charge distribution would be nice. (I'm kind of embarrassed by the ugly perspective in the existing one!)

• The image is pretty, but something Prof Brenner mentioned as well is that it would be better to get an image of NAD bound to a Rossmann fold protein. Perhaps some kind person might supply one?

• I created a new one. Added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe I just missed it, but it would be nice to have a sentence mentioning the metabolic roles of NADP+/NADPH and how they differ from NAD+/NADH. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is outlined at the end of the second paragraph of the "Role in redox metabolism" section - "In contrast, the main function of NADP is as a reducing agent in anabolism,..." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew I must've missed it. Nice Rossmann fold too. Good work as always :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Should've been clear that I meant that as a support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose now: Support- The article is not clearly enough about the one chemical compound NAD. It introduces various other compounds every now and then in the article, and superfluous information (for this article) is provided. In my humble opinion the article needs better focus.

• Hi there, thanks for the review. I think you are right that the article talked a bit too much about NADP+, I removed some of this. However, explaining what both NAD+ and NADH are is absolutely central to understanding what this molecule does in cells. Removing that information would greatly hinder a reader's ability to understand the subject of the article - the properties and functions of the coenzyme. We couldn't have one article on NAD and another on NADH, that would be unworkable. I have replaced some of the text you removed. Similarly, briefly contrasting the functions with the related coenzyme NADP (but I agree we shouldn't explain the functions of NADP in any detail, it has its own article) is important to show the reader how these two coenzymes differ - another vital concept.

• The quality of the text is very varying. E.g., in the lead several very technical jargon terms are unexplained, whereas the simple chemical properties of redox agent are spread over multiple lines. This is also true for other places in the article.

• I simplified the lead a little, the list of functions was a bit too long and technical. I changed this to a broad outline. Also shrank the redox function explanation.

• Very straightforward indicators of compliance to WP guidelines, e.g. as by the peerreviewer script are not solved yet, e.g., British and English spelling are mixed, and I have the impression that the text hasn't been copy-edited for top-quality English.

• As I noted on the comments page, the automated script is picking up UK English terms in the titles of a few of the references. I could change these to US English, but I don't think that is a good idea since that is not standard style and prevents the use of the titles as a search term. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but if that's it, I have to agree—changing reference titles would be like changing a direct quote. Unless you're say, italicizing an organism name or adding Greek characters, that's a bad, bad idea :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I misread the MoS and thought degC was unspaced, replaced the non-breaking space. You're quite right about that one. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bottomline, although Tim and others are giving the article good effort, it is GA-quality alright, but not FA quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Since my last review above, the article has gone through excellent copy-editing (I'm glad to see in line with my proposals), touching on all of my objections. Therefore with pleasure I change my feedback from Oppose to Support. This is now the required quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

• Some comments. The term 1' should probably be explained, or written in prose, as I don't know what the ' stands for. The prose could be better; living things (things is one of those words that should be avoided; try organisms), NADP+ since in NADP+ (try and reword to avoid the redundancy). Some sources are needed (I'm a little eccentric about it); at the end of the first paragraph in Physical and chemical properties, the end of the second paragraph in Salvage pathways, the end of the first paragraph in Oxidoreductases, and the end of the first paragraph in Pharmacology. Most are probably sourced in other references, but I like knowing that every last statement is sourced. --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the review.

• 1' now defined and linked
• Repetitive sentence removed, it was a bit off-topic anyway, as noted above.
• Replaced with "organisms"
• Refs added to all but last, which is a summary of the paragraphs below and isn't in a single reference, but describes what the topics of the other sections are. I've reworded this a bit to make it clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. Alright, I gave it another look through, and it does seem very technical, to the point that Wikilinks doesn't help too much for the reader to understand the article. At the same time, there are some vernacular phrases in there (from scratch) and it wanders a bit (from the diet - no reference to what that diet is before then). I don't believe it passes criterion 1a. Perhaps you could get a look-through from another editor in your WikiProject? --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I reworded "from the diet" into "taken up from food as vitamins", which is more precise and probably a bit clearer. I know this is rather a technical subject, what I will try to do is re-write the lead so it it completely approachable to those with no background in the subject, have another run-through to remove unnecessary technical terms, and add a summary sentence to the start of each section that gives a non-technical overview of the contents. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• CommentSupport 1) Why abbreviate as NaAD etc instead of NAAD? 2) There is nothing about transport of NAD between compartments, e.g. can NADH from the citric acid cycle be used by enzymes in the cytosol? Narayanese (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't know why people use Na and NaAD, but this is the standard in the literature (see diagram p14 of Belenky review), so I chose to follow, rather than lead!

Following convention is good. Narayanese (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The glycerol phosphate shuttle is mentioned in the latter part of the first paragraph in the "Role in redox metabolism" section. Do you think this should be expanded? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the sentence. Took a while to understand the Glycerol phosphate shuttle stub btw, but I get the idea it doesn't involve matrix NAD, it is probably that article that needs work eventually rather than the NAD one. Can it go the other way (CAC->gluconeogenesis?). So NAD can't pass the membrane itself, so how does it get to be in other organelles than the nucleus, is the synthesis pathways present in all organelles?

The articles mention measuring NAD in the cytoplasm and then talks about other compartments, does it perhaps mean cytosol? Narayanese (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, I only mentioned one of the shuttles. I added a link to the general article on mitochondrial shuttles, and a specific link the the malate-aspartate shuttle, which is the better one of the two daughter articles.
• There is very little published on organellar NAD transport/biosynthesis apart from that nuclear localisation paper I found earlier, but I found and added an article stating that the shuttle systems also work in chloroplasts and a paper on NAD import carrier in mitochondria.
• The term should be cytosol, good catch I always get those confused. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've fixed the points nicely. In these two sentences "NAD+ absorbs strongly in the ultraviolet due to the adenine base. Peak absorption is at a wavelength of 259 nanometers (nm), with an extinction coefficient of 16,900 M-1 cm-1. The reduced form, NADH, also absorbs at a higher wavelength, with a second peak in UV absorption at 339 nm that has an extinction coefficient of 6,220 M-1 cm-1." I'd suggest you put a sentence/clause with the extinction coefficient of NADH at 259 nm between the two. Atm the second hangs in the air, and it is not understood why NADH is preferred for measurement.

Does the Rossmann fold always use /drastic/ induced fit for NAD (should be mentioned if it does, at either page, otherwise unimportant)?(confused with a non-Rossmann fold-containing oxidoreductase) sidenote: you might want move a bit of the text to Rossmann fold, specifically the FMN sentence.

I can't spot any grammatical or spelling mistakes, and all non-trivial text is referenced to scientific databases and journals. Narayanese (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded that piece about the absorbance coefficients and cut the FMN sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good.

The article has nothing important omitted, no overrepresented minority beliefs, lead has the most important from each section, good section and paragraph splitting and headings, ilustrations without copyright issues, medium length. It's ready for FA status as far as I can see. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now, but it's almost there. -- Changed to support'. All of my concerns regarding content have been addressed. I think the article still needs some copyediting (I just fixed a typo for "conezyme") but I see it is undergoing vigorous editing to improve these details. If I find any other typos or similar errors I'll just fix them myself. One final comment: I don't think it was necessary to completely remove the 3D image, although I do prefer the 2D structural diagram at the top of the infobox. --Itub (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem is that the prose doesn't feel right at places. There are some awkward and sometimes even ambiguous sentences in places, especially near the beginning of the article, and even some grammar errors such as lack of subject–verb agreement. I don't have time to elaborate right now, so I'll understand if this is considered a non-actionable objection for now.

• Probably due to the large edits that keep being made to the lead. Will work on this a bit more.

• Leas has now been re-written again for simplicity.

• The structure. IMO, it would be better to show the structural diagram first, and the 3D figure later. Structure diagrams are more readable since they avoid the problem of overlapping atoms. For example, the top ribose ring in the 3D figure is a jumble that won't be intelligible to anyone who doesn't know the structure already (this is not a complaint against the author, as it is often impossible to find a perspective with no overlapping atoms).

• This was a conscious decision. I thought it might be best to put the structural diagram next to the text that discussed the details of the structure, which is at the top of the first section, so tat readers could refer to it as they read the description. Originally, the two figures were revered. Do you think the structural diagram would be best next to the lead?

Another problem with the 3D figure is that both phosphates are protonated, which not only is unlikely under most conditions but is inconsistent with the structure diagram, which could lead to confusion. Finally (and that is often a problem with 3D structure representations in Misplaced Pages), it would be good to clarify exactly what this structure is depicting. Does it come from a crystal structure? (In that case, the crystal of the pure substance, or bound to something?) Is it supposed to be the global energy minimum conformation according to some model, under some conditions? Or is in just an arbitrary conformation chosen for artistic purposes?

• I've left a note with the author of this image and asked if they could respond here.

I'm the author of the image. The phosphates are protonated because it's simpler than to try and represent every possible protonation state that could occur in vivo.

The structure is not from x-ray diffraction, it's just a local conformational minimum, chosen mainly to make the structure as clearly visible as possible. As mentioned above, it is extremely difficult, often impossible, to present a 3D model of a molecule in 2D in such a way that no atoms are obscured. I did my best with this image.

I didn't bother finding a crystal structure for this molecule because it does all its important chemistry in solution or bound to proteins, so its conformation in the bulk pure solid doesn't necessarily reflect its conformation in a cell.

I'm happy to modify the image as required, won't be a problem. Decide what you want from a 3D model, let me know, and I'll make it.

Ben (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This £D image has now been replaced with the structurral diagram. Tim Vickers (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a 3D model, though, because the structural diagram gives very little indication of the shape of the NADH molecule. Massively distorted P-O bonds and so on!

I could use PDB 2FM3.

Ben (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, that sounds like a good option. Attractive and informative images are very welcome. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The UV spectrum. I find it hard to believe that the absorption maximum wavelength and the extinction coefficient are exactly the same for NAD+ and NADH. To help more visual readers it would be helpful to include a figure of the UV spectra, such as the one in this book . (The extinction coefficients look different in this figure).

• I've reworded this to make it clear that I was using NAD+ as the specific example. A free verion of this diagram would be good, I considered just recording them myself, but this might be considered OR and it's always hard to get the concentrations exactly right, so the isobestic points and maxima would probably be wrong. I could draw one feehand, but that wouldn't be very accurate either. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I grabbed the data from the book you linked to and made a new version while I was stuck on a transatlantic flight. This has been added to the article. This involved re-arranging the images and removing the 3D version.

• Reduction potential. Given that the most notable property of this molecule is its redox nature, I find it is a major omission not to include the standard reduction potential in the article. Perhaps compare it NADP+ and other relevant species to put it in context. Maybe it would be worth explaining it more detail how the oxidized/reduced ratios of NAD+ and NADP+ are regulated.

• Good point! A serious omission. Will track it down this afternoon.

• Added midpoint potential with reference and sentence on NADH being strong reducing agent to give context.

• Niacin. Sometimes the article talks about niacin and sometimes about nicotinic acid. Yet, at least according to the article on niacin, they are one and the same. Or does niacin (still) refers to a mixture containing nicotinic acid and nicotinamide, as the History section states? In any case, this should be clarified.

• It is a mixture of the Na and Nam, but not NR, so "niacin" refers to two of the three NAD+ precursors in our diet. This does ned to be explained a bit better. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Now mentioed in lead and explained in full in salvage pathway section. Tim Vickers (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Object per lacking quality of writing in lead. "peacock" lack of organization- audience is general reader and it is not well written imo in reference to that--Keerllston 12:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'm a bit confused by your comment. Which "peacock" terms are used in the lead? The only one I can think might apply is the statement that the coenzyme is very important and thus a target for drug discovery, this was a paraphrase of the review PMID 17465726, so can be referenced if required. Tim Vickers (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first part of the lead has now been expanded to give a less technical explanation of redox reactions. Tim Vickers (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the previous reviewer's rationale for objecting. It seems to be a fine piece at first glance: I'll look carefully at it soon. Tony (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Hurricane Danny (1997)

previous FAC

Failed one FA nomination earlier this year, has been improved since the last nomination. I believe it is now a comprehensive article, with the previous grammar issues fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not quite there. Juliancolton (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is not there? Remember that objections in FAC have to be actionable. Titoxd 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is ready for FA. Support. Juliancolton (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(good thing supports don't, eh?)--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Make sure to copy the CNN links out of the Wayback Machine, as they're currently kind of broken. Titoxd 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All right, I did that. Titoxd 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support it's very pretty--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Might it possible to merge some of the Impact sections? Surely Florida could be merged into "East Coast", and maybe Mississippi could be combined with either Alabama or Louisiana. Also, the long list of individual damage totals in the lead is unnecessary and a bit of an eyesore. (They could be moved into the impact sections with only a total mentioned in the lead.) —Verrai 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the impact sections, I've reorganized them a little bit. I've removed extra numbers from the lede as well. How does it look now? Titoxd 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Much better. Support —Verrai 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment When was this article put up for FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. it was put up on the 8th. Does that mean Hink has to write an article? Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some comments (Julian, it has to pass first, and sorry Hello32020, but I gotta comment on this). First, the lede is a bit messy and confusing; it contains an entire sentence about Emily in 2005 breaking Danny's record, which is inappropriate for the fifth sentence of the article. The second clause of the first sentence (second hurricane and fourth named storm) might be confusing to non-hurricane readers, since the sentence after it says it was the fifth tropical or subtropical cyclone. I'd like to see a bit more storm history in the first paragraph and less about the rest of the season (since some SH is in the second paragraph as well, that would have to be removed). Also, maybe a breakdown of deaths by state would be useful in the lede. Some of the dollar values, and their inflations, are confusing and sometimes incorrect. $100 million can be seen as between 1 to 3 significant digits; thus its inflated figure should have between 1 and 3 significant digits, not $128.47 million (which is 5 sig. digits). The dates in the storm history should be Wikilinked, to allow for user preferences to kick in (July 17 will show up as 17 July or July 17 depending on prefs). In impact - "likely a lower amount than if a larger storm were to repeat it." seems like OR and a bit unnecessary. Writing in the impact could be better; the first three sentences in the Gulf Coast section talk about the same thing (heavy rainfall - we get it). Then, in the next paragraph, its structure is a bit weird. The first sentence starts by talking about electricity then switches abruptly to boat damage. I recommend you combine alike sentences, such as those on the heavy rainfall with sentences about flooding, or those about the waves with sentences about erosion. In the Mississippi paragraph, "Eastern Jackson County had the most impact throughout Mississippi" begins the section, which seems to imply that Jackson County was hit pretty badly. Then, a bit later it says that a few houses were flooded in the county. Was there much damage in the county (perhaps some more info is needed, only one source is used for the whole state), or was damage indeed minor. There are a few more locations where metric units are needed; instances where the original unit is rounded should also have the converted unit be rounded (about 3 inches should be 75 mm, not 76.1). Also, the impact section has a few more instances where there are a few too many digits for damage figures, such as the tornado damage. One quick thing I just noticed - the HPC report says Danny dropped 37.75 inches of rainfall on Dauphin Island, but the article says 36.71. Which one is it? That's it for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a little of that. Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed up your areas of concern Hurricanehink, with the help of Julian. Lead is more organized and added death totals to the impact section of the lead. Other concerns have also been addressed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I am going to make a couple minor edits, and after that, I think it passes. Juliancolton (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The only thing wrong is that picture of Danny to the south of Mass. is in the Gulf Coast impact section. I don't think that is a good place for it. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Looks better. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
              • It looks better, but this sentence is a bit awkward; This is quite rare for a tropical cyclone, but occurred possibly due to having a good inflow from a baroclinic source. That was 10 years ago; surely there has been a reason found why it re-strengthened, or at least confirm the NHC's suspicion (MWR or AMS, perhaps?). --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Changed it to ...likely occurred... TCR says that the reason it strengthened over land suggests it strengthened due to a baroclinic source. Can't find anything further, hope this is good. Hello32020 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • This link explains the transition a little further, and says that the restrengthening was due to baroclinicity. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • Added, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Alright, you have my support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good article all in all. Nice job Hello. Certainly would make 1997 an inactive season with 2 FAs.32 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is the other one? Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Erika, and by the way please try not to have a line between two comments in * format, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry about that. Juliancolton (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, who decides when this actually passes? Juliancolton (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Spiderland

Self nomination This article, about a 1991 album by indie rock band Slint, is currently a Good Article and has been recently peer reviewed. I am confident that it satisfies all Featured Article Criterion and is well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment You've used British dating throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done All dates now reflect American formatting. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support For a cult album like this, it's nice to see virtually every reliable source that exists referenced. Some things that need fixing before I go all the way:

• I had to change some collective noun usage in regards to the band itself. Double-check that "Slint" is always treated as a singular noun.
• I don't think it's necessary to mention that PJ Harvey and a member of Pavement are fans of the album in the lead. Possibly rework and combine with previous sentence if you want to keep it there.
• "Another source wrote . . ." Might as well name the source in the prose, or rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• The sentence "'Good Morning Captain' has been compared to Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' by David Peschek of The Guardian, 'if it's possible to imagine Stairway to Heaven bleached of all bombast.'" is awkward. The meaning became clearer on the second reading, but it could be further clarified.
• Ref 24 (Robert Christgau) needs to list the publication.
• The statement "The album has now sold over 50,000 copies" should be more definite and less timely. Write something along the lines of "has sold this many copies as of this date" or at least remove the "Now".
• It's confusing when you refer to Pitchfork and mean the music festival the site put on. At least, it is to me (probably not to anyone else). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the review. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good times. Support. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, all issues addressed. Comment, nice, thorough about details, but could use being more explicit about why this album is important. Will probably support if the following issues can be fixed.
  • Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
    • The article does mention Slint's break-up as it relates to the album in the first few sentences of the "Legacy" section, but I removed the sentence from the lead anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarly, am I missing the part that says that Spiderland is really the album that made the band? The lead just says it was their second album, which is nice, but hardly impressive. The Slint article, on the other hand, says "Slint's first album Tweez was recorded by Steve Albini in 1987 and released in obscurity on the Jennifer Hartman Records label in 1989. It was followed two years later by the critically acclaimed Spiderland, released on Touch and Go Records and recorded by Brian Paulson. Considered a seminal work, Spiderland is an album characterized by dark, syncopated rhythms, sparse guitar lines and haunting subject matter. The record's impact was such that some have suggested it is the first true post-rock album ..." Shouldn't some of that high praise, especially in comparison with Tweez, be here too? Otherwise it's not so clear why Spiderland was such a big deal. If you can't think of anything better just drop those sentences in the Context section directly.
    • I think that the "Legacy" section sufficiently notes the album's importance and influence. Some of the Slint article delves into hyperbole, and it's virtually unreferenced, so I'd prefer not to model after it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "theory that band members had to be periodically institutionalized during the completion of the album."; The recording was completed in four days. - Er... how's that? How can multiple people be periodically institutionalized during a period of 4 days? Were the periods measured in hours or something? Are you sure the first quote isn't a joke?
    • It does sound a bit odd that members of Slint could have become crazy and were checked into an institution during a four day recording. It seems highly unlikely if not impossible, but the rumors that these events occurred certainly exists. I don't believe that the article presents these rumors as true, but does acknowledge that they exist. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, - can you link to something explaining what an angular guitar rhythm is? The link to dynamic goes to a disambiguation page, can you make it more clear?
    • I fixed the dynamics link, but unfortunately "angular guitar" is a specific term that doesn't link anywhere. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Spiderland received minimal attention from major publications upon its release. " OK, so when did it get the major attention that made it a seminal work, etc.?
  • Robert Christgau ... criticizing the album's lyrics - I was going to ask what, specifically, he criticized about them, but thought I should go to the reference and see ... and I still couldn't figure it out! What is he saying about the lyrics? I can't even honestly tell that it is criticism of the lyrics, it's so short. Explain or strike, please. --AnonEMouse 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Christgau is notorious for giving really short reviews. I interpreted his statement "And if you promise not to mention their lyrics they promise to keep the volume down" as criticism, as he is implying that Spiderland's lyrics are so bad that the band members themselves don't want to talk about them. Should I include this quote in the body of the article? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm. You addressed several points, but the leadoff to the "Legacy" section bothers me, especially since it seems to be the album's claim to fame, so arguably the most important section in the article. Its first two sentences are about the band breaking up. If the breakup had nothing to do with the album, how is it a legacy of the album, or especially something to lead off the section about the legacy of the album. Can they be moved down into "Reunion" or something? It at least makes more sense that the breakup be important to having a reunion. --AnonEMouse 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Somewhat unsure oppose. Well-referenced, well-written for the most part... I had never heard of this band or this album - thanks for the introduction
  "the album contains dark, narrative lyrics that emphasize alienation." - word choice - "dark" is not very descriptive - do you mean depressing? morbid? evil? sad? suicidal? despairing?- using "dark" is not very encyclopedic...
  It's kinda short - definitely so the lead - is it proper length? - I thought it might be because the article on Slint was longer- but very not the case...
  --Keerllston 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
      regarding length - I was expecting bigger if I didn't make myself clear- by "information available" do you mean that information is hard to get? In my experience in FAC - I have found saying "information is hard to get" and similar are often - later proven untrue - and information is finally found - finally bettering the article in terms of comprehensibility
      --Keerllston 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The length of the Slint article is irrelevant to the length of this article because only this article is being reviewed to be featured. Secondly, by "information available" I didn't mean that I had only drawn from a small portion of all the information on this album; rather, I meant that I have drawn from all information about this album, but that the total information is limited because of the small relative mainstream attention given to this album. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I must reiterate that I do believe that it is an appropriate length. It is only slightly shorter than the recently featured album article, Loveless (album). If there was any amount of unused information left about the album I would add it to the article, but there is none. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• A few comments/suggestions:
  • The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
    •  Done
  • Chicago in the infobox should be changed to to Chicago, USA, to avoid any US-centrism.
    •  Done
  • The first paragraph of the first section seems unnecessary. Context is one thing, but the information provided seems to have nothing to do with Spiderland except in the sense that it happened before. The section would probably be stronger if you just started talking about the album as soon as possible.
    • I do believe that this paragraph is relevant. It serves as a basic introduction to the band and its members, and notes the change in style from Tweez to Slint to Spiderland. Other featured articles (Fuck the Millennium) use similar styles of summarization. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Going off the previous point (and assuming you take my suggestions to remove the first paragraph), I'm not sure "Context" is the correct title for the section.
  • Not sure about the wikilink of traumatic, especially since it links to psychological trauma, which infers additional information from the quote. It could've been physical trauma, for all we know, so best leave the quote to explain itself.
    •  Done
  • I'm not sure what a "live in-studio recording style" is. Might be good to explain.
    •  Done
  • Saying "The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, etc, etc..." is a bit of a broad semi-POV statement. To a foreigner the instruments used might define it. To a feminist the fact that it was created by all men might define it. I guess my point is that it's poor word choice.
    •  Done
  • A few of the descriptions in the same section are a bit iffy, and generally not backed up by the souce (ie "jagged, thick guitar")
  • "the song's lyric" I think this should be "lyrics"?
    •  Done
  • Not so sure about the wikilink for "treading water".
    •  Done
  • The Steve Albini review quote is a bit lengthy, especially since it is so overwhelmingly positive.
    • Unfortunately, the Albini review is the only contemporary review of Spiderland, but it is also one of the most notable reviews of the album (it is often mentioned in articles about the band or the album). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why aren't the reviews mentioned in the Reception section mentioned in the infobox?
    • All of them were, except for the Rolling Stone one, which I added.
  • "Spiderland's sales have gradually increased through time." Isn't this a really obvious statement? I understand what you mean, but it sounds like "Spiderland has sold more copies has time has past." Furthermore, this implies sales data, which begs for a citation.
    •  Done
  • "Spiderland has become a landmark indie rock album and is considered, along with Talk Talk's Laughing Stock, to have been the primary catalyst of the post-rock and math rock genres." is a very broad statement to make, especially since it's only backed up with a single source.
    •  Done backed up with a second source.
  • "In spite of plans" I think you mean "Despite"?
    •  Done
  • Why is the Jim DeRogatis quote split up into two quotes?
    •  Done
  • I'm not sure what "(*) designates unordered lists." refers to.
    •  Done Got rid of it, unnecessary.

