Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2010: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:12, 13 March 2010 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,118 edits archive 3← Previous edit Revision as of 20:43, 13 March 2010 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,118 edits archive 1Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}} {{TOC limit}}
== March 2010 == == March 2010 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive2}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cog (advertisement)/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cog (advertisement)/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1}}

Revision as of 20:43, 13 March 2010

March 2010

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:43, 13 March 2010 .

National Anthem of Russia

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page


This article was sent to FAC about 4-5 years ago by me, boy hasn't things changed around here. I was away in Japan when this article was sent to FAR, so I did not manage to get a hold of the article while I was there. Not your fault that I needed a vacation, but that is the nature of Misplaced Pages. Alright, here is a summary of the issues talked about at FAR in June or July of 2009:

The references has exploded in number (I would say by 700%). I also made sure the references were also sent to working websites or to books that are in English. I added more details about the historical anthems and put in better pictures (with alt text). I also shored up the text as much as possible, but I did have a minor copyedit or two during the GAN process. There was a lot of audio clips in the article, but I decided to nuke all of them except for those coming from kremlin.ru (where we have OTRS confirmation on everything from there). I added some musical details about the music itself and added more links to the Commons with the files that we have.

I wish I gotten to it sooner, but I am very glad I was able to fix this up and at least get it back to GAN. I hope you are satisified that this article could be well enough to regain the FA star. User:Zscout370 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose — sorry, this nomination is premature. The prose falls far below the required standard. The problems are numerous and examples include:
  • The song is a modification - try "adaptation"
  • "who had supplied lyrics" - lyrics are not "supplied" they are written
  • This sentence completely lacks logical flow, "Between 1956 and 1977, the anthem was officially without lyrics because of the references to the formerly denounced ruler Joseph Stalin." - Surely this means that there were lyrics but they were not used because they contained references to Stalin?
  • There is a finite verb missing here, " the anthem decreed official in 1993 without lyrics".
  • Here, "the anthem did not catch on" is not professional prose.
  • This is another example of problem with logical flow, "Despite government efforts to produce lyrics, none were found." In this example the use of "produce" versus "found" is neither logical nor idiomatic.
  • The verb tenses are wrong here, "President Vladimir Putin decided that Alexandrov's music was to be restored and new lyrics were to be written for it." - try "should".

These examples are only from the Lead. I suggest that this candidate be withdrawn and a competent, independent copy editor sought. Graham Colm (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am finding folks right now. User:Zscout370 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
User:SMasters is providing the copyedit as I speak. User:Zscout370 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Media Check: Passed - 7 things. All are CC-by-SA or PD, either due to self-photo, GovRussia, or Russian public works. Everything is at Commons, and looks good. --PresN 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—I agree with Graham Colm.

  • Lead: "Because of the absence of lyrics, the anthem was not popular and in addition, did not inspire Russian athletes during international competitions." The comma is awkward; so is the "in addition". The second claim appears to be hard to support, even if you have found a source. All Russian athletes?
  • The music score is so squashed up that it has become ugly. I suggest it appear below, larger.
  • Music section: used ... use ... used. And "The music was first used in the Hymn of the Bolshevik Party, created in 1939"—the party or the hymn was created in 1939? The music was used in the hymn ... I'm pondering exactly what this means.

This is a quick-fail. Delegate, please note that I am the second reviewer to ask that this be withdrawn and worked on before submission. FAC is not a fix-it mechanics' shop. Tony (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I told Graham, a copyedit to the article has been performed on the article and it is in the works. User:Zscout370 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
For the music, how it is supposed to go is that the similar musical pattern, notes and style was present in a few songs before it became the Russian anthem. The music of the Russian anthem and the "Hymn of the Bolshevik Party" is the same, but the "Hymn of the Bolshevik Party" came first in 1939. I would need to find recordings again and put those in the article. I did also fix the lead to say several Russian teams because I have sources that said the Russian football team and Russian Olympians did not feel inspired by the anthem. User:Zscout370 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I too am concerned with the prose. Parts like these do not lend confidence.

  • "The anthem is also played on television and radio before the start and closing of programming or if the programming is continuous, the anthem is played at 2400 and 0600 hours and on New Years Eve." (odd structure)
  • "The only penalty that is present in the national anthem law was to punish those who do not stand up for the anthem." (tense, is/was)
  • "It's alleged that on one occasion, Putin chastised the national football team" ("It's", and who alleges this?)

Also, is the "unofficial" anthem translation our own? If so, have you made sure it correctly and neutrally interprets the Russian? (The "not OR" essay suggests "Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes.") The ongoing copyedits (and in this state it'll need copyedits, not just one) need to address those issues (and others). Good luck, and I like the video (proof, as if we needed more, that wiki is not paper). --an odd name 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The translation is a free one by Wikipedians but I am not certain about how exactly it translates from the original Russian. As for the first part, Russian law states that the anthem must be played at certain times of day. If the radio or television programming is not 24/7, the anthem is played at the start and ending of programming. If the station does run 24/7, the anthem plays at 2400 and 0600 hours. The anthem is also required to be played on New Years after the President gives a speech. The second part, I am not aware of any punishment for disrespecting the anthem other than not standing up for it. I am going to play around with that third part. User:Zscout370 03:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010 .

Cog (advertisement)

Nominator(s): GeeJo ⁄(c) • 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured status because the article is the most comprehensive resource on the topic anywhere, online or off. Cog is one of the most influential television advertising campaigns of the past decade, and still holds the title of "most-awarded commercial ever." I've been wanting to work on the article since getting noitulovE promoted a couple of years back, and I'm anxious to get any feedback on the results. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. No dab links. External links appear mostly fine, but has some funny code at the bottom and gives a 500 code. Alt text good for the one image (wouldn't an image of the ad itself be justifiable as fair use?). Ucucha 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I did add an image to the infobox, but to be honest, the nature of the ad doesn't lend itself well to getting a good representative shot. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) I tagged it with CSD F5 (and you deleted it, I now see—but F5 requires that an image be tagged for seven days first, which is why I didn't just delete it myself). It's your judgment as the main author, but it seems that the piece shown in the image is perhaps the most recognized part of the spot and therefore the piece that could best be included. Ucucha 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this is rather awkwardly written in parts, such as "Because Cog was to be produced with a minimum of computer-generated imagery work, the majority of the four-month production schedule was set aside for getting the exact positioning of the components worked out." This is the first we're told that computer imagery was to be avoided, and with no explanation as to why. "Majority" isn't the right word here either.
It also has an inappropriately tabloid newspaper feel to it in places, such as "The exacting nature of the testing and the pressure of the schedule took its toll on the crew. Some workers went days without sleep. Others reported having bad dreams about the spare car parts." Poor diddums. I can't make sense of some sections either. For instance, what does "Filming session lasted seven hours, and the work was exacting" mean? "In all, 606 takes were needed to complete Cog, of which 70–80 were performed in the four days of filming." So when were the other takes done? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Redacted the problem sentences. The rest of the takes were performed during the testing phase. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 10:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Boards and The Advertising Forum are trade journals for the advertising community, though the print arm of the latter has folded and it's online-only these days.
  • Millimeter (digitalcontentproducer) and iMedia Creative are professionally produced publications, with all content peer reviewed by industry experts.
  • The mad.co.uk link was just making available an article in the Creative Review. Since it's no longer freely available there, I've switched to a dead-tree-only format.
  • Bare ref was added recently by someone else, I've formatted it appropriately now. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it'll matter much at this stage - no-one seems to have much positive to say about the article. Still, it's received more attention since the nomination than it's had in the past six months, so it's not been a total wash :) GeeJo ⁄(c) • 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010 .

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requisite standards. I know that one section is referenced by primary sources; there are no secondary sources available for it, since academics tend not to dedicate much time to what an act tweaks around in the miscellaneous provisions. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Have asked Eubulides what to do with the alt text for the infobox image (which is in a template). Ucucha 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article should discuss the bill's progress through Parliament in a bit more detail. Was there any opposition to the bill? Parliamentary debate? Everyking (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    No significant amendments, and it had (as far as I can tell) cross-party approval, similar to the OLAs. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well, if it had cross-party approval, let's report that. Everyking (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    This concern was never addressed. I don't see how we can have a featured article on a piece of legislation that fails to even mention the position the political parties took on the legislation. Everyking (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Just FYI I intend to give it a better readthrough likely tomorrow. I do have a concern that the numerous case citations are probably somewhat superfluous. I'll try to better articulate my thoughts on the issue when I get 'round to writing a more detailed commentary. Circéus (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm terribly sorry but this is nowhere near the standard to qualify for a featured article. One problem that FA reviewers will face on highly specialised legal topics is the difficulty to evaluate whether the information is accurate, pertinent or useful. When an article looks good, how do you know it actually is good? The answer is, you need specialists. I'll just say a couple of things. This page cites only one case (Nisshin Shipping) on the Act itself, and doesn't explain it. It doesn't deal with any other cases after the passage of the Act, eg The Laemthong. That is a whopping failure to engage or explain the Act. Furthermore, while the referencing may look impressive, it is not. It is full of pointless information and anecdote. Here's just one example:


“ The Act applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland, which has its own rules on privity and the rights of third parties. The Act came into law on 11 November 1999 when it received the Royal Assent, but the full provisions of the Act did not come into force until May 2000. The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act.

The Act had various consequences...

”

This is all entirely useless. That same section then starts talking about the views of the construction industry (as if it matters?) on the Act. ("The act has been criticised somewhat by the construction industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts, and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry, and case law has clarified the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit".")

On that last point, if you look in the article itself - which should be the thing clarifying meanings - for the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit" you find this,


“ The second situation, that a third party can enforce terms that "purport to confer a benefit on him", has been described by Meryll Dean as too broad, and one view put forward in the parliamentary debates was that it was "un-workable" in situations such as complex construction contracts involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts among them. This argument, and a proposal to exempt the construction industry from the Act, was rejected by both the Law Commission and Parliament. The phrase "purport to confer a benefit" was originally found in the 1937 Law Commission paper, and was used in the New Zealand Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 before it was adopted for the English Act. ”

It doesn't tell you anything. But actually, it doesn't matter! There is no problem whatsoever in this phrase. This is just one example about how defective and riddled with mistakes, omissions, exaggeration of some parts, lack of emphasis in others. This article should not have been rated good in the first place. The reference list is adequate, but the page fails draw on those very references, or to grapple with or explain the main issues and functions of the legislation. It certainly does not deal with the details and the difficulties of the legislation. Finally, it does not actually quote any of the provisions. In a short act, this will often be useful for the reader. Again, I'm terribly sorry, but this cannot be endorsed. Wikidea 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose prose needs work, several questionable statements, as follows:

  • Lede: Generally. ledes are three or four paragraphs. It's not somthing I insist on, but in this case, the first, long paragraph is rather tangled. I would suggest splitting it into two paragraphs.
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (1990 c. 31) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law Doctrine of Privity, overruling the longstanding doctrine that a third party could not sue to enforce a contract if he was not a party to the contract. Over the centuries, that second rule of the Doctrine of Privity had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary.
Proposals for reform via an Act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received the Royal Assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
  • Background section: A lot of fairly unclear language in here. "was not contested"? Was there a dispute? Obviously you mean that there was no movement to change it, no criticism, and you should find better language to convey that point.
  • Citations: Perhaps you could put those in the footnotes? Obviously they should be there, but the casual reader doesn't need to see them. Perhaps now and they you could throw in the year of a case in the main text, if it is relevant to the reader's understanding of the sequence of events.
  • "200 years". If you have a numeral quantifying a noun in that way, there needs to be a non-breaking space there.
  • "different judges provided different decisions as to whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them." This is very awkward language. Don't you think something like "judges differed as to whether a third party could enforce a party which benefited them" would be better? Or (if it is true) "judges offered different rationales for the rule". The article is unclear as to whether the dispute is about the result (that is some judges ruled a third party could sue) or if it is just a question of the legal basis for the decisions involving the rule. Keep in mind that I'm not giving every example of language I'm finding awkward, it really needs to be gone over with an eye to clarity.
  • Criticism Beswick. You might want to say who was suing to enforce the contract here.
    "the United States". You're kidding me right? Ever hear of Ultramares Corporation v. Touche? While God knows the doctrine of privity in the US varies from state to state and is riddled with exceptions, to say it doesn't exist?!?!?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am most emphatically NOT a lawyer and feel somewhat intimidated to comment, but maybe looking back at the statements in the source explicitly stated for the affirmation might be called for: sounds like some subtility might have been lost along the way. As an aside, there seems to be an aspect that the term "privity" is quite often not used (or in a more restrictive sense) in the American courts (though more often by commentators). D & H Distributing v. US 102 F.3d 542 sounds like a textbook case of privity in the English sense: "the subcontractor sought to recover from the government either it was a third party beneficiary of the contract between the government and the contractor." Yet the word "privity" does not appear anywhere in the judgement. Circéus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Either way, even though the term may not always be used, the concept certainly exists in US law. And so does the term, just drop privity into any legal search engine. Either way, that statement is very problematical in the article. Read here. Can you give me the quote from the source, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't. My area of specialty is translation, not law, though most likely Ironholds still has copies of the article he used (since he's noted they were electronic copies). The privity as deriving from Ultramares (again as a non-lawyer) is somewhat odd to me as it appear to involve tort in the specific context of accountancy contracts. The formal "equivalent" of the Privity doctrine (as established in the act) would be, as far as I can tell, the third party beneficiary, though whether that is grounded in case law or legislation the article doesn't say. Indeed if the doctrine in that form (i.e. excluding third parties) is not applied/does not exist in the U.S., the statement makes sense; it is merely worded in a misleading fashion. Circéus (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No, privity in the US is not limited to accountancy. In fact I think it is now moribund there, given congressional legislation after recent scandals. Not my area of expertise, but you got to know a bit about everything to be a lawyer. But the candidate article still says, blanket statement, there is no privity of contract in the US legal system. I'm entitled to look at that and wonder as to the accuracy of other statements. I'm willing to hear what you and Ironholds have to say about it, and I am hopeful that I will eventually support, but I believe my concerns are valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment {{sect-stub}} in article. If the section requires expansion, please withdraw from FAC. If it does not require expansion, please rmv stub template. • Ling.Nut 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That was added in the middle of the argument which you can read on the talk page if you suffer from morbid curiosity. I'd happily remove it, but I suspect Wikidea will fight fight tooth and nail to make sure it remains on the article. Circéus (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know you and you don't know me, so I'd suggest that you refrain from making comments like that. I happen to know a little bit about this subject, and that's why I've give my criticisms. Wikidea 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I guess the question is, should there be a FAC where there is an ongoing dispute like that, or should the dispute be settled first?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I suggest that the FAC be withdrawn – hopefully without bitterness or bad feelings on anyone's part. The FAC process will still be here when the probs are hammered out. The community is too short on reviewers to wade through a dispute of any substance. • Ling.Nut 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments In refs but not notes: Roe. In notes but not refs: Stevens. • Ling.Nut 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Needs work on the writing. I strongly encourage the nominator to keep writing/improving in this area. WP can do great service to anglophone legal systems and education with this type of article.

  • Not being an expert in this field, I find the 1999/1990 clash peculiar.
  • Why is "United Kingdom" linked (and bolded) in the infobox? Please see WP:OVERLINK. Why is "Long title" linked? It doesn't seem to be a hard item to grapple with, even for a seven-year-old.
  • The direct quotation in the second sentence: a bit odd without refering explicitly to the author ... "... and, as Dean put it, removed "one of the ...". Do that and you can dispense with the redundant "thereby" and your square-bracketed insertion.
  • No direct ref. to the Sixth Interim Report. How could a reader access it?
  • Watch those additive connectors, which are usually redundant: both "alsos" in the last para of the lead could go. And consider a semicolon: "... third party; it provides protection ...".
  • I mean this in a constructive way: you've clearly done a lot of legal writing; this register is well-known for being ... well ... legalistic. It's so easy to iron out for normal people, though. Let's look at one sentence:
    The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – the first was that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and second was that a third party may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
  • Why not:
    The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
  • The joys of ellipsis.
  • "different ... different". Does one provide a decision? Remove "or not"? "them" (singular they) is just fine by me, but it just could refer back to the judges.
  • "which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him"—now the singular they is dropped in favour of the generic male. But more importantly, it's ambiguous: does it mean that the judgement meant a third party could enforce a contract as long as they didn't benefit from it?

Haven't read further than this; suggest an audit on the writing is in order. Tony (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010 .