I hope the above doesn't sound too daunting. Overall my comments are relatively minor: the article is generally very informative and well-conceived. If you can take care of the above notes, I'd be happy to lend my support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent work! Definitely FA quality. Though I still have reservations about the context section and the glowing Albini quote, a difference of opinion shouldn't hold the article back. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not opposing, but there are a few things to fix. I copy-edited the opening (hope some of those statements are referenced further down!).
  • Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
    •  Done
  • See MOS on final period in captions that are not full sentences—here, all of them.
    •  Done
  • Text in sample boxes goes beyond the right side of my window—perhaps it's my Safari browser? Doesn't happen in other articles. Info on sampled songs in the main text is excellent.
    • I'm not sure what this is caused by. I checked on Safari (I typically browse in FireFox) and the error didn't appear. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why link that little-known country the US? And I see further linking of obscure countries in the table at the bottom. Save us the untidy blue splotches, and leave the high-value links undiluted for our readers, yes?
    •  Done
  • I think MOS says to prefer three normal periods for ellipsis dots. And when they come after a period, use four dots unspaced. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done

Notes: In addition to the MOS items mentioned by Tony, MOS:CAPS#All caps, Frere-Jones, Sasha. "YOU THOUGHT I WAS BACKING OUT". sfj.abstractdynamics.org, July 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 11, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Treehouse of Horror (series)

previous FAC withdrawn

I feel that the article meets the current FAC criteria. It is fully sourced and has improved quite a bit since the last nom. -- Scorpion 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the point of this to make THOH a featured topic? Ribbet32 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just discuss one WP:FAC at a time, topic drive discussions can take place at the relevant WikiProject or topic drive pages. As for that potential idea, it's nice for this topic and could work, but I agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs) that this is probably something that is a long ways off. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

• Support. Very well sourced, well-written. Just one thing, you might want to create a disambiguation page for Treehouse of Horror (moving Treehouse of Horror to Treehouse of Horror (episode)), and add the relevant see also links and such to that page, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of this article and the other articles. Would be easier for those not familiar with Misplaced Pages navigation. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I don't think that's necessary because most people who search for "Treehouse of Horror" are likely looking for the episode. People looking for the series would probably look for "Treehouse of Horror episodes". -- Scorpion 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay. Something to consider. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
• I'm unsure whether it is "very well sourced. Ref 53 led me to a glitzy, tiny black-background lewdly formatted commercial-soaked site where the reviewer, one Dan Iverson, has written things such as: "Plus this sketch was too outright with its satire of the war in Iraq. We understand the purpose of satirizing the state of the war, but they wrote it so heavy-handed that it was like they were ...". The prose is amateurish, it appears to be very opinionated (do we really trust his judgement that the satire was "outright", whatever that means?), and the statement in the WP article this is used to back up—well, it's that the standard of the later episodes declined. I'm not sure I believe it from this reference. 1c Tony (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
    • IGN is a very useful site and is known for their reviews. Just because this one happens to be poorly written is not our fault. The reason it is used as a source is because of this quote: "Unfortunately like the past few years, this Treehouse episode isn't up to the quality that was started so many years back - if you need proof, just look at the sketches that we compiled on our list of the Top 10 Segments from The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror." -- Scorpion 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rejoinder: well, you assert that it's "very useful", but the quality of the prose does detract from its credibility. It's that and the fact it contains several highly opinionated, possibly contentious statements that are neither referenced (I guess I wouldn't expect that), nor supported by example or a more detailed argument. My problem is that by using a dodgy source, even one that is "known for their reviews" (among whom, I wonder), WP can be endorsing what might turn out to be falsehoods, or assumptions that are later overturned. It's a slippery slope. All I'm asking is that you re-examine your references to ensure that they are worth inserting and do reliably support the apposite statements. Tony (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did google searches of several different reliable sources, and I can't find anything other than reviews of individual episodes that say that specific episode is no good, but nothing that mentions the decline of the entire group. I think the quality decline should be noted as most fans will tell you that the last 9 are nowhere near as good as the first 9. IGN is a reliable source and it's reviews are used on several FAs, and it's really not our fault that this particular review happens to not be perfectly written. It's still a reliable source, and the decline in quality really isn't just the POV of one reviewer. -- Scorpion 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- "Considered non-canon, they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show and completely abandon any pretense of being realistic." -- Forgive me if I missed something, but it appears that this info is only stated in the Lead/Intro, and not later in the article. Though this may seem obvious to Simpsons fans, is there a source backing this up? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Done. -- Scorpion 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Great, now there's no ambiguity there, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

• Dead links check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The two dead links have been replaced. -- Scorpion 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks good. 1a seem to be the only issue.

• "There are currently 18" isn't as of 2007 better?  Done
• "category, but it ultimately lost." why ultimately?
  • because ultimately lost sounds better.
• "four parts: an opening and Halloween-themed version of the credits as well as three segments" what is the diffrence between a part and a segments.
  • I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
    • Why is the opening a "part" while the other three are "segments"? Buc (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The opening is not described as a part. They are just described as parts for that segment, because it is important to explain that there are four completely distinct parts to the episodes.
• "The wraparounds were abandoned after a few years because eventually, the amount of airtime for an episode was lessened and there was not enough room for them." Awkward wording. Don't like the use of abandoned, eventually, lessened and room.  Done
• Traits might be a better section title than Traditions
  • The producers on the commentary refer to them as traditions, so that's the word the article uses.
    • Need to say this then. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, not really, a trait is more of a characteristic of something, while as a tradition is a conscious effort to bring something back every year, so I think tradition fits better.
• "opens with a special introductory segment" why special? also now it's a segment but before it was a part.
  • It's special because it is different from the normal sequence.
    • How is it different? Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Scary names" why a quotation marks and isn't "Credits" a better title.
  • No, because they are referred to as "scary names" by the producers and the reason it is in quotations is because it is a rather loose description (very few are actually scary) and itindicates that it is not the official name.
    • Need to say this then. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• ""Treehouse of Horror V" is considered the best episode by several critics" needs ref.
  • Further on down the sentence, there are several specific examples, all of which have citations.
• The bit about the IGN list seem a bit redundent. All it's saying is there was a top ten and this is what it was.
• Over linking of the individual episodes thoughout I think.
  • They are linked so as to help remind people what episode it each example is talking about. All of them are similarily titled and it would be difficult for non-fans to know specifically what episode is being described, so if people say "which one is Treehouse of Horror VI?", there is a link right there and they don't have to search the article.
    • Yes this is a reason to link them all at least once but no more than that. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• In the Awards section. Put the stuff about awards they've won before the stuff about nominations.
  • The Emmys go first, because they are the most major award for television programs.
    • This is POV. I've also just noticed Primetime Emmy Awards is linked twice. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Also in the Awards section lose the stuff about them not winning. Clearly if it's saying they were only nominated they didn't win it.  Done
• "However, the award went to an episode of Pinky & The Brain." nothing to do with the Treehouse of Horror series.
  • It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
        • A better when to information people of related info is through links to other articles. In this case this link would work.

Support - I looked over it, and it's very well written and referenced. Good job! xihix(talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes are needed. I'm a little concerned with the sourcing of the DVD commentaries; are there transcripts available online? A fair use rationale is needed for each image, each time it is used in each article. I'm a little concerned with two screenshot images (the top one and the one of Bart and Lisa in the treehouse), as they seem to be decoration. From the Fair use page for acceptable images, Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. However, they don't seem to fit that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Non-breaking space means it should be 2 minutes, not 2 minutes (view that in the editing window). Also, em-dashes are — instead of - (again, see in edit window). It should be 20–22 minutes. I suppose that's fine about the commentaries; after all, the words straight from the creators are pretty reliable. Regarding the images, though, you need a better fair use rationale for each one used in the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done and  Done (I think) -- Scorpion 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support very encyclopedic and informative :) --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - It's about time! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:08, 17 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Bird

Self nom, although this reflects months of work by me and several other valued contributers at WP:BIRD. Vital subject that has been gone over, peer reviewed, left for a while and is stable, thoroughly cited (Sandy has picked over the citations) and very comprehensive for an absolutely massive subject. To answer one possible objection, it is long, but only a bit longer than the equivalent article at Dinosaur and about as long as evolution, (both FAs). I hope you can support it so I can never have to look at it again. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs a thorough copyediting. Found these problems just in the lead:
  

• "Around 10,000 living and recently (after 1500) extinct species of birds compose the class Aves". This part is a bit hard to read. Is the "after 1500" part really necessary in the lead? Kaldari (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• "They inhabit ecosystems across the globe, from Arctic terns to Antarctic penguins". Terns and penguins are not ecosystems.
• "breeding, flocking and mobbing of predators". Misplaced Pages uses the serial comma.
• "Eggs are usually laid in a nest and incubated and most birds have an extended period of parental care after hatching." Run-on sentence.
• "200 to 150 Ma (million years ago)... 155–150 Ma". Inconsistant style; use either "to" or dashes, especially within the same sentence.
• Lead is quite lengthy. Consider editing down the paragraph on mating habits as it seems a bit detailed for the lead.

Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, I thought the legions of people who had picked over this had eliminated all these problems (although the Artic tern / antarctic penguin bit is a bit of tomfoolery I had missed. I will try and deal with this as quickly as possible, and have requested some help in doing so (I have worked too long on this to be able to do too much). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking better already. I'll withhold my judgement until you've had a chance to conduct a full copy-edit. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rufous-crowned Sparrow and Casliber have done a huge amount of work on copyediting over the weekend (thanks guys), hopefully there aren't too many more problems. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I aggree with Kaldari's comments, and, browsing through the whole article, I suggest that it could benefit from a copy-edit: there are several sentences which are run-on or confusingly worded. I might add, also, that I disagree with the statement "Misplaced Pages uses the serial comma": the manual of style says, "If the presence or absence of the final serial comma has no bearing on whether the sentence is ambiguous, there is no Misplaced Pages consensus on whether it should be used" —Salmar 02:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone were unfamiliar with the meanings of "flocking" and "mobbing", it could certainly be ambiguous in this case, although your point is taken. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Preliminary comments on layout: Images should be the same width throughout the article except where special reasons exist (not likely). In most cases, position should alternate between left and right; minor headings (=== and below) should have images placed above them (this is written in the manual of style). Image size should not be too large for the article to be comfortably viewed and read on an 800 width display (keeping in mind that the standard stylesheet's left column takes up additional space.
  • Also, it seems that Image:BirdBeaks named.svg is missing a woodpecker, and possibly a heron/stork/crane (or would the latter be covered as an intermediate of the two "probing" types?). Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture of bird beaks isn't and can't be comprehensive, there simply isn't space. Woodpeckers are indeed an intersing ommision, but so are the beaks of parrots, hornbills and toucans, nightjars and frogmouths, and browsers like emus and ostritches. I've left a note on the illustartors page but I think the image as it stands gives a good indication of the range of bills. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more images to cover the Woodpecker, a Merganser and a generalist (Crow) beak. Shyamal (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• NB Article is protected from edits by anons and new users. Should it be opened to allow these users to fully participate in the FAC? Separa (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment/Leaning Towards Support I just finished winding my way up the article and giving it a thorough copyedit. However, I must put in a disclaimer that I am fairly knowledgeable about birds and therefore may not have caught everything that may be confusing to a casual reader. I think that all the grammar and sentence structure stuff is handled, but someone else who is unfamiliar with the topic should give it an understanding-related read through.

That said, I only have two comments about the article before supporting. The first, as mentioned above, is that the images are not all the size recommended by the MOS. Nothing huge with me, but probably should be met in a FA. The second is that there is very little mention of birdwatching and birding in this article. There is a fairly sizeable section dedicated to Relationship with Humans, yet this sport/hobby that attracts millions merits only a brief, one-line mention. Could you write up a few quick sentences or a paragraph and slip them in? It doesn’t really need to be much.

Other than this, I think that this is a great and comprehensive (if somewhat lengthy) article. It is obvious that a whole lot of time and effort has been spent bringing this article up to FA status and I believe that it is on the doorstep. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the images have now been changed and another person (Casliber) has given the article some massaging of the text. I also have read Casliber's comment below about the birdwatching and have realized that it goes into as much depth as other things of similar importance. Oh, well. Anyways, I now support the article (see above). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that the birdwatching material is brief but then so is alot of other information in the economics section. Each of these could be expanded (1 line on chicken etc.). One could argue there is an undue weight on anatomy, classification, behaviour and evolution but these are less able to be drastically shortened as much of the human relationship stuff. For me it is the right balance of a very complex article to get right WRT comprehensiveness. Prose was a bit repetitive but has been thoroughly massaged in the past few days and I feel reads well now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I took the liberty off fiddling with the images a bit, trying to follow the MoS. I removed most of the forced sizes, which reduced many images to the default width specified by the user (usually 180px for landscape and square, 140px for upright images). I deviated from the MoS on the two SVG diagrams for readability purposes. I left the forced 300px size on the bird anatomy diagram and the default square image size (instead of the upright size) on the bird beak diagram.Lesgles (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks to Lesgles for that edit. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The writing is much improved: well done, contributors. Just one thing: em dashes preferably unspaced; some of yours are spaced, some aren't. until properly copy-edited. I'd like to see this promoted, but there are too many prose glitches at the moment. I ran through the Plumage and feathers section, and have added a few inline queries and made lots of corrections. It's not a complete edit: I see things like a hyphenate "tail-feathers" and a non-hyphenated version, both in the same para. Some of the references end in three- and some in two-digit closing page ranges: needs to be consistent—two probably better. There are not enough commas—that's one of a number of issues. Someone unfamiliar with the text is needed. Tony (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have undertaken a large copyedit of the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like there have been several copyedits to the article since Tony's concern above was made. It looks like the article is about as comprehensive as an article about such a vast subject can be. No dead links (those Wiley redirects won't go away). Well-sourced from 192 peer-reviewed articles and books. I have not checked every reference, but the ones I did check seemed to verify the information they were sourcing. WP:DASH heeded. Serial commas used. There are still three red links that need bluifying, though. Other than that, an impressive biological article. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just bluefied the remaining two red links in the article by creating short stubs for pecten and uncinate processes of ribs while Shyamal did the other. Not lengthy, but they are deredlinked. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been addressed by the recent copy editing. Lesgles (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been working a bit more on copyediting. Some of the writing is a little clunky, but I'm not sure it's something I would oppose over. However, I do think there is way too much time devoted to moulting in the article--about quadruple the time devoted to poultry! I found myself bored in this section, and I don't think it's so important it couldn't be cut down a bit. Other minor issues:
  • A mention that different feathers serve different purposes but nothing more than that. Either leave it out or explain what these different feathers and purposes are.
  • The sentence with the Easter Island reference is totally confusing, both grammatically (how do all the ands and ors fit together?) and semantically (what does it mean anyway? how does the bird figure in here?). This should be cleaned up and if it's too complicated another example should be found. (The excellent article on the Common Raven has a few easy-to-understand ones.) Mangostar (talk)
• I may be back with more later! Mangostar (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Edgar Allan Poe

previous FAC: Archive 1 | Archive 2

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport Looks pretty good. Here are some initial comments:
• and is considered part of the American Romantic Movement. what part specifically did he play in the American Romantic movement?
• Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. scrap this whole part, and just do a much better paragraph about his legacy.
• As Poe began his literary career, he would soon be forced to constantly make humiliating pleas for money and other assistance for the rest of his life. Reads awkward.
• On May 16, 1836, he had a second marriage in Richmond with Virginia Clemm, this time in public. Maybe rephrase it? It wasn't a second marriage, but a second ceremony (perhaps?) and done publicly because ___.
• The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym was published and widely reviewed in 1838. How about quoting some of the reviews, particularly interesting and revealing ones? Maybe one review that was helpful and one that wasn't? Also maybe this should be a section? Also describe that this is his only complete novel, his first novel, and did it earn money? how many copies were first printed? was it a dud, did it have a following? elaboration here would be great.
• Also in 1839, the collection Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque was published in two volumes, though he made little money off of it and it received mixed reviews. so his novel is widely reviewed, and his collection has mixed reviews. Perhaps you could illustrate a little better how they were received by critics?
• Maybe: mention if he was best known for his collections and never really took off as a novelist. Also, you don't mention his first novel in the lede.
• Meaning in literature, he said in his criticism, should be an undercurrent just beneath the surface; works with obvious meanings cease to be art. This sentence could be rephrased to read easier.
• Poe was one of the first American authors of the 19th century to become more popular in Europe. more popular in Europe than previous American authors? or than in his own country?
• Even so, Poe has not received only praise. maybe instead characterize introductory-like the criticism leveled at him? because there is praise, and then there is everything else.
• Friedman's initial interest in cryptography came from reading "The Gold-Bug" as a child - interest he later put to use in deciphering Japan's PURPLE code during World War II. an em-dash or an en-dash may be appropriate here. See WP:DASH.
• In Boston, a plaque hangs near the building where Poe was born once stood. maybe rephrase to... a plaque hangs nearby the grounds where a building once stood in which Poe was born... or something.
• Though the name has changed and it is now known as The Horse You Came In On, local lore insists that a ghost they call "Edgar" haunts the rooms above. this could read easier.

I don't know Poe well, or really at all, so I enjoyed reading this, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with the subject can do a review on the accuracy of this article. Very well-written IMHO.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put in my support for this excellent article on Poe.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A great article, very well-referenced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support I continue to believe that this excellent article can achieve FA status with just a bit more work:

• Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. - This lead paragraph needs to explain Poe's legacy more specifically.
• Many of his works are generally considered part of the dark romanticism genre, a literary reaction to transcendentalism, which Poe strongly disliked. - Can you explain this a bit more, say in a sentence or two?
• I think that the "Physics and cosmology" section is best included under "Literary style and themes".

• I still think this should be moved as the section does not explain a legacy Poe had in this area. If he did have an influence, the section should explain it. However, I tend to think that some sort of "Scientific theories" section under "Literary style and themes" would be better since the editor has rightly identified this as an important topic in Poe's works. Awadewit | talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that Eureka "anticipated" the Big Bang theory (I looked at the source the article cites and I don't think it supports such a statement). I think the wording has to be more precise there.
• The first few sentences of "Literary theory" can be condensed.
• I would move the "Poe toaster" section to the "Museum" section and rename that section. The Poe toaster, as part of Poe fan culture, seems closer to museums, etc. than to Poe's "Legacy" (current location). Currently, the "Legacy" section feels a bit disparate.

I look forward to supporting this article very soon! Awadewit | talk 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• My remaining concerns are relatively minor. Awadewit | talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support My previous concerns have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very enjoyable read. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Today is Poe's 199th birthday. You know what would make a great birthday present for him? Promoting this article to featured. :) Thanks for all the support folks! I tried to take care of as many of your suggestions as possible. I didn't respond here because I was afraid I would get defensive or put my foot in my mouth. So, don't think I was ignoring any of you. Anyway, happy birthday, Eddy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:21, 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hindu-German Conspiracy,

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

The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Wormshill

Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per my comments in the previous nomination. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is about the best article I've ever seen about a very small village. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I did the GA review and I'm blown away at the rate and quality of work that has been done to this article. No issues. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, well organized and well written. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support all my previous comments were addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all previous concerns have been accepted and taken. Meets FAC criteria in my opinion. Rudget. 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support -nice prose and comprehensive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - My concerns from the previous FAC have been dealt with. Lurker (said · done) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great work. An excellent article. LordHarris 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This has come to together very well. maclean 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm amazed how much this has improved during its featured-article candidacy. Bluap (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Why was this restarted? Tony (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support -can't see anything to fix Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Cortana

Arguably the second most important character in Halo... David Fuchs 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: is there policy on citing dialogue from video games, and is the boldface truly necessary (as opposed to italic or underline). JFW | T@lk 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  The boldface has consensus as the way to cite dialogue. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: Neutral: This article needs some serious copyediting, some general cleanup (especially in the dialogue citations), and probably some reorganization. I don't have time to write specific issues right now, but I'll take a crack at performing some of this cleanup when I have more time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed some of the unnecessary parts of the dialogue citations, and have copyedited the article (though I have particular writing style, so people are by all means encouraged to point out parts that sound a bit stilted to them). After having read the article top to bottom (which I hadn't done previously) I'm not seeing where reorganization is needed; can you perhaps suggest something, or point out where information doesn't flow for you? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Opinion changed to neutral because I haven't had time to review the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Object for now:
  • 1a (prose). I've started to copyedit, but this could use a little more work.
  • 1b (comprehensiveness). I have an essay anthology, Halo Effect, published by BenBella Books. I believe that there is some analysis in there about the derivation of Cortana's name from Curtana, and how that relates to Durandal (cf. the sword Durendal), an AI in Bungie's previous Marathon series. I will see whether I can incorporate this information over the weekend.
• — TKD::Talk 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I won't have time to do justice to a major addition until at least tomorrow night, but, if anyone else happens to have Halo Effect, the relevant information appears on pages 91–93. — TKD::Talk 08:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reading more, that same essay goes on to tie the Cortana Letters (the first advertisement of Halo, back in 1999) to the first Halo 3 trailer. The current article doesn't mention the letters at all, when in fact they were the very first public release of anything directly Halo-related. — TKD::Talk 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • On that same line why do the letters have a article on their own? shouldn't we merge the content into this and other relevant articles? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I would be in favor of putting the relevant material in Cortana and, to the extent that it began the public's exposure to Halo, Halo (series). Connections with the Halo 3 E3 2006 trailer can be mentioned in marketing for Halo 3. There's not going to be enough verifiable material to sustain a full article. — TKD::Talk 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I've added material about the Cortana Letters and, seeing as that should really provide enough context, have redirected the perpetual stub at Cortana Letters to Cortana#Promotion. — TKD::Talk 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• If there is something besides copyedit that needs some work I will be available to do it, so if everybody is busy just drop me a line. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Update: I still plan on working on my own objections (hopefully some time tonight), and I believe that they are fixable, so please don't close this nomination yet. (Side note: It's amazing how much better one feels after sleeping 28 hours out of 32. :)) If I don't get to this by tomorrow, ping me. — TKD::Talk 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed what I pointed out above. I'm ready to support. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Who'd going to get beyond the first half of the first sentence, and still think this is featured article quality: She is an "artificial intelligence"? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well she is a AI and is always refered to as such in both the games and novels, what do you suggest we use instead? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that Gene is objecting to the use of "artificial intelligence" as a noun to refer to a specific AI construct. This is a common usage of term, though, and, in fact, the corresponding category was renamed by consensus to its current location at Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. — TKD::Talk 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Something like that. That "intelligence" is a noun; but a noun referring to an abstraction, not to a tangible object. We should stick to the way it is used in the artificial intelligence article; if it is true that some people colloquially abuse the languagein this way, that doesn't mean we need to accept that use under Misplaced Pages standards. Call her an agent (the "intelligent agent" of the artificial intelligence article, or some other term appropriately identifying an individual, fictional or not) with artificial intelligence or something like that. Note also that there are possible variants that could still result in an "AI" abbreviation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. — TKD::Talk 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Copyedited. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this is ready for the little bronze star, I have looked at it in depth and I think it has everything it needs. Well done on another fine article. James086 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Um. and has a slight smugness about her abilities isn't cited. Does a third party think that she is smug about her abilities? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article is very well written. I have seen many articles about real-life people in places like World Book that are not written as well as this one.J.delanoy (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the reference list. Some notes say 'in English', some don't (English or not). Are there any references not in English? In that I case I advise you to refrain from saying 'in English' all together. Baldrick90 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• •  Done - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:02, 13 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 .

History of evolutionary thought

Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman

previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)

It has taken a long time but I believe that all the issues that were raised during the December nomination have been addressed, and I think this article is now one of the best history of science articles on Misplaced Pages and fully meets the FA criteria. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment – I have yet to do a more thorough examination, but I've fixed a few simple things in the article to start: the hatnote has been standardized to use {{otheruses4}} instead of :'', the references section now properly uses {{reflist}}, and I've fixed all of the links to disambiguation pages except one to Variation which is somewhat ambiguous as well in the text—I tagged it instead with a disambiguation-needed note. The article looks quite thorough based on my quick skim, though: I would say that criterion 1b will probably not be a problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the link disambiguation and template updates, I have disambiguated the variation link to point to genetic diversity which is the meaning of the term used throughout this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The colons at the end of section titles that don't have anything after them look really awkward. Remove the colons when they are the last character in a section's title. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, though several images - Image:Great Chain of Being 2.png, Image:Owen geologic timescale.png, Image:Marsh Huxley horse.png, Image:Huxley - Mans Place in Nature.png - should say what they're actually from on the image page. I'm assuming any iTOL cortribution to Image:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png is ineligible for copyright. --NE2 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, the TOL project supplied the data, but I generated the image. Data cannot be copyrighted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated the image pages to show the original sources. The problem was that someone converted the original images from jpeg (or in the case of the great chain of being from GIF) to png and didn't copy over all the information. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/ a reliable source?

I could make a case that hypatia-lovers.com is a reasonable source for material on a Greek philosopher, but I admit the point could be argued because the only conventionally published work (that I can find evidence of) by the author of the piece (Khan Amore) is a historical novel not a work of non fiction. Therefore I have replaced the originally cited source with an article from the Internet Enclopedia of Philosophy ] that is written by a Professor of Classics at the Uninversity of Ireland, Maynooth, and which cites its own sources. The new source says the same things the old one did but in duller prose, and I hope it should be considered unimpeachable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html? This one looks like a usenet archive?

TalkOrigins is a use group, but it is a very well known source for information on evolution and the evolution-creation-controversy and articles in its archives are routinely used as sources for artices on those topics (such as objections to evolution) here at Misplaced Pages, and some of their stuff has been published conventionally (The Counter Creationism Handbook is just a snapshot of TalkOrigins database of creationist claims and rebutals published in book form). I don't see any problem in using such a TalkOrigin archives article as a source for a routine translation of Aristotles comments on Empedocles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem using such a source in an FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have a dead tree translation of Aristotle's Pysics from Britanica's great books at home. I will substitute that translation instead when I get home. Though I prefer a linkable web source the only 2 I can find are this one and the one at hypatia-lovers.com which has also been objected to as a reliable source. So I will go dead tree on this one. I don't like the implications of TalkOrigins archives not being considered a reliable source however. That could be a problem for other FA and future FA articles as not everything found there will have an alternative dead tree source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok to avoid argument I have replaced the text of the translation with an almost identical translation from text of Aristotle's Physics from MIT and cited the new source. I still dislike characterizing TalkOrigins archives as not being a reliable source though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For Talk origins, you'd have to individually show that the particular author of a post is well known in their field and published widely in the field with a good reputation. There can't be any blanket "reliablitiy" standard for usenet/web forum posts. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 7 "Daoism and Nature" needs a last access date.

  Reviewed reference at source and added last access date as today. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Aristotl.htm a reliable source? Note that the author seems to be a biology professor, not a specialist in philosophy or the history of science?

I also think I could have defended this source, but it turns out that it was redundant, as another source that was added later covered all the same points. Therefore I just deleted the disputed source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 27 has the publisher in the title link. Please, for consistency with the other references, put it outside the link.

Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe all of these comments have now been addressed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I wonder about this repetition first under Greek thought:

This scala naturæ, described in History of Animals, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".

Then, a couple of short paragraphs down, under Middle Ages > Christian thought and the great chain of being you have:

and of all potential life forms being present in a perfect creation, to organize all inanimate, animate, and spiritual beings into a huge interconnected system: the scala naturæ, or great chain of being.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This has bee discussed on the article talk page. Aristotle's Ladder of Life was a biologic system of classification for animals. The Christian Great Chain of Being was a much bigger metaphysical idea that included both natural and supernatural elements. It is true that one was partly derived from the other, but they are not the same thing even if the Christian theologans happened to use the same Latin term, scala naturae, for both. The cited source is clear about this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support (Comment—It's a good article and I'm leaning toward support. But I did find a few issues that could be corrected:)
  • Why is there a year range for Plato and Aristotle, but not for other individuals?

I have now provided dates for all the people mentioned in the Antiquity section although the dates for Anaximander and Empedocles are approsimate, and the best I could do for Zhuangzi wss that he lived sometime around the 4th century BC. I don't see any reason to provide dates for people mentioned in the other sections as there are other dates in those sections that provide chronological context. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • To maintain the correct historical sequence, shouldn't the Islamic thought section go before the Christian thought section?

Done. You are right, although Christian and Islamic thought developed in parallel the Islamic ideas discussed started earlier. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence seems confusing, or at least puzzlingly ambiguous, and I think it needs a re-write: "Unlike Cuvier, Buckland and some other advocates of natural theology among British geologists made efforts to explicitly link the last catastrophic episode to the biblical flood."

I believe I have now clarified the sentence. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The various instances of "earth" should be capitalized to disambiguate them from dirt. "solar system" should also be capilalized.

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • In the "1920s–1940s" sections, please insert paragraph breaks for ease of reading.

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  Rusty Cashman: I've marked some spots in the "1920s–1940s" sections where I think paragraph breaks would be most natural. I'm not sure of the reference structure, however, as those big paragraphs have their refs all at the end—so I've left off actually implementing paragraph breaks. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, and I clarified where the Mayr and Provine citations really applied. The Bowler and Larson citations really are global because they (quite reasonably) treat the subjects as closely related and cover them with entire chapters .Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I change my position to support.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I should say that I find the article fascinating and will support it. Also, on review, I might have been wrong about the source I criticized above and that you changed on my account. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well all is well that ends well and for a translation of a qoutation from Aristotle a full translation of the entire work probably does make a better source than an essay with a snipet no doubt taken from some other full translation. I do think there is some great material in the TalkOrigin archive though, and I am sure some other FA article will use it as a source, for something that can't so easily be found somewhere else. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The use of "Darwinism" is inappropriate, unless it is in a historical sense or in discussing creationism. In the lead, it states that the term is "often used." In general, not by scientists. Darwinism is a pejorative term hijacked by fundamental religionists to imply that studying Evolution is like a religion. However, to confuse me and the reader, the editor uses Darwinism correctly later in the article to describe Darwin's specific theory of Evolution, which does make sense in a historical context. But if one reads the lead, one assumes that Evolution=Darwinism, but later in the article, apparently Darwinism (really meaning the early theory, not the totality of Evolution) is eclipsed. Well, I contend that Darwin's theories have not been eclipsed, just added to the overall Evolutionary synthesis, but worse is the fact that a casual, slightly biased reader would then say, "see, Darwinism is dead." And if this article is a history of evolutionary thought, it should clearly state that the word Darwinism has a different context today than it did 100 years ago. That alone indicates a weakness and possible POV in the article.OrangeMarlin 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just so it's clear, I think this is a great article, and should eventually become FA. It's just that the bias inherent to the word "Darwinism" has a negative meaning to anyone who studies Evolution. I think the lead needs to reflect the bias in the word. And again, if this is truly a history of evolutionary thought, why wouldn't we discuss how that term has changed in meaning? OrangeMarlin 15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rusty and I have reworded the lead a bit more. The misuse of the word "Darwinism" by creationists is probably better ignored in this article, since it deals with the history of genuine evolutionary theory, not religious-political maneuvering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the creationist discussion doesn't belong here, but I thought if there was going to be some push-back on continuing to use Darwinism, then the historical context needs to be explained. OrangeMarlin 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the section titles are a bit clumsy, which makes it difficult to anticipate what it's going to discuss. Specifically "Anticipations of natural selection", "Unconventional evolutionary thought", and the remaining sections that use "thought" in the title. Usually, an individual has a thought. A people or group would have an "idea", "opinion", or "theory". When I looked at this article a few months ago, it bothered me then, but I think I was so obsessed with "Darwinism" I forgot to bring it up.

I've either shortened the sections titles, ore replaced "thought", where appropriate, with "philosophy". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do wish the headings could be shortened and be more focused. Since Anticipations of natural selection is already under 19th century before On the Origin of Species, could it be shorted to Pre natural selection or something like that? Also, is Evo-devo a common term, as I have never heard it? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a common abbreviation, but you're right that we should use the full term as the subject heading. I've substituted "Evolutionary developmental biology" Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm almost certain that the "other uses" redirecting to Evolutionism is inappropriate. Shouldn't that redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis or something to that effect? OrangeMarlin 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It has bothered me that the wikilink to modern evolutionary synthesis is so far down in the article and placed in a way that it is easy to overlook or ignore. I see that is no longer the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hope I am not being ignorant, but Plato (427/8–347/8 BC)? Are these normal dates?

That was the way the dates are presented in Plato, however I have switched to (c. 428-348 BC) which is a more standard way of presenting approximate or uncertain dates per the MoS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to put forth detailed speculations about evolution was the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz in the 9th century. He considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence." Is it right to wikilink Darwin here?

I have removed the wiki-link. It was questionable because Al-Jahiz talks a great deal about the struggle for existence, but it is not so clear that he is talking about natural selection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time, arguing that the former were developed " - do you mean to wikilink Darwinism here, considering its meaning now, referred to above?

I think this is Ok. Darwinism describes both the historical and modern meanings of the term, and we can't get away from the term here (because it is a quotation) and so it is probably best to link it for explanation. Especially since we no longer give the historical definition in the lead like we used to. In fact I think I will go back and link the term in the Huxley quote as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if Mattisse and OrangeMarlin could take a minute and let Tim and myself know if you feel any of your previous comments have not been satisfactorly addressed. Between the complex nested comments and responses here and the comments some other editors have been leaving on the talk page, I am afraid something might slip through the cracks or that there might be a misunderstanding about what has been addressed and what has not been. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my comments have been addressed. I still have a hesitancy about the TOC, that the section headings are needlessly long and inconsistent. However, I have been unable to find MoS statements specifically addressing this, so perhaps I am wrong about any requirement along those lines. I also have minor quibbles about the order in which topics are introduced; for example, Darwin seems to pervade the entire article although the evidence in the article shows that he was only one of many who contributed to the history of evolution. Also, the overlapping of dates is a little confusing, for example, in sections titled after a date range but not containing everything in the article within that range. Am I making sense? Anyway, these are my own quibbles and others may not agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue Mattisse raises seems to arise from minor and probably unneccessary references looking forward to Darwin in earlier sections – in the Islamic "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time" could be simply "He compared these early theories to the modern evolutionary theory of his time", thus avoiding the diversion into all the various meanings of "Darwinism" (an article i'm in the midst of revising), and in the Great chain of being section the reference to "a saying which Charles Darwin often quoted: natura non facit saltum ("nature does not make leaps")" is not helped by the reference to Darwin – if mentioned at all, that should be discussed in relation to Darwin dealing with the saltationist ideas of his contemporaries, including Huxley. There may be other instances. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed or reworded those two early references to Darwin. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support – The article overall appears excellent to me, at the moment I'm a bit bogged down in detail so may comment later. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "While transmutation of species was accepted by a sizable number of scientists before 1859" - I know the FAC editors do not like this kind of vague wording. Is "sizable number" most scientists? Also, there is quite a bit of unnecessary passive voice in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "By the 1850s whether or not species evolved was a subject of intense debate, with promininent scientists arguing both sides of the issue.", which I think is stonger and which closely follows (Larson 2003 p. 50). I can't get much more precise than that and remain faithful to the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• SupportComment Prose is good, structure is good. A couple of points
  • Haldane's role in population genetics is noted but skipped in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Something that has been suggested as wilful neglect on the part of Ernst Mayr.(Unable to trace citation, but there is something in the last 5 years on this) It may be good idea to make amends and include him in the evolutionary synthesis part.

It is true that there has been some controversy on this issue in the past, with some accounts (inlcuding that of Provine prior to the 1990s) treating the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in integrating Mendelian genetics with natural selection as if that was the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, the current consensus among historians of science as reflected in (Mayr and Provine 1995), which represents a shift it position by Provine, (Bowler 2003), (Larson 2004), and (Bowler and Morus 2005) is to treat the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s as a key step towards the synthesis but defining the synthesis itself as the work in the 1930s and 1940s by field naturalists, paleontologists, and botanists to synthesize their disciplines with the new ideas from population genetics to produce a new universal theory about how evolution worked. This is the position taken by modern evolutionary synthesis and I believe it represents current consensus among historians of science. Incidentally this issue was thrashed out in depth in talk page discussions on with me arguing the other side (based on older sources I had read) before I was convinced I was wrong.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the archives of the talk pages of MES but still find no discussions on Haldane's role although the page itself does not deny credit to him (as Mayr apparently did). The following has more on the issue - Sarkar, Sahotra (2007) Haldane and the emergence of modern evolutionary theory. Pages 49- In Philosophy of Biology by Mohan Matthen and Christopher Stephens. Elsevier. ISBN 0444515437 http://books.google.no/books?id=bVww2ZPO258C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Haldane+Sahotra+Sarkar&source=web&ots=38GlKX7EJV&sig=p7Ll8-15pmbxq_B23WeYLpY2r2Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not about Haldane specifically , but rather about the treatment of the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright together as part of the story of the modern evolutionary syhnthesis. Mayr is stingy in his treatment of all of what he called the practitioners of "bean bag" genetics, which included Haldane, Fisher, (and to a lesser extent Wright). This was at least in part due to his frustration with earlier accounts that treated the creation of population genetics as if that was the entire evolutionary synthesis. However, this portion of the article does not follow Mayr (and only follows Mayr and Provine for a few specific points) rather the main account follows (Larson 2004) and (Bowler 2003) which treat Haldane's work as quite important (especially Larson) as does this article. I just don't see the problem with the current text of the article, which clearly says that the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright was foundational to the field of population genetics and that population genetics was a key step in modern evolutionary theory. I just don't see what else would be needed or appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the section on the synthesis makes it appear that the population geneticists did not know where their work fitted in the scheme of things and that Dobzhansky "bridged the divide between"... That "divide" seems to have been introduced by Mayr and that is where I feel amends must be made. Hope you found the piece above of use, not all pages seem to be visible on Google books, but I think that should be sufficiently relevant. The current text seems to fail to note the large number of players in the synthesis as indicated fairly well in the main article on the MES. Shyamal (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a little text making the point more explicit that the development of population genetics and the integration of Mendelian genetics with natural selection was the key first step in the synthesis. As to the gap Dobzhansky "bridged" most historians now believe that was real enough. The work of the population geneticists was highly mathematical and not read/understood by many field naturalilsts or paleontologists and the models the population geneticists used for real world populations were too simple, under estimating the degree of genetic diversity, and the importance of genetically distinct sup-populations. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I added some as well with a rewording that links to microevolution and macroevolution. If you think the phrasing needs an additional citation, you can use Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA and he is quoted here http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Microbiology has just recently developed into an evolutionary discipline is rather an odd statement. Indeed Luria and Delbrück's; and Lederberg's replica plating experiments should be pioneering. I suspect that the wording was intended to indicate that only with the advent of sequencing has microbial phylogeny been put on a firm footing.

I have reworded the text. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Gaia as an extension of the endosymbiotic theory is one way of connecting the ideas in this section to the earlier parts. I think the view may be found in some work(s) by Margulis herself.

Shyamal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a linking sentence with a citation. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Can the "c." before dates be expanded to either "circa" or "around"? and what is "d."?
    • Please see WP:MOS; c. and ca. are preferred to circa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and d. means died. It is used when only the date of death is known. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: final paragraph of "1859–1930s: Darwin and his legacy" is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sections on the Chinese and Romans need some work, I think. The Chinese paragraph especially is woefully short and doesn't really explain much, and both need to have their connections to evolutionary thought more thoroughly explained. Also, you shouldn't have a section in the plural ("Unconventional ideas") if only one example is present. And if only one unconventional idea exists, why not just make the Gaia hypotheses a top section of its own. But surely there is more than one unconventional way of thinking about evolution. There are Christians who believe that God guided evolution, for example, which I'm pretty sure has been written about. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "unconvential evolutioanry theory". Theistic evolution is addressed under "alternatives to natural selection". I will look at the Chinese tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I strengthened the Chinese section a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment 1) The section on Lucretius is very misleading: the default expectation with anything in Lucretius is that it is Epicurean doctrine, not his own ideas. Some experts (Sedley) would go so far as to say that Lucretius is only reporting the doctrine of Epicurus himself and ignoring subsequent developments. You could partly avoid the problems by making the section "Greeks and Romans" (it's a continuous tradition in any case); but you should also be careful with the wording (don't imply that we know or even think that this is Lucretius' own idea). 2) The summary of Lucretius also looks wrong (e. g. if I remember correctly it's the evolution of society that Lucretius is talking about with humans, not some biological change, which is the impression that the reader gets from your text). 3) Reference to primary sources, the actual place in Lucretius where he says these things, is desirable (alongside secondary lit., if it's reliable). There's a commentary on the relevant parts of Lucr. by Gordon Campbell, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura, Book Five, Lines 772-1104, Oxford: OUP, 2004. ISBN 0199263965. N p holmes (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I found two good sources on Lucretius and I will reword the section based on these sources tomorrow. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I more or less completely rewrote the section on Lucretius. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't notice any inaccuracies in the rewritten section, though I still think you'd do better to put Lucretius at the end of a Greeks and Romans section. It's slightly lacking in detail now, perhaps. If the decision on Featured article status is going to take a while, I could suggest specific wording; but it'll do as it is. N p holmes (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's getting there. While not perfect in terms of balance, I think the material through the modern synthesis is in pretty good shape. I have some more major issues with the post-molecular biology sections that I'm in the process of describing on the talk page and trying to work out in the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - In the last three sections especially, there is too much use of the passive voice, from my point of view. Are there not any names that can be attached to varying views? It makes the more recent times seem dull compared to the contrasting views of individuals and schools in previous centuries. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that ragesoss's efforts will address some of these concerns. Hoever it is a simple truism that with history of science articles that cover big topics like evolution it is impossible to cover later developments in the same depth as it is possible to cover ealier ones. This of course is because of the exponential growth of scientific activity during the 20th century. The lack of historical perspective on recent developments hurts as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns have been remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bonaparte Crossing the Alps

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

The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Final Fantasy Tactics

previous FAC

Self-nomination. I'm trying this again. Currently a Good Article. Article has been given proper citations as with other Featured Final Fantasy game articles. Images have also been given fair use rationales. Formatting is addressed. No glaring grammar mistakes. — Blue。 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The reception section is lacking. This is a PSOne game released in 1997/1998, yet the critical reception section relies solely on GameSpot and IGN, sources that were no influential, respected or well read at the time. There is no reception from any country outside of the United States. There is no sales data. - hahnchen 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done I've wrote in sales figures and inserted the sources. The only reception for a country outside Japan is a poll by a Japanese magazine, but it is suffice. Please outline reviewers or sources that are considered influential, respected or well read at the time. — Blue。 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Game reviews are just like music reviews, IGN and GameSpot are fine for recent releases, just as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide are for albums. But for something a bit older? I'd want to hear from Rolling Stone and the NME. Review quotes from EGM, Game Informer, or Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine would be a lot stronger than the current lineup. I'm not familiar with RPGfan, and do not believe that their arguments add anything to the reception section. I'd want some Japanese reaction contemporary with the release though, Famitsu's score should be enough. - hahnchen 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Found Famitsu score, and a quote from one of the three magazines stated above. RPGFan's argument is a valid criticism on the game, that is unless a stronger reception can be found and placed instead. — Blue。 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The single Metacritic snippet from EGM isn't enough to satisfy my concern with the article. Why have you chosen to use the 2000 RPGFan review over the 1998 RPGFan review? Either way, the box out should show that there were in fact two reviews from two writers at RPGFan. Right now, it reads as if the single RPGFan quote is their single official take on the game. - hahnchen 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done I've inserted another magazine quote. And the two reviews generally convey the same criticism, though there are noted differing opinions, so have been tweaked. — Blue。 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - With the addition of sales figures and reception information from other countries, this article is finally comprehensive and is referenced from top to bottom. It will make a good Featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Bluerfn's nomination. Greg Jones II 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example Setting and Characters have not a single reference.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done References have been made for the plot section. It may be in-game reference but it is suffice to support the claims. — Blue。 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, there are still paragraphs missing citation. First para in Legacy and in Development.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done References have been made. — Blue。 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • • Where's the citation for the last para in characters? The Legacy section still has its last para missing citation, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done References have been made. — Blue。 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The article is well written, comprehensive, follows style guidelines and has appropriate images. An excellent article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
  • Such a heartening praise from a great copy-editor. Thank you, Guyinblack25 :). — Blue。 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support another vastly comprehensive and well-done FF article, good job. igordebraga ≠ 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, one of the source (#71) is a Tripod page from a fansite. It isn't a reliable source! FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have replaced that ref with a direct ref to Famitsu, from which the information was derived. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Axem. — Blue。 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - all issues that were raised have been taken care of to my satisfaction. --PresN (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Bluerfin, have you asked the Opposers to revisit? Please complete all websource citations per WP:CITE/ES; all need a publisher and last accessdate, and author and publication date when available. Most of the sources do not identify the publisher. Did reviewers check for reliability of sources when source publishers weren't even listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have. So far, no response. I will edit the sources as soon as possible. — Blue。 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Sources have been formatted. (Guyinblack25 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
      • Thanks, Guyinblack. — Blue。 19:41, 20 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:55, 27 December 2007.