Wally Hammond

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded it from a brief start class article. It has undergone peer review but I did not feel GA review would have been helpful now due to the length and detail of the article. Wally Hammond was a cricketer who had a long and eventful career and quite an abrasive personality. He was famous for his batting achievements and for being the first former professional cricketer to captain the England Test side. All comments very welcome. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text present and good (though I had to fix the infobox template so that it was actually visible). Ucucha 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
.. if he had been a less reluctant bowler, he could have achieved a higher standard - comes across as vague - "average?" for standard?
I don't want to use "average" because of the cricket meaning and as a bowler, the higher your average, the worse you have done. Other words such as level may be equally vague.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I know I know. It's a tricky one. Maybe "achieved more with the ball (?) ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Changed to achieved even more with the ball than he did, as someone before pointed out that he actually had a good record with the ball. The point is that it could have been better.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This may have been to avoid her influence - any more information? Sounds vague and leaves me wanting to know more.
He and his mother did not get along as she tried to control him a lot. I could add a bit more about this but would it not make an already long article even longer? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Aww, it ain't that long :) But actually erading more I am not so fussed about it now so don't worry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A related factor may also have been that before he left England to go on tour, he received an electric shock which gave him blood poisoning - I'm a doctor and that sounds really weird...
This info comes (via the book by David Foot) from a letter which Hammond wrote before his illness began. I can't really find a way to make it fit so I've removed it. Could an electric shock have had anything to do with it all?--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Not unless he got some sort of gaping wound or something...I think removing it is prudent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
inspired by Hammond's example - sounds...nothing. " inspired by Hammond's prowess"? "good form"?
Changed to "good form".

Overall, the prose is/was choppy with a few too many short sentences. I wondered if there was any material for a "legacy" section after his death? I massaged the prose a bit but think some more eyes will help and will ask some others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any specific examples? Happy to rewrite any choppy bits. Can't immediately think what might go in a legacy section except how much his team-mates liked his cricket but hated his personality! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I need to have another read-through and a few pairs of eyes would be good. I pinged Dweller and Yellowmonkey, and I see some tother folks have helped along the way, so will wait till some folks have chimed in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Er... Where is this in the article? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Check yer references, mate. • Ling.Nut 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, didn't understand before! Fixed now (don't know where the page ref went; I'd put it in before.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Several quick ones from me after reading the first couple of sections...

  • The External links should be at the bottom of the article, below the bibliography.
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The alt text has been adjusted recently to show proper nouns, which are discouraged by alt text guidelines. This should be fixed, and someone with more knowledge than myself should re-check for other issues.
I think someone did this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Making an impression: "former England and Middlesex captain Plum Warner and The Times correspondent all described him as a player of potential." Who is the correspondent?
Times correspondents were anonymous in those days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, just a glaring typo! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sorry to have to oppose this article's promotion, because it's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. But to cut a long story short it's too long, it's deadly dull to read, and some bits don't make sense. Just to give one example of where the prose needs to be fixed: "Foot documents close relationships with several women over the years up until his second marriage in 1947". Who is "his" referring to here? Looks like Foot, but logic says it's got to be Hammond. This could be a worthy FA, but it's got a way to go yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the example given, for what it's worth. I agree it's too long and needs cutting back. I'm too close to it and need to know which bits should go. Could do with more clues about which bits don't make sense. Also, I'm sure lots of it is "deadly dull" :) but which bits in particular and how can I wake the poor reader up again? I think it may be better to end this review soon and do a major overhaul. To be honest, I've wanted to do this for a while, but until a week ago, no-one would comment on the article at all! When this review does end, I could do with some more help with the copy-editing and general comments if anyone who is writing here could help. So far, only YellowMonkey has been able to help over any length of time. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments. WRT Malleus's quote above, "over the years" is vague. Which years? However, I think M. is being a bit tough about the "deadly dull". Prose seems OK to me, although I've only skimmed through.

  • Linking problems: (1) "English" as a pipe will be ignored (target is "English Test cricketer"). So link all three current words and link "Test cricket" using "professional test cricketer" as a pipe in the next sentence. (2) "Amateur" is another deceptive pipe, this time for "History of English amateur cricket" ... hmmm ... will be ignored. Since the top is stuffed with links already, why not unlink this one and draw explicit attention to it in the See also section. Can you do an audit on the linking? Can you hyphenate the pipe "middle-order batsmen"? (That's an excellent, focused link, BTW.) I've removed the chain links from the geographical triple-bungers in the infobox. Readers are more likely to notice single-item links. Is WWII sufficiently relevant and unknown to link? Same for the lower-down WWI. Tony (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I've done this... Haven't put the amateur cricket article in the see also section as it's not a great article and does not really explain amateur cricket so that it would have any meaning for Hammond's article. As there's probably quite a bit of editing to do on the article, I haven't looked at the other links yet but I'll do so shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has improved greatly since I last looked at in January. Some comments:
    • Cardus going as far as to describe him as a possible future England player "possible future England player" seems to me a little vague. Does "future England player" or "potential England player" convey the same sense that you wish to get across?
Changed to "future" as "potential" is used in previous sentence.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • In the winter of 1928–29, Hammond toured Australia with M.C.C.. MCC or M.C.C.? It is "MCC" in Donald Bradman, my gold standard for cricket FAs and "M.C.C." here. I prefer the former. The two full stops at the end of the sentence also look awkward. Also, use of the term MCC for England Test tours, while formally correct, is a little misleading to those not in the know. They are likely to assume that this was a private club tour rather than the England national team.
Personally, I prefer M.C.C. but if it is a problem, I will change it. The England Test tours were by a private members club. While it may be a little confusing, I think it is stretching it to call them England tours. Perhaps a note to explain? Personally, I think that the whole M.C.C. identity of the tours was too important to change their name. For the Bodyline tour, it was a big, big thing that this was the M.C.C., not just England. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The 1939 season was dominated by worries about the political situation in Europe. This sentence looks a little out of place. It appears you are about to lead into the effects of the political situation, but then you don't. It comes across as a bit of clumsy way to introduce a link to the 1939 English cricket season.
Agree. Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • In general I am not a big fan of references within sentences and especially where there is not at least a comma or a semi-colon used. Happy to defer on this matter to the MoS gurus, however.
I'm not bothered either way, so I'll change if requested. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
More comments to follow when I have another chance to have a read through. Again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\
Done. Mentioned no Tests played as WI not yet a Test side.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:36, 13 March 2010 .

J.E.B. Stuart

Nominator(s): Lord Oliver 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this featured article for review because, in my view, it does meet the criteria for a featured article. It is comprehensive in its explanation of the life of J.E.B. Stuart, and I do not believe it leaves out any relevant information partaining to an article suitable for featured status. Lord Oliver 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment, since you are not the primary contributor to this article and are not mentioned in the {{maintained}} template on the article's talk page, did you even discuss this nomination with the primary contributor prior to nominating this article? Is he okay with you nominating the article and getting the featured credit since you have not done the majority of the work with the article? -MBK004 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have notified Hlj, but have not gotten a reply. Of course I want him to have the credit for this article. It does not matter to me if I get the credit on this or not. He did the majority of the work, and should get the majority of the credit. Have A Great Day~ Lord Oliver 03:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:17, 12 March 2010 .

National Capital Freenet

Nominator(s): Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written, stable, cited and overall has the qualities of a featured article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail oppose

  • Where's the rest of the lead? "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Are there no more important aspects and events to add to the lead?
  • Overwhelmingly sourced to the subject itself, to the point that I question its notability and neutrality.
    • For example, is there no third party (press, major tech blog, etc.) that has covered this group and discussed what they see their mission to be? We seem to be taking their stated mission at face value without mentioning how others have observed them.
  • Get rid of the year mini-headings. Maybe separate "History" to three or so sections based on major events.
  • Why aren't the linked studies used or at least mentioned in the article body? A featured article is comprehensive, and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"; this is not.
  • Add alt text for the images to help those who can't see them.
  • A section with just one sentence? Tell us more about these "server" things and how NCF uses them.

There are certainly other issues, but I'll stop here because this article has not received peer review to ensure it meets rules (or at least ignores them well), and failed a 2008 GAN. There are no confusing dab links and few dead external links, but I think the other issues above make those moot. Please withdraw the candidate, get other editors to at least glance at it, and address my issues (and any that are raised by the other editors). --an odd name 20:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:54, 10 March 2010 .

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article status because it complies with all the criteria. There was a comment left at the GA nomination that the article looked ready for FA status, and I agree. William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: It is generally a mistake to rely on a GA comment as a basis for FAC nomination, since the standards are very different. This article is good, and interesting, but it's not FA quality yet. Here are just a few issues:-

  • Four disambiguation links
  • Two dead external links
  • Alt text missing on all images
  • Inadequate lead (not a full summary of the article)
  • No personal information on Barr that I can see. Minimal details on him, and his background, are necessary. The article should be self-contained and not require readers to use a link to find out who Barr was.
  • Image placement leading to squeezing of text betwen left and right-aligned images is contrary to MOS. (It may be that too many images have been crammed in).

I have not examined the prose in detail, but in general a thorough peer review is an advisable stage between GA and FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Check: Not Passed - 11 images. Most are flickr-transfers or PD-self, though File:Greater Atlanta Libertarian Meetup 6-23-2008.jpg, File:Barr HQ.jpg, and File:Bob Barr Speaking on Diplomacy with Iran.jpg need a description. File:Barr logo.jpg needs a "purpose" filled out. --PresN 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. I oppose this article for many reasons (such as the reasons stated by other users on this archive). The article's images do not have alt text, there are disambiguation links, dead links, and the articles lead as well as other parts of the article are not very informational. Crystal Clear x3 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction to this comment was, "what an asshole," but then I looked at the person's userpage and I saw that they are just a child. As for the first oppose, I will try to address these issues shortly. Looking back, I shouldn't have nominated the page, but I've been away for a while and was overly optimistic. I'll let the nomination run its course to allow for more feedback. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
So you thought I was an "asshole" for opposing an article that, in my opinion, did not meet the FA criteria for a number of reasons? Crystal Clear x3 04:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No I thought you were an asshole for your tone, but I no longer feel that way because you are only a child and have not reached maturity. I have no desire to continue this conversation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:16, 10 March 2010 .

Chloë Sevigny

Nominator(s): Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of dedication and work has gone into it since it initially received a Peer Review and Good Article Review. Since failing its initial Good Article review, a lot of work has gone into the article and it has not since been re-nominated for Good Article, I however, think that instead of re-nominating it for Good Article, that it now deserves Featured Article status. It has scope; it is well-written and contains genuine sourcing for all of its information. It is also illustrated with insightful images. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments Dab links, external links, and alt text fine. Oppose. No alt text present, as required by criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advice on alt text. Also, links to six different disambiguation pages; see the box to the right. Several links are dead, and marked as such; have you tried finding archived versions of these links (for example, via http://www.archive.org)? (I will strike this oppose when these issues have been resolved.) Ucucha 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I repaired the disambiguation links and pruned the dead links out; I was able to find one un-archived replacement for one of the references (Girl with the thorn in her side article), but a few of the others were impossible to find in any official archived form (i.e., the Interview Magazine publishing conducted in 1995; not available in its original state on the internet), so I replaced and/or removed the information. Also gave the images alt text. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. All aforementioned issues with the article (alt text, disambiguated links, archived references) have been acknowledged, replaced and/or repaired. Aside from this, significant work has been put into the article, sourcing is all verifiable and effective, and the article as an entire piece is fluid and nails all general facets of the subject's life and career, with input from the subject herself (quotes, interviews) and others (film critics, fellow filmmakers, etc). Pictures are used appropriately, and captioning is well-worded; information is evenly divided using headings and subheadings as well. The article also holds a solid introduction, as well as a fairly well-rounded conclusion applicable to the current point in the subject's career. I have been overlooking this article for months and have done a fair amount on improving the article one step at a time, and feel it has grown into a worthy article with mine own work and the work of other editors. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. I think the article is very well written, structured (it includes a detailed and well flowed out section on her iconic fashion style), it is researched and referenced. It is devoid of tabloid fodder and includes a lot of well sourced information including sources from the article's subject (as mentioned above). The film career is also writen very well and is extremely comprehensive. Chaelee (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    — Chaelee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The only pic of Sevigny in the article is a less than ideal presentation of her appearance. I would recommend at least trying to contact her agent about this. It might be in their best interest to provide Misplaced Pages with a decent pic of her, even if it's only medium or low res. Alternatively, you could try scouring the net for okay photos taken by people who might realistically be willing to release them. And considering the very low quality of the infobox pic, there should be at least one fair use pic in the article showing Sevigny in one of the more famous films she's starred in, like Kids or Boys Don't Cry, or maybe something from Big Love. Peter 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I did upload a good picture of Sevigny from Big Love (promotional photo, released to TV Guide), and when I applied it to this page, it was removed because apparently it is not permissible to use a non-free image of a person if there are free ones available (even though the main photo is poor quality). The photo is on the wiki article for Nicolette Grant, but other editors kept removing it when I added it to this page; I had a detailed rationale for using it on both Nicki Grant's article as well as Chloë Sevigny's, but it wasn't good enough apparently. Anyone able to clear this up maybe? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Referring to a free picture with such a poor likeness to remove fair use images sound pretty silly. I'm not up to date on how we deal with this, but to me it almost smacks of ruleslawyering. I think you should try to argue the case again. Again, though, have you tried contacting copyright holders about releasing decent pics? I would imagine that it would be very much in Sevigny's (and her agent's) interest to release at least one medium resolution photo. Peter 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
        • It seemed silly to me as well, and the photo fits all Misplaced Pages criteria, except for being used as a main profile photo, apparently. It seems impossible to contact Sevigny's agency over the internet (have hunted for an email address and failed) to get permission from them (or have them release a photo to Misplaced Pages, perhaps). I have looked on websites such as Getty Images (which hosts thousands of photos of her from different photographers), but it seems it's impossible to get to them unless you are a company wanting to promote/sell material. I'm not experienced with this sort of thing; anyone else know a way/place we could get a good photograph?Youshotandywarhol (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted (and the article recently failed GAN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. True, this account is rather recent, but I have worked on Misplaced Pages quite often without logging in (I often forget to when I make edits). So I have edited this page numerous times without being logged into my account. As for any reasons, none in particular. I learned the language of Misplaced Pages a year or so ago, and I started working on it from then on in my spare time. In terms of this article, I have always been fascinated by Sevigny's career and films, so I figured I'd put my writing abilities to use and help collaborate for the piece, and I've watched it evolve into a well-structured, nicely written article; I have done a fair amount of editing on it, while logged in and not. Does the editors' history make a vast difference in becoming a FA, even if the article is well-composed enough/fits the criteria? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that conflicts of interst (such as working) significantly on the article should be noted at the time of a declaration. Uninvolved opinions are needed. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why Ashton29 did; I have frequently edited things on Misplaced Pages, but I've never gone about nominating an article for anything before. I do know that Ashton29 did review the article and do a fair amount of editing though, when it was first nominated as a GA. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It failed GAN, like mentioned above, BEFORE all the work was put into it. Chaelee (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Why has it been archived? I have been working on Misplaced Pages for a while before I acquired an account, and I have also been working on the subject's article quite often, hence why I decided to nominate it. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:20, 8 March 2010 .