Francis Harvey

Self-nominated article on posthumous First World War Royal Marines Victoria Cross recipient. Is a GA and has been peer reviewed. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Aren't there any plaques or such dedicated to him? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I expected there would be too, but I had a search online (where there is a databse of memorials) and couldn't find any. If anyone turns one up then please add it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --ROGER DAVIES  01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose in general it's nicely written, pretty, but...
  Seems strongly lacking in references/citations,
  "Harvey's guns again caused devastation" - isn't this a bit too POVish "encyclopedia Britannica" tone? - - rather common in the article. - this guy is a hero isn't he?
  --Keerllston 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b) What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the article is unencyclopedic in tone? If that's what you mean then please just say so without snide references to "encyclopedia Britannica". Do not make sarcastic comments at FAC, it's rude.

I will attempt to edit this so-called "heroism" out of the article, perhaps you could aid me by giving some more examples of it. (FYI, given its context in the article I don't think devastation is inappropriate where it is. Its hardly a heroic adjective and does quite factually describe the effects of his gunnery on both German forces. Nevertheless, perhaps you would prefer "serious damage" instead?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh... as to b) - didn't mean to be snide or sarcastic. - I believe I didn't find how to phrase it properly and therefore phrased my concern improperly... I'm sorry for that.

in regards to a) - it is a symptom not the actual problem - it can signify lack of comprehensiveness, verifyability, and work hours put into it.

--Kiyarrllston 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, I was rude myself in my response. Glad you like the article better now. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please discuss the authorship and reliability of this source, which appears to be a personal webpage: http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the host is indeed a personal webpage, the specific part of the page quoted is here. This, as the page states is copied from an unpublished memoir of an officer aboard HMS Lion named Alexander Grant held at the Imperial War Museum. A search here has not yielded results, but as only 65% of documents have been digitised, this means very little. I have contacted the owner of the page to ask if he can provide any proof of provenance, but I think this link is valid as the source is a memoir of a participant, not an opinion piece.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Update, I have recieved an e-mail from the owner of this page who has provided me with the details of this passage. It is indeed from the Imperial War Museum, unedited, and thus qualifies as an acceptable source. Details can be provided if required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until the huge sentences are tamed. For example: "Specially requested for HMS Lion, the flagship of the British battlecruiser fleet, Harvey turned her into one of the very best ships for gunnery in the Royal Navy and in her fought at the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank and Jutland, during which the guns under his command sank two German cruisers and almost destroyed the German battlecruiser flagship SMS Seydlitz." Why not make it: "... the Royal Navy; in this ship, he fought at ..."? Give the poor readers a chance to take a breathe. If you have to use the female attributive, don't repeat it so shortly after. Also:

Have fully copyedited the piece in the hope that this has been removed. Let me know if I've done the job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • 13.5"—thought it was a closing quotation mark—13.5-inch guns. Done
  • Q in quotes; Lion's itaclics? Perhaps, but check the logic. I see that Chambers didn't use the quote marks.

Little explination here. "Q" is the style used by the London Gazette, whilst Snelling and the other books use a plain Q. Chambers is from Snelling hence Q whilst I originally went with "Q" as per the London Gazette. I have now reveresed this so that Q is used as standard in the article and the only incident of "Q" is in a quote from the London Gazette. As for the italicising of Lion, it is standard both on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere to italicise the names of ships but not their prefixes (eg HMS). This is following that convention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • See MOS on formatting of times: colon, not period. Done
  • Stilted prose: "Turning to his sergeant, the one man still standing, Harvey instructed him to give a full report to Admiral Beatty. Then, the ship saved, Harvey collapsed dead." - Attempted, hopefully this is better now.
  • Pedantry: space after "p." in the notes (inconsistent).  Done

It's worth promoting after another massage. Tony (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for an excellent review, very helpful. I have completely copyedited the article and attempted to address the issues above, if I have missed anything please point it out. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. 13.5-inch gun, as above, has a hyphen. Still not fixed. Use logical punctuation at the end of quotes that start within one of your sentences (period after closing quotes). Apart from that, it's good: well done. Tony (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Query I note abnormally large sentences in section Jutland - I am not sure if they are run-on sentences, but they don't seem very pretty either way - could you tell me if this is improvable or not even a problem?
  "Harvey, despite severe wounds and burns, realised that the shell hoist leading to the ship's main forward magazine was jammed open and that the flash fire would rapidly travel down it resulting in a main magazine explosion that would tear the ship in two and kill everyone on board."
  --Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, I have attempted to address this by breaking up the long sentances. Hope this has improved the prose.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 16:41, 17 December 2007.

Mysore

Mysore is the second largest city in the state of Karnataka, India. It has been the capital of the Kingdom of Mysore for centuries and the city has a rich culture and heritage. I have been working on this article for quite some time now and the article has also undergone a peer-review. I have ensured that the article is informative, well-sourced and has a good set of images. I feel that the article is good enough to be a featured article and hence I have nominated it. Please review the article and provide your comments on the same. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:

Please note something about the difference between the common name (Mysore) and the "official" name (Mysuru). Is this along the same lines as Calcutta being renamed Kolkata? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere, with a link to the article about Indian city name changes. Also, the recording sounds like it's saying "Mysore" and not "Mysuru", yet it is within the parentheses for the Kannada version of the name; is this a recording of the original Kannada (which I would guess would sound more like "Mysuru"), or of the name Mysore? --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for your comments. The name change to Mysuru has been ratified by the Government of India but the formalities are yet to be completed. I have made the necessary changes to reflect this in the article, and have also provided a citation. The audio pronunciation is Mysore which is in English. I have moved the link to the audio file to outside the parenthesis. -- ¿Amar៛ 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:

• A paragraph (no more than a few lines) describing the history of Mysore prior to Mysore Kingdom would be useful. We know that Mysore came under successive imperial dynasties that ruled from Karnataka and for a while under the Cholas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dinesh, from what I have read about the history of Mysore city, the city came into a prominent existence only after the Mahishuru Fort was constructed in 1524 by Chamaraja Wodeyar III. Before this event, the region was known as Puragere. Though the region in general was ruled by different dynasties prior to 16th century, we cannot assume that in the context of the Mysore city. History related to Cholas and others are more relevant in an article like Mysore kingdom since there we are talking of a bigger region. Since this article is on a city, I have included only that part of history, that is clearly linked to Mysore city. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply fair enough.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is this line really needed in the History section?

The city has remained largely peaceful, except for occasional riots related to the Kaveri river water dispute. Mysore has been in the news in recent history for reasons like the fire at Premier Studios that claimed the lives of many people, the sudden deaths of many animals at the Mysore Zoo and the National Anthem controversy that happened on the campus at Infosys. Fires, deaths of animals are all to common, the anthem issue is a political issue. Perhaps no need to mention at all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: That line was added as a result of a "peer review" comment which indicated to add some important notable events that happened in Mysore post-independence. All the events mentioned got extensive coverage in national media because of which they have been added with appropriate citations as well. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dk Reply Okay. Thats fine then. Will look into the article again later.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you give reference of the following line The city has had an underground drainage system since 1904. in the geography section. Amartyabag 11:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done. The citation has been added. Page 56 of the pdf citation talks of this.

• For the pdf files, page number need to be shown along with the citation, you can use {{rp|p.56}} tag along with the citation. U can take rererence of Kaziranga National Park for exact usage. Amartyabag 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done. All pdf citations have now been appended with page numbers -- ¿Amar៛ 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - well referenced meets criteria, in my opinion. Just as well I read the rest of the candidacy, otherwise I would have thought it was an article about the amalgamation of MySpace and "bore". :) — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very nice. I think I'll support even if you don't fix the below issues, but it would, of course, be nice if...

• Mysore Pak - our article is Mysore pak - are you sure the P, or even the M, need(s) to be capitalized?

• Reply: Mysore Pak in totality is a noun and hence deserves the capitalisation on the individual words.

• Mysore silk saree - we don't really have an article on that. Should we? In other words, if it's important enough to be in the lead of an article about a major city with hundreds of years of history, it seems like it should be an important item, no? I notice the current Maharajah of Mysore is a noted designer of them...

• Reply: I have been thinking of writing an article on that and will do so in the near future. But I presume that the non-existence of an article on Mysore silk saree has no bearing on the quality of the Mysore article. :)

• The Mysore palace, Mahisha demon, Karanji lake, Infosys building and possibly other images don't have a description on their pages on Commons. That's not really a fault of this article per se, but since we have a description here, can we at least copy it there? That will make these images more usable in other Wikipedias.

•  Done. I have checked all the images in the article and have added description where-ever it was missing.

• The Government of Karnataka has submitted a proposal to change the English name of the city to Mysuru. - when submitted?

•  Done. Modified the sentence to incorporate the date.

• region where the Mysore city stands ; demolished much of the Mysore town; In recent years, the information technology companies - I'd remove "the" in these cases. But it's a minor point.

•  Done. Have removed the "the" :) -- ¿Amar៛ 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The administration was looked after by Diwan Purnaiah - disambiguate the link from Diwan, and could we use an article on Purnaiah?

•  Done. Diwan Purnaiah certainly deserves his own article, which should hopefully be up in due course.

• As of 2001, 39.9% of the total land area in the city was occupied by residences... - that list only adds up to 70% or so. What's the other 30%?

•  Done. I have expanded the sentence to include the rest.

• The industrial sector in the city experienced some setbacks... - is unemployment high, low, average for Karnataka, for India? Have a % number?

• Reply - As per the data collected by the Indian census of 2001, employment is measured in terms of percentage of working class amongst the population. The article mentions the percentage of population in Mysore who belong to the working class and now I have added a comparison of that data with other urban areas in Karnataka -- ¿Amar៛ 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your responsiveness is appreciated! --AnonEMouse 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Meets the criteria. Surely my last edit on Misplaced Pages.KnowledgeHegemony 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Several sentences in the "Demographics" section begin with numbers; can those sentences be recast to avoid starting sentences with a number (see WP:MOSNUM)? I saw at least one instance of the use of "current" terminology: "Today, the major industries ... " Things like "today", "currently" "recently" should be avoided, as they become dated. If redundant, they can be dropped, or if clarification is needed, "as of date" can be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Still throughout; when using words like "Recently" "in recent years", the time frame should be defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MOSNUM#Precise language, can all occurrences of words like recent, recently and currently be dealt with? Example: While tourism is the major industry in Mysore, the growth of information technology related industry in recent years has resulted in the city emerging as the second largest software exporter in the state of Karnataka, next to Bangalore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done. I have appropriately dealt with words like current or recent. -- ¿Amar៛ 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written, though there is room for more copy edits. An interesting article and perhaps one of the few related to "cultural" cities from India. Can be a good example to more such articles on India's ancient historical cities.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there really is room for more copy edits, please either make them or point them out so others can. Featured Articles are supposed to be as good as we can make them. --AnonEMouse 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply There is always some room for copy edits in every FA. I will continue to cpedit in the coming days. Also, every reviewer has his own style.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Well written, well sourced, and comprehensive. Seems to be organized in the way most other Indian city FAs, and is equipped with very good and appropriate images. Meets FA criteria. Good job! - KNM 16:23, 17 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Altrincham

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it conforms with WP:UKCITIES and I think it is a well developed article with plenty of references and meets the criteria of FAC. Any constructive criticism is welcome, thanks. Nev1 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example:
  • "There are a total of 5 Grade II Listed Churches in Altrincham" - spell out 5, "a total of" is redundant
  • "lower than the 21.3% all of Trafford" - missing an "in"
  • "including the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall" - hyphen needed
  • "All of these churches have been Listed Buildings since 1985" - redundant "of"
  • "There is currently one synagogue" - "currently" is redundant
  • Some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Some more:
    • "Since 1290 Altrincham was a Free Borough, a self governing township"
    • "a population of around 67,000" - "around" isn't needed, it's indicated by the 0s
    • "Running through Broadheath in Altrincham is a Roman road that links the Roman fortress of Chester (Deva) and the fort of York (Eboracum)" - comma needed either after Broadheath or Altrincham
    • "and is one of only six Grade I Listed Buildings in Trafford" - is the "only" needed?
    • The economy section needs info other than stats, such as on local industries. Epbr123 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Although I hope to find more on local industry in the present. Nev1 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few examples of several reference superscripts running one after the other (eg the demography stats). If you run them all together, separated by <br />•, it looks a whole lot neater without losing any information. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight for time. Mr Stephen 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've obviously not made it clear - sorry. See Intelligent design for an example of it in use. In markup it's

<ref name=stats>{{cite web ...}}<br />•{{cite web ...}}</ref>

and then <ref name=stats/> as required. Mr Stephen 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I get the idea now, thanks. Nev1 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion. All requirements here have been filled out. I've used this page as a template for other projects before, and as for the comprehensiveness... — Rudget _speak.work 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I like the article very much but maybe it is just me but it looks weird having a picture of the market next to the Sport section. _└┘talk 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose A few issues with the Sport section, which tends towards recentism. In addition to the two wins of what is now the Conference, which in the present day would earn Football League status, the football club is primarily noted for FA Cup "giant-killings" in the 1970s and 80s, beating several Football League teams and achieving draws against top division teams Everton and Spurs. The town's two previous ice hockey teams (Trafford Metros and Altrincham Aces) are not mentioned, nor is the Devonshire Road rink which for a number of years was the feature of Altrincham best known by those from other places in the region. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey no one's perfect, I don't follow football or ice hockey. If you've got material to add, with sources, go right ahead, you certainly seem to know your stuff. Is the old ice rink notable though? I agree it was well known in Altrincham, but it has been superceded. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more material about the football club. I'd say the old rink deserves a mention as it was the only rink in the county. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the part about ice hockey, rendering my opposition redundant. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• You need to use modern-speak for the main units: see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Which_system_to_use. Tony (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's an article about a UK settlement, so it uses the normal UK-speak for units. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have to oppose, since, like similar articles with ?similar authors, the prose needs careful copy-editing throughout. Do I need to provide examples, or are you willing to engage others from related articles in the field to sift through it? Tony (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, it's hard to know what you're objecting to without at least a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly a Good article (and officially designated as such), I have a few concerns with the article. Namely:
  • Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section possibly needs a rethink. I had a blast myself at the first paragraph, but the second seems disproportionatly large, and the third is a lone sentence. I know Altrincham to be one of the more glamorous (I am from Oldham!) or at least desirable towns in Greater Manchester, and a hub for upper-middle-classes and large detached homes - I would expect something about this in the lead (if a source can be found).
  • "completion of the Altrincham section of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776" - was it actually called the Altrincham section or was it the opening of the canal upto Altrincham? Also, according to a source I have, this part of the canal was opened in 1775 not 1776 (which is when the entirity of the canal was opened). I would also consider changing the word "prosperity" with "Further economic development"' in the lead about this.
  • Although not a barrier to FA as such, some of the images appear a little banal and don't seem to do the text justice. All of these are images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons licence that may allow them on Misplaced Pages/Wikicommons. There are even some intersting ones from the early 1900s. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

3 have been sorted out, one needs to have a new source found because the original is 404 (that's why a chached link was used). What should be done about the images of England links, are they unacceptable? Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the Images of England links (I think), that just leaves the missing page at the council web site. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written. It was enjoyable to read. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Many of the sources have no identifiable publisher, examples:

• Anon. The History of Hale One Act Festival. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
• Anon. The Club Theatre History. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.

See WP:CITE/ES and please complete all sources to include article title and publisher, last accessdate on all websources, and author and publication date when available (it's not necessary to list "anon"). Did reviewers check reliability of sources, considering publishers aren't listed? Also, a google cache is not a reliable source, and that needs to be replaced. This source, for example:

• http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/151/151847_first_view_of_extreme_sports_centre.html

has an author and publication date that are not listed in the footnote, and it is used more than once (please see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Refernces now have puplishers, and authors where available. I have also removed the google cache until a reliable source can be found. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Continuing to oppose until the MOS breaches are fixed. There are prose glitches, too. For example: I've fixed the first two units; the others need to be reversed. Minus sign or en dash in geog. coordinates. Read about final periods in captions, and "Words as words" at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Italics. MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". 4 --> four. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "There is a low proportion of non-white people; 95.4% of residents were recorded as white."—are both clauses necessary? "The largest minority group was recorded as Jewish, at 2.8% of the population."—Remove "recorded as"? "Altrincham's 15.5% level of employment"—"rate of unemployment. "early 20th-century"—another hyphen required, as elsewhere in the article. Theatres "formed" or "constructed"? Unsure whether you're referring to buildings or groups of people. MOS proscribes curly quotes. "Precint" misspelling in ref section. Ref 84 specify the author. Mixed title and sentence case for titles in ref section. WP prefers sentence case, but not mandatory (should be consistent, though). Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the units part of the MOS is "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". That was what the MOS said for quite some time, certainly during this article's development, but there was a brief period recently when it said something else. So miles are perfectly acceptable from a WP point of view, and they are the units used on the local government web site covering Altrincham. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WHO IS STRIKING OUT MY COMMENTS? Tony (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC and undo any edits made to another editor's posts. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone it. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would love this to be an FA, but still have some challenges which I think need to be met before I could support this, namely:
  • There is a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Could this be expanded or amalgamated somehow?
  • In Geography there is nothing about the built environment or urban structure of Altrincham. Subsquently, this section appears a little thin.
  • In Demography could something be found about the social class of Altrincham, and some commentary about Altrincham's demography, historically?
  • Present day is my largest worry. I believe material in this section could, and should, be merged into other sections. Certainly stuff about retail would be suited to Economy, whilst material about dwellings would be well placed in Geography or Demography. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The one sentence paragraph in the lead has been expanded; more has been added to the demography section, including the change of social classes over the last 70 years; and the entire Present day section was moved under Economy as this seemed most appropriate (there wasn't really much on dwellings). Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support is the only option I have in that case then! I would like to see a high quality image in the infobox at some point down the line (and I'll try to help with that), but other than that, this seems as FA as any other article I've seen. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think all the units are now in the Imperial (metric) form, allowable by the MOS (and overwhelmingly used by the sources). I've been through the references and all now contain the date where given on the source. I can't see any abuses of the dash or the minus sign. Unless I've missed or forgotten something (sing!), it's compliant. I think the style issues have been addressed. Looks clear to go to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Ok, since I am going through a similar process now I thought I'd stop by. Have picked up a few uncontroversial (I hope) edits already but had the following thoughts:

• Lead - "a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade" - I see this comes from the History section but it's a bold statement and a bit ambiguous in this formulation. As it stands it might refer to all "communities" in England or the local area - which is it? Also isn't agriculture part of trade? If other communities were based around agriculture, how did they prosper without trade? or are you suggesting those communities were only concerned with subsistence living? If Altrincham was a trailblazer in the area for a trading economy, this needs to be more forcefully stated and cited.
• History - "became very desirable...for rich businessmen to live" probably needs a cite. It may be that it is taken from the demographic/census stats later in the article but saying "very desirable" is a loaded statement that implies house prices rising (in today's parlance) or some evidence of folk clamoring to get in on the action.
  •  Done "Rich businessmen" can be a bit relative, so changed so that it refers to the middle classes.
• History - At least part of the area still seems to have been industrial around the time of WWII. Given its proximity to Manchester and the number of industrial buildings it may have been a target of Luftwaffe bombing raids. Is there anything you can add about bomb sites, damage or anti-aircraft defences? The history section drops off in the 1930s, perhaps something else happened in the last 70-80 years?
  • This site appears to suggest bombing raids did occur in the area and this site suggests parts of Sale (St Paul's Church?) were damaged by bombs. Am sure better sources exist though...Dick G (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Geography - "United Utilities obtains the town's drinking water from the Lake District". This sounds interesting and unusual. Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? I have not read the full report cited but it would appear this is ripe for expansion.
• Geography - What is the topography of the area? Is it flat or undulating? Is the town perched on a hill? I see that Bowden used to be downland. How does Altrincham's layout pay homage to its topography. Medieval settlements are rarely formed without reference to the lie of the land.
• Economy - "In 1801 there were four cotton mills in Altincham, part of its textile industry, although that had vanished by the mid-19th century." Presumably this was due to the nationwide decline of the industry and not a localised failing? If so, it's not clear here. Also, when were the mills actually closed? Were they demolished or did they simply adapt to new industries? Are they now trendy apartments? The use of "vanishing" is dramatic and suggests rapid decline but it is unclear how mass employers such as these disappeared off the map.
  •  Done Given some context.
• Economy - "stockbroker belt". Is this a term which actually used in the source? As the wiki stockbroker belt suggests this is more readily a London or Home Counties concept. It might be used incorrectly by the local populace however and as a compromise I'd suggest a "dormitory town for wealthy commuters". At the same time "sylvan opulence" is a rather grand phrase and not of universal understanding. Is this a cited term or can we tone it down?
• Economy - "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline" - what kind of decline? Is crime rife so shoppers are staying away? Are other areas more desirable for shopping? and, if so, why? Also, what part of the town has declined - the whole of it? Presumably you mean the retail districts as that is the general context but it could conceivably the residential areas that have suffered and dragged the town with them. I think it needs clarifying.
  •  Done Rephrased, the resaon was already there (competition from other places) but perhaps wasn't well phrased.
• Economy - "The average gross weekly income of households...was £653.." How does that compare with the national average? or the average for Greater Manchester? Non-UK readers won't have a point of reference. If Altrincham is bathing in "sylvan opulence" we need to see evidence.
  •  Done Figures given for the North West from statistics.gov.uk, figures for England are sadly unavailable. However, I'm not really comfortable with the term "sylvan opulence" being used in the article.
• Landmarks and attractions - "beauty spot" is not an international term of art and, as an assessment of aesthetic quality, comes across as subjective without citations. Perhaps lose the loaded introduction and just say that "On the outskirts of town are the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall and its 250 acre deer park..."
  •  Done Disposed of as suggested.

That's all I could see and are really just suggestions/pointers. There may be technical MOS breaches but I'm not the best person to pick those up. Will take another look in a few days and vote then. Best of luck. Dick G (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: I think these are very good points. Regarding stockbroker belt specifically - I added this bite of info, and it is quoted word-for-word I'm afraid. I don't see any harm in paraphrasing this however if we need to better the context. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 2 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Wulfhere of Mercia

Another Anglo-Saxon king. FAs for comparison: Penda of Mercia, his father; Eadbald of Kent, Cædwalla of Wessex and Ine of Wessex, near contemporaries. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support Another fine Anglo-Saxon king article! I have a few minor issues:

• The first paragraph of the lead drifts away from Wulfhere, the topic of the article. Initially when I read that paragraph I was confused why the material about his family was being presented.

I've restructured it somewhat to keep Wulfhere in the foreground. Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is a little distracting to introduce Wulfhere and then retreat to his family for the bulk of the paragraph and then return to Wulfhere, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. I would seriously consider removing those two sentences entirely or place them much later. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I cut them, and slightly expanded the second paragraph of the lead to compensate for the reduced lead size. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so much better - now the reader says to herself: "Ah! That's who Wulfhere is!". :) Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• England in the early seventh century was ruled almost entirely by the Anglo-Saxon peoples who had come to Britain in about the fifth century. - Where did these peoples come from?

I've added some more material, referenced to Bede. This identifies the groups but doesn't say where they came from; they are wikilinked so I think that covers it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Penda's children included Wulfhere and Æthelred, who would succeed Wulfhere on the throne of Mercia. - awkward construction - it sounds as if Wulfhere and Aethelred succeeded Wulfhere

Rephrased, and I cut the trailing clause. I don't think it's necessary at this point in the article: you find out at the end that Aethelred succeeds Wulfhere on the throne. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Much clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Chronicle, despite its later date, contains much information that appears to have been composed earlier and incorporated by the ninth-century scribe. - In context, I wonder if some readers might think that this scribe is Bede?

I've endeavoured to fix this by giving Bede a date, and changing "the ninth-century scribe" to "its anonymous ninth-century scribe"; let me know if that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think about adding a "see also" link to History of Anglo-Saxon England in the first section?

Well, my long-term plan is to have the Mercia article have sufficient detail to be a "{{further}} link in sections like this for all the Mercian kings. For now I am not sure it's the best choice; I'd like this article to contain enough information that a reader can follow the story. I have wikilinked "Anglo-Saxon peoples" to Anglo-Saxons, which contains some historical background. However, if you feel it's an improvement to add the "See Also" link as it stands, I can go along with that. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of it more as a courtesy to the reader, not because there was a deficiency of any kind in the article. A sort of "if you're interested in learning more about this topic, go here" kind of thing. However, if you think Mercia would be a better choice for such a link, by all means add it. I was just thinking that such links might allow curious readers to flesh out their knowledge more. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I went ahead and added it. I do think that long-term it would be good to go through all the Anglo-Saxon articles and regularize what references what, but this is not the time to do that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that standardization is a lost cause on Misplaced Pages. I tried to do it with the Mary Wollstonecraft articles when I was nominating them for a featured topic, but I finally had to concede the futility of the project. :) By the way, I assume you are going to do some sort of featured topic on these kings? That would be a spectacular achievement. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't originally intended to, but I have been toying with the idea of making Mercia a featured topic. There are quite a few kings (and a queen or two) to do, though some have so little data they could be merged with the main article. I would think there are at least ten more kings that need their own articles. I'm planning to do at least a couple more Mercian kings, and then think about it again. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• On the way back to Mercia, Oswiu overtook Penda and on 15 November of 655 or 656 Oswiu and Penda fought on the banks of the river Winwaed, perhaps to be identified with the Went, a tributary of the Don. - "perhaps to be identified with" is an awkward construction

Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. I added some parentheses as well. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Penda remained a pagan throughout his life, however: he has been described as the last great pagan king of the Anglo-Saxons, though at his death in the 650s many Anglo-Saxons were yet to be converted. - I don't understand the "though".

Penda has a special place in Anglo-Saxon history as the last great pagan warrior king; see this section of his WP article for a flavour of this. However, this doesn't mean that he was the last to be converted, and after his death England was a completely Christian nation. Both kings and common people remained pagan, though paganism was certainly nearing its end. Penda is remembered because among the last pagans, he stands out as a successful warrior and a dominant force. The "though" attempts to separate his semi-legendary status from the reality of the sequence of conversion. I can see this might be too compressed: can you say what needs to be added here? Mike Christie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how I understood the sentence when I read it: Even though Penda was the last great pagan king, most of his subjects were still pagan at his death. That is why it didn't make sense to me - if he was the last great pagan king, it would kind of make sense that most of subjects were unconverted. The logic of the "though" is confusing. What is the relationship between Penda's paganness and that of his subjects'? In this sentence, the "though" is distinguishing between Penda and his people, not between the historical Penda and the mythical Penda, if you see what I mean. Does that help at all? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I spent a bit of time thinking about this and finally decided to cut the offending clause. The article is about Wulfhere, after all, not Penda. I think that fixes the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wulfhere endowed a major monastery at Medeshamstede (modern Peterborough) reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. - awkward construction with "reported"

I did some rephrasing throughout the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think Anglo-Saxon Chronicle should be italicized as it is a major work of literature/history.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the early 670s King Cenwealh of Wessex died, and perhaps as a result of the stress caused by Wulfhere’s military activity the West Saxon kingdom fragmented and came to be ruled by underkings, according to Bede. (See Kirby 52-3) - There seems to be one MLA citation amidst all of the footnotes.

• Oops. Not really intended to be an MLS citation; that's just a left over note to myself from when I wrote that paragraph. Anyway, it's fixed; I converted it to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The widowed Queen Eormenhild entered religion, and probably became the abbess of Ely. - awkward construction with "entered religion"

Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• His brother, Æthelred, succeeded him, and reigned for nearly thirty years. He recovered Lindsey from the Northumbrians a few years after his accession, but was generally unable to maintain the dominant position in the south that Wulfhere had been able to achieve. - Pronouns become confusing - best to start a paragraph with a proper noun, I think.

I agree; I tweaked this and the start of the following sentence. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• ''Jaruman was not the first incumbent of the see of Lichfield; Bede mentions a predecessor, Trumhere, but nothing is known about Trumhere’s activities or who appointed him. - is "incumbent" the right word? It sounded slightly off to me here, but I think this might be an AE/BE distinction. It is usually used in AE in the context of electoral politics: someone is challenging an "incumbent", or someone who already holds an elected position.

I am irretrievably sullied with AE after twenty years over on the US side of the pond, but I am pretty sure this is correct BE usage for a bishopric. Is there an AE equivalent that I could use that would also sound natural in the UK? Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"holder"? Is that accurate? Or could you just say "the first see of Lichfield"? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled with this and I eventually just decided to repeat "bishop of Lichfield". The intervening clause about the East Saxons provides just enough distance that I think the repetition is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are there any images of related ruins? The article is a little bereft of color and layout excitement. :)

There's nothing I know of; but see the next item -- perhaps I can kill two birds with one stone here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad on the ruins, but the family tree is lovely. :) Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article is a bit of a blizzard of names for someone like me who doesn't really know this period in history. Would a chart or family tree be possible?

Done, for Wulfhere's immediate family. Take a look at Eadbald of Kent for an example of using one tree for parents and another for children; however, there's not as much data for Wulfhere as there was for Eadbald, so I think the one chart is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This works well and I think it will help unfamiliar users immediately grasp and hold in their heads all of the relationships. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the future, I would suggest adding bolstering footnotes so that the reader can be sure that the views presented in the article are not just the views of one historian, but a scholarly consensus. This is a suggestion for post-FAC, obviously.

Yes, this is good practice, and I'll try to make sure I stick to it a little more closely in the future. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - an informative, well-written and pleasurable article to read. Awadewit | talk 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent article, which I am happy to support. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the detailed comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No infobox or photo of Wulfhere. Not comprehensive, no "Personal life" section and no "External links section". Plus a lot of info in the article is not relevant to Wulfhere. I see a few short paragraphs with only two sentences. The lead section is weak. For example, I don't know who "Oswiu" is yet and a lot of sentences start with "He". Someone please copy-edit the article. But I think it's almost good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not required - photos cannot be obtained for people who lived during the Middle Ages - there is no set article structure that requires a "Personal life" section (particularly when so few details are known about a figure) - there is no requirement to have an "External links section". I felt that the background material was helpful to readers like myself who have only the dimmest knowledge of the period. Moreover, when so little solid information is known about a figure, this is usually what the biographies look like. Awadewit | talk 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaypoh, I'm going to split up your points into separate bullets so I can respond to each individually, and so that you can reply under each one if appropriate.

• Infobox. Awadewit is right, as far as I know, that there is no requirement for an infobox. A requirement such as that could come from the FA requirements, or from a relevant WikiProject that has guidelines marked as part of the manual of style. For example, the Military History WikiProject has style guide that is part of the manual of style; any requirement in there is part of MOS. There is no requirement that I know of to have an infobox, and indeed I know of editors who actively dislike them, so they are not considered harmless to an article. For an example of a biographical FA from this period without an infobox, see Penda of Mercia, Wulfhere's father; I didn't work on that article, I should add, nor did I take it to FAC. For an example of a similar article with an infobox see Eadbald of Kent -- the material is so thin that without an image I don't think the infobox is very attractive. Having said all that I'd be willing to add the infobox if there were consensus here that it would be beneficial to the article, so let's see if someone else agrees.
• Photo. Well, of course there's no photo; I presume you meant to say picture. There are occasionally pictures done by later artists that have some interest in their own right; see Cædwalla of Wessex and Ælle of Sussex for two examples. Nothing like that exists for Wulfhere that I'm aware of. So I don't think there's anything that can be used here.
• Personal life. What's in the article is everything that is known about Wulfhere. Are you asking for a different organization? I don't think there's enough personal information to really justify a separate section; a paragraph in the section entitled "Ancestry and death of Penda" records what is known about his family.
• External links. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Is there some requirement to have appropriate external links? Personally I like to try to get all the relevant information into the article so external links aren't needed, though for copyright (and other) reasons this isn't possible for every article. What did you have in mind?
• Not relevant to Wulfhere. Articles about obscure historical figures, particularly in areas of history that are not very well-known, do need background. If you can point to specific points that you think aren't really relevant to this article I'd be glad to trim it, but I believe some background is needed for readers who don't know the period.
• Short paragraphs. I know that one-sentence paragraphs are deprecated; I didn't think there was a problem with two-sentence ones. I see three examples; I've merged one, but I think the other two would be more disconcerting if merged with neighbours than they are now. Let me know if you think either of the remaining two are a problem.
• Oswiu -- good point; I've linked him in the first occurrence. That sentence does mention his overlordship, which is all you need to know about him in the lead -- I actually took out some additional information about him in response to Awadewit's comments. Does the link provide enough context?
• Sentences starting with "he". I've removed one instance of consecutive sentences starting with "he"; I think of this as a fairly invisible construction when the sentences are not consecutive. I'll think about this a bit more and see if I can find a rewrite to avoid one or two more occurences.

Thanks for the comments; please let me know what you think of my answers. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Phrases like "appears to have been" and "may have been" are used a lot in this article. It would be better to replace at least some of them with something stronger-sounding- see WP:WEASEL. Lurker (said · done) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example- the Went, a tributary of the Don, has been suggested as a candidate. suggested by whom? Name sources who have made the suggestion rather than using the passive voice. Lurker (said · done) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it would mislead the reader were the article to adopt a more certain tone. Little which might be said about Wulfhere is beyond all doubt. James Campbell (The Anglo-Saxon State, p. 59) refers to "the evasive prose that has to be part of every Dark Age historian's stock in trade". Alex Woolf (From Pictland to Alba, p. 10) mentions "'factoids'...things which everybody knows to be true but for which there is little or no evidence." Early Medieval history is an uncertain affair and it is right that Misplaced Pages articles reflect this.

As for the specific example, the "suggestion" is covered by the footnote that follows the statement (Kirby, Earliest English Kings, pp. 94–95: "the River Winwaed...probably to be identified with the River Went"). It would be inaccurate to say "identified by Kirby with the River Went" as (a) Kirby says "probably" and (b) lots of other people do likewise - Keynes, "Penda" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia: "conceivably the River Went"; Williams, Kingship and Government: "probably to be identified with the River Went"; the indexer of the Penguin Bede "Winwaed river " - and those that don't agree it was one of the many rivers flowing into the Humber - thus Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Blair, Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England - and no doubt there are more. All of this suggests that Winwaed = Went is one of Woolf's 'factoids', but all we can do is repeat it: suggested, possibly, perhaps, said to be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Angus is right, of course; but after taking another look at this specific example I decided that there was something useful I could do: I have moved the "suggested" commentary to a footnote, and expanded it to include the alternative suggestions, citing Swanton for that and using "e.g." to indicate there are other sources for each.

For the others, I will have another look to see whether there are any natural places to either be more definite or to cite specific sources, but I think Angus is right that many of them are going to be hard to fix without making the text clunky with inline commentary about modern historians. I'll post here after I've had another think about this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem for me is the sheer number of "suggested"s and "may"s. I'd recommend trying to change some of them to something more definite. Personally, I dislike all passive-voiced statements of this nature, but WP:WEASEL appears to say that a few are OK. I'd concede some if they are well-footnoted and there is no way to improve them without making the text clunky, but would be hesitant about promoting an article with so many statements of this nature. I also think "a number of historians suggest" etc. sounds better than the passive-voiced version, provided these statements are supported by footnotes. If a single writer is the source of a statement, he should always be referred to by name as a source. Footnoting, as was done to the statemtn I referred to above, is a good way to refer to sources by name without cluttering the text. Lurker (said · done) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp has done a fairly comprehensive copy-edit of the article. Could you take another look and see if that's addressed enough of these statements? Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support—Just one thing: please remove the period from the first caption. Tony (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the support, Tony. (And the copy-edit.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Amusingly, there is no link to Mercia!
• Both paragraphs of the lead comment on the fact that Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. These probably ought to be consolidated
• It is probably worth mentioning in the lead that Oswiu was from Northumbria (otherwise the reader might assume that his is also from Mercia)
• How can Wulfhere have been the first christian king of Mercia, if his brother Peada had previously been both king, and christian?
• In the section "Ancestry and death of Penda", the article says "his sons are both recorded as being young at his death". However Penda had three sons, not two.
• "Anglo-Saxon" or "Anglo–Saxon"? Bluap (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these are all now fixed. Peada was king of southern Mercia, so I've changed the lead to say that Wulfhere was the first Christian king of all Mercia. Re the last point, I believe "Anglo-Saxon" is correct -- this is just ordinary hyphenation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and well-written as always. The images are very nice here too. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mike, there's a contradiction in the article: "There are no records of Wulfhere having direct influence among the Lindesfara, whose territory, Lindsey, lay in what is now Lincolnshire." but you then go on to say that Wulfhere appointed the bishop and he was later forced to surrender Lindsey to Ecgfrith. So, he must have had influence over Lindsey! I have two other concerns both about his family: (1) Cynewise was Penda's wife at the time of his death, but is it known that she was the mother of his children, or could there have been an earlier wife? (2) There is some evidence that Wulfhere had a wife before Eormenhild: Eadburh, apparently a Hwicce princess, who (supposedly) became abbess at Gloucester, perhaps after being repudiated or dropped by Wulfhere in order to marry Eormenhild. She isn't mentioned at all, not even to rubbish the dubious story. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40268#n4 and http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30093 (you might need a subscription for one or other of these, in which case I can maybe e-mail you the text if you want it). DrKiernan (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these are dealt with now. I'm not sure what the source was for the statement about Wulfhere not having direct influence among the Lindesfara; it's not supported by Kirby and may have come from the Williams, which I don't have access to (it was used by another editor). I think it must mean that that there is no record of any direct secular influence; that is, no charters and no record of conquests. Regardless, it was misleading at best, so I've reworded it. Good point on Cynewise -- she's mentioned exactly once, as "Penda's Queen", by Bede; she's generally assumed to be the mother of his children but it does no harm to be clear about the uncertainty here so I have added some explanation and referenced Bede. The Stafford article which is the other reference there only mentions her daughters as being "probably" hers; I take that by extension to indicate that all Penda's children are probably hers since Stafford's article is specifically about Mercian royal women. For Eadburh, I found a source which covers this story and dismisses it -- worth adding, as you say. Apparently there's another, even less plausible, candidate, mentioned in the same manuscript: someone named Eafe who supposedly died 94 years after Wulfhere's death, making marriage a bit unlikely. Anyway, they're both mentioned now. Let me know if there's anything else. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Support That's great. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Another excellent article by the phenomenon that is Mike Christie. I'm leaning strongly to support, of course, but have listed a few queries and comments below. This really must have been a difficult article to write, since there seems so little direct information about the main man. Penda somehow comes to life, but not Wulfhere. All the same, this is an important article. Here we have one of the first kings to dominate large parts of England, and therefore we need to know about him. Mike has done an invaluable job of piecing together all the known information on Wulfie and his world.

• I suspect that there are some key details missing from the lead: perhaps the material is so familiar that this hasn't been noticed. For example, Penda isn't mentioned by name in the lead (despite occupying much of the article). I think Penda should be mentioned before Oswiu. Oswiu himself is rather mentioned out of the blue, with no introductory phrase. By 670, when Oswiu died, Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. This sentence for me gives the impression that Oswiu was the most powerful until he died; but Oswiu had been overshadowed by this time, and one assumes that Wulfhere achieved this status much earlier. Modern historians consider that the rise to primacy of the kingdom of Mercia began during his reign. This seems to airbrush Penda out: as the article later says, Penda was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kings in his time. In my opinion, Mercia first became a big-hitting kingdom under him.

I found some sources using the phrase "Mercian Supremacy" to describe only the period from Wulfhere on, but I agree Penda needs more acknowledgement. However, I did cut some background from the lead per a comment at this FAC from Awadewit. Here is the original lead, and you can see Awadewit's comments at the top of this FAC. I've had a go at reconciling these comments and ensuring Penda isn't shortchanged; let me know if you think I have the balance right. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent now. Some mention of long-term Mercian ascendancy might still be included, though, I think, even if it is not said that Wulfhere began it. Please don't feel you have to remove something that is well-referenced, just because of my musings. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think of the "Mercian Supremacy" as a bit like the Heptarchy; rather too summarizing a view to be very useful. It will show up in an article about Anglo-Saxon historiography sooner or later, and that's a fair place for it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• That Eddius quote screams out to climax the lead, in my opinion.

Done; good idea. I left part of the quote where it was since it's the source for the 674 battle. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ancestry and death of Penda. This heading seems to me ambiguous, because I think Wulfhere's ancestry is meant rather than Penda's (whose ancestry isn't shown).

I moved the paragraph on the death of Penda to the accession section and changed the section titles accordingly. That does make the ancestry section a bit short, but I think the organization is better and it does solve the title problem. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• no date is recorded for the marriage and there is no record of any children in the early sources, though Coenred, who was king of Mercia from 704 to 709, is recorded in a later source as Wulfhere’s son. I suspect that the average reader will need some help with the terms "early" and "later" here. It may appear that this refers to earlier and later sources from his own time. Does Bede count as earlier here, even though he postdates Wulfhere? I admit, it is complex.

I changed "earlier" to "earliest", and added some specifics about the later source (John of Worcester) referred to. I didn't get more specific about the earlier source, since it seems sort of clunky to enumerate all the places that don't mention Coenred's father. I hope the date for John of Worcester, given now in the article, provides the necessary contrast. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article suggests that Oswald succeeded Edwin, but was not Eanfrith king for a brief period between the two reigns?

Quite right. (I was amused to find I'd accidentally fallen victim to Bede's propaganda: the interregnum between Edwin and Oswald is the period Bede said was agreed to be expunged from the regnal lists because of the relapse into paganism that year.) I've corrected it in the article, without a great deal of detail, though, since it seems a bit peripheral to the story. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure who the Meon valley was conquered from. The Meonware are mentioned, but were they independent or under the West Saxons? Are they anything to do with the Jutes of Hampshire? The context seems to be that Wulfhere's attacks on the Meon Valley and the Isle of Wight were part of moves against the West Saxons, but that isn't said.