Ian Meckiff

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


This article is about Ian Meckiff an Australian fast bowler of the 1950s and 1960s who was very controversial, like Muttiah Muralitharan nowadays because of persistent allegations that he used an illegal technique of delivering the ball. What made his case more interesting and gossipy among the cricket writers of the time was that there were rumours that the Australian authorities considered him to be illegitimate but that they decided to allow him to play so that the umpire could sanction him in public and make a "sacrificial goat" out of him, to show that Australia were tough on illegal bowling. He was also famous for being the player run out to complete the first Tied Test in history (a tie has only occurred twice in 133 years) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Alt text is good. Ucucha 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Comments -- Looking fwd to finding time to review in detail what I know will be a fine article on a very interesting player, however just reading the lead could I ask you to again review/revise repetition of the guy's name, which for instance occurs 5 times in the 7 sentences of the second para alone... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Yes, this fellow's career was rather juicy and controversial... YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing the general name repetition point but I also note that the first six paragraphs of Early Career begin with "Meckiff", which is also a bit wearing. It's perfectly reasonable IMO to mention the subject's name in the first sentence of a new paragraph but perhaps not always as the first word so could one or two of these be restructured slightly?
    • ...noted writer Jack Pollard... -- certainly he's notable, but since he's subject of a WP article I reckon most people would gather that.
    • "Meckiff's action was totally illegally... -- I assume that should be totally illegal?
    • ...the selection panel of Don Bradman, Dudley Seddon and Jack Ryder continued to pick him, implying that they regarded his action as legal. -- can you just confirm for me that your source spells out that continuing to pick him implied that the selectors regarded his action as legal, i.e. that last bit is not your own (understandable) interpretation of his continued selection?
    • I know the expression "breaking down" as applied to bowlers but be as well to explain just what his problem was; the average reader might even suspect a nervous rather than a physical breakdown, given the controversy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for pointing out the nervous breakdown thing. Yes, Dr Bernard Whimpress made those comments about the selection panel implying legitimacy YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking care of those and my apologies for a disjointed review, just juggling a lot of things off-wiki at the moment... , and by 12, he was acting as a caddy at Kingston Heath Golf Club is a bit of a non-sequitur and seems pretty trivial compared to the info in the first part of the sentence - do we really need it?
    • The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unavailable and unable to take his place. -- I assume its the brother who was unable to take the brother's place in the team, but grammatically it looks like the brother was unable to take Ian's place, which doesn't really make sense; also unavailable and unable seems a bit too much. How about simply The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unable to play. or something like that?
    • I take South Melbourne's first title to mean its first championship-winning side, but maybe it should be spelt out for the uninitiated.
    • The president of the Marylebone Cricket Club Sir Hubert Ashton hoped that Australia would not select Meckiff. -- can we clarify for what team or series Ashton was talking about? State team, test team against West Indies, anything at all? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any biography of him, that would go through that but the City of Kingston employs a historian with a PhD to go oversee their history project and I don't think it would be worse than a newspaper YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Image check: 1 image, which is actually a graph. Marked as GFDL/CC-by-SA, though you should probably put your name in there as the author rather than just in the uploader spot. The image should also be moved to Commons. Caption looks good. --PresN 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Added explicit creation and added data source YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Some picky stuff from the first few sections; I've read about halfway through so far. At first glance, it looks like another strong one.

  • Early career: "the left-arm paceman made 19 not out to helping Victoria reach 131". Remove last three letters from "helping".
  • Capitalize first letter of "the fast bowler was not required to bat...".
  • Peak and eruption of chucking row: Don't need multiple Trevor Bailey links here.
  • The red link in Four Chukkas to Austrailia looks faulty. Just de-capitalizing a piped letter should turn it blue.
  • Subcontinent tour: "Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action was fair". Should "was" be "as"? (Not sure if this is used in Australia) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sorry, but there are serious issues with the prose. The lead reads well, but thereafter I found problem after problem. I gave up early in the Early career section, skimmed and found other problems later on. Judging by the edit history this article has not been copyedited by an independent editor; such a copyedit, covering the whole article is essential. My opinion is that this can't be done during the duration of this FAC. I enjoy cricket articles, and the Meckiff case is fascinating. I would volunteer to do the copyediting myself if the article were withdrawn for a couple of weeks. Here are my detailed comments:-

  • Lead: Minor point – "late 1950s" and "early 1960s" do not require hyphens
  • Early life
    • "He routinely dominated the opposition batsmen in the competition..." Can you say what competition this was, and also if the 200 wickets was a single season's haul or spread over several years?
    • Also, can you identify the under-16 team he played for?
    • The sudden jump from him playing cricket aged 11 to his working as a hardware salesman is jarring. You need a transitional phrase, e.g "After leaving school Meckiff worked as a hardware salesman..."
    • Naming wife and son: please see WP:BLPNAME
Explained these things, and moved the hardware thing to the outside cricket part. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You have it much better now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Early career
    • "Meckiff started his district career with South Melbourne in Victorian Premier Cricket in the 1951–52 season, where he switched to fast bowling, having failed in an audition at Richmond in 1950". The multiple clauses in the above sentence seem to be wrongly ordered and the information is incomplete. How did he fail? And is "audition" the best word here – surely "trial" is what is meant? The sentence might be restructured along the lines: "Having failed as a spin bowler in a trial at Richmond in 1950, Meckiff switched to fast bowling in 1951–52 when he began his district career in Victoria Premier Cricket with South Melbourne." – or something similar. This would work if you dropped "at South Melbourne" from the next sentence.
    • "By the age of 17, Meckiff was in the senior team and played in South Melbourne's first championship-winning team, although his career was often interrupted by national service." The "although" connector is inappropriate since the third clause is unrelated to the other two. The third clause is also vague; "his career was often interrupted..." – for how long did these interruptions go on? Does national service mean military service? For clarity's sake you need a sentence along the lines of: "However, the early part of his career was disrupted by the demands of military service." If you can date his service, so much the better.
You have added good explanatory material, but a further tweak is needed in the initial sentence. Does "By the age of 17" refer to his playing in the championship-winning team, or was that a little later? Presumably you can clarify by adding the season in which the championship as won. Also, to avoid repetion, alter the second mention of "team" to "side" or "XI". Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I've clarified that he debuted and won the title in the same season YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph: "The South Melbourne bowler made his first-class debut..." No reason not to name him, thus: Meckiff made his first-class debut..." The following words "in a match" are redundant. "Coming in" should be extended to "Coming in to bat...";
    • ...with the score at 8/77..." needs amplification as this is the first mention of a team's score. Suggest: "with his side 8 wickets down for 77 runs". The short form can be used thereafter in the article.
    • The description of him as a "left-arm paceman" at this point is confusing, because it is his batting that is being described. Just "he" will do.
    • "...and then took 3/45 to restrict Western Australia to a 34-run first innings lead." Again, for first mention of a bowler's analysis the figures should be explained: 3 wickets for 45 runs.
    • "At the time, the two states were by far the strongest in Australia, having placed first and second 18 times out of 20 in the past 10 years". Word missing between "having" and "placed". Placed first and second in what? And 20 competions in 10 years needs explaining.
Tweaked all these things. I thought the reference to 20 was clear as there are ten seasons and there are two teams to come first and second, but I've reworded it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Some points at random from later in the article:-
    • "Meckiff went onto the Third Test..." This has to be either "into" or "on to". In this context "onto" makes no sense
Silly mistake YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "He reported that his son was verbally abused by classmates"; Meckiff was 24 in 1958-59 - was his son actually old enough to be "verbally abused" by classmates? Do you train 'em that early in Australia? Or is this something that happened later?
Clarified. The book was written in 1961. So even if Meckiff married and had kids at 18, the kid wasn't more than 8. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The "abuse" supposedly started after the Melbourne Test when Meckiff was just 24. His son can't have been out of the kindergarten; kids that age don't "abuse", they may tease or call names. But it is beyond my belief, anyway, that a chap who had just taken 6/36 for his country would find his children being mocked in this way. Surely it would be the whingeing Poms getting the abuse? It sounds to me as though Meckiff was having his own retrospective whinge in 1961, playing for sympathy. But let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Clumsy phrasing: "In 1960, the throwing law was changed so that it stipulated that there was to be no straightening..." Try "...changed, to stipulate that..." etc
    • "This meant that during the 1961 Australian tour to England, there would be an amnesty period at the summer during which the umpires would privately report concerns about bowling actions to the respective teams to remediate." First, there are two "durings" in the sentence, secondly the words "at the summer" are redundant (and oddly phrased), thirdly the verb is "remedy" not "remediate".
  • I found some of the section headings odd and unencyclopedic, for example: "Peak and eruption of chucking row" (ambiguous and slangy); "Alterations of the throwing law" (Either "Alterations to" or Alteration should be singular); "No balled in the Sheffield Shield" (No-balled requires a hyphen); "Conspiracy?" (headings should be neutral, thus "Conspiracy theories").
Changed. I Changed it to allegations of a conspiracy, as "conspiracy theories" usually means some crackpot-type thing, but many mainstream pundits claimed this. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"Peak and start of throwing controversy" is still ambiguous. It should be "Career peak and...". The words "against Meckiff" are unnecessary in the "conspiracy heading. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see that an enormous amount of work has gone into this article, but at the moment the prose falla a long way short of FA standard. Please consider my offer above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always self-copyedited my articles since 2008, and generally have been self-sufficient as far as the FACs not being terminally ill. I've done it more than 20 times, and am pretty sure I went through the same process each time, but when I read a second time, I did find a lot of things that could be improved. So your comments about the state of article were fair, but I've gone through the article again, at the same rate as usual, this one took longer as it was longer than the normal articles and I don't think I'm rushing it, so how does it look now? I wasn't falling asleep when I did the original but obviously something didn't go so good this time. I don't want to withdraw because I've been able to get the job done before and I'm always grateful for anyone who volunteers to copy-edit for me, as I hardly consider it to be exciting, but was your offer conditional on throwing in the towel. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No ultimatum intended, it's just that I am very busy and don't know whether I have that much time to spare during the remaining duration of this FAC. However, you have obviously done further work, so I'll try and read through the rest in the next few days, fixing what I can, and see what transpires. The article is obviously destined for FA some time, but we ought to get it into the best possible state beforehand. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, thanks again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have copyedited the sections to the end of the "Career peak" section, though not the lead. Here are some issues I can't settle:-

  • General points
    • I have been changing most of the repetitive descriptions of "The Victorian", "the left-arm paceman", etc. to "Meckiff". I think the balance is OK, but it probably requires the judgement of another pair of eyes.
    • Unencyclopedic language: "grabs" (meaning catches); "scribes" (journalists); "outed" (named); "atop" (top of) - generally I have altered these.
  • Career peak section
    • Second paragraph: how does Bailey's dismissive comment mark "the start of rumblings about the bowler's action"? (Incidentally this was the match of Bailey's infamous 8-hour innings for 68)
Moved to the front, as the prediction isn't related to the chucking, and the private mumbling, which didn't give anymore detail YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This sentence needs attention: "Former England spinner Ian Peebles asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver". It's the "they" in the quote that throws it.
Checking in a book YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "The English writer E. M. Wellings accused Meckiff, along with Burke, Gordon Rorke and Keith Slater of throwing for Australia in the Tests. Neither Slater nor Rorke played in the first two Tests (Slater played in the third, Rorke in the fourth and fifth). We are dealing with the fall-out from the second Test at this point, so Wellings's comments are out of sequence. Also, Laker was not a "former" English spinner at this stage—he played in the match. I also suspect that most of the comments in the paragraph beginning "By contrast..." are post-series, not reactions to the second Test. The Pollard quote is too short for a blockquote and should be incorporated with the main text.
REstructured general comments to the end, that weren't specific to the 6-for YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "Such headlines relegated the Cold War, which usually occupied the front pages, to the interior of the newspapers." Which newspapers - Australian, English? Strikes me as a loose generalisation which is most unlikely to be entirely true. I would omit this.
Attributed to Pollard's opinion YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it even worth mentioning his 9 runs at 2.25 as part of his "successful series"? His batting was irrelevant in 1958-59 so I'd drop this.
    • "stomach injuries"? Ailments, perhaps, but surely not "injuries".
Done last two, although the book did sayinjury, the change may keep it ambiguous in case the source was loose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing my best, but this doesn't look like something that can be done properly within the context of a normal FAC. Temporary withdrawal looks like the best option. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Anonymous Dissident and Laser brain to copyedit the article and they have agreed. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In that case I'll leave off for the moment. Perhaps you'd buzz me when they are through. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Brian, I definitely don't mean to step on your toes! --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not at all - it's a good idea to have more than one editor involved, and it helps me manage my time. Please go ahead. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose sorry. I don't think the prose is FA standard; it's difficult to give examples because the problems are more to do with style and logical flow than grammar. I know that objections have been raised regarding repetition of the Meckiff's name, but the decision to use, indeed overuse, "the Victorian" and "the bowler" is a bad one—they are ugly and confusing. This sentence from the Lead is a good example of problems that permeate the article: The Victorian generated his pace from an unusual bent-arm action which involved a flick of the wrist, and it was in front of his home crowd in the Second Test of the 1958–59 season against England at the Melbourne Cricket Ground that he reached his peak. Here we have, Victorian, which to me has a completely different meaning to the one intended. And then comes generated his pace, which is odd, vague and esoteric—and there should be a comma after before "which" I think. There's redundancy and as in as throwing was in the spotlight in England, where it was regarded as a growing problem. Why use the metaphor and not simply say "bowlers' throwing was becoming a problem"? The whole article suffers from this and I think the nominator would be wise to accept any offers of an independent copy-edit. Graham Colm (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Victorian is confusing because of the historical era, or that one should be plain and just use name/he/she everywhere instead of using things like right-hander, describing people as "the captain/chairman/bowler" which may yield more variety like in book prose, but may slow down the reader to think? Is the comma supposed to be before "which"? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "the Victorian" is very confusing to those not familiar with the subject. "Victorian" is also used to refer to the team, which doesn't help. "Meckiff" is used about 126 times, (not counting quotations), and "Victorian" about 33 times and the very odd term "the Meckiff" is used once, so there is little variety in any case. On reading this article, I get the impression that it has been only written for other fans of Australian cricket, and not for a general audience. I don't like the esoteric, and often tabloid style of the prose. I stand by my initial reaction and still think a fresh pair of eyes is needed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you pinged Graham and Brian for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been through the whole thing by now. I tried to focus on the Meckiff naming issue, and other grammar and MoS things I saw. "Meckiff" is definitely written a lot, but any further rewording I could think of would have confused meaning. Brian and Graham: Another look is probably warranted. However, since I didn't make large (or even middling) changes, I might not have had an eye for what you were seeing. I just changed what I thought needed changing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Update comment: My problem at present is sheer lack of time to spend the hours necessary to complete the copyediting task. Laser brain and Anonymous Dissident have been helpful, but there seems to me still plenty that needs fixing in the remaining sections. Here are just a few examples from the latter part of the article:-
  • Subcontinent tour: "He then helped the tourists avoid a defeat..." In cricket you don't usually refer to a victory as "avoiding defeat". That phrase is used when an outplayed team somehow manages to scrape a draw (think England against Australia at Cardiff last summer). However, it's the next sentence that is the real problem: "Meckiff took a total of 4/32 and saw Australia to their target with three wickets in hand, finishing unbeaten on two." Anyone with limited cricket knowledge would find that impossible to work out. Somehow Meckiff's bowling and batting performances, and the Australian side's overall performance, have all become tangled up in the syntax. I was left wondering why such an inconsequential match deserved any space at all - it's hardly a highlight or turning point in Meckiff's career.
  • Alteration to the throwing law: I think "compromise" rather than "settlement" is the word you need. The settlement, surely, was the agreed alteration to the law, the compromise being not to bring it fully into effect during the 1961 tour. There are other uncertainties in the section: "the umpires would privately report..." Report to whom? "After that..." - what does "that" refer to? is it "after the tour" or "after privately reporting"?
  • Tied test
    • Achilles tendon, not achilles tendon
    • "During the summer, Meckiff's bowling was passed by Col Egar, who later ended his career." Since Egar hasn't been mentioned since the lead you should explain who he was. Rephrasing is necessary anyway, as gramattically, "who later ended his career" refers to Egar. There is more pronoun confusion in the sentence that follows.
  • No-balled in the Sheffield Shield: Repetitious phrasing: "Despite these performances, Meckiff was overlooked for the First Test" followed by "Despite this effort, he was overlooked for the Second Test".

I stress these are examples; I've not done a proper check. Having spent so much time on it I'd like to see the job through and the article promoted, but this can't be done quickly and thoroughly. The article has been here for three weeks now; would YM reconsider my earlier suggestion of a temp. withdrawal from FAC so the work can be done properly without time constraints, and would Sandy agree a dispensation whereby the article could be renominated before the 4-week timelag? Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments - I agree with Brian in that there are still problems with the prose. Anyone not well-versed in the jargon of cricket will not be able to understand much of this article. To some extents, the use of this jargon is difficult to avoid, but some effort should be made. Jargon aside, ugly prose remains, and here are some of many examples:

  • He was not called in either India or Pakistan, meaning that he had played in five nations without being sanctioned. - I particularly don't like "meaning that".
  • quick ended is journalistic shorthand.
  • There is something missing here The Australian Board of Control were so concerned that chairman Dowling and Bradman both attended the meeting of the Imperial Cricket Conference.. - I think "about this" is missing but the reader is left guessing.
  • Here "the media dissected" is more journalese, the media dissected the events of the previous afternoon - analysed or even discussed would be less tabloid.
  • There is still redundancy as in "The majority of" - I suggest "Most".
And more tabloid journalese Many members of the Australian media alleged a conspiracy against Meckiff. - this should be "that there was (or had been) a conspiracy...".