I believe this is the only mention of the Meonware in any early source. They're not in the Tribal Hidage, and they're not mentioned in the ASC. Kirby does interpret this as pressure on the West Saxons, but that's not explicitly in the sources though it's very reasonable and is mentioned in the article as an inference (that's the intent of the "severe pressure" bit). What more is needed to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you indicate, it is probably one of those things that can't be made clearer. (Original though alert) My sense is that Yorke's theory about the Jutes of Hampshire, even if the name is arguable, wanders close to the mark, in the sense that these Meon Valley people were possibly related to, under the overlordship of, or the same as, the Isle of Wight people, so that Wulfhere was probably attacking a single polity there. One guesses that unlike tribes further north, they had refused to pay tribute. It was probably an area well worth attacking, since we know that there was a serious trading station at Hamwic not that much later. I am actually not a big fan of the heptarchy theory, which sometimes makes us think too much too early in terms of Wessex, Essex, etc. Clearly there were lots of different tribes, as the Hidage shows, and overlordship was won by the strongest leaders; when they died, other leaders might vie for the overlordship and tribes would switch. One senses here that once Wulfhere was through the Gewisse, tribes further south caved in to his overlordship until he got to these Solent people. Still, this is all musing, and of no use to the article. 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another note: the map I added may make this clearer. The river Meon is to the east of the Test, which is the river visible on the new map flowing down to the Solent. The Meon is parallel to it, more or less, but is so small I didn't want to put it in directly (the mapping software I'm using won't even show it at this resolution). Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That map is a dynamic help to the reader in visualising Wulfhere's strategy! All I would say is that it should show the Hwicce were on the east bank of the Severn too (mainly, perhaps). That area was strategically significant throughout the early AS period because it is a wide flat valley that enabled the Mercians to flood through into Wessex and vice versa (I have walked the Cotswolds, and the plain of the Severn Valley is strikingly different from the hilly ground to the east, which stretches right across to the Thames: difficult to defend, easy to advance through. The caption says that Ashdown was in the Berkshire Downs south of Thame: I've no idea where Ashdown was, but the Berkshire Downs are to the west and south west of Thame, quite a way away, and the Chilterns to the south and southeast. So Thame is at a pivotal point at the top of the gap. In effect the geography is of a Thames Valley with high downs to the west, some steeply up against the west bank of the river (the river runs south-south-east in this area, which I think helped make it a strategically important element) and lower ground to the east before it rises again into the Chilterns. The channel south for the Mercians is therefore in the shape of a funnel. They coould advance south from Thame on the eastern side of the Thames or perhaps along the river. To conquer the Gewisse they would have had to penetrate their defensive positions in the Berkshire Downs, which I suspect is where Ashdown was, though no one knows.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and I agree with your analysis; it jibes with the basic story Kirby puts together, too. For the map, I have moved the "Hwicce" label a bit and made it larger to allow it to cover more territory; I think it's a bit more accurate now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• In this context, I note the article says that the royal dynasty of the Isle of Wight must have found the new arrangements with Sussex acceptable, because the West Saxons exterminated them over ten years later. Since, according to the article, Wulfhere's attack happened in 661, one would expect the retaliation to have taken place around 671–72; but this would have been when Wulfhere was still in power, so which source does the "over ten years later" come from? I immediately thought this referred to Cædwalla, who slaughtered this dynasty in the 880s, in the context of a West Saxon war against the South Saxons. It seems there's a clash here between the ASC and Bede, which I suggest should be pointed out in the article to avoid confusion.

I am trying here to summarize an argument Kirby makes on pp. 115-116 of Earliest English Kings, and also transmit the basic facts. I think the problem here is a mixture of incomplete summarization and perhaps overcompression of Kirby's argument. Here's what the sources say, at a bit more length. First, Bede doesn't give any dates for the gift by Wulfhere of the provinces of the Meonware and the Isle of Wight to Aethelwealh. (It's in IV 13 if you want to take a look; you probably have a copy but there's one here.) However, he refers in that chapter to a gift by Aethelwealh of land to Wilfrid, and then to "the death of King Egfrid five years later"; that would date the gift to 680, five years after Wulfhere's death. So Bede has compressed at least five or six years of activity by Wilfrid into the description of the time from Wulfhere's gift to Aethelwealh's gift. Kirby assumes that Wulfhere was active in the mid-680s, relying on Bede for that, and then since Bede says that Wulfhere's attack was "not long before", Kirby asserts that Wulfhere's actions should be placed later in the reign than 661. Kirby then sidetracks to make an argument about Frithuwald and the general pressure Wulfhere must have been applying in the south, and then asserts that Wulfhere's advance implied a "near-total collapse of political and military order south of the Thames". This is when he comments that Wulfhere must have been allied to the Meonware and the Isle of Wight's ruling dynasty. Kirby suggests that it may have only been Wulfhere's defeat at this point by the Northumbrians that prevented the collapse of Wessex. So: I used the ASC date without comment, since Kirby doesn't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, and the whole argument he makes, while plausible, isn't in other sources I've seen. I have used this sort of thing before in other articles, but this time I decided to cut it down. However, the "over ten years" was a nod to the gap between Wulfhere and Caedwalla, which has to be at least ten years, given their (reliable) dates. I did retain Kirby's comment about the likely alliance because after all the extermination of the ruling dynasty is well documented by Bede and does seem an uncontroversial deduction from the evidence. I haven't found this anywhere else either, but I tried to phrase it in a way that couldn't really be argued with. The bottom line is yes, there's a clash between ASC and Bede, as you spotted. How do you think I should resolve this -- expand to give the background, or cut to remove the note about "over ten years"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I would remove "over ten years", since it is imprecise anyway. The reader, I suspect, wouldn't naturally assume it to cover events in 680s from a starting point of 661, though, strictly speaking, that would still be over ten years. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes I felt the geographical logic was not fully joined up. I moved the stuff about Dorchester closer to that about Ashdown, because they are in the same area. Looking at the map of Mercia, clearly this was a strategic keypoint for Wulfhere, who I believe had his headquarters at Thame (not mentioned in the article) in the same area (the River Thame flows from Thame into the Thames at Dorchester!). His grant to Frithuwold was made from Thame: it is a position from which Wulfhere could control Surrey and Essex (and the Chilternsæte and the Sunninga) to the south east and the Hwicce to the south west. He could also strike directly south to Hamphire and the Isle of Wight. At the same time he could keep his lines open to Mercia to the north. No wonder Wessex disintegrated: Thame is pivotal. Cædwalla's later strategy can be seen as lashing out against a compressing Mercian–South-Saxon alliance.

I've mentioned Thame in the note on the charter, and I added a map that shows the main places mentioned, at least in the south. I hope this helps connect some of the geographical dots. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. See my comment above. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Modern historians. I find that a bit jarring, though I know what is meant. "Recent historians"? (I'm assuming there's a need for a distinction, that earlier generations of historians saw this differently?)

Removed. I need to do more work on the lead per your comments above so I'll defer other remarks for now. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• the date may have been 659. I felt that an explanation of the issue was required here; there seems to be a buried point that needs bringing to the surface.

You're right. The problem derives from the reign of Edwin of Northumbria, and is partly in the sources and partly a deduction made by Kirby. Some versions of the Chronicle (Kirby says ASC ms D; my copy of Swanton shows E as well) say that Edwin came to the throne in 617. The Anglian collection of genealogies gives him a reign of 17 years, which would imply a reign of 617-634. The genealogy does not give an accession date, but apparently working from the Anglian collection one can deduce a reign of 616 to 633. This is apparently the assumption Bede made. Kirby then points out that Edwin's death in October was unknown to Pope Honorius I in June 634, when Honorius wrote to Edwin, and that this is unlikely as the Pope would probably have been keeping himself informed on events in England. Hence the 617-634 reign is also at least likely. I wouldn't have included this if it had just been Kirby, but the support of the ASC for the start of the reign, along with the lack of a date in the Anglian collection, seems to me to be enough to indicate a possible discrepancy. This all affects Wulfhere because this one-year dislocation could extend to Wulfhere's reign; Kirby has an appendix showing the set of reigns that could be redated by a year, extending all the way to the accession of Osred I of Northumbria in 704 or 705. Having said all this, I think it might be OK to drop the uncertainty in this article, and restrict it to the article on Edwin. Yorke, for example, regards Edwin's reign as "securely dated" (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 77), and no mention is made of any uncertainty in Stenton or in the Blackwell Encyclopedia (the article there is written by Philip Holdsworth). I'd like your opinion, but I think it could be cut. Mike Christie (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of those circular points that is probably best not to bother the reader with. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've cut all references to the date ambiguity; I have a great deal of respect for Kirby, and his theories about dates (he does a lot of this sort of thing) are always reasonable, but until some more secondary sources sign up for the theory I don't think it needs to be there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oswiu had had considerable influence over Sigeberht of the East Saxons. I think we need to be told why. Is there charter evidence or something that could be mentioned?

This rests on III 22 in Bede, which describes Sigeberht as a friend of Oswiu and states that Oswiu persuaded Sigeberht to convert to Christianity, and to accept missionaries from the north. I've explicitly mentioned Bede as the source, and reffed it.

Oh, I see (haven't been checking Bede). I do think it's best to explain the basis for any statement of that sort. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• into what is now Scotland and Wales. And what (coughs) about Cornwall?

Tweaked to mention Dumnonia (since Devon was still part of it at the time). Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am always a bore on this point. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The monastery was begun under Peada. Does this mean building was begun or that the monastery was founded? Obviously, Wulfhere endowed it; but what did Peada do? (I daresay we don't know, but the phrase is enigmatic as it stands.)

Unfortunately we don't know. The source is the Chronicle, which says s.a. 656 "In his time the abbey of Peterborough, which his brother Peada had begun, grew very powerful." I would assume this means endowed, and that Wulfhere provided further endowments. If you agree that's a safe deduction I'll make the change, but to be honest I think "begun" might be better, just because that's the word in the Chronicle. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "begun" myself, unless you put it in quotation marks. It's an ambiguous word, because it can mean to begin in the sense of something not finished, or begin in the sense of founded. I think historians should go further than repeating the ambiguity and should interpret: perhaps the word should be quoted and the interpretation follow (I'm assuming a secondary source says something about it). I agree with the interpretation that it was endowed. These monasteries were always being developed, and new parts would probably need new endowments: in this sense, one can imagine that Wulfhere presided over the abbey's expansion. By the way, on the church, I wonder if Wilfred could be mentioned in the article text. Eddius says that the "kindly" Wulfhere(!) used to invite Wilfred into his territory to perform religious functions and that Wulfhere endowed a lot of minsters.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text; I decided to just use "endowed" as being the natural interpretation. I like the idea of adding a sentence (maybe in the "Convert King" section) about Wilfrid and the kindly Wulfhere, but I don't have Eddius, so I've been relying on others that quote him. Could you add that yourself, or give me the quote and a ref to it so I can? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• the centre of Anglo-Saxon London was not at the old Roman centre, but about a mile west of that, between what are now the locations of the Strand and Covent Garden. Does this refer to a geographical point that was its precise epicentre, or to a "town" centre? If the latter, I find it hard to picture, since the Strand and Covent Garden are bang next to each other, with virtually no space between.

I took another look at the descriptions of the archaeological evidence that I based this on, and I think I was overdoing the precision here -- it's generally just called "the Strand settlement" in the source, and I don't think I need to do more than indicate its location by that. There was an excavation at the Royal Opera House that found seventh-century burials, and also provides evidence for the seventh and eighth-century growth of the city. By the mid-eighth-century the author, Robert Cowie, gets quite precise about the boundaries of the city, but that's neither here nor there for Wulfhere. So I've cut the "Covent Garden" mention, which should remove the confusion. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bede does not report the fighting, nor is it mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but Ecgfrith defeated Wulfhere, forcing him to surrender Lindsey, and to pay tribute. Does the evidence come from elsewhere, or does this just mean that these sources don't give any details? It isn't precisely clear to me (may just be me).

It's from Eddius's Life of Wilfrid; I've tweaked it to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now clear. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the reader needs an explanatory phrase about Henry of Huntingdon. The ASC and Bede have been introduced, but the reader is given no reason to suddenly take the word of this twelfth-century historian. He is valuable because he had access to earlier sources, I believe. qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a short description, reffed to the Blackwell encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. qp10qp (talk)

Support. Excellent article. I'm very pleased with Mike's responses. The man is getting seriously good at this. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

Metroid Prime

• previous FAC (04:16, 23 October 2007)
• previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)

User:igordebraga Did tremendous work on this article, and it seems that every critique from the last FAC was addressed but it did not pass for some reason. It is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Third times a charm! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Co-nominate and Support. I would wait a little bit before re-re-nominating (asking someone to copyedit since that's what most people complained in the FACs, and the so-called experts are really slow), but I wasn't bold enough. Everything you comment in this FAC, I'll try to fix. And if this fails, (*knock, knock, knock*) I'll try again. igordebraga ≠ 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• A few things to be straightened up before I support. I've reviewed this article many times, and I feel that it's reached a featured point. However, a few problems need to be straightened out:

• • In the gameplay, we have: "and shooting foes, with the addition of a "lock-on" mechanism that allows circlestrafing while keeping focus on the enemy." I think it could be better rendered as "and shooting foes with the help of a 'lock-on' mechanism that allows circlestrafing while staying aimed on the enemy."
  • In the items section: "You can also use a "soft mod" device such as Action Replay or Gameshark to do this or other things." First-person is an absolute no-no.
  • In the plot section: "Prime has an extensive use of storyline." I think "use of" is best omitted; it seems rather redundant.
  • The image fair use rationales should mention the article the fair use rationale is for, so "Fair use rationale for Metroid Prime" would be the correct way to write the section title.
  • Would it be okay to find something about the speedrunning? Specialized communities are mentioned, but no source is given.

I'll be checking to see if improvements are made, although if I forget to check (which is quite possible), it would be good of you to reply to me. bibliomaniac15 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

All concerns addressed! Let us know if you notice or have others. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Support. Good job, Igordebraga and Judgesurreal. The article really has improved over the ages. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Criterion three concerns:
  • Image:M_screen017.jpg‎ and Image:Morphball.jpg‎ both say “The image is used to illustrate the game's gameplay.” Please explain why two fair use images are needed to accomplish this. WP:NFCC#3A requires “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Misplaced Pages as a whole”.
  • The license on Image:Metroid_Prime_Pinball_gameplay.jpg‎ allows fair use for “identification and critical commentary on … the computer or video game in question”. As the game in question is Metroid Prime, fair use of a screenshot from Metroid Prime Pinball is not supported. NFCC#8 concerns, as well. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Pinball image, since your right it's not strictly necessary. As to the other question, as you can tell from the article, the issue of whether the game would be in a first person perspective or 3rd person was a huge source of fan reaction before release, so clearly the picture of the first person perspective image is crucial. The morph ball is the only time in the game that you play in the 3rd person, so I'm not sure that it's entirely necessary. What do you think? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The morph ball is to show different gameplay aspects (example), while the pinball one was just because one of the FA complaints was lack of images - so I added two, the one Judge removed (illustrated Legacy, how inspired a "reimagining") and the sketch one (illustrates Development, no description necessary). igordebraga ≠ 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To fully articulate my concern, the real issue is the lack of specificity of the purposes. Having never played the game, I’m not qualified to comment on the importance of the ball/perspective, or lack thereof. If it really is essential to our understanding, that’s fine; the rationales, however, need to be very explicit in their articulation of the significance of their respective contributions. As they exist now, the stated purposes are identical; if showing gameplay is all they’re meant to do, one would suffice. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see more than one picture for varied gameplay modes in Zelda: Wind Waker and Zelda: Majora's Mask(one for regular gameplay, one for instruments that take a large play) and all the Final Fantasy FAs (one for overworld, one for battle; one in particular has 4). And the Morph Ball is mentioned twice in the gameplay section - first on having a different camera, and then a description on how it works. The image helps illustrating both aspects. igordebraga ≠ 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Those were not necessarily screened for FU and, in fact, appear to be in violation. They are, however, not pertinent to this article or discussion. If you’re pulled over for speeding, pointing out that other cars were also speeding, even if true, does not absolve you of the violation. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we just need to describe its use in the fair use rationale? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just cut the morph ball image, its not that important to fight about, the first person image is the crucial one after all. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's disagreement, as I said, I'm not necessarily saying that one has to go. I'm just trying to get across that the rationales, as they stand/stood, indicate(d) that the images fulfill the same purpose. If one image contributes significantly above the contribution already made by the other, that just needs to be spelled out. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the morph ball back and I changed the two rationales to include how specifically they are used. Feel free to fix them if they are wrong, but I tried to be specific as to how they are used. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One first-person and one third person. Good enough for me. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work on the article.  Comandante Talk 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "becoming one of the highest reviewed games of all time." I know what's meant, but this is ambiguous and a bit awkward. This could mean a game that has received the most reviews. Please reword.
• Please conform to WP: DASH. Spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
• "which protects Samus' armor against heat, allowing to enter volcanic areas." Prose isn't great here
• "Among these are the Morph Ball, which allows to roll into narrow passages and drop energy bombs" Do you mean "which allows Samus"?
• "and allowing to swing from them across gaps." As before; without it, it sounds ungrammatical
• "The percentage of collected items and Scan Visor logs unlock art galleries and different endings." The percentage itself does nothing—it's just a value. Rewrite to make clear that these unlockables are dependent on the percentage.
• "Manipulation of the game's physics can allow knowledgeable players to receive items earlier than intended, or to bypass collecting them, a challenge known as sequence breaking." I'd omit this. Some guys (or girls) broke the system. So what?
• "The player can also use a "soft mod" device such as Action Replay or Gameshark to do these things." Again, worthless and seems to infringe upon WP: GAMEGUIDE
• Plot's too long for my liking, but this is just a stylistic preference of mine—there are some FAs with larger plots than this.
• "because Nintendo "couldn't come out with any concrete ideas". Shouldn't you mention who said this?
• "Director Mark Pacini said Retro tried to make the game in a way the only difficult parts would be boss battles," Shouldn't there be that after "the"?
• Don't leave the last two sentences as standalone paragraphs as they're too short.
• Possibly too much weight is given to the game's sequels.
• The external link to Mobygames is questionable by looking at how bare the page is
• You have to external links to the game's soundtracks, yet, to my knowledge, these soundtrack aren't even mentioned in the article.
• Why have you linked speedrunning twice consecutively in the last sentence of "Reception"?
• Refs are inconsistent—some are "forename","surname" while others aren't.
• If you can find an alternative to ref 4, then use it.

A decent article, but there are errors, as well as disappointing prose. I hope that this helps. Ashnard _Talk 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all the corrections are done, and here are a few responses:

1)Dashes suck! :) I think I got them all, this article was way over dashed before.

2)The sequence breaking sentence is related the speedrunning, so I elaborated in that sentence.

3)I looked over the plot, but there isn't a lot of unnecessary detail, like descriptions or things like that, so I left it as is.

4)I trimmed out a sentence of the legacy section, talking about how Prime Hunters was multiplayer, not really relevant. I think it's pretty concise, but let me know if you see something that could go.

5) I checked, and the soundtrack is mentioned in a sentence, though it doesn't go into detail.

6)Speedrunning is linked twice, once as the general topic, and once to the section of the article dealing with Metroid, as this a major speedrunning game.

So let me know your thoughts, and if there are more corrections. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel that the reference to speedrunning adds anything to the understanding of the game, but that's just me. As I've said, the plot's probably okay, I'd just personally prefer something more brief. Thanks for making so many amendments, though. As I've said before, I don't think that the prose is up to the job, but I'll have a go at rewording some parts if I have enough time tomorrow. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll cut that sentence as speedrunning is already mentioned below, and look at the plot again. Once you do your rewording when you get the chance, let me know if you notice any more prose issues that we can tackle. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I shaved a bit off the plot. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Louis Slotin

I'm nominating this article because I think it meets the featured article criteria. The subject is quite interesting. He was a top scientist on the Manhattan Project, and he, unfortunately, became second person to die as a result of a criticality accident. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article, nice work. Redrocketboy 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak opposeSupport after copyedit A good article, but even after my attempts to edit the lead and some easy fixes in the body there are still problems with tone, flow, and citations that need to be addressed by a thorough copy-edit. Madcoverboy 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must disagree with your edits to the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead of the article "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". It must summarize the main points of the entire article, not just some parts. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead was far too large and specific for the size of the article. "briefly summarize the most important points", "consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article", "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if it is not central to the main facts of whatever the article describes", "Because introductory summations in any information source should not introduce significant material that does not appear in the main text, editors adding new material to the lead should be prepared to add and source it in greater detail in the body." Madcoverboy 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]
      • "consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article". The current lead creates interest in reading 1 section of the article (the incident). Personally, I thought it was not over-specific. The text you removed just contained educational background, which I felt was necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I've added back the previous lead section. I will try to remove any over-specific details or other material that may not be necessary. Is that okay with you? Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the requested citation. I will also see if I can get someone to look at the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion, assertively referenced, the prose is excellent and the above responses show the nominator is willing to get this to FA. — Rudget _speak.work 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs tidying up (1a). Here are random examples.

• "After the conclusion of World War II, Slotin continued his research at Los Alamos." Spot the three redundant words.
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Slotin's radiation dose would be identical to the amount he would have received"—was identical.
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Slotin's colleagues rushed him to the hospital, but the irreversible damage had already been done." Remove both "thes". Plus more. Tony (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the second "the". Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - wonderful article - it seems it needs a copy edit.--Keerllston 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been copyedited by Awadewit (talk · contribs). There are still some issues that need to be fixed (she noted them on the talk page), but once I get to them, the article should satisfy the 1a issues. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Update I have resolved almost all of the issues raised by Awadewit on Talk:Louis Slotin. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Comments by user:Fowler&fowler: I'm afraid (in spite of user:Awadewit's editing) the article has too many deficiencies. It's main problem, as I see it, is that it is insufficiently developed. Most of the article consists of sentences that don't connect with each other. (I will give examples soon.) There are also inaccuracies in the text. In my view, the article needs to be withdrawn, developed much further (and expanded to at least twice its current text size of 11KB), allowed to "simmer" a little, carefully copy-edited again, and then resubmitted. (I am traveling and dependent on the erratic wi-fi's I catch here and there, so my comments will be brief for now.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From Early Life:

Slotin was the first of three children born to Israel and Sonia Slotin, Yiddish-speaking refugees who had fled the pogroms of Russia to Winnipeg, Manitoba. He grew up in the North End neighborhood of Winnipeg, an area with a large concentration of Eastern European immigrants.

• When you provide that information in the text, the reader expects you to do something with it. Tell us how his parents' background (especially if the escaped the pogroms) affected his upbringing. Similarly, if he grew up in a large East European neighborhood, the reader expects to be told something distinctive about it. How was it different from growing up somewhere else?
  • See my general comments at the bottom of the FAC. There are no thorough biographical sketches of Slotin, period. Everything I cover is from material available in journals and books. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From his early days at Machray Elementary School through his teenage years at St. John's Technical High School, Slotin was an exceptional student. His younger brother, Sam, later remarked that his brother "had an extreme intensity that enabled him to study long hours".

• How was he an exceptional student? What does that mean? How many students were there in his class? The ability to study long hours is hardly particularly decisive evidence of intensity, especially when it is provided in a brother's reminiscence. We need something more.
  • Academically. For the reasons mentioned above, I can't provide you details of the number of students. As for the quote, Slotin's brother attributed the long hours of studying and concentration to Louis's academic success. I have added that detail after the quote, as clarification. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At the age of 16, Slotin entered the University of Manitoba, to pursue his interest in science. During his undergraduate years, he received a University Gold Medal in both physics and chemistry. Slotin received a Bachelor of Science degree in geology from the university in 1932 and a Master of Science degree in 1933.

• All this doesn't tell us a thing about the person. "pursue his interest in science" It is said as if we had already been told about it. What sort of science? What does it mean to receive a gold medal in physics and chemistry, especially when he seemed to be majoring in geology. (The university couldn't really be handing out "real" gold medals for doing well in subjects one wasn't majoring in.) What did he receive his MS in? All this is too anonymous. We need some real information. Where did he live? Did he socialize? Who were his friends?
  • Reworded to "pursue a degree in science". There are no details of his college life. I will look into the gold medal (I just know that it is awarded for academic achievement in certain fields) and what subject he received his MS in. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With the assistance of one of his mentors, he obtained a fellowship to study at King's College London, under the instruction of A. J. Allmand.

• What does "With the assistance of one of his mentors" tell us? Who was the mentor? What sort of assistance did she/he give? "under the instruction of A. J. Allmand" Who was A. J. Allmand? The text doesn't come back to Allmand later. What kind of a science did Allmand study or do research in? (I'm assuming, btw, it is "under the supervision" of Allmand.)
  • One of his professors pulled some strings to get Slotin the fellowship to study at King's College. Replaced "under the instruction" to "under the supervision". I added more on Allmand. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a distinguished scholar on photochemistry and electrochemistry. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While at King's College, Slotin distinguished himself as an amateur boxer by winning the college's amateur bantam-weight boxing championship.

• How did he get into boxing? If he won the college's championship, he likely didn't start in graduate school. How come we didn't hear about the boxing in Manitoba? Also, in the British system that I am aware of, graduate students don't really compete in college championships. So, I'm confused about what kind of championship this was. The bantam-weight tells us something (if we go check), but you haven't even told us how big he was or how tall.

To his friends back home, he managed to give the impression that he had fought for the Spanish Republic and flown fighter jets with the Royal Air Force.

• Just as we had an abrupt transition from going to London to work with Allmand to boxing, we next have another abrupt transition to the Spanish Civil War. Did he fight for the republicans? When did he say he fought? What years? How did he learn to fly? Or, how did he explain this to his family and friends back home. I'm afraid there's just not enough information here.

Author Robert Jungt recounts in his book Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, "ver since his earliest youth had gone in search of fighting, excitement, and adventure. He had volunteered for service in the Spanish Civil War, more for the sake of the thrill of it than on political grounds."

• Well, Jungt does tell us something, but it only makes more curious. "ever since his earlist youth?" What does that mean? Does that include teenage years? If so, what kinds of adventures had he gone on? Is there earlier history of this? If he did volunteer for service, what battles did he fight in? How long was he in Spain? (i.e. what did he tell his family?) What were his politics?

During an interview years later, Sam stated that his brother had gone "on a walking tour in Spain", and he "did not take part in the war" as previously thought.

• A walking tour of Spain during the Spanish Civil War? Where did he go on this tour? If his brother's statement is true, then obviously Slotin had some "issues." They need to be explored more. Did he lie about other things? What, for example, did he write about Allmand, the guy he was supposed to be working with?

Slotin received a doctorate in physical chemistry from the university in 1936. He won a prize for his thesis entitled "An Investigation into the Intermediate Formation of Unstable Molecules During some Chemical Reactions".

• Well, all of a sudden, he now has his Ph. D. This is the first that we hear of physical chemistry. We were never told that somewhere in his academic career he changed his focus from geology to physical chemistry. Was Allmand his supervisor for this thesis? Again, you give us artificial milestones like winning the prize, but you don't tell us what he did in his thesis. The title, unfortunately doesn't give us any clues. Which unstable molecules? Which chemical reactions?

Afterwards, he spent six months working as a special investigator for Dublin, Ireland's Great Southern Railways, testing the Drumm nickel-zinc rechargeable batteries used on the Dublin-Bray line

• Minor problem: Dublin, Ireland's Great Southern Railways? We don't say, New York, USA's subway. More importantly, what was the connection of his thesis with the rechargeable batteries? How were the batteries used on the Dublin-Bray line? I'm afraid, again all too anonymous.

So, as you will have now seen above, there are many things that need to be explored further. The rest of the article has the same problems and perhaps I will find some more time tomorrow to address those issues. The article needs a lot more work. I think you should withdraw the article, read up more on it, develop it much further, and then resubmit it when it is ready. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to expand the article, but there is no material that would help me do so. I have exhausted all possible reference materials for Slotin, so far. The reason why I can't go into specifics is because specifics were never provided. I'll try to patch up some holes, but I can't promise anything. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler December 20, 2007: Hi, I noticed you have changed some of the language for the better, however, there is still a lot more that can be added. For example, with just a simple search on Google Scholar, I was able to find eight or nine papers of Slotin including three papers he wrote in 1933 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. You might want to talk to someone in the WP Chemistry portal and ask them to summarize the content of those papers. That content should certainly be included. The papers also suggest that he must have changed his area of study to Physical Chemistry for his MSc. There is also a book: Jews in Manitoba: A Social History by A. A. Chiel, University of Toronto Press, which refers to Louis Slotin, but more importantly, it will likely give you some material for reconstructing the kind of environment Slotin grew up in.

Here is the "University of Chicago" section (with my comments):

In 1937, after unsuccessfully applying for a job with Canada's National Research Council, the University of Chicago accepted him as a research associate later that year.

• Why tell us about his unsuccessful application at Canada's NRC, if there is no more to the story than that? I think the version of the story in the Science obit is better. i.e. he was driving back to Manitoba, happened to stop in Chicago, etc. etc. ...

There, Slotin gained his first experience with nuclear chemistry, helping to build the first cyclotron in the midwestern United States.

• A JSTOR search on Louis Slotin turned up a description of how the cyclotron is used to produce Carbon 14. I think that should certainly be explained in some detail.

The job paid poorly and Slotin's father had to support him for two years.

• Again not sure why this is important.

From 1939 to 1940, Slotin collaborated with Earl Evans, the head of the university's biochemistry department, to produce radiocarbon and Carbon-11 from the cyclotron. While working together, the two men also used C to demonstrate that animal cells had the capacity to use carbon dioxide for carbohydrate synthesis, through carbon fixation.

• Google Scholar turned up three or four papers of Slotin written between 1939 and 42 on "Carbon dioxide utilization by pigeon liver," and so forth (Journal of Biological Chemistry). I think you should devote at least one paragraph to a description of that research, and not just one sentence. You might want to get help from the chemistry or biology portals. Since this article is about Louis Slotin and not about criticality accidents, all areas of Slotin's career need to be considered.

Slotin may have been present at of the start-up of Enrico Fermi's "Chicago Pile-1" (the first man-made nuclear reactor) on December 2, 1942; however, the accounts of the event do not agree on this point. (reference: A 1962 University of Chicago document says that Slotin "was present on December 2, 1942, when the group of 'Met Lab' scientists working under the late Enrico Fermi achieved man's first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in a pile of graphite and uranium under the West Stands of Stagg Field." Slotin's colleague, Henry W. Newson, recollected that he and Slotin were not present during the scientists' experimentation.)

• I think the actual 33 minute chain reaction was a bit of a media event, and Slotin's presence or absence shouldn't be given too much emphasis. What is more important is that he became expert enough at the science and engineering involved in the Chicago pile that he was sent to Oakridge to set up the Oakridge "pile" in 1943. There is a Oakridge lab History of Oak Ridge Critical Experiments Program that describes that process. That should be described in some detail.

During this time, Slotin also contributed to a number of papers in the field of radiobiology. His expertise on the subject garnered the attention of the United States government, and as a result, he was invited to join the Manhattan Project, the United States' effort to develop a nuclear bomb. Slotin worked on the production of plutonium under future Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner at the university and later at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He moved to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in December 1944 to work in the bomb physics group of Robert Bacher.

• I couldn't find the papers on radiobiology. Where did you get that information? You say, "Slotin worked with Eugene Wigner at the university ..." Which university? I ask because Wigner was at Princeton, not Chicago. But he did go to Oak Ridge of course (which you mention). Also, Slotin applied for a patent on Method of Dissolving Uranium in 1944. That was probably his work at Oak Ridge. You should certainly describe the method of the patent in some detail.

• There is a lot of literature on criticality/radiation accidents and prevention. Papers on chromosomal damage etc., which can be used to add a "Science Legacy" section. In other words, a section on how Slotin's death resulted in accident prevention protocols etc. If you don't have JSTOR access, I am happy to send you any paper you might need.

There may not be a huge amount of literature on Slotin, but I think there are at least a dozen papers or reports and one book (Jews of Manitoba) that haven't been used in this article and should be. There is enough there that this article could be expanded significantly (and by that I mean by at least six or seven medium sized paragraphs, and likely even more). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get working on those bits. I totally forgot about using Google Scholar to locate Slotin's published works. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support excellent article. --MagneticFlux (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

South of Heaven

I wish to nominate current Good Article South of Heaven as a Featured Article Candidate, a 1988 album by Californian heavy metal act Slayer. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The album remains relatively undiscussed from a critical stance thus far, and isn't as well known or notable to heavy metal music audiences compared to its 1986 predecessor Reign In Blood. Therefore, there isn't as much published material available. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. LuciferMorgan 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Good read, well sourced. Some comments:

1. The Recording section might be more aptly titled "Background", as it discusses elements of not just recording, but some points about production and development as well.

I've gone for this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Photography and illustration could be more simply titled "Design", or "Cover design" or even just illustration.

Not too sure if this section can be renamed - Larry Carroll painted the album cover art, while the back cover features a band picture by Glen E. Friedman. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Reception and criticism should be more simply titled "Critical reception", I believe this is more the norm, e.g. for articles on films.

I've done this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• No need for "However" at the beginning of the "However, Kim Neely of Rolling Stone" sentence.

I thought the "However" ties it in with the last paragraph. If others also agree the word is unnecessary, I don't mind it being scrapped. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Last two sentences of this section do not belong in a Reception section, this should probably be earlier in the Recording section.

I've added the last two sentences to the end of the Recording section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overall syntax in this section is very good.

Thanks very much. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cover interpretations could be more simply titled just "Covers", and could stand-alone as its own subsection.

I've followed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Live should be retitled "Live performances."

I agree, and have done so. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Any relevant External links?

I'm not aware of any, but if anyone has any they can suggest, then they can be of course considered. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work overall, good job. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much for your support and constructive feedback, which is greatly appreciated. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Meets criteria. I see no problems. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support The article looks very good. But while reading it, I found myself correcting a bunch of small copyediting issues. Things like inconsistently using straight and curly quotes, unnecessary or missing italics, and British conventions instead of American. I've corrected everything I noticed, but a more thorough copyedit would probably be helpful. 17Drew (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a British user, and use British conventions. I have no intention of using American conventions, which I find is more or less a dumbed down version of the English language. I think it's about time the Americans (generally) stop trying to Americanize the English language too. However, thanks for your edits. They are really appreciated - I'll have to read Misplaced Pages guidelines on italics / quotes sometime and get more clued up sometime. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • "In order to contrast the aggressive assault put forth on Reign in Blood, Slayer consciously slowed down the tempo of the album as a whole." I think "aggressive assault" might be a bit too emotional for Misplaced Pages, but I'll leave that up to you.

This is actually a quote, so I've attempted to clarify this within the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "The rendition of Judas Priest's "Dissident Aggressor" is the only cover version to appear on a Slayer studio album. This is due to the war-themed lyrics, with Hanneman describing the track as "more just like one of those odd songs that a lot of people didn't know, but it was a favorite of Kerry and I, so we just picked that one."" I'm not sure I understand this, so it's probably a bit ambiguous. Are the war-themed lyrics the reason Slayer chose to cover this particular song or the reason they haven't done any covers since?

They chose the song due to the war themed lyrics, though I've tried to clarify this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are the band members' evaluations of the album in the "Background" section? That seems kind of odd to me.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The evaluations given in the "Background" section just seemed the more appropriate place to put them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, which are much appreciated. Should you have any others, feel free to share them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Objections I saw your comment in FAC talk - hope I can help improve this article - it seems to have some issues in regards to FA Criteria;

""Behind the Crooked Cross" is rarely played live as Hanneman hates the track," - the personal feelings of someone are always POV, unreliable, and need sourcing and attribution.

This already has sourcing and attribution to Decibel Magazine. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

- i mean attribution within the writing - I don't believe Decibel Magazine is the NPOV on his Hanneman's "hate".--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means fairly representing all significant views. Opinions other than the band's are insignificant when discussing its decision not top play the song. Decibel Magazine does not state that the song is good or bad, only that the band said the quote in an interview. NPOV is not an issue here. 17Drew (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better said would have been verifiable/attribution/reliability - simple fix: "is played rarely according to the band because Hanneman hates the track" - ? --Keerllston 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"In order to offset the pace of the group's previous album, Slayer deliberately slowed down the album's tempo." in the lead is very authoritative - may I suggest "Bandmenber have said that the slower tempo of the album is due to the need to offset it from the band's previous album.

The current sentence in the lead more closely resembles the stance of the group's official biography, so I am not changing it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"according to the group's official biography" should be added?--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The main article already notes that this came from the official biography. There's no need to attribute sources in the lead when it's already cited in the main article. 17Drew (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand why we say "according to X spectator" not in citations? it's because reliability is in question - if a person says of themselves that they are depressed it is questionable - if a person's psychologist says it less so.--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"While some critics praised the musical shift, others more accustomed to the style of earlier releases were disappointed. " - ummm... some liked it some didn't -obvious and weaseling

This is a direct quote, so therefore cannot be changed. Also, since it's a quote it isn't weasly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

??? direct quote??? - it doesn't (didn't?) have quotes--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a direct quote, but it is paraphrased from Slayer's official biography. It's not very weaselly at all. Some albums garner nearly universal acclaim, and others are completely panned. In this case, it identifies the change in Slayer's musical style as a main point of criticism.

so it isn't a direct quote - it is a paraphrasis. I think the change in Slayer's musical style being the main cause of criticism can be better pointed out that the weasely "some some didn't " - I suggest "Criticism of the album was derived mostly from the musical shift." - or similar - without the usage of "some" - It seems the article depends a lot on info from the official biography.--Keerllston 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence already summarises this fine, so I am not changing it. It isn't weasly at all, so I suggest you actually find out what a weasly sentence is. Most album FAs I have come across summarise the critical reception in the introduction. For example, from Love. Angel. Music. Baby.; "Despite gathering mostly positive reviews, L.A.M.B. received criticism for its many collaborations and superficial lyrical content." Furthermore, your assertion that the article depends on a lot of info from the official biography couldn't be further from the truth - before making such statements, read the article in question. A lot of the info the articles relies on is actually an oral history of the group, printed in Decibel magazine. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are under the impression that an article should reflect the "official" - this is not the case. I note that LAMB section you quoted does not note that "some critics" did "something" - instead criticism was done . - this is much more encyclopedic in tone.--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"However, Kim Neely of Rolling Stone dismissed the album as "genuinely offensive satanic drivel."" - why "however" and why is the criticism section of "Critical Reception" so small? - I suggest "Dislike of the Album included that of Neely who said """ and so on.

The word "However" is used to tie the topic, but can be taken out if need be. The negative part of the "Critical reception" section is small since I cannot find any other negative reception. Therefore, unless you can find negative and reliable reception then this is not a valid objection. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do edit "However" out if you haven't already. - I am unwilling to believe that it's impossible to find negative reviews from notable musical magazines...--Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes: a third of citations are from All Music Guide - a sixth are from blabbermouth - are these good/reputable/reliable sources? there are a total of 36 sources, none of them books, has there been little scholarly work regarding this article's subject matter?

This is heavy metal we're discussing, not Shakespeare. There's currently no English language biographies on Slayer. All Music Guide is only used to cite track listings, and some don't even feel the need to cite track listings. As concerns Blabbermouth, it's the best news source on heavy metal without question. If anyone says they can find a better news source, then I say they're not well informed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

- I was using notes as in - "not-relevant-to-objection hopefilled queries" - sorry for not being clear in regards to that... --Keerllston 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

>--Keerllston 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't find any of your objections valid for the aforementioned reasons. However, thanks for taking the time to comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection not adressed I'm okay with LuciferMorgan finding my objections invalid.--Keerllston 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any need to highlight this - the relevant person can find this out for themselves by reading your objection and my responses. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a need? I thought you know - maybe my "opinion" mattered -it is my comment after all- and I think my "opinion" on whether my comment was addressed was pretty relevant as to whether my comment was addressed - feel free to disagree--Keerllston 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't a need, actually. I have written 3 FAs, and there hasn't ever been a need. Whether your comments have been addressed, or even need addressing (which they don't at all, in my opinion), is up to the FAC director and not you. I have come across a few of your comments on other FACs now, and I must say that I'm not too impressed. Before you actually comment on other FACs, I think you need to read the FAC criteria more closely. Also, I think you need to read each respective article you're commenting on more closely. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed at myself either... hahaha
-ummm - you might be comforted to know that FAC is not a vote... - my comment(s) and objection(s) can be ignored - I can't say you convinced me at the very least that they were invalid- but then
if they were invalid you didn't need to say anything either (no need as it were)- since Raul can pretty much review the article and article reviews by himself and rely on his judgement.
--Keerllston 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't even warrant a response, other than for me to ask you to stop wasting editors' times and actually read the FAC criteria. Your reasons for objecting are frankly pathetic, and have no basis in the criteria. And as concerns convincing you, I certainly don't wish to - I address comments which adhere to FAC guidelines, not ones which people like you dream up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

you say: "your reasons are pathetic" -Sounds uncivil to my ears, -do you (LuciferMorgan) have a personal issue with me? I suggest you discontinue this avenue of action - it does not seem very constructive.
--Keerllston 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not uncivil, but merely stating the truth. If you do not like the truth, you're speaking to the wrong person. For the record, I take personal issue with editors wasting nominators times. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I to interpret that you believe I am wasting your time? - You do not have to respond, let alone this many times, to an objection or to an editor. If you believe a comment doesn't warrant a response I suggest you do not respond. This lessens your stress and also therefore the chance that you'll make a rash comment whether in response to that comment or elsewhere that you'll later regret. In my opinion or point of view -I can only waste my time, never yours, and you can only waste your time, never mine.--Keerllston 11:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Request for (request for) input from a member of the copy-editing league.--Keerllston 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't need copyediting, and you're only asking for this since I told you that you were wasting people's time. Stop trying to derail my FAC in the way you tried to do so at "The Sweet Escape". LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I see the above concerns as either inactionable or justifed by the nominator. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Cricket02. It's really not worth getting involved though (I'm still trying to figure why I've kept responding). When it's time to cast judgment on this FAC, more experienced people will see through these inactionable concerns. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. OK?--Keerllston 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You must have little to stimulate you during the day, since your antics become more and more annoying. And for the record, your oppose did not state anything actionable. Which specific statement needs a copyedit, and why? Tell me. Otherwise, go and annoy someone else. I'm really getting fed up of your rubbish, and I have better things to do with my time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments were mainly copy-edit complaints -(and wow at uncivil remarks: "go annoy someone else"-"I'm getting fed up of your rubbish").--Keerllston 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As you stated earlier, FAC is not a vote. This means nobody's opinion really matters. What's important is whether or not the objections are actionable. I supported because I don't see any more copyediting issues, but I personally can't say for sure that there aren't actionable issues. Had you found some, then LuciferMorgan would likely be fixing those issues, but it's unreasonable for LuciferMorgan to be trying to address unactionable concerns. 17Drew (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Objectionable Nominator Attitude nuff said--Keerllston 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind good faith comments, but I think you writing at this FAC arose from me telling you to curb your comments at "The Sweet Escape" FAC for being a nuisance there. I find that objectionable, and your mocking attitude is objectionable too. If you wish to goad here, please invent funnier comments. If you're going to be annoying, you can at least make it entertaining for all involved. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I said "nuff said" -meaning that was it for me-
given this latest comment I wanted to say that it seems that you took my comments in this FAC as in bad faith from the beginning - having disliked previous actions of mine regarding my comments of impropriety. If so - I understand where you're coming from - it seems my actions in that occasion were understood, by you among others, as intentionally disruptive. I ask you to note that I have made positive contributions elsewhere - including in the Preque Isle State Park FAC, Angolan Civil War FAC, and Brown Dog Affair FAC, and -at least to note my assurance that my comments are in good faith.
--Keerllston 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded via my talk page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - interesting read, well referenced. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as an (inactive) Slayerproject member. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support too, and nice to see you on Misplaced Pages (it's been awhile). LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.

Baltimore City College

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the page meets all FAC criteria, is well-written, well referenced, and has great images. One of the most comprehensive high school pages Bcc07 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support A great piece of writing on a minority-serving institution that has achieved excellence. My only recommendation is to reference the school's predominantly African American student population in the lede. Best, Amerique 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Per Amerique. Twenty Years 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Overall a very good article that I could likely support after some clarifications & modifications.Madcoverboy 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• "the school was never granted the power to grant its graduates degrees." - In addition to being worded in a confusing manner, this seems to contradict the previous assertion. At the very least no argument is presented as to why this is the case.
  • I think I have provided clarity --Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Some words interspersed without the text are randomly wikified - (theater, student government, bi-weekly, newspaper, commencement) - and seems like a borderline case of overlinking (see WP:CONTEXT).
  • reduced number of links--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• The table on enrollment peaks at almost 4,000 students, but has since dropped to almost a third of that. Given the opening of the school to blacks and women, as well as the baby boom echo, this seems counterintuitive. I didn't come across any explanation for this in either the history or enrollment sections. The table also needs a citation.
• "The usual range of clubs and activities are offered" - this is a bit presumptuous and POV. Many schools, even within the US, don't have all or even any of these programs.
  • Sentence has been restructured removed POV portion--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's Academic is wikified twice.
  • Done Golem88991 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• The section on the band mentions the orchestra, concert, and marching band but only describes the marching band. The choir section seems to be a full of WP:CRUFT as well.
  • I believe there is mention of other components of the band in the paragraph--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• "In 1889, the first football game was played between City College and the Baltimore Manual Training School" - The first football game ever? Massage the wording.
  • Changed--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• I think the City-Poly rivalry and football sections should be collapsed together. The lacrosse section, while notable, seems anemic. Surely some of the other sports warrant mention as well?
  • The City-Poly rivalry and football page have separate pages i could not think of an appropriate way to put them together any suggestions?
• The Green Bag controversy seems non-notable.
• The Collegian section needs a rewrite or heavy copyedit given the clunky prose.
• "One of the 2007 inductees was Robert Hormats, a Vice-President at Goldman-Sachs." - not notable
• "The endowment assets remain at more than $1,000,000.00" - overly specific style, replace with $1 million
  • Was corrected by Bcc07 Golem88991 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Section on notable alumni - painful overuse of hyphens for separate clauses
  • Changed--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• I think the list of notable facutly members could largely be subsumed by either the History or Academics sections.
  • How would u suggest this be done?--Bcc07 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-sourced. One thing: the public domain images should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and more details should be given on the image page than simply: "I took this picture." Even though they are public domain, it would help to know the date the picture was taken, who took it, precisely where it was, etc. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

• I reviewed the last FAC for this, and there's no mention of its previous nomination (which is required, I think).
• "five year track"—hyphenate compound adjectives usually.
• I do vomit at "City College's", which appears a number of times. Reword using "of" or otherwise, like "On 30 June 2003, City College's current building ..." --> "On 30 June 2003, the current building ...".
• Repetitions such as "In addition to the 23 IB courses offered, the school offers ..."—so easy to fix: remove "offered".
• Redundancies still there, ripe for the plucking, such as "Students wishing to enroll in City College must apply to the school in the 8th grade." Spot the three redundant words. Straight after: "Eligibility for enrollment is based on a composite score that is determined by the Baltimore City Public School System."