These are just random examples and I still think the prose is not of FA standard. Much more work is required IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:13, 8 March 2010 .

Fark

Nominator(s): WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Fark has been a reasonably stable good article since September 2009. It's undergone a good deal of research and editing, and just concluded a peer review and another round of copyediting. I believe that it is comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and covers the topic well. So, I hereby respectfully submit this for consideration of featured status. WTF? (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The ABC-TV link is now working; I think at the time you clicked on it this morning, the server may have been down. But it's up now. Also changed some of the ALT text of some images and removed other images completely, per below. WTF? (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Link is working now, yes. However, the same problems with alt text remain. Alt text generally conveys the essence of what the image looks like and is verifiable from the image alone. You can look at WP:ALT or any of the other current FACs for examples of acceptable alt text. Ucucha 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    The screenshot should suffice here. Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • File:Fark.com screenshot2.png - Image does attribute copyright holder (NFCC#10A). NFCC#10C requires a "specific fair-use rationale" and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed fair use rationale". "To illustrate the website Fark.com" is not specific or detailed and is a statement of function, not of purpose (of course an image illustrates).
    Fair-use rationale for screenshot modified based off of the one available for 4chan, another FA. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Surely the image is doing more? The 4Chan rationale is also poor. Additional verbiage to the effect of "to facilitate identification and critical commentary of..." would remedy the issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • File:UFIA highway sign.jpg - Derivative work of what is, presumably, a Tennessee DoT work. The United States does not have freedom of panorama. "the_rev" is not the author of the sign and cannot, therefore, license it. Image, further, does not appear at the source indicated (i.e. even derivative license cannot be confirmed).
    Er, uh? Here's an image (File:US 41 Copper Harbor.jpg) of a roadsign in another FA (promoted in June 2009). Not sure why this one wouldn't be allowed and that one would? WTF? (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That sign is purely text (typeface is not eligible for copyright protection as a utilitarian article). This image contains a graphic. Remember, also, to consider OTHERSTUFF. Many uploaded images are not appropriately licensed - even those in FAs. This, however, is the image being discussed and the only one relevant. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The TN DOT makes various logos available to journalists for "news reports and other publications", so one would think that they wouldn't have a problem with a photo of one of their signs, containing a logo which isn't even a high resolution copy of the actual logo? Thoughts? WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • File:Fark logo iran.jpg - NFCC#3A requires minimal use: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information). Iran logo is not meaningfully different from the other logo depicted. Prose would be sufficient to describe the addition of a grid pattern to the map, if that information is truly necessary (NFCC#1).
    The other logo has been removed. I think the copy of the logo with the green stripe is important in depicting the site's support for the Iran election protesters. It was a one-time event, and the logo really isn't accessible (either on Fark or anywhere else) anymore. WTF? (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The threshold is "significantly increas readers' understanding of the topic". How does a reader better understand Fark by seeing a subtlety altered logo? Being a mere one-time event further indicates a lack of importance to the greater topic. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think we could argue that it does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", since it clearly helps to illustrate an example how Fark, Curtis, and the community respond to events on a global scale. While it is a one-time event, it was a one-time event that received major media coverage. Furthermore, doesn't Misplaced Pages have a duty to help to accurately document history as it unfolds -- inclusion of the image greatly increases our ability to document this event. WTF? (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    Image removed. WTF? (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Looks better than Dragon Quest in terms of prose (1a)—I found only a few prose and linking bugs. I didn't verify with all of the sources, though, and another look through might still help.

  • "Curtis states that the word "fark" originated either from a chat room euphemism for a popular four-letter obscenity, or from a drunken misspelling; although he tells people it is the former because it is a "better story that way"."
  • "Fark was officially incorporated in the state of Delaware as, "Fark, Inc.", on January 31, 2008."—why a comma before the company name?
  • Different issue here: "On November 24, 2009, Fark launched a new partnership with USA Today ..."—the prose looks fine, but there are three links to the USA Today article in the same paragraph! Check for other such overlinking.
  • "Curtis has used public relations to drive traffic, including interviews every Friday on TechTV for one to one and a half years (ca. 2002–2003) about the three weirdest tech-oriented stories of the week."—confusing sentence structure that suggests each interview lasted for a year or more.
  • "These are essentially in-jokes which either originated on Fark or on other sites (such as 4chan or Something Awful) that have become an integral part of the community culture and used in myriad discussions in the forums, regardless of whether they apply to the topic at hand."—not really a bug or even a clear mistake, but see Words to avoid on the use of "essentially".
  • "A similar site, Something Awful, sponsors Photoshop Phriday contests."—this feels like it was just plopped at the end of its paragraph to mention the other site. Was SA inspired to do so by Fark? vice versa?
  • "The site is also frequently used as a humorous source for news by many radio stations, as well as and late night comedy shows. Although muchMuch to Drew Curtis' dismay, it is very rarely cited as a source for many of these stories."—don't waste words.

I see you (WTF?) nominated Slashdot for GA as well. It looks good from a glance, and I hope they both get the bronze star. For sites like these, I think Misplaced Pages is a much-needed "but seriously" button to learn of them. --an odd name 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think there just a few too many rough edges with this still. A few examples:
  • Although Curtis won't release official revenue figures, he estimated that, in 2006, the site earned just under $600,000 per year." This doesn't seem to tally with one of the sources used, which appears to claim revenues of $600,000 per month from ad revenue alone. Plus "won't" is too informal a register for an encyclopedia article.
  • We're told twice that Wil Wheaton is a member of the site. Is he really that important?
  • The proprietor of the site is variously called "Drew Curtis", "Curtis", or "Drew" throughout the article, apparently randomly. Pick one style and stick with it.
  • Fark is a relatively small operation, run more or less singlehandedly by founder Drew Curtis ...". This doesn't seem to be consistent with comments elsewhere in the article and elsewhere, where it's said that "Drew runs it with some help from a couple of tech guys" (link above), and the statement on the web site: "Fark site redesign is now live. Hope nothing breaks, we're all out drinking."
  • "Curtis launched Foobies.com in 2006 as a NSFW (not safe for work) offshoot of Fark, primarily because advertisers complained about links to female breasts on the main site." Is it really necessary to wikilink female breasts? Half your readers will be quite familiar with them because they have them, and the other half because ... well for obvious reasons.
  • ... noted the disparity between Fark's revenue and the amount of press given to sites like Digg". Doesn't make sense to note a disparity between two things that are not the same, i.e., revenue and publicity in this case.
  • "67.2% of users originate from the United States." Sentences ought not to start with a number, and "%" should be spelt out according to the MoS. Should be "Sixty-seven percent ...".
  • Several of the sections are too short to stand alone, Fark Parties and Photoshop contests, for instance. Why is "Parties" capitalised but "contest" isn't?
  • The History section is very bitty; lots of short paragraphs beginning "X did Y".
  • "He registered Fark.com in September 1997, when a friend mentioned that all of the four letter domain names were disappearing." Surely he registered the name after his friend mentioned that.
  • However, during major events such as the September 11 attacks or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, usage spikes and the site can actually be seen as a more serious outlet for news." In what way can a usage spike be seen as a more serious outlet for news? More serious than what?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:36, 6 March 2010 .

Liberalism

Nominator(s): UberCryxic 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC), User:Rick Norwood (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)''


I and Rick Norwood proudly nominate this article because we feel it fully meets the FA criteria. Over the last month, the Liberalism article has experienced a major overhaul in an effort to become featured. Rick and I essentially rewrote the entire thing. This is what the article looked like on February 15, and as you can see now, it's undergone a vast improvement. For an article of its stature, it's reasonably extensive without being absurdly long, coming in at only about 114 kb. It contains nearly 200 citations from about 80 books, a neatly organized TOC, thorough alternate text, and plenty of great images to inform readers about the subject.

The article did have a peer review, which I just closed. It received scant attention there, but its talk page was humming all week as Rick and I conducted our own thorough internal review before nominating. That review would also not have been successful without the valuable insight of The Four Deuces, who helped us with sources, content, and categorization. Rick and The Four Deuces have done a great job maintaining the article over the years. This article would not be here without them.

We look forward, in particular, to your strongest criticism. I have a lot of experience with featured articles: I've written five of them already. I know what this article does well. What I want to determine is what you think it does not do well. Having had that experience with featured articles, I also know that many FAs emerge from personal passions and hobbies. That motivation behind writing FAs often produces articles on obscure (although very interesting!) subjects, and the same has been true for some of my FAs, so I'm not insulting anyone here. Clearly, however, this is different. Here we're dealing with one of Misplaced Pages's most important articles, on one of the most famous subjects in modern history and popular culture. You all (that is, the reviewers) better get this right, and that's why I expect only harsh criticism. You won't be hurting anyone's feelings. As I said in the peer review, don't shy away from being deliberately brutal and scathing. We nominators expect nothing less for an article of this caliber. To the last point, I wanted to say one final thing about images. I know that three images are definitely being included with fair use rationales. If you determine that they are blatant copyright violations and that we have no grounds for including them in this article, we'd have no problem removing them.

Thank you in advance for your time, for your interest, and for your comments. We look forward to hearing from you.UberCryxic 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A review of WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MSH (on repeating "Liberalism" in section headings) is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"Liberalism" removed from all section headings. I have thoroughly reviewed WP:OVERLINK and I plan to remove repeat links under the same section, unless they are separated by at least one subsection (for example, "French Revolution" would be linked at beginning of History section AND at the "Era of revolution" subsection). I also want to leave repeat links under different sections (so "French Revolution" should be linked both in History and, under above standard, also in Philosophy or in whatever other section it appears). Before I implement these changes, can you please tell me if you find them acceptable? Or do you want me to be more severe in my cuts? I have no problem either way. I just want you to be a little bit more specific in what you think I should do.UberCryxic 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINKed just from review of one section: Europe, Middle Ages, Christianity-- those are terms commonly known to English-speaking readers, and linking to them adds no benefit to our readers, only adds a sea of blue to the article (I share Brian's concern about the rush to FAC without a GAN or peer review ... these small details would have been noticed at other content review processes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL pruning is also in order, particlarly with respect to non-English language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect templates are used in hatnotes, per WP:SS; this article is not a summary of those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Response I have switched the templates per WP:SS and I removed three external links per WP:EL. The removed links were two non-English language sites and a blog. I have also de-linked dozens of words and terms to nations, continents, religions, and to other historical events that were either linked too heavily or, per your suggestions, do not contribute to the understanding of the subject. No doubt more remains to be done and I'll continue the de-linking process in the next few days. Give me any and all specific ideas for what to de-link. Originally, I was afraid that I had underlinked, so I'm kind of happy that the problem is overlinking!UberCryxic 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. The alt text for File:Reformation.gif doesn't contain the gist of the image, for example, that generally the Protestants were in the north, and that many of their gains were beaten back; please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Much of the alt text contains proper names that it shouldn't (see WP:ALT#Proper names); for example, File:John Locke.jpg's alt text, "Portrait of philosopher John Locke as an old man in his study" should not mention "John Locke" because (a) it duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and (b) a non-expert cannot verify the name merely by looking at the image (see WP:ALT#Verification); "in his study" should also be removed on verification grounds. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice about how to write alt text for portraits. The alt text for many of the other images (e.g., File:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.png, File:Charles Meynier - Napoleon in Berlin.png, File:En Mendigorría.jpg; here I stopped looking) has similar problems; please read the abovementioned WP:ALT sections and then go through all the alt text again. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Response I've gone through all the alt text in the article and removed proper names while also making the text more descriptive in general.UberCryxic 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks good now, after I tweaked it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!UberCryxic 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You say in the nom statement: "The article did have a peer review, which I just closed. It received scant attention there..." The peer review was closed within five days, which scarecly gave time for proper PR attention, particularly for such a long article. Had you been prepared to wait a little (there is a running backlog of 12–15 articles) your article would indeed have got attention, not least from me. I don't have the time for detailed comments at the moment, but here are a few minor points:-

  • Two disambiguation links to be picked up from the toolbox
  • The caption of the lead image ("Vote Liberal") ought to specify earlier than it does that this refers to A Canadian election. Thus: "Poster from the Canadian Liberal Party..."
  • Perhaps too many images? The overcrowding has caused more than one incidence of text-squeezing between left and right aligned images. This is contrary to WP policy.

Sorry no time for more. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Response I've rephrased the caption and I've removed two images from the article, including one with suspect copyright. One of the images that I removed in Impact and influence was kind of repetitive as the article has a similar image that deals with that topic. Take a look again and tell me what other images you think should be removed or repositioned to make the text flow better. As for the disambig links, can you tell me which ones they are? I could not find them. Scratch that I fixed those too.UberCryxic 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Response I've made significant changes to the alt text now, per the policies cited above. Can you please tell me which links are bad? I don't know how to check.UberCryxic 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
They are to absolutism and end of history, as you can see in the "Dab links" section of the toolbox at the top. Ucucha 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. I'm really sorry about that.UberCryxic 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As one of the people who worked on the article, I want to thank everyone who commented above. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You should combine identical refs. --Skizzik 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you don't; FAs such as Cologne War have been approved without combined refs. However, this article is inconsistent; you should either combine all identical refs or none of them, per criterion 2c (consistently formatted citations). Ucucha 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I guess you are right that it isn't a requirement for FA, but I can see no advantages at all with having them separated. Personally I think the few duplicates in Cologne War should be combined too. Are there any guidelines about this? --Skizzik 22:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process right now of combining references.UberCryxic 22:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Skizzik: I think the reason for not combining is that it preserves the sequence of the refs; when you click on one ref you can easily see the surrounding ones. See here for another editor's motivation for not using it. But the matter is moot here anyway since UberCryxic has introduced named refs throughout the article. Ucucha 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I have gone through the article and combined all like references. So do you want me to do that or not? I prefer the earlier version, but don't care that much either.UberCryxic 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You missed some (Van den Berghe 56, perhaps others). As I said, it's your choice: either combine all refs or combine none. You should do what you prefer. Ucucha 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I prefer the earlier version so I'm just not going to combine any. Is this discussion closed? Never mind Sandy just edited the article and I don't want to do one big revert like I was planning to. I'll just take care of the rest.UberCryxic 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Van den Berghe combined now too. I don't see any others, but if anyone knows how to remove all my edits pertaining to combined references without undoing Sandy's as well, go right ahead.UberCryxic 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha: Hm I can see your point. I still think its more elegant with condensed refs but I guess thats just a personal opinion then. So do what you think is best for the article if there are no guidelines on how it should be done, sorry for the trouble I may have caused. --Skizzik 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah to be honest with you I really don't like the new system, so I'm going to go back to the old citations. Sorry Skizzik, but if it's not a requirement, I'd rather not have it.UberCryxic 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Overall, the present edition is inferior to the old version. There is no mentioning about Rousseau, Voltaire, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Karl Popper or Friedrich Hayek. The article explains why fascism as ideology was a threat to liberalism, but it remains unclear why communism was a threat. Terms like political liberalism or economic liberalism are never defined. There is no mentioning about privatization or even about the rule of law (other than in the lead). Certainly rewrite and cleanup were long overdue and they have made the article more attractive and readable, but much of the substance has been lost.—pivovarov (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process of addressing your concerns right now. However, I take umbrage at the suggestion that the previous version was superior, considering that it had several neutrality tags, scores of important yet uncited claims, choppy categorization and slender paragraphs, and a million other problems that could fill an entire book (including a total lack of substance and context, while we're at it). I will definitely include some of the authors you mentioned, but it's very unfair to suggest that this version is inferior, and I'm quite surprised that you would make such a suggestion.UberCryxic 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Response I have now included material on Rousseau, Voltaire, and Hayek. I think this is good enough, in the sense that you could always come up with a list of people that you think should belong in the article. The main purpose of this article, however, is to summarize the subject, and I think it does that fairly well now with the philosophers mentioned. As for your other concerns: private property is mentioned throughout the article. The rule of law is explained in the context of social contract theory throughout the article. I'll work some more on the communism part.UberCryxic 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned a few names that were missing in the new version, but the problem is not with the names (there are more names: Ludwig von Mises, John Kenneth Galbraith, Kenneth Arrow). My point is that the version of 2010-02-01 was fairly mature and you should have used it as a reference. In the course of your work you lost some valuable material that was present in the old version. You are saying that the old version was hardly better because a couple of sections had neutrality tags. True, they had, so how have you resolved the neutrality problem? The sections in question were on neoliberalism and on 21st century — in the new edition both are gone. The section Europe in the current edition says nothing about liberalization or privatization, which were the actual policies in the 1970s. The fact that private propery is mentioned throughout the article is irrelevant. What I do see throughout the new edition that it confuses liberalism with both democracy and liberal democracy. The old edition had two sections ("Elitism and democracy" and "Democracy") trying to address this subject and to explain why original classical liberalism was hostile to democracy.—pivovarov (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Neoliberalism is not gone. It's mentioned under Wars and renewal. It doesn't have its own subsection anymore, but considering the length limitations under which I'm working, it does not deserve its own subsection, and the initial decision to give neoliberalism its own subsection was actually a mistake. The complex relationship between liberalism and democracy is discussed under Dominant ideas and traditions. Whether it's discussed enough is a different issue. Liberalism is so broad and general that you can come here and demand greater coverage on every notable topic pertaining to it. These are the kinds of hard choices I had to make. Significant amounts of material needed to get cut to keep the size down. You are throwing around several peacock terms, describing the current version as "inferior" to the supposedly more "mature" article of February 15. You give that version a lot of praise without mentioning that it did a horrible job in covering the history of liberalism. Both the content and the structure of (almost) the entire article were patchy and incoherent. I would rather leave some things out and make the article comprehensible rather than list every possible thing relating to liberalism without cogently explaining anything. Look, if you have good and actionable advice, I'm happy to take it. You said include more philosophers (you named them too), and I did. But I'm afraid complaints about what the article covers and what it does not cover are more difficult for me to address when I think your fundamental premises are completely flawed.UberCryxic 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You have done a lot of hard work and in many aspects the present edition is better than the old one. However, my concern is that readers are going to find it incomplete and will start adding unreferenced and biased content as they did five years ago. In my view, it would be better to create a near-all-inclusive text, to refactor it into child articles, and to leave an overview containing all keywords in the parent article.—pivovarov (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you offer specific suggestions, like what sentences you want included, for the article? I am working under extremely tight length requirements right now, which is why you might have noticed that History underwent massive cuts and reorganization. I want to address you concerns, but I also hope you are aware that this article has limitations (it can't cover everything).UberCryxic 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the things I've wondered about is just why Misplaced Pages does not have a History of Liberalism article. You'd think that's a standard article that should've been created a long time ago. I guess no one got around to writing it.UberCryxic 23:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be preferable to move the current "History" section of Liberalism to History of liberalism and replace it with a summary. I agree that this article is too long. Ucucha 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll definitely create a new article. Long overdue...as for length, I'll trim some non-essential parts from the first few subsections (Prelude and Beginning), but I think the rest of the material is really important and I hesitate to fiddle with it. Also, Elvis was promoted a few weeks ago with over 160 kb. This article is currently 113 kb. I suppose length might be a problem if you compare the vast size of History to the rest of the other sections, but the article itself does not seem long when you consider the subject..UberCryxic 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Elvis (pop culture, music) did not get the kind of review this article will get at FAC, and OtherStuffExists; also, see my closing note on the Elvis FAC, which had Karanacs' concurrence. It's hard to understand why History of Liberalism is a redirect, when the history is here, could all be copied into that article and summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a redirect anymore! I just recently created the article. For now, I simply copied what's in the main Liberalism article, but I'm going to start trimming some parts from the latter right now, per your advice here. That way they won't be the same.UberCryxic 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of that new article: Sandy, can you please go and do its initial review, confirm that it's an article that deserves to be on Misplaced Pages, and remove the tag? Thank you.UberCryxic 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Update on size After making some significant cuts to History, the article has fallen from 113 kb to 108 kb. I merged the Prelude and Beginning subsections. I hesitate to make further cuts without more guidance here because I'm afraid it would hurt the narration and might impede the understanding of the average reader regarding the progression of liberal history (or what gave rise to liberalism in the first place). I would also say that it's expected for the History section to be long, or at least much longer than the other parts, because it mostly focuses on what liberals specifically did, as opposed to what they thought (Philosophy) or what they influenced (Impact and influence). What people do should have more encyclopedic value in general, although others might disagree with that perspective. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place to hash out our philosophies on the proper structure of an encyclopedic article. Like I said above, for an article of this stature, 113 kb (and now 108) is fairly reasonable. If you want more cuts, please provide specific examples of what you think should be cut.UberCryxic 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This version is 9700 words (we measure articles by prose size, not KB, see WP:SIZE and User:Dr pda's prose size script). I'm surprised the cut is only 300 words, but will wait for others to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well WP:SIZE does say that articles over 100 kb should be split, as a "rule of thumb". Under that standard, I should be following the kilobytes. But if I am following words, as you wish, then how many words do you think this article should be? I mean I think it's senseless for me to just cut things without a proper idea of what length (in words or kilobytes, whatever) is appropriate. I want this article to be focused and coherent, but I also want it to contain enough detail to actually entertain readers or pique their interest.UberCryxic 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just slashed off one more paragraph in History (106 kb now if you measure by that standard). Does caption text count as part of the article's word count?UberCryxic 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't.
Perhaps a more effective approach, rather than trying to slash off bits and pieces every few sentences, is to write the section from scratch as a summary of History of liberalism. Ucucha 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. But if I did that, where would you want me to stop? Do you want...6,000 words? 7,000 words? Drastic cuts is not the problem. I just have no idea what exactly you're looking for (ie. what you consider "short" or "long"). Now, presumably you do have such a standard because I'm being told that 9,700 words is long. So if that's long, what's short? Or better yet: what's acceptable? That's what I want to know.UberCryxic 04:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
All-right just give me a few minutes. Let me go through it once more and I'll get back to you.UberCryxic 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
History of liberalism is 5,200 words, so it was over half the article: definitely a daughter article in and of itself, that should be summarized back to here. (These things would have been picked up in a peer review or Good Article review.) Uber, articles are measured here by readable prose; KB is merely an approximation, and not often a good one. You can get Dr pda's script here. You should be aiming for a correct use of summary style as much as a readably sized article that won't burden readers; reviewers will have an easier time determining how well it covers current concepts once History is summarized, and doing that correctly probably means a rewrite from scratch as a summary (as Ucucha suggests). An article rushed to FAC, without waiting for PR, is likely to get bogged down in this sort of thing, that would have been picked up at PR (which typically takes two weeks minimum). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the process of slashing and burning right now. I perfectly understand that History was (is) long, and that was a deliberate choice on my part. I wanted it to be long, but I guess I went a little overboard (ok a lot). No one's perfect. I got the script by the way, but I'm not sure how to use it.UberCryxic 04:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You should have a new link in your toolbox, on the left of your screen, that says "page size"; click that when you're on the page whose size you want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Dammit I don't see it. I must've added the wrong thing in my monobook.UberCryxic 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm using Chrome by the way. Would that have anything to do with it?UberCryxic 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you added the script to the correct page (vector.js if you're using Beta, monobook.js if you're using Monobook, etc.) and emptied your cache? Ucucha 04:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say "yes," but I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I'm afraid I'm a little bit inexperienced in the finer details of Misplaced Pages. Look it's fine. I'm making the requested changes right now. When I think I'm done I'll notify you and you can let me know if the new History is ok. It should not take more than 30 minutes.UberCryxic 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm also in a tough bind with the opposing editor above because that user is demanding more material. This is a very careful juggling act. It's essentially impossible for me to seriously cover that user's concerns with these kinds of reductions.UberCryxic 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
With two articles, there is room to cover everything; that's why the article needs to be written correctly, using summary style, not trying to cram History into one. Again, you should be focusing on writing the article correctly, comprehensively, and with due weight; if that means summary style needs to be used in other places, that's what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Update #2 on size Phew....ok. I'm done. I've given History a complete facelift. It's significantly shorter (3 subsections now, like Philosophy) and it still does a good job of summarizing the main features of the topic (neoliberalism is still in there!). I don't think readers will be left wanting here. My script isn't working so I can't check word count, but I've taken the article to 94 kb...from the 113 at the start of the FAC process. That's actually smaller than when I first start editing in February. Can someone please tell me the word count (and also what fraction of that is History)? Thank you.UberCryxic 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As of this version; 8,300 words. You started over 10,000, hived off 5,000 to history, but are still showing 8,300 ... that seems to imply you have a 3,000 word summary of history-- which is not a summary-- it's a full article. May I suggest that peer review is a better place for this sort of work? Pivovorac's 1b) comprehensive concerns are significant. 1e), stable, is also an issue here, at least one editor disagrees with thos quick changes; Pivovorac links to a version that is only a month old, was not peer reviewed, was not put through GA, and is unlikely to be stable in its current form. FAs in a few weeks may be achieved by some very experienced FA writers, but are highly unusual even for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we're doing a pretty good job at hashing out our differences here. We've accomplished a great deal in just a day. Under those numbers, History represents about 36% of the article. At this point we're entering very subjective territory, but I don't see that fraction as too big of a problem, although I am willing to further reorganize that section. I would just note that this article cannot be judged under the same standard as most others on size. It's expected to be (I would think) significantly longer than the typical Misplaced Pages article, for good reasons.UberCryxic 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
FAC is not peer review and not a place to hash out differences when an article was rushed here after major changes with no other review; why was the peer review closed in only five days, without waiting for feedback, and what is the rush? An article should be stable before it comes to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if it seems like the article was rushed here. I felt like the peer review was going badly and that the article was ready for FAC. At the same time, I am somewhat surprised to see you say some of these things. You bring up stability: the article changed under the auspices, and with the approval of, the two editors that had been watching it for three or four years. I made sure I brought them into the process carefully and systematically before making these rigorous changes. Misplaced Pages articles sometimes change quickly. Be bold is one of our greatest mantras. I've done this in the past many times, and I'm not sure what's wrong now. People do have disputes during the FAC process. I'm working with you to fix the article's mistakes, and again, I think we've done amazingly well on the first day. I'm sure we can correct all issues of comprehensiveness and size today in the FAC, making the peer review process very repetitive. We're making good progress here and I'd like to continue. I will give History another overhaul.UberCryxic 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Two editors is not very broad consensus :) A peer review would have brought fresh eyes, and would have fleshed out these problems. I do not think this article is ready for FAC, and suggest you withdraw. Pivo's concerns appear substantial, and adding that to the size issues, an overhaul is needed. Because I've participated now heavily in this review, I am recused as FAC delegate, so that is just one editor's opinion -- I am not speaking as delegate, and closing this nom will be up to Karanacs. FAC is not to be used for PR; reviewers are overburdened, and it's an abuse of their time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm quite shocked that I'm reading these things. I did not come here for PR or to overburden reviewers. With all due respect, I've worked very warmly and effectively with the other reviewers. They've made their suggestions and I've (almost always) followed their advice down to the last period of the last sentence. You're the only one from which I sense some antagonism, and I don't know why, considering that I am actively trying to follow your suggestions too. Rick and The Four Deuces are regulars. They've had a long experience with the article. They know how it looked three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, etc. They were generally content with my changes. By contrast, you're following the advice of someone who's made a grand total of 52 edits on Misplaced Pages. I placed the article on peer review per Misplaced Pages's guidelines, but was disheartened that it received little attention, so I decided to come here instead. I respect your position in Misplaced Pages, but I have been to FAC five times before and I'll be here again in the future. This is exactly where I belong.
Now, our wikidrama aside, let's get back to History. It stands at 36% of the article now. I can give it another overhaul, but it's best if you and I do this together. Tell me exactly what parts you think should be cut or reorganized. The section is short enough that you can read it easily and quickly.UberCryxic 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This article needs a lot of attention from one or more subject experts, in philosophy in particular. A few examples:

  • The Prelude amounts to an attempt to summarize the entire Enlightenment in an effort to provide historical context. It neither summarizes well nor provides much context. This could be done much better, and could probably be done in summary style.
  • The summaries of Locke, Hobbes, and Descartes (among others but these in particular) are overly simple and almost caricature their views. That is not your intent, but that is the effect.
  • Listing the many flavors of liberalism ("classical, egalitarian, etc.") without explaining them at all underscores the fact that the discussion is incomplete. The differences between them are important for understanding the main subject. The old version of the article really did do a better job of this.
  • The Dominant ideas and traditions section is a rapid recitation of names and theories that does not explain what the ideas are about or how they relate. There is no coherent "story" here about how all those things add up to something called "liberalism".
There are many other examples throughout. You ask for "brutal and scathing" feedback, but that is not what this is. I offer these only to illustrate that this article badly needs expert attention. I would suggest a review by the peer review department at WikiProject Philosophy, for example, before bringing this to FAC. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Response Which version of the article are you reading? Descartes no longer appears in the article, per some major reductions I had to make to bring down the size of History. Take a look at the current version of History and let me know what can be done to improve it.
The Dominant ideas section is derived from Major themes, which explains that it's very difficult to come up with what you call a "coherent story" for liberalism. That was the point of listing all those adjectives and the quite blatant quotation, which should resolve your worries, that liberalism contains "separate and often contradictory streams of thought" (Shaun Young, Beyond Rawls: an analysis of the concept of political liberalism). Major themes, however, does list several principles common in the liberal philosophical tradition (per philosopher John Gray). Dominant ideas itself covers some of those important principles (and what liberals have said about them) mentioned in Major themes. And it's unfair to suggest some of those flavors have not been explained "at all." Classical liberalism and social liberalism (the dominant political conceptions of liberalism) were explained in detail.UberCryxic 07:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The jist of my comment is that it comes off as a very uninformed and thus uninformative treatment of the topic, which I believe more expert hands could greatly improve (spoken by someone who does have expertise in the subject). If you really want to make this a great article, I would encourage you to give some expert hands a chance to improve it. I hope my points are taken constructively; I do not expect to comment further. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wish you would comment here further since I'm trying to address your concerns. Can you offer any specific changes?UberCryxic 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I can and will, if asked do— in the context of a peer review. While I have noticed that you have improved it a quite a bit since my first read through, there remain real issues under both 1(a) and 1(b). My comments would be extensive and no doubt invite more discussion. I have to agree with Sandy and Brian that this is not the place to do that. Why not just withdraw it and allow the proper time and attention it needs to be a solid FAC? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 1(e): Since its nomination here, the article had been under continuous amendment. It is changing all the time; it has been edited about 200 times in the last 36 hours, among other changes losing more than 2,000 words. I have started to read it several times, but what's the point of trying to review an article that is so obviously still being built? As has been emphasised many times in the past, FAC is not an article-building process; nominators are supposed to bring stable, finished products here, not work in progress. The article should be withdrawn immediately, and re-presented when it is finished and stable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

History (and only that section) has been under continuous amendment because I have been asked to change it, and I've complied with those requests. Beyond History, the article has hardly changed at all. The changes that I've undertaken involve making History more compact, focused, and readable, per Ucucha's and SandyGeorgia's advice, with which I agree. Stability mainly refers to, as I understand it, the absence of edit warring or content disputes. This article has had none of that recently. That one section is changing quickly in response to FAC is no reason to claim the article is unstable, but especially not when the changes involve trying to summarize the section from its related article (History of liberalism, just created). From what I gather so far, the only major complaint against the original version of History was its excessive length, which is why I created a new article entirely and tried to summarize the remaining section (hence the 2,000 word drop). All that changed is I got rid of extraneous and unnecessary content, but if you compare the section and the article, their basic themes and motifs are the same. In that sense, the article has remained stable. When the article came to FAC originally, History was the problem child (some of the editors knew that even before FAC) given its enormous size (over half the article). All I did was trim down its size, and that's not a sign of controversy or instability. Everyone agreed it needed a massive reduction. As for a finished product: I have full confidence that History is now written in summary style and still covers the major aspects of the topic. Take a look at it again and tell me what you think. You can do that now because the article is no longer changing. Things seem to have settled down.UberCryxic 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, your nomination statement begins: "I and Rick Norwood proudly nominate this article because we feel it fully meets the FA criteria" (emphasis added by me). You now say that you brought it here knowing that History was a problem child, so I wonder why the problem was not addressed before the article was nominated. I think my objection is valid, but I don't want to hammer the point to death. I note your later comments, and will try to add some objective comment/criticism in the next 48 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I eagerly await your comments. I know you have far more experience than I do with featured articles and you can help us significantly. In recognition for your effort, I promise to address your concerns with lightning speed. I want to earn your support and I'll make all the necessary changes to do just that. I sincerely apologize for not taking care of History before the nomination. Rick brought up the problem of length, but I mistakenly disagreed with him and we decided to nominate instead. However, now I have made a huge push to resolve the length problems very early (1st day) into the nomination, which is notable at the very least. An article that was 113 kb when it first came here is now 94 kb. As I mentioned above, far bigger articles on less notable and encyclopedic subjects have become featured.UberCryxic 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Response Per your advice, I have removed all images listed above that do not have verifiable sources, although I plan to look for others that do have good sources. The logo of the UDLP in Sudan had already been removed. Tell me if I left anything out, and thank you for your help.UberCryxic 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:53, 5 March 2010 .

Dragon Quest

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 (talk); 陣内Jinnai


After working on the article with User:Jinnai and having it recieve a copy-edit, I believe it meets Feature Article requirements. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A set of comments draws near! A fittingly long article for an important series (Toriyama later worked on Chrono Trigger, a favorite game of mine, as well), with some oddities in my opinion:

  • (section "Music") "Several albums of Dragon Quest music have been released since the original game was made, the first coming out in 1986, based on Dragon Quest's music."—I don't like the structure here. There's the "plus -ing" thing, but it feels weird in general (as though it were a comma splice but too short to be split into two sentences) as well.
  • (section "Manga and anime") "Additionally, The Road to Dragon Quest (Dragon Quest e no Michi) is a manga based on the creators of Dragon Quest published by Enix."
    1. Is the Japanese (kanji) title available? (The romanized title should be in the third parameter, but occupies the kanji field instead.)
    2. Shouldn't the whole title, from "The Road to" onward, be italicized?

You say this received a copyedit, but I saw enough other things to tweak (besides the ones above) that I think it needs another. See the article history.

--an odd name 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose reluctantly on 1a, because I still found serious language bugs. I fixed some of these, but I fear I've missed more. Get someone else to do another copyedit.

  • "Kenshin Dragon Quest: Yomigaerishi Densetsu no Ken is a stand alone game which comes with the a toy sword as theits controller and a toy shield containing the game's hardware."
  • "After the inputting the name Erdrick a window opens saying, "INPUT YOUR NAME!""
  • "Dragon Quest is such a cultural phenomenon in Japan that there are live-action ballets, the first video game to receive such an adaptation, musical concerts, and audio CDs based on the Dragon Quest universe."—is linking to "cultural" necessary, and is Red Book (audio CD standard) really the best link?
  • "For instance, the remake of Dragon Quest VI sold 0.9 million copies in Japan in its first four days, an exceptional sales figure for a remake."—I think 900,000 would be better here, but I haven't checked the MOS on that.
  • "The original Dragon Quest game is often cited as the birth of thefirst console RPG, despite the fact that it borrows heavily from the Wizardry, The Black Onyx, and Ultima series, and many others consider Final Fantasy "more important.""
  • "Although the first four games to come to America generally received good reviews, and as of February 2008 they were among the most sought after titles for the NES, especially Dragon Warrior III and IV, it was not until Dragon Warrior VII was released didthat Dragon Quest becomebecame critically acclaimed."
  • "Other points of contention are its battle system, comparatively simplistic storylines, lack of character development, simplistic, and for older title primitive-looking, graphics and the overall difficulty of the game."—what?
  • "The battle system, while notably simplistic, has been noted that it does speed the process of fighting up. As for the difficulty, Yuji Horii has been noted as"—weird structure in the first sentence, and avoid repetitive use of "notably", "has been noted", and "difficulty" in that paragraph.

--an odd name 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I went through it and fixed a few awkward sentences.  ?EVAUNIT 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Support on 1a. Some parts still feel a bit redundant ("Creation and design" para 1 to the "Zenithia" section, for example), and I'm not sure stuff within the article like Erdrick and Zenithia should be bolded, but these are debatable or minor IMO. I am vastly more confident in this article now; good work all. --an odd name 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The timeline image at the start of Dragon Quest #Main series has WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. It lacks alt text (see WP:ALT) and it contains invalid HTML, mostly by omitting alt text where it is required (see the W3C validator output). Apparently it's using some sort HTMLish extension to Wiki markup that is not documented in Help:HTML in wikitext. I suggest redoing the timeline in text, since it's mostly text anyway; but if you want an image, I suggest using a standard SVG image with alt text. Whatever technology is chosen, please fix the alt-text and invalid-HTML problems. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No we don't want an image as this will need to be continually updated (Dragon Quest X has been announced and i doubt that will be the last). It was based on the code from Final Fantasy timeline. I'm not really sure what alt text needs to be added, and where.陣内Jinnai 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It's fine to not use an image at all: text is a perfectly adequate way to represent that information. Apparently the EasyTimeline feature that's currently being used was designed without accessibility in mind. Assuming that EasyTimeline can't be fixed easily, I suggest redoing the timeline as text. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • You know anyone who could work on that? It would be a shame to lose it as it gives a clear and easy understanding of the release timeline that is further explained in the text. It's much harder to get across some elements of the time gaps later as opposed to earlier without such just by reading.陣内Jinnai 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Surely it's easy just to use a table? I did that. I used a very plain style; please feel free to gussy it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I was busy with RL and when i got back wanted to fix the problems i saw that I could. The table had one major flaw; it leaves it indistinguishable on a cursory glance from the text. The blue like for the left collum is what set it apart. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to recreate this as a table and remove the white borders around everything (mostly the rows) so that the blue is seamless. As this timeline is designed to mirror the FF's timeline, I'd like it to be able use the standard functions of wikipedia while still maintaining the uniform appearance as much as possible.陣内Jinnai 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
              • If the problem is that there's not a sharp boundary between the table and the surrounding text, a simple fix is to put a border around the table, which I just did. Or, if you prefer, lots of other effects could be used, such as table colors. But perhaps I didn't understand the previous comment? Sorry, I don't know what "FF's timeline" is, but if other timelines are using the EasyTimeline Mediawiki extension they also have WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems, as that extension was designed without accessibility in mind, and generates an image without alt text; any such timelines need to be fixed. In my talk page you also wrote that the table "is also much larger text that can take up a huge chunk of the page displayed", but I don't understand that comment, as (with my browser, anyway), the table consumes less screen space than the EasyTimeLine output did. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
                • I wanted to have the left collomn clearly distinquishable at a glance from the right. The easiest way to do this, which {{EasyTimeline}} does quite well, is with color that is otherwise non-intrusive. I realize the template has accessibility issues (among others) which is why I am fine with an alternative.
                  For me, the image now takes up ~55% of the page area (ie excluding the left-hand navigation bar). My resolution is 1440x900. The previous time line took up ~1/3 and never anymore. Even if I zoomed in/out it didn't matter. That imo is a bigger issue.陣内Jinnai 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion 3 (images):
  • The logo could be scaled down (not in the article, in its source); it is too high-res right now.
  • File:Dragon warrior 3 battle screen.gif is seemingly not the subject of critical commentary or discussion in the article except that players access battle functions through a menu system. The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out.
  • File:Rockett.jpg Again, I don't think this image is lending any crucial layer of understanding. The text says it all, basically.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that you want the battle system picture and the slime picture removed? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it would be more apt to say that I am asking for them to meet the non-free image use policy. They either need to have proper rationales, be discussed in depth in the article, and be required for reader understanding—or they should be removed. Make sense? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Slime picture I can understand as there really isn't much. The battle menu is actually mentioned. Is the battle menu for DQ3 specifically? No and nor does it need to be; this is not a DQ3 article; its a DQ article. Some of the commentary is given in the reception. Per WP:NFCI screenshots just require critical commentary, they do not require direct critical commentary as something like video footage does.陣内Jinnai 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The logo has been reduced to 225px. Anything really below that and the letters in the back start becoming too hard to distinguish.
I added some critical commentary on the slime character.陣内Jinnai 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think these fixes will be sufficient. The images are still barely discussed. That is not the only criterion, either—the images must also be critical to understanding. I don't think, as the article is written, the reader needs to see either image to understand what you've written.--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The entire article is about Dragon Quest and therefore the logo is by definition, appropriate. If it isn't, then every book/DVD cover, etc is inapropriate.
As for the others, since you do not believe it doesn't cover it and I've explained why I think it does, please explain what you think is critical commentary on it that would suffice; again, it does not need to be direct critical commentary on that image as neither are a video clip.陣内Jinnai 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the logo was inappropriate. Could you please go back and read my explanation again, so I don't have to repeat it? Critical commentary is not the only requirement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. You cannot really describe the graphics level of any kind of program without visual representation unless it uses just simple lines and shapes. Furthermore, it is entirely difficult to get across the idea of how "simplistic" the battle system is with the text. Without it, it would be easy, especially in today's world of high-tech eye-candy centric games for the reader to assume the game was more graphically intense than it really is.
Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out. The entire thing should be filled out properly. The "portion used" is one that doesn't really fit for screenshots. This type of format is used in other feature quality articles.陣内Jinnai 21:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we're connecting here, somehow. You can't put copyrighted images into the article as a replacement for thorough explanation and critical commentary—they have to be complementary and necessary for the reader's understanding. I don't think we're there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: Are you saying that if there were better explanations and commentary in the prose of the article about what was in the pictures, then they would be justified?  ?EVAUNIT 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
He means they are not necessary because they can be given in our own words—that is, our text is a free alternative, so the non-free images are not required and we should remove them. --an odd name 19:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can understand that. I know this is never a good argument on Misplaced Pages, but taking a look at the other vg series FA's, I see at least one screenshot on each. What are they doing differently than this article?  ?EVAUNIT 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘
(outdent) They weren't checked by Walsh. :) The rules are strict but ill-enforced, in both FACs and Misplaced Pages in general. --an odd name 20:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's all I have to say then : ) what do you think, Jinnai and/or Gamerpro?  ?EVAUNIT 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The way I always thought of the slime image was as an example of Akira Toriyama's work and how it's become associated with the Dragon Quest franchise. There's a quote on the slime article from Horii that talks a little about it and any source that talks about DQ will mention Toriyama's work. As for the battle screenshot, would it help to explain it better in the text? I believe the reception section already discusses the use of menu battles and how ancient they seem. Does that image not help in understanding that?  ?EVAUNIT 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I added in a brief explanation of Akira's style to the slime section and an explanation of how the game looks different when in a battle. Does that text justify having the two images?  ?EVAUNIT 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If the slime goes, I'm not sure that's a huge loss. I'd rather it not, but the artwork is the core issue here. However, Dragon Quest is a video game and the core issue is gameplay. You cannot express just how simplistic the graphics are through words alone because of the way most games are no longer simplistic. Any attempt for more modern gamers to look on this would not understand. They wouldn't understand that "text-based menu systems" means just that-text and only text without some fancy fonts or background. It is essential to understanding why DQ has been looked upon less favorably my some reviewers in the west as not having enough bling, looks like its graphics are dated back in the NES/SNES era, but yet still doesn't look like a cheap fan-made game.
That alone is enough to counter a "words alone candescribe it argument" Walsh has put up. It isn't all right across from the caption, but spread out throughout the article. You cannot describe the simplisicty of a battle system through the way anyone who is even slightly familiar with modern gaming (and that is the larger part of the Wikipedian readership) without showing them just how simple it is. Most people, especially younger ones, won't grasp that concept.陣内Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why are Akira Toriyama and Koichi Sugiyama in the "Creator" field in the infobox? Toriyama is the character designer, while Sugiyama is the composer, therefore only Yūji Horii should be credited as creator in that field. In the Final Fantasy series article, for example, only Hironobu Sakaguchi is in the creator field, not character designer Yoshitaka Amano and composer Nobuo Uematsu. The Prince (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That conforms with the documentation in {{Infobox VG series}} on how to treat notable people. All 3 members are central, thus notable, figures to the series. {{Infobox VG}} includes other possible fields, but if the former does, its not documented. If it does, I can change them, but all 3 should be mentioned as they are equally (Toriyama perhaps moreso) notable as Horii.陣内Jinnai 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Neither Toriyama or Sugiyama created the concept, Horii did. The field is for the initial concept of the series, not music, artwork, or other aspects. It makes no sense including them. The whole notable thing you're talking about here is whether the creator (which is Horii, not Toriyama and Sugiyama) is notable or not. He is, so therefore he's included. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be included. Toriyama and Sugiyama shouldn't be included at all; if there was a field for music and artwork, they would of course be included as they are very notable. What I'm saying here basically is that they're in the wrong field and it looks very off, IMO. The Prince (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I am following the instructions as they are in the template and furthermore as members important to the franchise. If you feel there is a problem, it is with the template not having the correct field then the template should be edited because their removal from the infobox isn't justified as they are key members and I assume other video game franchises may be similar; I don't know how edit templates or even if that one is editable though as I'm following the template's instructions and all 3 members are important enough to list in the infobox (if Horii is, then the others are equally so), so its either all or none unless the template can be redone.陣内Jinnai 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not strike reviewers' comments, per WP:FAC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources good Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose on sources from Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Reference 3 () is a wiki, thus is not reliable Fixed
  • What makes http://www.dqshrine.com/features/seinterview.htm (ref 16) reliable? I see the about us page, but there's no evidence that it's official or is checked by anybody else, making it self-published.Fixed
  • What makes RPGLand reliable? Fixed
  • Why is RPGClassics reliable? There's no "About us" page, or proof that it's not self-published Fixed
  • Silconera's About Us page does not make me confident that it should be used Fixed
  • Reference 62 isn't working for me. Even so, why is it reliable? Fixed
  • There's a mix between "Last, First" and "First, Last" in presentation of the author's names. Be consistent! Fixed
  • Some retrieval dates are YYYY-MM-DD, while others are written out Fixed
  • Some publishers are linked, while others (refs 13 and 21 for example) Fixed
  • You cite Edge different ways; compare references 22 and 26 Fixed
  • The formatting in reference 79 is messed up Fixed
  • Take out all "(in English)" indicators. Also, references 78 and 82 are an Japanese, and should be marked as such Fixed
  • Italicize "Wired" in the last reference, number 87. Fixed Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I got everything.  ?EVAUNIT 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to undermine Evaunit666's good faith effort, but DQShrine is a valid SPS. I realize you are within the bounds to question it, but to say "there is no evidence" when you haven't at least checked our TF page shows you just assuming it fails as I give an explanation there.
"The site was listed in the bibliography in Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society by Rodney P. Carlisle, a "Professor Emeritus" at Rutgers University."
Beyond that to be specific to address the aspects of the Dragon Warrior (as it was known then) as a RS.陣内Jinnai 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't completely understand you, you're saying that DQShrine is reliable because it was used in that Encyclopedia, right? If this is the case, then I'll happily accept it as acceptable. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "TF"? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"TF" is the Dragon Quest task force. --an odd name 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the prose still needs some attention. Some examples:
  • If the player's party dies in battle, the group will lose half of their gold and the leader of the party warps to the nearest save location." If the party has died hasn't the leader died as well? Or do you mean "if a member of the player's party dies"? What's a "save location"? Also, the subject here is the singular "group", so it should be "the group will lose half of its gold", or better "the group loses half of its gold".
  • Inconsistent spelling of "spinoff", sometimes spelt "spin-off".
  • "To save one's progress, the player must visit a Church ...". Subjects don't match ("one" and "player").
  • "... including the Alefgard seen in the first game". The definite article is a bit of a puzzle here. What is "Alefgard"? A country? A region? A place? Why was there no definite article used when it was introduced shortly before this sentence in "the hero who freed the games' setting of Alefgard from darkness." I'm not really sure what the phrase "the games' setting of Alefgard" means in any event.
  • With the merger of Square with Enix ...". Should be "Square and Enix.
  • "The tenth installment of the main series is currently in development for the Wii." Currently as of when? 2010?
  • "The games themselves feature a number of religious overtones – saving the game (in later games) and reviving characters who have died is performed by clergy in churches." What's religious about saving the game?
  • "Each of the Dragon Quest soundtracks were composed and arranged ...". The subject here is "each", so it should be "each ... was composed".
  • "The spinoff titles of the series have received adaptations of their own". They haven't "received" adaptations, they've been adapted.
  • "In 2006, Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu readers ...". If Famitsu is the name of a magazine then its name should be given in italics. The way it's written make it look like the magazine name might even be Famitsu readers.
  • "Although the series is a phenomenon in Japan, as of 2002, the games have not garnered as much attention in North America." Seems strangely dated, that was eight years ago.
    • Can't find much more reliable statements, other than sales data for indivisual games, to show anything newer. If GamePro64 knows of some that I don't, that's news to me too. Even with their last game, DQ8 it still hasn't garnered as much attention in North America.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I know the Gamasutra article about the history of Dragon Quest by Kurt Kalata mentions that all the games up to 8 haven't been as popular in America.  ?EVAUNIT 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The stories avoid melodrama and feature more simplistic characters than Final Fantasy's Squall Leonhart or Tidus who have been sources for contention." Don't understand that at all. "Sources for contention"?
    • Not sure what to do here. To me its obvious. The stories avoid melodrama and feature more splistic characters" is pretty of obvious. The others are comparisons to games that don't from the cited source.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, can you please ask Laser brain/Andy to return to look at the images? And see if Malleus's objection is satisfied? Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I've already asked Laser Brain and he still opposes, saying that he still doesn't understand why the other two pictures are in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any possibility of replacing those images with free ones?  ?EVAUNIT 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No. As its a specific subject and the material is copyrighted, it cannot be without SE releasing DQ into public domain, which isn't happening.陣内Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 5 March 2010 .

County Route S18 (California)

Nominator(s): Pzoxicuvybtnrm 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because of its great quality despite low importance. Many people do not know about county routes, making it a way to inform people about unknown roads. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Images lack alt text, as required by FA criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advise on alt text, including the special section on maps. In addition, there is a link to the disambiguation page Eastern Toll Road (California), which should perhaps be solved by making that page into a full article. Several links are dead, as listed in the toolbox to the right. Much of the article depends on Google Maps as a source; is that a high-quality reliable source as required by criterion 1c? Last, there are prose issues like "In addition, an Adopt-a-Highway program is considered to be implemented along the route in order to maintain its safety with the local environment" and "Eighteen years later since the formation of CR S18 in 1970". (I will strike this oppose when these issues are resolved.) Ucucha 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It may be better to get a peer review and independent copy-edit first to check for quality of prose and sourcing. I also note that the nominator has not contributed to the article; FAC instructions require that other major contributors be consulted before a nomination. Ucucha 05:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick fail currently GA means nothing, this was created by a user that did not follow WP guidelines relating to style (that is also now banned), has not gone through any "FAC-vetting" process such as our own ACR or through PR, etc. --Rschen7754 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick fail per Rschen7754—currently this article is the product of one user (which has since been banned) and is far from ready for FA. (No The article has not been submitted to the U.S. Roads Project's ACR, so not even members of the relevant WikiProject have looked at it in-depth. —Scott5114↗ 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – this article fails to meet the criteria 1a (it's not well written), 1c (there are self-published sources and an over-reliance on Google Maps), and 3 (lack of alt text). While taking the article through the project's ACR is not required, it is highly beneficial. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this nomination to work on the issues raised. He should consult all of the featured article criteria before renominating the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:37, 2 March 2010 .

Early life of Ricky Ponting

Nominator(s): —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Ricky Ponting is Australia's leading run-scorer and century maker in International cricket. This article documents Ponting's life — including his early First-class cricket career with Tasmania — up until his first International match in 1995. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments. What, an FAC with no images or illustrations of any sort? Surprising, but probably unavoidable here. No dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. This is not FA standard. Much seems to have been taken from the main article, which is much better. The prose is often poor. This sentence from the Lead is a mess and is an example of many problems throughout the article. The eldest of three children, Ponting emulated the feats of his father, playing cricket in summer and Australian rules football in winter, before breaking his arm while playing the latter sport for a junior North Launceston Football Club team as a 14-year-old. There are too many facts crammed into too short a space. This gives rise to disjointed, non-professional prose that lacks logical flow. It is difficult to understand why a separate "Early Life" article is needed, let alone a featured one. He's only 35 for goodness sake! I cannot envisage this contribution achieving anything other than GA and would prefer it to be merged with its parent article, which shows much more promise. Graham Colm (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with Graham's comments. Here are a few of my own:-

  • I think the abrupt ending rather advertises that this article belongs more naturally within its parent—why was it thought necessary to create it separately?
  • As to the prose, apart from Graham's criticisms there is too much use of cricket-speak clichés like "he struggled to trouble the scorers" and "He eventually reached three figures", as well as sports journalese like "he bounced back".
  • There are also far too many verbatim quotations, which give the article a decidedly non-encyclopedic feel.
  • There is confusing, careless writing such as "Set 366 runs to win in 102 overs, Ponting joined Dene Hills at the crease with the score at 2/35." That reads as though Ponting himself was set 366 to win.
  • The term "crease" remains unexplained even though this was specifically raised by the peer reviewer.
  • Why is "Fiercely contested" in quotes, in the Birth section, and what is the relevance of the last sentence of this section to the early life of Ricky Ponting?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – A comparable FA exists: Early life of Keith Miller. That page has much more to say than this one, is a justifiable content split from what had been a massive main article, and had a defined endpoint. All three departments are lacking here. I know getting a major athlete to FA is very difficult, but this article is just too forky for me. Also, the comments above leave me concerned about the prose. The excessive use of quotes jumped out at me immediately, and almost strikes me as an attempt to make the article appear more substantial than it is, in terms of having its own entry. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:37, 2 March 2010 .

Jeannette Piccard

Nominator(s): SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Jeannette Piccard, the first woman in space and one of the first women to be ordained a priest, must be a natural for a featured article. I am nominating this because it 1) meets the featured article criteria, and 2) a new source (DeVorkin, the best yet) appeared during GA sweeps that allowed me to complete her story. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments. One dab link, to Gordon Bennett Cup. External links appear fine. Some problems in the alt text: the first image should give a more detailed description of Piccard, so that readers know what she looks like. The alt texts for the diagram and map should convey the essential information that the images give to readers who can see them; see WP:ALT#Diagrams and WP:ALT#Maps. Ucucha 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Surely. David DeVorkin's Race to the Stratosphere which covers almost the whole story. I deleted what I could not source. ("Jeannette later flew helium and hot air balloons, the former with her son Don in 1964.") -SusanLesch (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh boy, thank you, PresN. Jeannette Piccard and the balloon must be copyrighted. I marked them both for deletion. When I started this article about three years ago, someone thought that photos from the Smithsonian were in the public domain but the issue was never resolved—Certainly the source of those two was not good (there might be other sources). Non-free use template was added to Jeannette and Jean, with a little better rationale. I wound up replacing this one with a slightly reduced resolution copy. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, I took the photo of the photo myself and saw the NASA stamp on the back with my own eyes (so she must have brought it with her to NASA). The photo wasn't labeled or titled, which says we don't know for sure what landing it is, but that's what her son told me and I have no reason to doubt him. -SusanLesch (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Susan, to claim PD for an image, we need to know something about it e.g. who took it, and particularly when it was taken, and if it's not old enough to be PD, what makes us believe it has been released. A NASA stamp just means someone placed a NASA stamp on it for some reason, perhaps because it was a copy in their archives. NASA didn't exist for another 24 years; she wasn't involved with NASA for another 30 or 40 years, or thereabouts, so NASA really has nothing to do with it. What matters is who took the photograph, because that person or their family holds the copyright, unless you can show they have explicitly released it, or they were govt employees taking it in the course of their work, for example.

    The best thing would be to download it from the Commons and claim fair use for it, though I still have a concern about saying it was the Ohio landing when we don't know that. It might be best to say on the image page that it was the Ohio landing according to a private conversation with her son in year X, and in the caption just to say it's an image of her. Sorry, I know these policies are a pain. But this is just a question of which tag to use, and whether it should be on the Commons—there's no actual problem with you using it. SlimVirgin 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • You wrote on the image page that the NASA stamp said something about the copyright. Can you scan in/photograph the back of the photograph? Just wondering if it might say something about the copyright holder. SlimVirgin 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No I can't scan the back. I had one chance to get a shot and chose the front! The stamp on the back only concerned copyright. I think you are making a big deal out of what you don't know, instead of making a big deal about what we do know. The stamp released the photo from copyright into the public domain. When that occurred doesn't matter. Obviously it was after the fact. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The only person able to release the image is the person who took it, unless they were employed by the govt at the time. The problem is that you don't know who took it. If it was a family member, then perhaps the son owns the copyright. But it could have been a journalist, or anyone. If you know how to contact the person who owns that copy, perhaps you could ask them to scan in the back of it for us, or tell us what it says. FAs have to stick to the image policies, and they're quite clear on this point—works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted for 95 years since the date of first publication, or 120 years since their creation, unless they were published before 1923; see WP:PD. But as I said, you can still use it; it's just a question of downloading it from the Commons and claiming fair use. A claim of fair use will be fine given that she's deceased. SlimVirgin 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I actually agree with you that the photographer is unknown and I will replace the image with a fair use copy. I would ask for a photo of the back, except that would do us no good--a NASA stamp that says it is not copyrighted (which is all it says) would not satisfy the question of authorship. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that looks fine. SlimVirgin 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments.
  • You call her Jeanette at times but Piccard at others, even in sections where there's no conflict with her husband's name. Piccard would be best, in my view, if it can be done without confusion, but either way it would be good not to jump around so much.
  • At GA, the confusion was the other way (the article used to say Piccard everywhere).
  • Piccard is better in case it sounds as though she's being patronized. But that can get difficult when there are other members of the same family. Whichever you choose it needs to be consistent.
  • Switched everything back again. Two occurrences left of "Jeannette": in the "Family and education" section, "Born in Chicago, Illinois, Jeannette was one of nine children...", which then avoids having to ever call her "Ridlon", and in the "Planning and pilot's license" section, "The Piccards planned a flight to the stratosphere, Jean concentrating on the science while Jeannette piloted the balloon." Are these all right now? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say the father was "noted" without a source.
  • The statement has a source ("an eminent orthopedic surgeon") in the article.
  • This is where the link leads.
  • OK, you're right. Fixed that link to point to item 1 at LoC. Also added another source that says Dr. Ridlon was president of the American Orthopedics Assocation during the late 1890s.
  • The source for "eminent" seems to the family. It's a small point and it's up to you, but I wouldn't use a word where the meaning is unclear: noted for what and by whom? I would simply say that he was Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Northwestern University, or that he became that, depending on what he was when she was born.
  • I don't think "eminent" is sourced to the family. Rather, it's sourced to the people who processed the papers. The other source says "The AOA, the prestigious organization of the leaders of orthopaedic surgery in this country, was founded in New York in 1887." Dr. Ridlon was president the year Jeannette was born. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say more about the foster children if more is available.
  • More is not available.
  • It looks odd the way it reads. This is a busy couple, a woman who wasn't a housewife. And yet she has time not only for three children, but for foster children too, which is quite an accomplishment. Is nothing at all known about them?
I wish there was, but no more is available until the day somebody writes a biography of Jeannette Piccard. They are mentioned by the processors of the family papers at the Library of Congress, but without going to Washington, D.C., I don't know what the letters say.
I would flesh that out for the reader, something like, "The Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children that the Piccards took in, although nothing seems to be known about them," so long as you're fairly sure nothing is known.
Added. Thank you. Is this all right now? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say a little bit more about the brother on first reference; as it stands it looks a bit odd. "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother" Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere."
  • What would you like it to say?
  • That's up to you. It's positioned oddly, moving from Jeannette and her husband, the three children, the foster children, then suddenly introducing the brother for the first time. It just needs fleshing out a bit, to make the narrative flow.
  • I would delink ordinary terms and names, per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Unlinked "bachelor's degree". Anything else?
  • OVERLINK says "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Misplaced Pages, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates ..."
  • The quote "race for supremacy in the stratosphere" needs in-text attribution.
  • Added.
  • I think you need to say more about why Jean was difficult to deal with, if you mention it at all.
  • I handled Jean's problems as I saw fit. First introduced DeVorkin's overview, then mentioned he was difficult, and finally that they were both fired. You would like to see this in some other way. Unfortunately I can't be you. I put the first one (DeVorkin's) in a footnote. Does that work?
  • The section called Balloon is a little confusing; not clear how Jeanette fits in, especially, "The balloon then belonged to Jean and Jeannette but the armed forces again decided to use it." Not clear what that means, or what the connection is to the next sentence.
  • Agree. I will attend to this with review this weekend.
  • Do you have a source for "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother, and longtime Piccard family backer Goodyear were also reluctant to support a female pilot"?

SlimVirgin 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. Source added (I don't know what happened to that, thank you).
  • The source is actually Jeanette herself, which the article should make clear. The source you added says: "As Jeannette characterized it, 'The National Geographic Society would have nothing to do with sending a woman—a mother—in a balloon into danger.'"
SlimVirgin 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are right, the source there is Jeannette.

Hi Susan, I think you need to go through the article again and read it from the perspective of someone who hasn't read it before, and who knows nothing about Piccard. The aim is to tell the story as smoothly as possible, so there's nothing that will surprise the reader, or make them wonder what's being said. There are quite a few parts in it where it's not really clear. Just to take one example:

Jeannette and Jean became consultants to General Mills during the mid-1940s. They were annoying to the complex Navy project Helios, and at one point Jeannette threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean. They were both too critical of General Mills' Otto Winzen, and they were fired in 1947.

There's no indication what General Mills is. I know it's linked, but it would help to say what it was, and what kind of consultants they were. How were they annoying to the Navy project Helios, and what is the connection between General Mills and Helios i.e. what is the connection between these sentences? Why would they have to break ties to be allowed to fly together? In what way were they critical of Otto Winzen, and who is Otto Winzen? Why were they fired?

There are quite a few places like that in the article, where just the bare minimum of information is given with little to link the different points. Some fleshing out for flow would help a lot. Feel free to ping me if you want me to take another look. SlimVirgin 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can go through the whole thing this weekend. Thank you for your comments. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote this paragraph and changed a few other places. Does it read okay now? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That paragraph is a little bit better, but still not really clear:

The Piccards became consultants to General Mills (the cereal company) who developed cluster balloons with the Navy on a government contract during the mid-1940s. Jean was named a project scientist, but he functioned by title only and annoyed his colleagues who had to work around him. Piccard, who became annoying herself, threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean. They were both were fired in 1947, for they were too critical of General Mills staff.

Why was a cereal company developing cluster balloons; in what way did he annoy his colleagues—just by not pulling his weight? How did Piccard becoming annoying? Is "annoying" the best word; in what way were they critical of the staff; and who is saying all this? SlimVirgin 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

Hi, thanks for putting all this extra work into it, Susan. The problem I'm having with the article is mainly twofold. First, you're not mining your sources for colour about her. Not that much detail is known—the kind of detail that paints a three-dimensional picture—so to bring her alive you really need to suck everything out of the sources. I've written out one example to show you what I mean. This covers the issue of the foster children and that she attended Jean's lectures. Using two sources for those two points, New Mexico space museum and Gilruth, you wrote (this was when I first looked the article):

The Piccards had three sons, John, Paul, and Donald, as well as foster children. Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother" Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere.

The Piccards taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26. In 1926 they returned to the United States, where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The couple lived in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota; Jeannette attended many of his lectures there.

Using the same two sources, I'd have written something like this (I'm leaving out the issue of his being in the shadow of the brother, which I think I'd have placed elsewhere):

The Piccards had three sons of their own, John, Paul, and Donald, and appear to have opened their home to foster children too—the Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children, but nothing seems to be known about them. Robert Gilruth of NASA recalled having breakfast with Jean and Jeannette in a hotel when they went to St. Cloud for a balloon launch, and said they had lots of boys sitting around the table with them, the youngest dumping a cornflake box on his father's head at one point. Gilruth remembered Jean as a very gentle man—the epitome of a scientist who paid no attention to his hair or his clothes, but who focused only on his work—and that it was Jeannette who was in charge. She was at least half the brains of the family, he said, technically and otherwise.

Jean and Jeannette both taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26, returning in 1926 to the U.S. where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They lived in a number of places—Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania—before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean took a teaching job at the University of Minnesota. Jeannette didn't work there herself, but Gilruth said she was almost always in the room when Jean was lecturing. "She was something," he said. "She was good."

I'm not suggesting you have to write it that way, of course. You have to use your own style. But I think you do have to take as much as you can from the source material, given how little of it there is.

More added. Sorry to follow your example so closely! Is this better? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the right way to do it. You didn't really follow my example that closely. It's clearly your own. SlimVirgin 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The second problem is related. It's not clear the sources are being used completely accurately. One example: When I first saw the article, it said of National Geographic's failure to sponsor the flight, "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." with no source. I requested a source and you added a footnote to this webpage, but it didn't say that; it said Piccard herself claimed it. I pointed that out to you, and you added "Piccard remembered that the National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." —but you don't know whether she remembered it, or misremembered it, or exaggerated it, or made it up. And yet the thrust of that whole section, "Overcoming prejudice" (typo in the header, by the way), seems to rest on Piccard herself.

If you look at the Gilruth interview you use as a source, he addresses this issue. There's no mention of her being discriminated against because she was a woman. Rather both she and her husband felt discriminated against, but didn't know or wouldn't say why.

GILRUTH: Yes, I remember that Piccard was very, very hurt by the National Geographic that would not give them a dime, and they gave so much to these other people. ... Both he and Jeanette said that they were discriminated against by the National Geographic. That's not a good word. They were not aided in any way by the National Geographic, and they felt it was not really warranted. They felt they should have gotten some help from them.
DEVORKIN: They never said why.
GILRUTH: No, he didn't say why, but they certainly didn't feel they'd been handled fairly.
You're right about this! DeVorkin didn't mention discrimination either. I renamed the section and added a quote from Jeannette, and then Gilruth. Is that better? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's very good now. SlimVirgin 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel you need to go through the sources again, and do two things: make sure that everything relevant is in the article, with in-text attribution where it makes sense (and I think that's going to mean rewriting bits of it); and at the same time make sure it's all presented very accurately. I'm sorry not to be more positive about it at this point. It has the potential to be a gem of an article. I just don't feel that it's there yet. SlimVirgin 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your comments are wonderful. Unfortunately I am not a good writer. I don't think that I will be able to correct this to your liking. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree, Susan, I think you will. You just need to step back from it a little. I think what you are doing is trying to force too much of a structure on your sources, summarizing them too much. Read the sources again, and try to step back mentally when you write: let what they say flow through your fingertips, if I can put it that way. Let the reader see what you are seeing. Who is saying it, when are they saying it, what did they say, was it in an interview etc. It just needs fleshing out so it's clearer to the reader how much you know. Don't give up! :) SlimVirgin 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you've got it going now. Last night I was about ready to give up, and now it doesn't seem so impossible to do. One thing though, there needs to be a way to explain Jean's position. The DeVorkin quote about being under his brother's shadow said a lot to me. But now it's in a footnote. Possibly a part of the newly named "funding" section would work, to say he needed a job in science? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's important too, though the article shouldn't make more of it than the sources do. If a source says he needed a job in science because he felt under the shadow, then good, but otherwise we should just have it as part of a character analysis. Also in that section, the source doesn't say that the other companies didn't want to support because she was a woman, so that needs to be removed. I would include Gilruth as the source for this too: that several companies didn't want to support, and Jean and Jeannette felt discriminated against, though Jean never said why. Jeannette later said it was because she was a mother, in her view etc. Something like that. Again, be guided entirely by what the sources say, and name them where appropriate. Don't hold back on telling the reader what you know, and how you know it. SlimVirgin 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Correction made. You're right again about this source. Gilruth, however, said nothing about any other organization than National Geographic. There are several questions for you above. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
But you can use Gilruth as a source combined with the others to produce a more general statement about the lack of sponsorship. SlimVirgin 18:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I see you've done it already. It's much better. SlimVirgin 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Her name again—sorry, I think it might be better to call her Jeannette throughout. I know you've gone back and forth on this one, but I've just noticed this, for example: "Piccard was the mother of a house full of boys. Robert R. Gilruth, one of Jean's students and collaborators, said later in his oral history, that he remembered a breakfast he had with the Piccards in a St. Cloud, Minnesota hotel before a balloon launching, "I don't know how many there were. It seems like there was a dozen.... I remember the youngest one took the corn flake box and dumped it on his father's head. Of course, Piccard just brushed it off his head and said, 'No, no.'" It might be clearer if you just plumped for Jeannette. It's up to you, though, whichever you feel easier with. SlimVirgin 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed back to Jeannette. Because this was a suggestion from the very first GA review, I think we ought to stop changing it back and forth now. The priest section maybe isn't as good this way, but it is less than half the article. So, done. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fine but you had better add it to the article. The lead should summarize the article. Also someone (not you) has added four dubious sources about the Concorde and, as long as I'm complaining, I'm having trouble removing them (they are formatted differently than the article's sources). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Things in the lead don't have to be in the article too. The lead should sum up the subjects that are covered in the article, and it does that. Anyway, it's up to you entirely—if you want to remove anything, please feel free. I'm wondering if maybe this FAC should be withdrawn so you're not under so much pressure. You could then check all the sources and expand or polish at your leisure and resubmit in a few weeks. Again, just a suggestion. SlimVirgin 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, are you saying that you cannot forsee supporting this now? I thought that the article was so much improved that you would. For heavens sake, thank you for your help! -SusanLesch (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

Susan, you've improved it a lot, but there's still a fair bit of work ahead. The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-) The article has to be comprehensive about her life (the technical stuff about other flights matters less, in my view), and there can't be anything confusing in the text. I'm concerned that things are still appearing in sources that weren't in the original text e.g. that she was the first of the first 11 to be ordained—it's a small detail but it's the kind of thing a good bio hangs on, because that must have been a very emotional moment for her, especially for a woman who wanted to be the first this, the first that—and there may be other material like that out there.

The notes and refs are a bit untidy looking, with some sentences having multiples refs or notes after or inside them e.g. "That same year she met and married Jean Felix Piccard, who was teaching at the university." The untidiness apart, both of the things in notes would benefit from being in the text. And why would this sentence—"On November 20, 1933, with only a few hundred onlookers this time, Settle and Maj. Chester L. Fordney of the U.S. Marine Corps flew the Century of Progress balloon from Akron, Ohio, reaching 61,237 feet (18,665 m), a new Fédération Aéronautique Internationale altitude record."—need three refs and an additional note after it? Ideally, you shouldn't have refs inside sentences or multiple refs after sentences unless they're really needed. There are no hard and fast rules, but when you're adding multiple refs and notes like that, always be asking yourself how necessary they are, because they do force the reader's eye toward them and away from the text. I see you had a few multiple refs before you brought the article to FAC, but they've increased as you're trying to add and pin down material.

Some of the writing is still unclear e.g. "Jeannette reportedly made "unplanned and impulsive manoeuvres" resulting in an incomplete record of their actions during the flight"—why would that result in an incomplete record? "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean ..." but in what sense? He didn't fly, but was he otherwise involved? "The balloon then belonged to the Piccards but the armed forces again decided to use it." Belonged to them in what sense? Did they not want the armed forces to use it? "Henry Ford offered the use of his hangar and brought Orville Wright to observe a flight in 1933." Observe what flight (one of hers?), and would it be better to explain who Orville Wright is? You don't include a lot of Time's details e.g. that Henry Ford was there for the 1934 flight, or that Time regarded it as basically a stunt.

Also, is everything carefully sourced? E.g. "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean, who, with Jeannette, was to be given the balloon and gondola ..." Does the source say "with Jeanette"?

I'm happy to support if you can sort out the issues, and I take my hat off to you for sticking with it, but I'm thinking you might feel under less pressure without an open nomination. SlimVirgin 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Susan, I thought it might help if you were to read some other bios of non-living women to see how they deal with chronology versus other ways of structuring, and how they lay out refs. Some FAs about women as examples: Alice Ayres, Emmeline Pankhurst, Mary Toft, Ima Hogg, and Harriet Bosse. SlimVirgin 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the examples. I've read Pankhurst's before but not the others.
  • Most of the refs are combined, so they don't interrupt the reader. There are a couple remaining, like "a claim allowed even by Valentina Tereshkova."" which could be eliminated with more tricks. But combined refs are getting pretty complicated—other people may want to edit in the future. What do you think? Do they look all right now?
  • The Time story is interesting for calling it a stunt. The article does mention DeVorkin's point that "manned balloon flight" was basically wrong-headed, but only once. I could expand on this sentence (it's at the end of "Legacy") if you like.
  • Yes, the source says "with Jeannette".
  • I added to the "Balloon" section.
  • "The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-)" Yes, but actually I did quite a lot of this and in the same spirit. Yesterday you added quotes to the lead, that weren't in the article the day before. Two more new quotes added to the "Planning and pilot's license" section today.
  • Speaking of which, Time is the only source for her being the "first licensed woman balloon pilot". I panicked for a second, failing to find my source in Google. But Time should be okay.

Made quite a bit of progress today. Do you have other issues? Thank you for hanging in there! -SusanLesch (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting much better, including the refs. Bear in mind that not everything that's in the lead needs to be repeated in the article, quotations particularly. The point of saying the lead needs to reflect the article is just to make sure you don't add something like, "And in 1945 she sailed off the top of the highest building in New York," but then fail to elaborate in the text. :) It doesn't cover every detail or quote, or things added for colour. SlimVirgin 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement. (Yes, you're right. I used to conflate WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY into a made-up rule for the lead being a summary. This was mistaken although it might have helped stop front-loading in some articles especially about politicians.) I have the whole day today free after lunch. Do you you think we are there or do you have any more issues I can work on? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's just a question of making sure everything that's known about her is in the article, or that you've decided not to include it—but there shouldn't be anything significant that you don't know about. And then polishing, polishing, polishing to create a smooth read, to make sure there are no jagged edges in the sentences, or in the way the story flows. Make sure that each sentence flows into the next, that they all make sense as stand-alone sentences, and that each paragraph flows into the next. The reader shouldn't be left feeling puzzled or surprised. Ask yourself whether you've explained everything clearly. What happened to Jean being difficult to worth with, by the way? SlimVirgin 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Jean's problems are in the scans I sent you. From my talk page, I thought you were going to write that section? Also, I thought that the goal of what I am doing is for you to support this article. It is surely a better article since you commented, and if there are no other issues, then it would be great to see a supporting vote. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That was the General Mills paragraph I was going to look at; sorry I haven't done it, but I wasn't expecting to have to read 18 pages to find it. :) The thing I was talking about above is that you referred to him being difficult in an earlier version of the balloon section, but it's gone now. SlimVirgin 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I added some generalities in the "Balloon" section. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
You added, "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life in the shadow of his brother, which made him difficult for the fair organizers to deal with." But it again begs the question of what kind of difficulty, and what the link is between that and his brother. And later when you say he caused misunderstandings and annoyances—what kind and how? The picture you're painting isn't coming alive for the reader. For example, look at the first and second sections. There's no narrative link between them explaining how Jeannette became a balloonist and why. Why did the organizers of the 1933 decide to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon: what was she doing that made her part of the picture? If we don't know, that's fine, but I'm wondering if there are sources out there that explain. And later on, what did she do to become an inventor of the plastic balloon?

I wonder whether your taking a break from reading or editing the article would help. I know I've been in situations with articles where I've read them so often that I stop being able to see the problems. A short break can make all the difference. I'm really sorry I can't support it at the moment. SlimVirgin 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an update. I undid the above additions. Two quick things.

  • There is no source that I know of for why Jeannette became a balloonist, but it must have been her association with her husband. (This becomes original research which we don't do here.) Instead of making that up, there is now a quote from DeVorkin at the end of the "Family and education" section. It works as a transition.
  • There is no source for why Jeannette invented the plastic balloon. Unfortunately I will need to drop this paragraph because I myself have not seen the book to which it refers. I asked Don Piccard who told me this, specific questions about the invention. But Toledo, DeVorkin would have mentioned it if it were literally true. One has to be very careful on Misplaced Pages not to assign "firsts" and "inventions" because of the broad base of input. Safest I think to completely drop it.

I expect to continue work on the "Later life..." section today, which will relieve SlimVirgin from having to read 30 pages of scans of detailed source. Thanks very much for the offer. _SusanLesch (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we have a whole new article and to celebrate I named a section "Auguste and Jean" followed by "Balloon and Thomas Settle flights". I don't think that we need to go into any more detail about the General Mills consultancies, and I added only the name of Otto Winzen who made the proposal behind them. I will keep working on the English and punctuation while waiting for some feedback. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting much better. The writing is more professional, and the story's starting to flow. Still a few spots that aren't entirely clear. For example, "Unfortunately, Jean became a major annoyance when he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, and when he sought to go over the flight organizers' heads by contacting the president of the fair (who was a friend of Jeannette's father)." What does the source say exactly? You cite DeVorkin, pp. 59, 74, 76. Specifically I'm wondering why they would have objected to his finding funding himself, and what he tried to go over their heads about.
The first isn't really explained well. "Unfortunately, Jean became an annoyance. When he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, he told them the flight from Soldier Field in Chicago could be dangerous, and was turned down." What is the flight from Soldier Field; is it the balloon flight? And how could it not be dangerous? What does the source actually say about these issues (and the contacting of the president)? SlimVirgin 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Further down, who were the two Nobel Prize winners? Also, you mention the Piccard-Compton flight before you've mentioned Compton. And "During the negotiations, the organizers agreed to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon and gondola after its initial flight, in exchange for Jean remaining on the ground." Why would they have to do that? If the Piccards were annoying them, were not flying, and were not allowed to find independent funding, what did the organizers want from them that caused them to promise the Piccards the balloon? And, "Eventually, Jean was demoted from science observer to not flying at all." Is a science observer necessarily someone who flies?
  • Nobel prize winners omitted for now. (They were Compton and Millikan.) In their place, the article might answer your next question now (the name Piccard was that famous). Does it answer?
  • If not I'll go back the other way (but it seems like wasted energy). Do you think Compton followed by Compton is still a problem? If so, that requires surgery.
  • Added "inflight" before "science observer". Sorry for the mixup. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You suddenly introduce this quote at the launch—"The sportsmanship and unselfishness displayed by Dr. Jean Piccard in surrendering his place in the balloon so that a greater altitude may be achieved through the lessened weight of himself and his equipment—is a note of sacrifice that will not be forgotten"—without having mentioned before that he was giving up a place to make the balloon lighter. SlimVirgin 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think Jean ever gave up. But you're right, this was abrupt. Added a bit about an MoU that Jean signed (but I risk putting something else out of order). How does it look? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But you don't mention the issue of the balloon needing to be lighter. You say they didn't want him to fly, but not why. And you give the impression he was fighting to stay in the balloon, not that he made a grand sacrifice. So was the quote at the launch just politics? These things all need to be explained. You're introducing material out of the blue, that's the problem. SlimVirgin 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but 'Jean signed a memorandum of understanding with the organizers that said he would remain on the ground, "permitting Commander Settle to go alone. The reduction in weight thereby produced will most assuredly enable Commander Settle to reach a higher altitude".' seems to be a direct answer to your question. What am I missing? Or are you missing? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You talk all the way through about he wanted to fly, thought he was flying, had to be promised the balloon so that he'd agree not to fly. Then you suddenly tell us that, at the launch, he was thanked for an act of self-sacrifice, the point of which was to make the balloon lighter. But the launch (or now the memorandum) is the first time you've mentioned the weight issue. Also, this sentence needs to be fixed: "After battling with an associate of the fair's director of concessions who wanted Jean out of the picture and then wanted Auguste to return to the U.S. to fly, the Piccard name (which bore considerable publicity value) was kept prominently ..." This says that the Piccard name was battling. I assume it was Jean who was battling. But that again raises the question about the sacrifice issue. SlimVirgin 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've been hoping this could be sorted out, and it is indeed improving, but progress is slow and I don't see it being fixed for quite some time at this rate. The issues are 1(a) prose problems—the writing is unclear in places, sentences are disjointed, names and events are introduced without prior explanation, and the connections between people and events are often confused. 1(b) I'm not confident that the article reflects everything that's out there, or that the sources that have been used have been consulted thoroughly. 1(c) I have concerns that the material isn't staying true to the source material.

    I was also concerned yesterday to see that, after 14 days at FAC, there was still original research in the article (about Jeannette being the inventor of the plastic balloon, something the nominator was told privately) and it only came to light because I asked about it. That makes me wonder what else is not properly sourced. I'm sorry, Susan. I'd advise you to try to work on it some more, then take it to peer review. I'd be happy to help review it there if you wanted me to. SlimVirgin 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. DeVorkin, p. 363
  2. DeVorkin, p. 2
  3. "Jean Piccard". New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs: New Mexico Museum of Space History. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
  4. ^ Gilruth, Dr. Robert (May 14, 1986). "NASM Oral History Project, Gilruth #2". Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  5. Cite error: The named reference Item1-LOC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. "Jean Piccard". New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs: New Mexico Museum of Space History. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
  7. DeVorkin, p. 363