I opposed last time, so I feel like a heel doing so again, since it has improved. See what you can do to clean up the redundancies, the odd repetitions, and the other issues. An unfamiliar editor would be best. I won't stand in the way of promotion, I guess. Tony (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not hold back any criticism you may have. The FAC you commented on previously was for the History of Baltimore City College, so this is your first time reviewing this article. In light of that, any additional comments you have are welcome, and I will enlist the help of league of copyeditors in order to find an editor unfamiliar with the prose. Thanks, 128.252.254.17 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment is mine. Golem88991 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, mea culpa. Please proceed with sprucing it up. Find a collaborator who's fresh to it? Tony (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

*Comments. There are some WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed and a bit of copyediting.

• • You should have non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units/qualifiers (such as 1200 schools). Use either & nbsp; or {{nowrap}}
    • Added non-breaking spaces Golem88991 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:DASH for the appropriate dashes to use.
    • It seems to me that all the instances of en and em dashes are appropriate. I also checked for cases in which adding dashes was necessary, but could find none. Golem88991 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please reread the article for excessive commas; I noticed several in the history section
  • Does "theater" need to be wikilinked?
    • Removed link Golem88991 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • After you mention Eugene Parker and Pierre Davis, the second time you can refer to them only by their surnames; since that second reference is in the following sentence, this won't cause any confusion.
    • Done Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the history section is a little confusing.
  • I don't think you need subheadings in the campus section since the subsections are only one paragraph each.
    • Removed subheadings Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a citation need tag for last part of the first paragraph in the Bancroft and Carrollton-Wright Literary Socities section
    • Added citation Golem88991 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologize. I misread the comment and added a citation for something different. I have now added a citation for the end of the first paragraph and removed the citation needed template. Golem88991 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would reevaluate the use of "however" throughout the article. In most cases, I think this word could be removed without losing any meaning.
    • I have removed several uses of "however". Golem88991 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Make sure that all month-day combinations are wikilinked
    • Checked and added links where necessary Golem88991 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you should remove the text of the school's fight song. There are probably copyright issues with including it, and it is not necessary for the article.
    • Done Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you trim the list of external links?
    • Trimmed Golem88991 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • missing a space in fourth sentence in the Athletics section
    • Added space Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject schools says all alumni should be referenced so shouldn't all faculty be also?
    • Added citations for all faculty listed Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • no citation in the first paragraph of the alumni section
  • look over Misplaced Pages:External links, thirteen external links seems excessive
    • I have removed some links. Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I second the question why did enrollment drop off and where is the citation?

Eóin (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note; please resolve the citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments take two. I don't think you can use the image Collegian.jpg under fair use. The article does not discuss the particular issue that is being displayed, which appears to be required under fair use. Similarly, the image Green Bag.jpg is not fair use, because it depicts the 2006 The Green Bag and the article does not specifically mention that issue (although you could substitute this with a 2007 cover image). Karanacs (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 00:20, 27 January 2008.

Somerset

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per the previous nom; here are the points I posted there:
  • The colour coding in the climate chart appears wrong, on my screen anyway--the August temperature is cooler than July's, but the colour is a "hotter" colour.
    • done - I've tweaked the template for the climate chart so July=Aug colour. PamD (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A map of the county showing the main settlements and rivers would be very helpful. I don't know of a UK county article that has such a map: this is one of Massachusetts that's the sort of thing I mean. Not required for FA but very handy if you can find one.
  • "Somerset is often regarded as a marker on the journey": why is marker in italics?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Response Thanks for the comments & support - italics on marker removed. I think the map issue is related to UK copyright rules on maps which are very different to the US - I will ask a couple of map experts if they can help but in the UK they have to be totally redrawn to comply with licences etc & I don't have the skills or software to do this.— Rod 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK on the climate chart and "marker". I understand about the map; I'm supporting anyway, but it would certainly be an asset if you can locate a map. Re the "Done" markers, which Sandy has removed: they don't bother me, but there are reasons for not using them, so you might want to skip them in the future. It's fine to respond (indented) below each point in a list of concerns, and then let the commenter strike their own comments; that way you can see what they think you've achieved (which is what counts if they're going to support!). Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the colour coding comment above, and I think it would be better if the demographic and education tables were also centred instead of left-aligned, I fixed one non MoS unit fmt, otherwise no concerns, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support. No serious issues. However the motto (Sumorsaete ealle) would look better with IPA, I think. --Brand спойт 19:32,

22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this is correct: /ˈsʊmɒrˌsætɛ ˈɛɑːlɛ/ ... but it would be helpful if somebody could check and confirm before I place in the article. If anybody knows exactly how "Sumorsaete ealle" is pronounced and can provide a basic transcription, that would be fine. (The IPA I have provided translates as SOOM-or-sa-teh EHAH-leh; I used a BBC guide to Anglo-Saxon pronunciation; SOOM as in "sum" spoken with a Northern English accent, not rhyming with "womb"). Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support As before Lurker (said · done) 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support As previously. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 22 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Sweet Escape (song)

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

The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Zodiac (film)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that a lot of hard work has gone into it and is ready to be promoted. This is a highly regarded film that came out in 2007 and considered by many film critics to be one of the best of the year. J.D. (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- I think there are going to be people who don't like some parts of the article (I'm not going to elaborate since I am supporting) but I don't care, it's a great read and very informative. Manderiko (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Loved the movie and this is a great overview. I do have several questions, however: the "Promotion" section is only one sentence long. Is there a way to flesh it out or integrate it somewhere else? It is an interesting note to make, so I wouldn't suggest removing it entirely. Also, some of the links in the "Further Reading" (btw, incorrect caps on second word) section seem superfluous. The Esquire interview, for example, seems to have more to do with the director than his film; are these truly necessary? Perhaps the more relevant links can be used for references? María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I merged the Promotion subsection into the Reception section as it kinda pertains to that. I have also slimmed down the "Further reading" section and fixed the caps on the second word. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- The plot section reads awkwardly; there are verb tense problems and it's presented almost like a documentary about the Zodiac killer's actions, which the movie definitely is not. The development of the main character from timid cartoonist to amateur detective isn't really there. The Zodiac murder specifics seem to take precedence over giving the reader a sense of the character development and the direction of the plot. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that what the section needs is simply to be longer, though it there is a little room to play with. But I think a rewrite might be in order, with fewer fine details about the murders, and more about the main characters and the thrust of the story. --Melty girl (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the oomments. I've started reworking the plot a little. I've added more about the individual characters and Graysmith's investigation. I think that information about the killings is important as it does play a crucial role in the film but you're right, it shouldn't overwhelm everything else. --J.D. (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed dead links. --J.D. (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some of it looks quite good, but it needs work. Can you fix the stubby paras in "Principal photography" and the like? Side-by-side caption: no dot. MOS says to use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. I see ref SIX times in a row, sentence after sentence. Boring. Disturbs the look by intruding and spacing out the lines; ration the ref numbers so any intelligent reader gets a feel for what you paraphrasing or supporting from outside. Tony (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) MOS: en dashes for ranges, please. Long snakes like "At first, Fincher only wanted 15-20 minutes of score and for it to be all solo piano based but as Shire worked on it and incorporated textures of a Charles Ives piece called, “The Unanswered Question” and some Conversation-based cues, he found that he had 37 minutes of original music." "Some" is often redundant. "solo-piano-based", but nicer as "based on s p". Comma before "but". "a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide"—better say "US" the first time, esp. since it's an international context. Are you sure it's ... 441 and not 442? It's just too precise for this context. "More than US$83 million". And it's not logical: "it has performed slightly better in other parts of the world with a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide" ... does that figure exclude the US or include it? Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I've implemented all of the changes you've made above. --J.D. (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But have you dealt with these types of issues, and others, in the rest of the text? My comments raised samples only. Tony (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very well-written, (quite rare for articles on recent films, etc.) and well sourced. I can see why it passed as a good article. I loved this film when I first saw it, so the article does it it excellent justice. This article for FA? Sure, why not! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Notes: What is the difference between Further reading and External links? Why is there a "Note" stuck on to the bottom of the article? (Note: The Director's Cut is 162 minutes, which makes it about four to five minutes longer than the theatrical version (not 8 minutes longer). Can't that be worked into the prose? Bringing ... bringing? (It has performed better in other parts of the world with a box office total with $51 million bringing its worldwide total to $83 million, bringing the film above its $75-million budget.) It looks like the text could use another massage; would Melty girl be willing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be able to make time to do a careful review of this article. I'm sorry to say that I still haven't managed to do so; that is why I haven't opposed or supported. We'll see how the week goes.--Melty girl (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Read through it, and the writing is almost there, but more copyediting is needed (I did some along the way). Here are some examples of some problems:
  • "Because of Graysmith's inexperience and lowly status at the paper, he is not taken seriously by Avery and others..." Who are "others"?
  • "When he is able to crack one of the codes, Avery begins sharing information with him." This contradicts the previous statement, which proclaims that Graysmith is excluded from knowing about the codes.
  • "Fincher found that there was a lot of speculation..." This sentence takes the paragraph in an abrupt new direction. I was thinking we'd find out more about Gerald McMenamin. Instead, this sentence seems like it should have appeared earlier in the paragraph.
  • "Working with digital cameras allowed him..." Very long sentence that features two awkward "and"s and a violation of verb parallelization in "eliminating".
  • "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism, with some scenes requiring upwards of 70 takes, as Gyllenhaal was frustrated by the director’s methods:" Very awkward.
  • What's up with the last "note" about the director's cut? BuddingJournalist 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the comments. I have made all of the changes you've outline above. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you fix the MOS breaches? (1) Downey caption—no period, please. (2) En dashes for all ranges (incl. dates) in references and notes. (3) Period after closing quotes when the quotation starts within a WP sentence. (4) Spaced ellipsis dots. Tony (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I've made these changes to the article. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The fair use rationales for non-free images need a lot of work. At the moment, most of them are too vague e.g. "Displays screenshot image of film in question." If you're really just wanting a screenshot, why do you need so many? If each image is meant to illustrate a particular important point which hasn't already been illustrated by another image, you need to explain things further. Papa November (talk) 19:43, 4 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 16:41, 17 December 2007.

Shapinsay

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a comprehensive article concerning the Scottish island of Shapinsay. It is well-referenced, using several sources, many of them print books and newspapers. The article's style and length are appropriate and covers a variety of aspects of the island's history, economy and geography. It has passed as a Good Article, and has been further improved since. As I am one of the article's editors, this is a self-nomination. Lurker (said · done) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article is well written and reflects extensive work by Lurker, Derek cashman, Ben MacDui, MacRusgail and others. The volume of content in this article is sufficient to qualify as exhaustive coverage for a subject without as much recorded history as most of mainland Scotland. The extant biology literature is correspondingly much more sparse than for England and the main of Scotland. Even though I have done some editing on this page, my contributions are quite minor and consist primarily of copy editing and adding a tidbit or two of information; therefore, as such a minor editor, I feel that I can weigh in with support of this article. Hadrianheugh 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What an interesting article! I would very much like to see this featured although I do have some suggestions that would improve the article for me. Perhaps the article is already up to FA status anyway: it has made me want to know much more.

How many of the inhabitants were born on Shapinsay (I would relegate the detailed country of origin figures to a footnote)? The information on the excavation of the broch would be easier to understand if it were in date order. Are there significant cultural ties with Norway or was the school’s Christmas show rather a technological show-off? Was it a terrible blow when the secondary school closed or could it not really provide a good enough education? What has been the local reaction to a wind turbine and a tunnel?

As someone whose knowledge of the Scottish islands is too much influenced by Whisky Galore!, I’d like a clearer feeling for what it is like to live on the island (in a “Community” section?). The article speaks of “commuting” and Haswell-Smith refers to “a suburban sort of island”.

Why have people gone to live there: for cheap houses, a close, friendly community or for solitude? Is the island idyllic or bleakly agricultural? Does nearly everyone live in Balfour or is the population dispersed? How many shops in Balfour? Only those mentioned? Are the businesses there? Is there still a post office? Do most inhabitants shop in Kirkwall? Could there be a photo giving a feel for the village? Does the ferry carry vehicles? What are the roads like? The scattered buildings on the OS map, are they derelict, holiday cottages, second homes, couthy sandstone cottages or modern bungalows? Did the gas works serve just the castle or the whole community? Now, do you simply ring up and order heating oil?

All this might make the article too long. For me the history could be reduced and the detail spun off into a “History of Shapinsay” article. Image such a small community having two articles! Thincat 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—I hope this is promoted, but first it needs loving copy-editing attention by someone who's not familiar with the text. Know how to locate and ask the right kind of WPians? Need to do it actively, esp. since this has been here for a while.

• What is the "also" doing in the lead? It doesn't really also from the statement on tourism, does it? Just remove it, and weed out other redundant alsos in the article.

• This is now fixed by copy editing and removal of the gratuitous "also" Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• War against reader-friendly commas? Needs an audit throughout. Take this, for example: "Unlike most of the larger Orkney islands the derivation of the name 'Shapinsay' is not clear cut. The final 'ay' is simply from the Old Norse for 'island' but the first two syllables are harder to evaluate." Two commas here almost mandatory. BTW, upper-case I? Hyphenate "clear cut"?:

• Comma work on referenced sentence is done. "Clear cut" fixed by copy editing and choosing a more formal term. Hadrianheugh

• Hyphens are not used as interrupters. See MOS on em dashes.

• Good comment. I have sought out all the hyphen punctuation crutches and destroyed them :). Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• a reference to 'Scalpandisay',—See MOS on "Words as words", here and elsewhere.

• MOS issues fixed throughout re: "words as words" Hadrianheugh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• no-one—no hyphen.

• Fixed. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Does "fixed" mean that the whole article has been spruced up? Should I bother to go there yet? Tony (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I have definitely sought out the MOS issues and (I hope) cured those throughout the article. I have also copy edited throughout, but wouldn't want to give a guarantee that it's perfect. Hopefully you will revisit, since your eye is good, and whatever you conclude will advance things. Cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've also done a wee bit more copyediting. Lurker (said · done) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've also filed a request with the League of Copyeditors. Lurker (said · done) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support (I commented above so I hope I am allowed to but in again). Since I last looked at this article a great deal of useful work has been done so that I now think this should become featured. Again, many thanks for an excellent article on an interesting subject. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting article, well-referenced and well-organized. My one suggestion would be that there are a few one-line paragraphs in the 19th century section (as well as one in the 20th century) that could perhaps be merged with surrounding text. henrik•talk 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • These single sentences have been merged per suggestion. Hadrianheugh (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Still needs sprucing. For example (not the whole thing):

• Read MOS on hyphens: "environmentally-friendly". Two things wrong with "From 1893-1964"; and elsewhere.

I'm not sure what the other issue you have with this is, other than the hyphen (I've actually replaced the phrase, but I'm curious) 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Clumsy: "Of the 300 inhabitants, 283 were born in the United Kingdom, with 227 born in Scotland and 56 born in England." --> "Of the 300 inhabitants, 283 were born in the United Kingdom (227 in Scotland and 56 in England).
• "According to the development trust, the turbine could earn over £5 million during the 25 years the turbine will operate." Funny that the reference says nothing about the basic problem that connecting a significant wind farm to the grid will f... the stability of the grid (voltage, unbalance, phase, etc). This is the elephant in the corner. Tony (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem, as the wind farm is a single turbine. And connecting wind farms to the grids doesn't usually mess it up anyway, so it's not a basic problem (but may be a problem with some setups in some areas) Lurker (said · done) 15:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from article contributor. If you don't get a grid connection confirmed you don't get planning permission. You may recall Renewable energy in Scotland Tony. This now includes a brief reference to the implementation of a 'Regional Power Zone' in the Orkney archipelago. This scheme (that may be the first of it's kind in the world) involves 'active network management' that will make better use of the existing infrastructure and allow a further 15MW of new output from renewables onto the network. Besides, its only a single turbine they are talking about, not a wind farm. Ben MacDui/Walk 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawing oppose: but can you stop the table in Demography from jamming up against the text? Also, perhaps either centre the second and forth colums or abbreviate the titles to "pop.". Tony (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed now I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Please see WP:CITE/ES and complete the references. Examples:
  • Missing publication date: "Isle tunnel plans under spotlight" BBC news website Retrieved October 18, 2007.
  • Missing publisher info, and doesn't verify text: "Ordnance Survey" Retrieved October 10, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: References fixed. Lurker (said · done) 14:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A nice article which I think meets all the criteria. My only change would be to use {{reflist|2}} to make the refs into 2 columns - but that is personal preference.— Rod 15:17, 17 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Western Chalukya architecture

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)

This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The picture arrangement looks fine to me but I know from experience this may not be the case on all screens when a page is so well illustrated? Anyone having any problems? I would still like to see a more rounded concluding section - appreciation of the style today etc. Its a very good page, and I'm ready to support. It just needs winding up - it seems to conclude mid-stream.Giano (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Misplaced Pages, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?

The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital. The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.

I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?

As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Misplaced Pages's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.

This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Misplaced Pages is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Prosing comment: how about this version of the paragraph? Hmmm. I do understand User:Fowler&fowler's frustration with the prose, even though I don't see any "errors", as such (unless we're seriously going to quarrel about en- and em-dashes). The skilled copyeditors have presumably eradicated those, as well as pleasingly widened the vocabulary.

However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:

"The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital. Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar, by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.

The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."

Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever encountered such distasteful behaviour againast another editor on a FAC before, as that exhibited to Dinesh by you. I am very surprised no one in authority has stepped in to rebuke you. Giano (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is my view . It is impossible to edit with such hostility coming from you. I'll leave it to the FA director to decide what he wants to do with the page. Good evening. Giano (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Misplaced Pages as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain let me remind everyone that FA status is basically meaningless and that the FA program is basically just an imaginary carrot to improve articles. While I agree that this is ridiculous, and that this should be otherwise and that this would be better served by Peer Review, I am perfectly willing to let this go - if this article does not obtain FA status it is not a great tragedy, if this article obtains FA status it is not a great tragedy.--Kiyarrllston 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - The more I look at the article, the more I'm falling in love with it. Kudos to Dinesh for putting this article together. Yes, the prose can do with some improvement, but the merits of the article clearly overwhelm any concerns about the prose. It is a shame that graceless behaviour of a lone editor has seemingly shifted the focus from what a lovely article it is and how much effort has gone into it to what he'd have us believe is the end of the world ("clunky prose"). Sarvagnya 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I was asked to have a look and I support this article for promotion to featured status. Good work. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Misplaced Pages, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so eloquently, Random Replicator.

You might disagree that the FA status is basically meaningless - You might disagree that FA status is similar to the carrot for you to chase - but are these matters of opinion or of fact?

The hard work, your hard work, is not valued by the worth of FA status.

Fowler has clearly show that there are issues with the FA process.

--Kiyarrllston 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is it a fact, in that it is not meaningless to me. But you are most correct; there is weaknesses in this system.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Definitely a well written article, however, I would have ideally like to have seen more information on the impact of WCa on the architectural styles of future Kannada dynasties. I know some mention of this is made in the "Evolution" section, but if additional information is available, I'd like to see that incorporated into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong support My request was addressed...I really like the "Appreciation" section...I think it adds color to WCa and gives perspective to their accomplishments. Good job. AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to add this info anyway along with a section requested by Giano. Yes, their influence pervaded right into Hoysala, Kakatiya (from Andhra Pradesh) and even later Vijayanagara style, though the impact is mostly seen in the first two. But because the number of Hoysala monuments of Karnataka outnumber the Kakatiya monuments (in Andhra Pradesh) by a magnitute, most of the scholarly discussions pertain to Chalukya-Hoysala art forms. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support A nice page now with a good conclusion. Its a page for "grown ups" with a good attention span. It is never going to be over easy to follow because of the quantity of similar sounding (to western ears) and unfamiliar names and places. I have studied the page and made a few alterations but it will always be a page one has to read and think about, if one takes the time to do the then one will be a lot wiser. To simplify it would be tantamount to committing a crime so much information would be lost. When he has finished this Dinesh ought to consider writing An introduction to Western Chalukya architecture. He has done a great job here and should be congratulated. Giano (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To user:Giano_II and user:Dineshkannambadi: I notice that my emblematic example (up top), "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." has been changed to "This artificial source of light adds "mystery" to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." That's an improvement? How are the quotes supposed to help us? Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Will make the change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the actual quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Regarding the "mystery" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, that "mystry" in your quote is theological usage, going back to late medieval English and obsolete now. It means "mystical significance" as I remember it. (I don't have OED/Webster's access right this minute, but I'll provide more info later.) Beautiful passage though—the kind of writing (late 19th century?) that no art historian today would be caught dead writing (sadly for art history). Notice too that the author uses "small oil lamp," not "source of artificial light," which in the early 21-century usually refers to electric light. You know guys (and I mean this collegially and not as a personal attack), you've made a hash of the paraphrasing. Why not serve up the entire quote? It is beautifully written. It evokes the ambiance in a way nothing in the entire article does. Maybe leave out the bit about "wrapt up in his religious fervor" (subst. with ...), but keep the rest of the quote in. It is very evocative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is OED: I. Theological uses. 1. Mystical presence or nature; mystical significance. in (also through) his mystery: in or by its mystical presence or nature. in (a) mystery: mystically, symbolically; with hidden or mystical significance. Obs. Examples: 1542 Plowman's Tale in Wks. G. Chaucer f. cxxvi, Hys fleshe and blode through hys mystrye Is there, in the forme of brede. 1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. cxviij, Whiche place..is to be vnderstande in a mistery . a1616 R. FIELD Of Church (1628) III. App. 205 The crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament.