Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 23 December 2009

December 2009

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 02:50, 23 December 2009 .

Economic history of China (pre-1911)

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a year and has expanded it from being a stub to a rather large article. It successfully passed GA during the summer and although it was rejected in it's first FAC in september, many improvements have been made then which addressed the issues of no alt text, dodgy sources, and the problems of the beginning section. With these improvements, I feel justified to nominate this article for FA again, as a christmas gift to wikipedia. Please feel free to comment.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

• As you said, the article now has alt text. The alt for the Warring States period map should describe what the map is trying to show, not simply the appearance of the map (see WP:ALT#Maps).
  • Speaking of that map, it should not have that name watermark (see WP:IUP#Watermarks, credits, and distortions).
• Many ambiguous links, which include one that points back to the article. Don't let readers trip over them—replace them with more specific ones.
• Ref 3's external link is dead. Also, add titles (at least) to the ""-style external links (e.g., ref 125), and replace Wikisource and other sister-project URLs with, e.g., ] (which produces 揚州十日記).

Good luck. --an odd name 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed all the dead links and bad redirects.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I clothed a bare Wikisource URL; check for any others. The map alt is improved (with your slight edit); it still feels like it focuses on the map instead of its content, but I'll leave that for others to decide on. Still has that credit (I hope Yeu Ninje/Yu Ninjie is still around and can remove it and its border). These are, of course, minor things given the large article. :) --an odd name 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out to me what you mean by the "credit"? By the way I have checked an dI don't think there are more URL's. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The image says "Drawn by Yu Ninjie." in its lower right. It isn't intrusive (you were wondering what I meant, after all!), but as the tags on the file's page explain, such credit insertion is discouraged by Wikimedia Commons policy in favor of EXIF information. (I guess Commons users wouldn't like arcade games.) --an odd name 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to recheck (again), but I see little difference for the unstruck issues. I think the Warring States alt text could still be better, something like "The Zhou Civilization consisted of state 1, state 2, ... in the north China plain, and scattered areas to the west and south." instead of concentrating on the map appearance; again, see WP:ALT#Maps. I also still see the image credit. --an odd name 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, user:AnOddName, I notified you but then forgot to do the changes. They have been changed now, I promise. The alt text has been changed to:

A terrain map of China highlighting regions mostly in the north China plain near rivers. The map labels "ZHOU CIVILIZATION" and contains about a dozen labels indicating the various states of China, such as YUE on the southern coast, QIN in the western inland regions, YAN on the northern coast, QI on the central oast, WEI, HAN, AND ZHAO in the central plains, LU and SONG in the Eastern plains, and CHU in the Southern inland regions

and the credit removed. Can you give your support now?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely (fully or partially) support large articles, and any I do fully support are ones that I'm really familiar with (certain video games, etc.) and after several read-throughs (deep source checks, last bits of copyediting, etc.); so consider my comments guidance for reviewers (and yourself). Thank you for addressing them, though; good linking and alt text helps make an article verifiable and readable. --an odd name 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article talks about "China's three Golden Ages" but then lists four: Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Kang-Qian. There is no mention of the Kang-Qian golden age in Google Scholar, so I expect that one's the interloper. (That hyphen should be an endash, by the way; see WP:ENDASH.) Also, please don't capitalize "golden age" in phrases like "Tang golden age". Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kang-Qian "golden age" is used by some scholars, but is regarded as a period of economic stagnaton by others (due to the rule of the Manchus). The other three were recognized as golden ages though. Also, endash fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Eubulides, weren't you here around the last time? Can you give this article your support this time?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem; I struck it. I like everything I see in the article now and I have checked the alt text, but I'm afraid I haven't had the time to read the whole article reaally carefully, which is what I need to do before supporting. Eubulides (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

External links and map also fixed.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: WP:LEAD is meant to summarize contents, so why are here so many randomly picked, one-sided quotes put so prominently into place? The assertions that China were the "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture", etc. are each very strong and very debatable assertions. In fact, there is a myriad of differing opinions on the comparative wealth of pre-modern societies. Just one counterexample by a renowned economist (Raymond Goldsmith (1984): An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire“, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 30, no. 3, September, pp. 263-288 (280)):

As the standard of living in Diocletian's time is likely to have been below that of the early Empire expenditures per adult should have been above 200 IU which compares with 370 IU per occupied person in Italy in 1893, 163 IU in Brazil in 1928, 138 IU in China in 1933 and 132 IU in India in 1867/68.

This means that the ancient Roman Empire (200 IU) actually had a significantly higher living standard as China at the brink of its entry into the industrial age (138 IU). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how is the article not summarized, eh? What is this, mr. Ma?

By roughly 10,000 BCE, in the Neolithic era, agriculture was practiced in China. Stratified bronze-age cultures, such as Erlitou, emerged by the third millennium BCE. Under the Shang (ca. 1600–1045 BCE) and Zhou (1045–771 BCE), a dependent labor force worked in large-scale foundries and workshops to produce bronzes and silk for the elite. The agricultural surpluses produced by the manorial economy of these dynasties supported these early handicraft industries, as well as urban centers and considerable armies. However, this system began to break up after the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty in 771 BCE, which lead to the Spring and Autumn and Warring states eras.

By 500 BCE, Chinese society, economy, and government were rapidly changing. As the feudal system collapsed, much legislative power was transferred to local kings. A merchant class emerged during the Warring States Period, resulting in increased trade. The emperors established an elaborate bureaucracy, using it to wage imperial wars, build large temples, and perform public works projects. This new system rewarded talent over birthright; important positions were no longer occupied solely by nobility. An agricultural revolution, caused by the adoption of new iron tools, led to a large population increase during this period. By 221 BCE, the state of Qin, which embraced reform more than other states, unified China, built the Great Wall, and set consistent standards of government. Although its draconian laws led to its overthrow in 206 BCE, the Qin institutions survived. During the Qin, China became a strong, unified, and centralized empire of self-sufficient farmers and artisans, though limited local autonomy remained.

The Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) brought additional economic reforms. Paper money, the printing press, the compass, and other technological advances led to communication on a large scale and the widespread circulation of books. The state began to exercise less power, allowing private merchants to prosper. These new technologies and knowledge, coupled with less bureaucratic control of merchants, allowed a large increase in investment and profit. Despite disruptions during the Mongol conquest of 1279, the Ming Dynasty continued the Song's development of the economy. However, when the isolationist Qing Dynasty came into power, China's economic development began to slow. The discovery of America and the wealth of India aided Europe in rapidly developing during the Industrial Revolution as China's economy slowed—an event known as the great divergence. In 1820, China accounted for 33% of the world's GDP, but barely a hundred years later China accounted for only 9%.

As for the quotes, if you don't like them, find your own sources. Just cause magazines like the economist and scholars like ebrey don't agree with your POV, doesn't mean they're wrong. Not to mention you forgot all about the massive improvement in agriculture during the Han and later the Song, that made Chinese agricultural technology much more productive than the west until the 18th century. The fact that Roman grain couldn't even be transported from Italy to Rome on land says a lot. But, in any case, what does this have to do with article quality? The introduction is structured as four paragraphs, one to quote some statements about the ancient Chinese economy and three later ones to summarize it's roughly 4,000 year duration. Teeninvestor (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Any of the hyperbolic assertions in the lead, that China was "largest economy", "the highest income per capita", "unrivalled material culture" etc. is not discussed in and thus not supported by the article. Hence, they have no place in the lead. And if it were discussed in the continuous text, you would quickly find out that none of these claims can be maintained in that totality. I am not saying they are outright wrong, but that there is a mountain of scholarly literature to the contrary effect. I gave you one reference to the contrary, I could give many more. Even more importantly, all experts are painful to stress how utmost difficult it is to estimate the economic performance of pre-1800 states, even in the grossest order. But you present a carefully selected bouquet of convenient quotes simply as fundamental facts. Pure POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the "controversial statements" have been stated as "according to so-and-so", which shows who made the statements and does not present them as fact. In addition, the quotes were not inserted by me; they were there when the article was still a stub. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, they have been removed per request of Gun Powder Ma.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gun Powder Ma? You still there?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Teeinvestor, yes I am. :-) And I am still taking issue with the remaining quote. For example, data compiled by the macro-economist Angus Maddison shows the GP per capita in Western Europe to be larger than China's at all points in time, save 1000 AD. And for the supposed flow of inventions westward, do you have examples from post-1350? You might want to carefully check Jesuit China missions#Scientific exchange in that context, too. PS: Ancient China never did printing by the printing press, an invention made by Johannes Gutenberg. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, the invention claimed in question is Movable type, so that will be corrected. Also, per your advice, I will restructure the first paragraph so it would not include any quotes. Anything else?

But, seriously, the claim that western Europe had a higher GDP per capita than China at all times is beyond stupidity. No one can seriously doubt that Chinese agricultural techniques were vastly superior to that of Europe until the 18th century (See the work of Needham for that). Also, Angus Maddison has only two estimates (1 CE and 1000 CE)for periods before 1500, so saying that his measurements indicate China's GDP per capita was lower than Europe's "except for 1000" says very little(Maddison also believed India had a population of 150 million in 1000; care to take that up?). In addition, what about this passage from the article on Maddison's book ("Among other things, it confirms Adam Smith's view that China and India were at a higher or comparable level with Europe from the 1st century til late 18th century, but also static whereas Europe was fast progressing. It also shows them recovering lost ground from the 1950s, and documents the much faster rise of Japan and East Asia and the economic shrinkage of Russia in the 1990s.")However, I do not see how this relates to the article's FAC.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So why were the comparative quotes included in the lead for so long? And there are still a lot of uncalled and inaccurate comparisons:

• Another one here: "The economy boomed during the Han, whose population of 58 million exceeded the Roman Empire". This only attributes to the low count of the Imperium; the high count of the Roman Empire is around 100 mio (see Walter Scheidel's work on ancient population).
• Also the sharp decline during the Yuan dynasty is not solely due to the Mongolian onslaught, but to an equal degree to the plague which also ravaged Europe at about the same time (cf. William McNeill: Plagues and Peoples).
• "In the sixth century BCE, among other innovations, the iron plow, row cultivation, and intensive hoeing were introduced. These techniques spread rapidly, but were limited to China until the Agricultural Revolution in Europe" Why is then a Roman iron plow displayed in the British Museum at London? (cf. Propyläen Technikgeschichte, Vol. 1, p. 209, fig. 59)
• "These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts" Only 30 times? So one Chinese peasant was as productive as 30 European ones? Did he have a tractor? Totally implausible number in a comparison between pre-industrial societies.
• Please note that a FAC is not a peer review which should precede the former. Users participating in this FAC are not required to give a point by point analysis, but to give an overall judgement. Mine is that too many facts are just inaccurate and that the article often pursues a silent agenda of trying to favourably contrast China with the West - for whatever reason. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No offense, as you've done an amazing job, but this is an encyclopedia, not a novel. At about 100,000 bytes of prose, this really needs to be significantly trimmed or split. I'm usually one to advocate a merge, but this is 44 pages of text. I would love to review this, but hardly anyone can handle that much. Reywas92 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Still long, but it is a much more acceptable length now. Thanks! Reywas92 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would love to cut it down, but usually FA's are this size because of the requirements need to be fulfilled(have to cover all of the topic) and the scope of the topic (the economic history of the oldest continous civilization on Earth!). See for example Ming Dynasty and Han Dynasty, which are FA's about the same size as this one but covering just the affairs of one dynasty, while this one covers the affairs of an entire country.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you are trying to cover the full scope of your subject in a single article. This could easily be three articles, covering repectively the pre-imperial, early imperial and late imperial periods. These articles would be of reasonable length and much more reviewable. I have a brief comment on sources, below Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty did not pass FAC at its current size; it has grown considerably post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As of now the article is only about 80% of the size of the Ming Dynasty article, and about 70% of the Tang Dynasty article, both FA's. In fact, the current article is about the same size as the Ming Dynasty article when it passed it's FAC.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources query: The formatting of online sources is inadequate. Refs 124, 203 and 234 give no indication of title, publisher or access date. As a matter of interest I followed up on 124, dealing with the 27% of world GDP claim. The source is an article in the Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, quoting comments made by the Mayor of Shanghai in a speech to some policy forum in 1997. I can't help feeling that more scholarly sources should be used to back up statements made in the article. The mayor in question may or may not have expertise in this field, and I don't think it should be assumed that he has. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the source about the Mayor in question and added adequate publisher information on the third source, on potatos. As to your belief that the article should be split, my belief is that the coverage of Economic history of China would be way too troublesome- We would have three "premodern articles" and one modern article, not to mention the mess that is

Well good luck to you, but Featured Topics exist precisely for when a subject needs a clutch of articles to do it justice. The dynasty articles would be harder to split as they deal with single dynasties, but this article deals with the concept of an "economy" which does not have to be considered as a unity. Anyway, the fact that other very long articles exist is not in itself a justification. I believe you have a better chance of getting featured status via a topic...but the decision is yours. Brianboulton (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've considered that previously (see archives of talk page), but I've come to the conclusion that splitting it would result in too much confusion for the reader- there would be several "premodern" articles, and one modern article. The article is long, I acknowledge that; however, it has a "reasonable" length, similar to many FA's already listed.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on reducing the size of the article- the article's length has already been reduced by about 10 percent. The prose size currently is definitely below 100KB (the upper limit), and possibly 80 KB.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support It is extremely difficult to present thousands of years of history in one single article, and user Teeninvestor's courage and determination is to be congratulated. This article deserves to become a featured article. Arilang 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a support declaration? (For that matter, do you mean "deserves"? The candidacy is still active!) --an odd name 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 213 (Information ..) lacks a last access date and the publisher and authorship information is run into the link title.
• Is current ref 208 (Wang Shochu) a book? Also, is it in Chinese? If it's in a non-English language, needs to be noted in the ref. If it's a book needs page numbers and the title italicised.
• The Fairbank title China a New History lacks publisher information

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wang Shicou is a first-hand primary account of the massacre, and it being written in Chinese has been noted. Ref 213 have been fixed(last access date added). Where is the "China a new history" source? I can't find it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairbank is in the bibliography/list of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved(Fairbank title added). Anything else?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose and Speedy close. Ill-sourced tendentious embarassment. I pass over the lead, which has been duly criticized by others. The very first actual section contains: With the collapse of the Western Zhou Dynasty, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history. This is one conjecture about the collapse of the Zhou for which we have very few documents, all of them chiefly interested in the politics of a manorial elite. No source is given, of any kind, for this eminently challengeable assertion - a WP:V violation; it should not be claimed at all, in Misplaced Pages's voice, unless it were consensus of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the most widely backed up citations in the article. If you would read more of the article, there are at least several dozen citations talking about the collapse of the feudal system at the end of the Eastern Zhou(the copyeditor got it wrong), from multiple sources, from either encyclopedia of China history to Cambridge history of China to others. The only reason I didn't cite it earlier was because there were already many many citations in the rest of the article documenting this fact. For your preference, I could literally add ten citations to support that sentence. I have added two to show already the consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The "collapse of the Eastern Zhou" is at least widely acknowledged to refer to something that actually occurred. But that's not what the article text said, is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a more correct term would be the "end" of the Eastern Zhou, since the Zhou Dynasty had virtually ceased to exist by 771 BCE, though the dynasty itself lasted de jure until the 3rd century BCE. What the article says, and all the sources agree on, is that the feudal system began to break down by the end of the Spring & Autumn Era and by the time of the Qin Dynasty, it had largely ended. This is something that all my sources agree on. The part under consideration is reproduced here, as follows:

By the end of the Spring and Autumns period, however, this system began to collapse and was replaced by a more vibrant and free economy of self-sufficient farmers and artisans by the Warring States Era. This transformation was completed when the State of Qin unified China in 221 BCE, ushering in the imperial era of Chinese history

Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This revised version is at least not talking ahistoric nonsense. "Vibrant and free", however, is WP:PEACOCK, and "self-sufficient" is largely meaningless. What were they before, depending on the handouts of feudal lords? (and if the vassals weren't self-sufficient, where were the feudal lords getting the handouts? Direct from Heaven?)

Use of feudal for any state outside Europe (and its direct dependencies) is an ill-defined and semi-literate abuse of language.

8*The Zhou dynasty defeated the Shang around 1045 BCE and took control of the Wei and Yellow River valleys that the Shang had dominated. This is exactly like providing dates for Romulus or the Trojan war; it can be done, and has been done far too often; but it is reifying mythology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the sources say. A section from the "Cambridge history of China" is reproduced below:

In the opinion of this writer, parallels with European

feudalism are sufficiently close to justify use of the term during the first four or five centuries of the Chou period. Thereafter, however, it must be applied in an increasingly restricted sense to describe only the vestiges of feudal conditions persisting in varying degrees within the major principalities. These, by the beginning of the Warring States period, had become

completely independent nation-states.

That's an opinion; as would be evident to a more careful reader, this is a minority opinion which this author is willing to defend - not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An opinion that is shared by all scholarly sources on Chinese history. I can reproduce ten more quotations on this if necessary in Chinese, English, and perhaps other languages. You would be hard pressed to find a single author that didn't, call the Zhou system feudalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a downright falsehood. Any article written by someone who believes it will be a public embarrassment, as this one is. Please let's keep it off the front page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Downright falsehood? Do you want me to reproduce tons of quotations now? Even read the Zhou Dynasty article???? Even that says what it is, feudalism. If you don't know anything about your topic, don't talk..Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you. On any such question, especially after decades of immersion in ideology, there will be tons of quotations on both sides, even if the tonnages are unequal. Actually reading books on feudalism, from Marc Bloch onward, might improve your cocksureness; looking for disconfirmation would be the responsible thing to do. I will be pleasantly surprised by either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As to self-sufficient, the term is used to refer to the farmers producing only for their own subsistence, rather than for the market, which was the case during the later Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty. When you referred to "vibrant and free", did you notice there was a "more" in front of it(in comparison to the feudal period).

That's not what self-sufficient means. Strongly oppose articles written in neologisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Second oppose debolded; also, please sort and correctly thread the commentary above so it is apparent who wrote/signed what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is what "self-sufficient" means:

Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy. On a large scale, a totally self-sufficient economy that does not trade with the outside world is called an autarky.

Peasant farmers during this period produced for their own consumption(e.g., they make shoes instead of buying it and eat what they produce), rather than sell to the market. That would be the definition of "self-sufficiency". Later farmers, on the other hand, who produced cash crops like cotton were not "self-sufficient"(you can't eat it).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the OED 's first definition: Sufficient in or for oneself (itself) without aid or support from outside; able to supply one's needs oneself. As they go on to say, it is ot now used of persons.

The current meaning is Of persons, groups, or nations: able to provide enough of a commodity (as food, oil) to supply one's own needs, without obtaining goods from elsewhere; self-reliant, self-supporting, independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "self-sufficiency" used in the article is standard throughout Economic history. If you read 19th cenutry treatises on economics, they are already talking about the difference between the "Natural or self-sufficient" and "market economy". Generally, the peasantry produced for its own needs and what little exchange did occur was through bartar. The land was divided into thousands of small farms which produced for its own consumption. This is in total contrast to the later economy of the Song, Ming and Qing, in which farmers worked as tenants on large estates to produce cash crops such as tea and cotton for sale on the market.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read several of the standard eighteenth and nineteenth century works on economics; but I would not use their vocabulary in writing an encyclopedia article in the twenty-first - unless it was on Smith or Mill or Ricardo and I had defined their use of the term first. Neither is true here. This article is not ready for prime time, and Teeninvestor's unwillingness to listen to his fellow editors ensures it will remain as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Me not listening to my fellow editors? Look at yourself, pmanderson. You've made an entire page of comments for a date of 1045 BCE that had "by traditional dating" in front of it and tryng to change the meaning of "self-sufficiency"? Who's not listening here? In the two FAC's you haven't provided a single piece of actionable advice, instead moaning over the meaning of words like feudal and self-sufficiency. You don't even understand the topic; if you're not going to provide any constructive advice, why are you here?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My actionable advice is to take out all non-consensus statements, which will be nearly everything before the Burning of the Books (if that happened). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not defined by you, Pmanderson, but by the sources. I'm sorry if the scholars and academics who spent their life researching their subject don't agree with you, that's just too bad. And no, that's not actionable advice. That's rambling.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The date of 1045 BCE is the traditional date for the fall of the Shang Dynasty. Perhaps traditional date should be added.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should be removed, as should the implication that the "traditional history" of China is factual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, pmanderson, if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. If the traditional history of China was regarded as unfactual, can you please explain to me where and when the Great wall and Great canal came from? In fact, historians have precise dates for every event in Chinese history up to 841 BCE. The doubt that the event occured in 1045 BCE is why the word "around" was put near it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

if the traditional history of China is not factual, then no history written before 1800 is. Tacitus? Guiccardini? Sarpi? Gibbon? The Han Annals? Most of Sima Qian? If you don't know or recognize the difference between these and the Western Zhou, study historiography at length before any more helpful contributions, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you just said the "traditional history" of China is not factual. That includes the Han Shu(not the Han annals as you described them). Also, as for the date of 1045 BCE, that was a date that was computed using the Shiji Sima Qian. Yes, I do recognize the difference between Western Zhou and Han records, but these dates were actually records from the Han period and plus, the word "around" is just before it, if you didn't notice.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice around. It seems inadequate for "within a century either way, if this event ever happened at all". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you think the Shang Dynasty was never overthrown? Also, notice three words at the beginning By traditional dating . As to the reliability of the Zhou records, note that written records have already been present for hundreds of years by the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty. This would make the date more accurate, then say, the founding of the Shang.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heavens give me patience; anyone who would cite oracle bones, surviving without history or context, as "written records" is attempting to fool himself, not his fellow editors.

What never existed (or cannot be reliably stated to exist), like the Shang as a universal dynasty, cannot have been overthrown. I also disbelieve in the Xia and the Yellow Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shang surely did exist, though their domain was smaller than the Zhou. If you think the Shang did not exist, then you are going against between several decades of archaeological evidence. As to the Xia and the Yellow Emperor, it is debatable whether they existed (Though there are archaeological evidence pointing to the Xia's existence, see Erlitou culture), but that is apparently not the topic under discussion. Look, pmanderson, if the date on the founding of the Zhou Dynasty has to be removed, then all dates for any state founded before 500 BCE would have to be also.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shang of legend are surely reflections of the archaeological culture. Whether that culture had a single dynasty, and whether that dynasty claimed universal rule, are unknowable without a time machine. Whether (if they existed) they were defeated close enough to 1045 BC to justify the precision of the number might be hard to determine with a time machine. If Teeninventor has one, he is wasting his time here. If he does not, he is wasting ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you neglected the fact the oracle bones had this little thing called writing on them, and this sort of helps archaeologists and historians determine the specific facts of that period such as if the Shang dynasty fell around 1045 BCE. Besides, what has this to do with the article, whose main focus is on Economic history, and only mentioned this fact in passing? What does this have to do with whether the article should be an FA?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor hasn't done anything so untoward as reading this writing, clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If he had, he would have observed that these are oracles, not a narrative history. If he were a competent editor, he would not insist on mentioning traditionalist fantasies "in passing". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond to this snide personal attack.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How am I mentioning "traditionalist fantasies" in passing? Please stop yur personal attacks on me. The records of oracle bones Prove the existence of the Shang Dynasty; they mention a king, a government, a rough idea of what terroritory they controlled, etc... If you doubt this, please consult Cambridge history of ancient China.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose with about 70 sub-subsections, many of which being only one paragraph long, and with zero graphs/table to show some historic variation for a quick glimpse of somebody not well aware of the subject, I feel that this article is very poorly structured. Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article's broad topic and FA requirements to cover the entire scope of the topic, it is very difficult to shorten what's left of the article (which is about 50% of its former size). The non presence of graphs/tables is because such graphs and tables to measure ancient economic activity is simply not available. You can't find any graphs or tables on Economy of the Han Dynasty and Economy of the Byzantine Empire, either.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even try to look? FA criteria says among other things that the text is engaging. Right now, with 70 subsubsections I have no idea what is where and is definitely not engaging. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Maddison's research is very controversial and not exactly universally accepted. Secondly, I doubt the spreadsheet can be put into the article. Thirdly, to cover the entire topic of the article requires quite a few subsections; the number of subsections currently is about one-half of the former total, after three or four copyedits!Teeninvestor (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And a spreadsheet can be used to create a graph! As for the latter, just look at this example:

• subsubsection title: Strict property laws
• subsection text:Qin property laws were strict, in order to maintain respect for private property. The law sentenced persons who had damaged others' property, even as little as taking leaves from a fruit tree, to 30 days' hard labor.

You are willing to say that this is a proper subsection? The easiest is to remove the 80% or so of the sub-subsections and merge them into proper subsections. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me identify some possible candidates? Thanks. I will try to cut down the number of subsections by half.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot more acceptable now. Although there are some subsections that look they could me merged further, it is probably not one of the biggest worries for a future FAC. Nergaal (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (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 02:50, 23 December 2009 .

Dancing the Dream

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sasata (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Prose clunky (eg. "The poems range from coping with discovering an oil-covered seagull feather, to seals who ponder whether or not they will be clubbed by hunters, and elephants who refuse to lie down and die in order to give up their tusks for the trinkets of man.")

• I've split and reworded this sentence.

• a section with 2 sentences?

• There is no other appropriate section for it in the article.

• the sparseness of the references section suggests that not a lot of other people think this is a notable work, or that not enough research has been done

• An article with less references has reached FA status (Hurricane Irene (2005)). Dancing the Dream meets WP:NB in that it is a bestseller and that it has been written by someone who is "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Jackson is arguably the most famous man of the last century. The article neglects no major facts relating to the book.

• I was trying to delicately hint that the research did not meet the 1b or 1c requirements. How many books have been written about MJ? Surely it must be more than the three used as sources for this article. Do you seriously claim that this article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"? Sasata (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do seriously believe that the article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As noted by Realist2 in the answer to question 5 of this Signpost interview:

"The majority of English speaking media focus on Jackson's personal life over the finer details of his music and artistry. This, coupled with the fact that Jackson rarely allows interviews, makes it difficult to write substansive articles on his music. It can literally take weeks of researching. GA reviewers often find this difficult to appreciate, that such a mainstream artists music is only discussed in general terms."

That is in regard to his music; what he became famous for in the first place. Analysis and indepth discussion of his books is even less. Pyrrhus16 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that difficulty of research could be used as a justification to forgo the 1b and 1c criteria for FAC. Sorry, my oppose still stands, but it's only my opinion. I'll let others weigh in on the issue. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to justify any alleged failure to meet a criterion. I was explaining why the article does meet the criteria of section 1 and why it lacks overwhelming coverage compared to other aspects of Jackson's life. You're welcome to your opinion, however. Pyrrhus16 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• suggest withdrawing and try promoting to GA first

• I'd like to hear other opinions first. I wouldn't have brought the article here if I wasn't confident that it met the FA criteria. The article is short and I believe any possible further issues can be dealt with speedily because of that. Pyrrhus16 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links—good.
• Image looks correctly cited and rationaled; I see no policy issues there.
• Good alt text for the first image.
• Dates are consistent Month Day, Year throughout.
• For Sasata's second point, try merging the short section to "Reception" to make a "Publication and reception" compound for now. You can divide the two with a hidden comment if you're worried about where to add any new facts later. (The video game article The Guardian Legend has a similar combined "History" section.)

--an odd name 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections are now combined. Thanks for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2c is okay. Citations are consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (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 02:50, 23 December 2009 .

Post Oak Mall

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. It is well written, as comprehensive as possible from available, high-quality reliable sources, very well researched, neutral, and stable. It follows all applicable style guides, and uses a proper, consistent citation style. Currently a good article, it has been through a second peer review since its GAN passed and all issues from it have been addressed and it is appropriately illustrated with free and public domain works. All of the images have the appropriate ALT text (though it should be noted that the shopping infobox in use does not support it, so while it is in the article, it is not working). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No dab links or dead external links, and dates are Month Day, Year throughout. (postoakmall.com is listed green twice in the link checker, but works for me.) Also put in a edit request for the box. --an odd name 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/8895.html a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.secinfo.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

SEC Info is a database of the SEC's EDGAR database that has been operated by Finnegan O'Malley & Company since 1997. Its a recognized repository for public access to that database of all SEC filings that are generally only available through a very limited subscriber system. I removed the CinemaTour one. It was only added because a local editor was insistent that there was never a movie theater at the mall, despite the much more reliable source saying there was and those with better memories remembering it as well :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you use EDGAR itself as the source? These filings are there and SEC filings are publicly accessible. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh...never realized that. *blush* Updated the article to use the original SEC filing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support It appears as though the peer reviews have done their job. I could not find any pressing issues with the wording that would require immediate changes, and the article is thorough, stable, and well-sourced. I have to admit that reading an article on a mall is not my cup of tea, but there seem to be no issues that keep it from meeting FA criteria. Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I just want to clarify, having become more familiar with the FAC process, that my support is based on wording and sources. While I feel that the article is incredibly comprehensive for an article on a mall, I am not confident enough in my knowledge of what such articles should include in order to be able to speak on the "completeness" of the entry. Mrathel (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment regarding File:Post Oak Mall - Aerial View.jpg: The Texas Public Information Act addresses the ability of the public to access information compiled, assembled, etc. by the government in the course of official business. It does appear to address the issue of copyright; indeed, that word (copyright) is mentioned only once (Sec.A552.228(b)(3)) and is used in a way that implies its retention. Making a work accessible does not, in and of itself, release its rights (think of a book in a public library; anyone can access it, but that doesn't mean the copyright is released). What is the basis for claiming this to be PD? The source site's Conditions and Use Policy says " Information and/or images which may not be copied without permission include ... third party applications". The image summary credits the author as "Land Info Worldwide Mapping"; wouldn't that be a third party? The page also carries the general disclaimer "© 2009 City of College Station. All Rights Reserved." This would not be expected to appear on a Texas government site if the Public Information Act actually released government copyright, no? Эlcobbola _talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can only guess when I added it that I thought its being released under the PIA and its being freely accessible information would make it public domain. Plus, the site contradicts itself on its disclaimer "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of College Station website is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of College Station's permission. We request only that the City of College Station be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of College Station, as appropriate. " while having a copyright notice at the bottom of every page. *head smack* If this is incorrect, I can remove it or add the appropriate FUR if it would fall under fair use? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a building still in existence, it would not pass NFCC#1, as a free equivalent could be created (e.g. a federal satellite could image it, a Wikipedian with a plane could photograph it, etc.) - so fair use is out. The contradiction is indeed bizarre, but the image should not be used without clear license information. To retain the image (possibly), my suggestion would be to contact the city to inquire about the status and then, if it is indeed PD, file the city's response with OTRS. Absent an OTRS tag, however, it should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There be many things I do for Misplaced Pages, but leaning out a plane is not one of them ;-) For now, I've removed and I'll contact the city to find out for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's actually currently an article at FAC using an image taken by a Wikipedian with a plane. What is it they say, though; I prefer terra firma, the firma the better? If the city responds positively, let me know and I can process the OTRS permission. Otherwise, the removal resolves the concern. Эlcobbola _talk 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a response. Thye said they allow the imagery for use by non-profits and individual users, including Misplaced Pages, but not sure how the non-profit clause would affect its usability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It won't work. To be "free", a work must be reusable by anyone, including for-profit (i.e. commercial) entities. Эlcobbola _talk 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I'll go ahead and have the image deleted. Thanks for spotting that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is hardly comprehensive. The history section does not make mention of anything between 1985 and 2004, there is virtually no information on the financial and economic performance of the mall over the years, impact on the community is largely ignored after information on the initial opening of the mall, there is no information on any executives that operated the mall over the years, no information on how mall initiatives made good econmic times better or attempted to cope with more difficult economic times. I really do not see how an article on a shopping mall could ever be made comprehensive without actually researching the corporate records of the institution itself and digging deep into the paper/microfilm archives of the surrounding communities as opposed to just using what articles and resources are available on the Internet. This is an esoteric subject, so this kind of deep research is necessary to overcome a lack of information in the secondary literature. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, I spent WEEKS at our local libraries going through the microfiche files for our local paper and digging through every local historical book that mentioned the mall. There IS no other actual relevant information to state. The bulk of the news stories between 85 and 2004 were event announcements, sales, etc. There were no other reports found discussing anything major, not even most of the store closings/openings were considered news worthy and this is the only mall of that size in this county. Every scrap of reliably sourcable financial and economic information that was available has been incorporated. Only 16 of its references are online ones, and of those, several are just online copies of the offline resources used. What executives, the manager? If you can find such records, please do so. Claiming it is not comprehensive without providing actual proof that something is lacking is rather insulting. This is not a huge mall that has a ton of information about "initiatives" (not that they have done many), "executives" etc. What difficult economic times? You mean right now? The problems affecting many parts of the country have really not hit this area that much, which has yet to see any real estate depression, major economical downturn, etc. Corporate records that are not publicly available are also not usable as sources and if you can produce some, go ahead. This is not an esoteric subject nor is Misplaced Pages the platform for publishing personal research. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was an overly indignant respose, and all it did was prove my salient points. If not enough sources exist to create a comprehensive article on a subject, then maybe it is not yet deserving of being featured. I am under no burden to provide sources; that is your job. If You cannot fill in the major gaps in the history and financial performance of the mall over the past several decades that is not on me. The comprehensiveness requirement is not waived just because there are not enough sources. I do appreciate the work you appear to have put into this, but there is no call to get huffy when I call you out on only using online sources when they represent all but four of the references listed in the article. I believe you that you did a lot of digging in local archives as well, but I could only comment based on what was in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 10 non-online sources, so I don't get where your count is. A major gap in history indicates that there was something noteworthy that actually happened. You are presuming there was, which would indicate you have knowledge there is so it is to you to actually demonstrate this knowledge, not claim the article is not worthy of being featured because of a mythical belief that there "must" be something more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Count for yourself how many of the sources have hyperlinks to web sources. I am sure you came across the newspaper articles in the original print as well, which is why you consider the count different, but an observer of the article who has no idea what your research methodologies were is naturally going to assume you did nearly all your research online. As for the historical gap, your claim that lack of newspaper coverage is prima facie evidence that nothing important happened is not particularly compelling. All this proves is that interest in what occurred at the mall was low in the community, and that implies this shopping mall may not even deserve an article in the first place. Now, I am not going that far in my own arguments, but no one who comes to this article expecting it to be among wikipedia's best if it were promoted to FA is going to believe that nothing important happened in those fifteen years, and you will not be there to tell each and every one of them that you went through the entire local newspaper archive and found no information. That is a disconnect in comprehensiveness I feel we cannot allow. Things happened at that mall in fifteen years, maybe even things of great import for the future direction of the facility, but just because this information is apparently locked in unavailable corporate records does not waive the FA requirement. As for my other point, a mall's entire purpose is to promote commerce, so if we are missing information on the financial impact of the mall on the community (you have some good material here, just not comprehensive) and/or the financial information on the mall itself, then we are missing vital information for understanding the insitution. Indrian (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying I should remove the links to the Eagle just because it, like almost any other worthy newspaper, actually puts its articles online? That is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such a presumption, that's not my problem, nor do I care. There are, in fact, FAs that do have all online sources, but it is neither here nor there. You are welcome to come to the BCS area and look at the three decades worth of newspaper articles yourself to see if anything important happened. Our library has every last issue archived and offers free printing (a godsend!). I've already done so and nothing did. Claiming it should not be featured because there is no information is also not in line with FAC. The FAC does not say "must cover every detail even if it doesn't exist". You can't just make up stuff to fluff out an article. If it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Yes, lots happened at the mall, but nothing of importance enough to actually note anywhere. It was robbed a few times, but that's not relevant content. What information is missing on its economical impact per you? How should it be more comprehensive? You are only offering vague, unsupported complaints that would be impossible for anyone to every meet and that are far above and beyond any of the criteria for being featured. The mall's financial impact IS detailed, it is there, per Misplaced Pages guidelines. There are no corporate records to refer to. You can't presume that there "must" and claim therefore the article is not comprehensive. WP:V works both ways. If you are going to claim that more information is available, prove it. Otherwise, this seems like a rather unhelpful and pointy oppose based on your idea of what featured articles should be versus the actual criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you insist on taking my statements out of the context of our entire conversation I am going to make one honest attempt to set the record straight. If you don't understand after this, I wash my hands of it. When I first opposed the article, I indicated that deep archive research was necessary and appeared not to have been done. This assumption was based on the fact that only four sources did not have hyperlinks, indicating a reliance on the Internet. You got rather irritated by this assumption and got rather snarky about the fact that you did not lots and lots of archival research. I indicated that I appreciated the work and explained my initial confusion. You got slightly huffy again through indicating my count of Internet sources was wrong. I expalined where an observer would draw the same conclusion I did. Never did I question the inclusion of hyperlinks nor the quality of the sources presented and I long before acknowledged that my original assumption about an overreliance on the Internet was wrong. I am quite shocked we are still discussing that particular point.

Now to the actual point at hand, namely a lack of comprehensiveness. I cannot tell you what happened at the mall between 1985 and 2004 because I am not an expert in this topic nor have I researched it. I wish I could tell you exactly what facts were missing from that period to help you fix this flaw, but I can only point out the deficiency. I can tell you that only by researching the corporate archives of the mall or the developer and/or interviewing people involved with the mall can this deficiency be cured. If an examination of those records showed that nothing of interest happened in fifteen years (unheard of in ANY subject I have ever researched myself), then I would agree nothing more could be done. If you are unable to acquire this material or if you believe it would constitute original research on wikipedia that really does not matter for the FA requirement that a topic be covered comprehensively. You are assuming nothing happened without consulting relevant sources, which is not a good research technique. I do think you have done a remarkable job finding information on this topic and have obviously put in a lot of hard work and I do not consider this lack of information a slight on you personally at all. Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indrian, I don't know whether or not your concerns about the comprehensiveness or sourcing of this article are valid or not, but I do want to point out that the argument "Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status" is not accepted here. There have been extensive discussions at FAC talk (if you want, I can find the links later), about whether or not every article should have a chance to become featured. In the end, the community at FAC decided that every article should have that opportunity. A "comprehensive" article is therefore one that covers the published material (however inadequate that published material may be). Awadewit (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a decision had been reached. I still have a great many personal reservations about this article and feel that the project is only lowered if short and relatively incomplete articles like this are counted among our best works (again, not a slight on AnmaFinotera, but a lament on the lack of additional sources), but it appears that there are no policy objections to stand on. I therefore withdraw my objection, though I will not support. I thank you for providing a reasoned rebuttal to my points as opposed to some of the overly indignant commentary above. Indrian (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now by Karanacs. I did a double-take when I saw this name on the list - thank you, AnmaFinotera, for bringing me back in time a bit. (Disclosure notice: I worked at a store in this mall for a semester many years ago. I also shopped/ate there whenever I had funds, but haven't been there in a decade.) You've crafted a solid article, but I don't think that it meets the FA criteria yet. I'm especially concerned with the prose and the comprehensiveness.

• You might want to check this number: might otherwise travel the 2½ miles southeast to Houston for mall shopping
• should it be mentioned that the mall is used as parking for games? (this is actually in a reliable source )
• This source may be useful
• Post Oak Mall was used as a study site for this article - not sure if it will be helpful
• I found reference to a court case- Faizullah v. Post Oak Mall by CBL & Associates Texas Tenth District Court of Appeals Dated: April 27, 2005 but no details - this may be work further investigation
• There's no mention of effects of Hurricane Ike, which appeared to cause Dillards to close
• Might want to consider mentioning this annual event
• Should we mention the guy who lived in the mall for a while in 2003?
• I think the article needs to begin with background on Bryan/College Station? That there is a university and a large community college in the area. Perhaps a bit about the geography - the cities are located in this part of Texas, X miles from Houston/Austin/Dallas, and that the two towns are adjacent to each other but not close to much of anything else? Perhaps mention that a state highway runs across the top of the cities?
• Can we mention in the text (not just the wikilink) that Earl Rudder Freeway is Hwy 6? That threw me at first, and I know the area fairly well - no one called it "Earl Rudder Freeway" when I lived there; it was always just "Highway 6"
• Was there any mention in the book (or any newspaper articles) why the site in Bryan was the first choice? What was it about that land that made it appealing for a mall. Why was the current site selected?
• Why was the city trying to buy the land? Why not a developer? Who actually owns the mall? The article alternatively says that CBL people was the manager and the owner. This needs to be made much more clear.
• Watch for wikilinking. Don't need a linkg to "fire", hair salon, video game, optical, etc
• Post Oak Mall was the first of four CBL-owned malls to receive this network, with four other CBL malls to follow -- this is unclear. Are there 8 malls with this technology or 4?
• The prose needs a lot of work. Examples:
  • Plans began for the opening of a large regional mall in the area... This is passive voice. Who began making these plans? Specific developers? City council? shopkeepers?
  • three screen Plitt movie theater, - need a hyphen between three and screen since this is acting as an adjective (this is correct later in the article). What is a Plitt movie theater? Is Plitt a company? ... I see this is specified later in the article, but I was still confused at the first mention
  • There is repetitive phrasing. Example: The mall also contained....The mall walkways contained..."
  • There is akward phrasing "locally started", "as well as water damage after water from the sprinklers flowed out of the store and into the middle of the mall walkway." and others
  • Sentences don't always flow - KB Toys was another of the mall's first occupants, and it was one of only four toy stores in the Brazos County after the other two toy stores closed after the mall was opened. This sentence could be rewritten to be more clear and less wordy
  • There are in places basic grammar issues. I fixed one spelling mistake, but I see other missing words "The stalls arranged around..." or wrong words/tenses. The article needs a good read-through and an independent copyedit
• KB Toys gets a lot of mention in the store section, while some locally notable business aren't mentioned. A lot of other stores have closed/left the mall too
• Bealls, became the fifth anchor when it opened a second location in Post Oak a few weeks after the mall's opening -- this is a misleading section. A second location ever (I know that isn't true), a second location in College Station, a second location in the mall, a second location in Brazos County...?
• As of 2004, both Dillard's locations, Foley's, J.C. Penney, and Sears were all independently owned, separate from mall ownership, and considered "stand-alone" buildings for tax purposes - Not sure why this is included. Foley's no longer exists now, so this is a bit weird
• How could Steve & Barry's be the 7th anchor? I only count 5 in the article (if you are counting Wilson's twice, that needs to bespecified)
• I saw a few articles on how the Chick-fil-A in the mall won an award in 2007 (sorry, didn't keep the link). This is probably at least as notable asthe McDonalds leaving.
• The economic impact is full of a lot of "hopes" and assumptions from when the mall opened. Not all of these are addressed at the end of the section. I think that some of the initial assumptions may need to be moved into history, with the economic impact section reserved for results.

Overall, it seems obvious that this article was written based on sources that you found, which leaves us with an article that is over-specific in some places (much text on KB Toys) and ignores other areas. If the article should be a series of anecdotes (which I really don't have a problem with), there are more sources/stories available per the quick Google search I did. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately did not includes its local events because they didn't seem significant (being a parking lot, random fund raisers, etc). None of the other admittedly few decent mall articles I found nor the rather sparse guideline indicating that such information would be relevant to the article, nor is it considered relevant for general corporation articles (which I took more guidance from). I tried to limit information from the sources found to what seemed significant, as the mall is mentioned in the paper at least once a week for various trivial things. Mall articles on Misplaced Pages in general seem much neglected, so had to go by instinct and other generally similar concepts to get any idea on what would be relevant. I would see no reason to include the city history/geography in this article, that's why the city article's exist. The reliable sources found didn't feel the need to mention it either, in direct context to the mall. Dillard's closing most of its stores in the area for Hurricane Ike is neither relevant nor worth noting about this specific mall. No, neither of the books nor the paper mentioned why Bryan was the first choice. I can only presume because it was a large open piece of land, and fairly centrally located. Nor was there much detail on the business end of why it was the city, and not the developer, trying to buy it. From more recent sources, however, I'd almost wonder if the city has some kind of partial ownership in the mall, as it is the one that seems to be spearheading the current renovation efforts and planning to foot the bill. Finding reliable sources on that, though, have also turned up nothing. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the Transportation document to see what else it has. Will work on addressing the prose issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can find on the court case, the person filed suit, then never followed through and it was dismissed Will dig further -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The mall itself counts both Dillard's as separate anchors, but have reworded the whole paragraph. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From a brief look at your sources, it looks like the information either comes from books on the larger region (meaning that background information is included, just not necessarily with the mall information) or are more local newspaper articles, where it's generally assumed that the reader is already familiar with the region. For an encyclopedia article, I think it is crucial to provide enough background information. Some of what I asked for is in the article, just not near the front, which means the reader is left with gaps in their knowledge. A short paragraph (3-4 sentences) providing background on the region is necessary to fill those gaps.

As for the Dillards closing - we mention other store closings so it seems odd not to mention something like that. Perhaps there was more widespread closure at the mall for Ike? That would also be worth mentioning. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It didn't close permanently, it closed for a few days and they closed all of their stores in multiple counties, not just Post Oak. So it wasn't specific nor really relevant to the mall. I've made some updates to the article to try to address some of your concerns.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (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 02:50, 23 December 2009 .

Winter War

Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?

• Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?

• A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment—Overall a fine article on an obscure (for most of the world) conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support but I would like to see one or two lines in the section Winter_War#Aftermath about the current politics about the return of Karelia. User:Zscout370 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Offered some suggestions at the first FAC and will do so here as well.

• Soviet–Finnish prewar negotiations: Commas before and after first use of Boris Yartsev?
  • Not sure, but a comma added. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• War preparations: "Furthermore, the Finns would lease the Hanko Peninsula for the thirty years". I'm a bit confused by "the thirty years" since I don't see a mention of such a time period before this. Not sure what this is supposed to be referring to.
  • "have to" added? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• The shelling of Mainila: Remove space before three-reference block.
• "claimed that the Finnish response was hostile and the non-aggression pact." Sentence cuts off abruptly, and an important part is not present.
  • The section now re-edited by Illythr. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Soviet policy and military offensive: Delink the date here. Linked days have been discouraged in most cases for a while now.
  • Done. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Finnish order of battle: "The frontier with the Soviet Union was more than ." Get that excess period out of there, while you're handling these other tasks.
  • Not sure, suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a few of the simple typographical errors, but most of what I read was okay. Best of luck. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Nowhere in the article does it actually state why it's called the "Winter War". Yes, it was fought during the northern winter of 1939-40, but assuming that people can infer this without having the information supplied to them assumes a particular POV of the reader. Perhaps the lead sentence in the article could have something like "during the northern winter of 1939-40" added to it?
  • The puppet regime was unsuccessful and was quietly disbanded during the winter of 1940.
    1. Is a more precise date available from primary references to comply with WP:SEASON?
    2. If a more precise date cannot be sourced from primary references, this still needs amendment because it is ambiguous. Which "winter of 1940" is intended here, 1939-40 or 1940-41?
    • "in early 1940." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had consented to Soviet demands in autumn 1939: Does not comply with WP:SEASON. I suggest rewording this to something like "in late 1939" or "by mid-October, 1939" to comply with WP:SEASON.
    • "by October 1939." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The plural of "aircraft" in English is "aircraft", not "aircrafts". -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. I do have a few comments; once these have been resolved, I'll be ready to support.

Explanation of some of the edits I made:

• Deleted "However because of failures" - felt this was unnecessary, as the note should only be about who commanded when. If you wish to reinstate it, I have no problem with that, but it should be rephrased, because this wording is vague.
• Deleted "While the Government of Sweden was aware..." - I think the information that they were aware is unnecessary; unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it's fairly reasonable to assume that governments know whom their militaries are cooperating with.

Comments:

• Shouldn't references be placed within the notes in the infobox? That makes for less clutter.
  • Multiple sources used here. Besides, every detailed number is continuously under doubt, so in many cases numbers presented need good source + commentary. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand. My question is: would it be good to place the other refs inside the narrative footnotes that explain the numbers, so that fewer refs appear directly in the infobox? Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• How do you get to the total of 235 aircraft? 114 + 7 + <100 = <221
  • 173 aircraft and 43 reserve aircraft. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Sovereignty was fully achieved in May, 1918 after a short civil war and the expulsion of Bolshevik troops." - you obviously don't want to go into too much detail here, but I am afraid this is unclear. In what way was sovereignty not fully achieved before? What were those Bolsheviks doing there when they had already recognized the country's independence?
  • Bolsheviks recognized the country's independence, but they also wanted a revolution. This was one of reasons for Finnish Civil War. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • On second reading, it looks good enough. Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• "two parishes" - I would consider the USSR to be among the most unlikely countries in the world to be divided into parishes.
  • Municipalities. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Why do you address the historiography of the casus belli twice in separate paragraphs?
• "Fewer than half of the officers remained in total." - lead says that "up to" (i.e., less than) 50% were purged.
  • Added "over 30,000", which is also mentioned in book Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• "more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) long" - any chance on getting the precise figure?
• "Soviet movements were frozen solid" - beautiful wording
• "Although the Karelian Isthmus front was less active in December than in January," - can't understand this. It's not the other way around, is it?
  • You are correct. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• German invasion plan - of Finland? Or Sweden? Or is this the invasion of Denmark and Norway they actually carried out?
  • Scandinavian Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark - not Finland). Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• A bit weird to start talking about aerial and naval warfare after the part about the peace negotiations. Perhaps you should move the entire negotiations part to the "Peace of Moscow" section. Or is this established MILHIST structure?

Ucucha 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Sadly, because this is a great article that is really very close, but we can't have an FA that contradicts itself (on how many Soviet officers were purged, see comment above). Ucucha 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is factually deficient. This piece of writing is unsophisticated in both content and style. The presentations of the Soviet military concerns and of the negotiations are superficial and minimal. There is a totally misleading insinuation—cleverly just an insinuation—that the USSR actually wanted to reacquire all of Finland. No use is made of the book, Anthony F. Upton, 1974, Finland, 1939-1940. Presenting the progress of the hostilities to the level of minutiae is unencyclopedic. Even leaving objections to the content aside, the lead does not represent the content well; this is a very poor lead. Yes, the article can boast photos and a long list of references most of them not in English, and often this is what earns an FA. But the way things are is not necessarily the way they ought to be. Some trivial flaws: (1) the word "operation" in the lead is inappropriate; (2) the language labeling in the bibliography is not in the latest Misplaced Pages style because it does not use the "language icon" template. I will apply them myself. Hurmata (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Closed, so response in user talk page. Peltimikko (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2009 (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 19:38, 19 December 2009 .

Monarchy of Canada

Nominator(s): CJ Miller. (_{Don't wear it out.}) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, in my opinion, it has improved greatly from its last FAC in 2007. CJ Miller. (_{Don't wear it out.}) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest a new peer review—the article itself actually looks neat from a glance, but the technical aspects disturb me.

• Have you contacted any of the major contributors to the article? (Are you one of them, by another name?)
• Three dab links and, more disturbingly, lots of dead external links (mainly CBC and gg.ca, but various other domains). Find new sources or archives to maintain verifiability.
• No alt text—readers who can't see the images are damned.
• On a similar note, consider changing section links, with titles like Commonwealth realm > Relationship of the realms, to (e.g.) Commonwealth realm, section "Relationship of the realms" so they can be read better.
• Ref 13 has 15 inline citations to the same statement! The refs are not used anywhere else, so try something like

<ref>See:
*Cite one.
*Cite two.
...
*Last cite.</ref>

This article was last peer reviewed in 2006; so much (at least rule-wise) has changed since. Another look-through can't hurt. --an odd name 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Needs an updated peer review. Dincher (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't think it meets the criterion for images. There are too many fair-use images. For example, you can't claim fair use on File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, when the free-use image File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg is directly beneath it. File:Queen of canada wob.jpg doesn't have a license. In my opinion, the rationale for File:Canadian Cabinet 2008-10-30.jpg is not strong enough to merit its inclusion in the article: there isn't any depiction of the monarch and a group photo of 2 dozen people is not especially informative. File:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.jpg cannot be used as there is a free alternative: File:RoyalVisitSenate.jpg. File:Roy-fam-canada.jpg and File:Roy-fam-2007.jpg show group pictures but there are free alternatives: e.g. File:Trooping the Colour, Saturday June 16th 2007.jpg, and there are free-use images of the main individuals. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2009 (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 19:38, 19 December 2009 .

Xenogears Original Soundtrack

Nominator(s): Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the criteria. It covers all aspects of the soundtrack's creation and also touches on broad subjects ranging from the original game to Bulgarian choirs and comparisons with Celine Dion. Kariteh (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Oppose on 1c by an odd name—various points.

• Images need alt text.
  • The Mitsuda alt could probably be expanded further (see WP:ALT#Portraits), but good alt text otherwise. --an odd name 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• The music4games link is dead (gives a short error message); otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
  • I didn't say you had to change all the dates to Month Day, Year, but that works as well. (It also blends nicely with the article's Month Day, Year style.) Dates throughout look good. --an odd name 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• 1c issues (verifiability etc.):
  • What makes Square Enix Music Online a high-quality reliable source? The site's "About Us" page doesn't convince me much—the "We're Hiring!" page actually un-convinces me ("Experience isn't required, but passion is essential!")—and it's being used for interviews with living people like Yasunori Mitsuda.
    • Per PresN at the wikiproject discussion, the submissions guidelines cover reliability for SEMO for me. I'm not sure if SEMO is high-quality for this article—I wish I saw some book or magazine references either way—but I'll let others decide that level. --an odd name 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Same question with ref 1 and its source site "Noisycroak". They both need to be HQ reliable. Never heard of either one until now, and (except for a list of editors on the former) I see nothing to go by. I am *clears throat* glad to see Bayonetta on their front page, but that doesn't excuse 1c for me, no no. (added on 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
• From the second image's page: "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Misplaced Pages does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is."—I loathe seeing text like this on non-free use rationales, because it is irrelevant to whether the image can be used on the English WP. Usage by many places doesn't excuse copyright violation, but it does make the lawyers look for more targets. I've removed it there. (I'm not saying the image itself is a copyvio.)
• "the first ending song to ever appear in a game developed by Square"—as in the first ending theme in a Square game with sung lyrics? (There's been numerous ending themes in Square games before then, so I'm guessing that.)
• For the next time you submit an article (this or any other), consider peer review or an A-class assessment from the WikiProject to make sure you're close to the criteria before nomination, even if you think so. Good Article doesn't mean much here—its criteria are lower and the reviewers fewer (and stretched thin), so both fundamental and FA-level problems slip past. (added on 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed all these points. For the sources, I have opened a discussion at the relevant wikiproject's talk page to see what the experts think: link. Note that there has been precedents of Square Enix Music Online being accepted in featured lists -- see List of Kingdom Hearts media and List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. Kariteh (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added a bit from Chris Kohler's Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life to the article to have a book reference. As for Original Sound Version, it's a direct translation of the Noisycroak interview but I guess the link could be replaced with the original source. Noisycroak is a sound design company headed by Hideki Sakamoto, a video game composer who worked on critically-acclaimed titles. The clients of the company are well-known video game companies. Kariteh (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough for me. I've struck the oppose-lean; as with SEMO, I'll let others decide if Noisy and OSV are "high-quality" enough. --an odd name 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

• http://www.originalsoundversion.com/?p=4061
• http://www.g-wie-gorilla.de/content/view/691/5/
• http://www.soundtrackcentral.com/cds/xenogears_ost.htm
• http://ocremix.org/

• I'm not totally convinced by this: http://www.squareenixmusic.com/contributors.shtml

Normally, if it was used for only a singular citation, I'd lean slightly reliable, but this forms about half the ref list. Has this website been used by reliable and notable third-party sources?

RB88 (T) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (image crit. 3)
  • File:Xenogears OST limited.jpg and File:Joanne Hogg - Small Two of Pieces.ogg have weak FURs. The audio clip, for example, is discussed but only in a superficial way as far as I see--it's not detrimental to our understanding if its lost. As for the alternate cover, that's bad NFCC application that's perpetuated by the music project. We don't need alternate art unless there's significant commentary about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Three images:

• File:Xenogears OST.jpg: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image. No problem with inclusion, but rationale on image page is insufficient. See rationales for main infobox images of three music recording articles recently promoted to FA: File:FloydFC-Cover01.jpg, File:Madonna 4 Minutes Coverart.png, File:No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom.jpg.

Ive added a better fair use to that image now. Salavat (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• File:Xenogears OST limited.jpg: Alternative album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image. Appears to fail standard (see also comment by Fuchs above). Take a look at a music recording article recently promoted to FA that includes two fair use infobox images: Remain in Light (where the secondary image is of the album's back cover). In that case, it is immediately evident that the content of the secondary image is significantly different from the content of the main image. In that case, as well, the content of the secondary image is discussed in the article—it is worthy of critical commentary largely because it was originally intended for the front cover. In the case of this alternative album cover, its content does not appear to be significantly different from that of the primary album cover and it is not the subject of critical commentary. (As above, the rationale is also lacking, but this seems a moot point.)
• File:Yasunori Mitsuda.jpg: Verified Commons image. No problem.—DCGeist (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (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 19:38, 19 December 2009 .

Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is fairly complete. The article is well referenced, suited with several images, sections, etc. Well covered. BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eubulides' alt text clearance moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links (after a quick edit) or dead external links, and (after another quick edit) ref dates are consistent ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial). Cool. --an odd name 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Review here. Great article, nice going :) ResMar 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Nice to see you back at FAC after a really long break (since Mt Garibaldi). I'll review this article later; I'm putting it on my watchlist. ceranthor 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent article. Seems to meet FA criteria. Himalayan 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: significant 2c errors leading to non-verifiability. Works not cited (cite web used incorrectly, conference titles and journal titles not indicated, volumes, issues not indicated, chapters not cited as chapters books not indicated; consistent misattribution of publishers to university departments). Titles misspelt. Fundamental consistency errors: Mixture of bracket and footnote citation eg from body text: Minor 2c errors: Author ordering unusual and inconsistent (C.R., Bacon? Initialism last name?); ISSNs missing; Cambridge, UK given as Cambridge, England; missing locations. I fixed the first few but then started to run into more and more mis-use of templates.

These kind of error indicates that a broad Full Text on Net search has been conducted, but that some scholarly resources that should have been used may not have been located. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - need verifiable sources per WP:IUP (these are both derivatives of File:Northwest-relief.jpg, whose source - USGS data - is inadequate).
  • File:Tuya Butte.jpg is a derivative of File:Laketuya.jpg, for which Mark C. Beere is indicated as the author. File:Tuya Butte.jpg should not be crediting "Randymaws" as the author, as s/he merely created a derivative. This may be a moot point, however, as the source of the original (here - note that the original image has a deadlink) says nothing about this image being in the public domain. What is the basis for that claim? The source's parent page explicitly claims that all rights are reserved.
  • File:NCVP map.png, File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - what is the source of activity/size/location/etc. data? Эlcobbola _talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of these images are based on existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references. BT (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Tusk, Elcobbola knows his image copyrights. I suggest you just deal with his concerns. I'm willing to help if you need more images. — Ceranthor — continues after insertion below

I've struck the centre bullet, as the (copyvio) images have been deleted. Please add the necessary data source information ("existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references") to the image summaries. Эlcobbola _talk 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright good enough. BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added sources to all three images. BT (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The source issue for File:Northwest-relief.jpg still needs to be sorted out, as File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png are derivatives thereof. Эlcobbola _talk 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I let User:Qyd know about this issue because he is the one that uploaded the image. I'll look around to see if I can find the image in any online USGS data. BT (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an issue: Map created with PD GIS data from the USGS, file is PD, please stop inventing problems. --Qyd (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If something is public domain it's public domain and therefore it is fine to use it for whatever reason. If it's not public domain it's not public domain, and that is when problems start booming (e.g. like File:Tuya Butte.jpg). The source description on File:Northwest-relief.jpg says "USGS data" because, like Qyd said, it is a work of the United States Geological Survey. All data that originates from the United States Geological Survey is public domain. There is no problem with USGS images or information and the image is licenced with the proper {{PD-USGov-USGS}} template. BT (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read critically. This isn't an issue of whether USGS works are public domain. This is an issue of providing a verifiable source. How exactly does this add anything? How can a third party confirm this is indeed the work of the USGS? People misidentify authorship all of the time (e.g. "like like File:Tuya Butte.jpg). Prove that USGS is the author. The current sourcing is equivalent to sourcing a fact to "The New York Times"; what does that mean? What date? What issue? In this case, from what website did it come? From what GIS program was it extracted? Please feel free to ping me when the issue will be addressed maturely ("please stop inventing problems"); I've unwatched the page. Эlcobbola _talk 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying i used a false license? do you have any proof or reason for this serious accusation? i invested some of my precious time to create this image (and many other maps), and shared it with the community. now I have to spend more time to prove my work for anyone who's asking? man, you do make wikipedia suck!--Qyd (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Qyd, this is totally inappropriate. Elcobbola is also donating time and effort to this project, to ensure our images meet copyright requirements. I suggest you apologize and work together. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize. I also suggest that he/she assumes good faith and not presume the license is inappropriate. --Qyd (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough. This isn't the place for arguing over the licence/source of the image. I removed all images in the article that are derivatives of Northwest-relief.jpg and replaced them with images I created with given sources. The problem is over. BT (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if I just remove the two images from the article? Then the problem would likely be over. BT (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go. I created a highlight map for the NCVP to replace the (problematic) USGS-related NCVP map in the geobox and deleted the seismic activity map as well. BT (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose review on the way, from reading the lead,

• At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province, including Hoodoo Mountain in the Boundary Ranges, the Mount Edziza volcanic complex on the Tahltan Highland, and the Level Mountain Range on the Nahlin Plateau. - any active? ceranthor 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That is mentioned further in the article..... BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (USGS isn't going to be known by most folks even in the US)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. BT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to nominator: Per FAC instructions, please do not strike reviewer comments. It is up to the reviewer to decide whether his/her concerns have been satisfied. Please also do not move reviewer commentary to the FAC talk page. Although off-topic discussion can be removed by any editor, it is best if the reviewer comments are not removed by anyone except a delegate or the reviewer. Accordingly, I have undone the move. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with the prose.

• It's a nuisance, isn't it, the "province" refers to two quite different things in this part of the world. Oh well ...
• "It extends from northwestern British Columbia and the Alaska Panhandle through Yukon to the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area of far eastern Alaska, a distance of well over 1,000 km (620 mi)." OK, but consider "extends roughly north-northwest in a corridor hundreds of kilometres wide, from ...". Unsure—you know better than I do. It might also help the sight-impaired to visualise it at the start, before getting to the alt text.
• Fairly long sentences, given the amount of info they hold. For example: "Although taking its name from the Western Cordillera, this term is a geologic grouping rather than a geographic one, and the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province encompasses more than one geographic region, including mountain ranges and plateaus." And is "this term" the WC or the WCVP? I guess you can work it out, but it was a bump in the reading for me.
• Logic problem: this is presented as though a parallelism, but it's not: "In the south the volcanic province includes a large number of volcanoes. Further north it is less clearly described, creating a large arch that sways westward through central Yukon." Number of volcanoes, then direction.
• "At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province"—sounds as though they're not in the Province, but are somehow influenced by what goes on there. Remember, I'm an outsider to this topic.
• "one of the best studied"? Quality of the research? Impact factors of the journals? Or "most studied"?
• "... the largest and oldest of which is" would be better.
• "Exist"—always rings alarm bells in me. ", there are several ...". By "scatter", you mean they scatter stuff when they blow? Or they are scattered" in terms of their location?
• Here's an example of a long snake we could cut up: "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history." Try "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption; this is in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history.

I'm disappointed in the writing. This deserves to be a classy read—it's such an interesting and dramatic topic. Tony (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Image issues: several are unnecessarily small, yet the drama and interest is in the details of the composition, the texture. This is larger-than-life stuff. Especially the basaltic lave field, the satellite image, Hoodoo (try 240 or 250 px, and check whether they clutter: all right side can sometimes be better in this respect. The "flanks of Hoodoo"—at that size, I can't tell whether I could walk right over it in boots, or am looking from an aircraft. Perhaps it's in the alt text. The lava fountain is big enough. The Level MR green thing is too dark! Can you brighten it yourself? It's too small, too, and boosting it will be kinder to the longish caption. The LMR scene from the aircraft (?) is hopelessly tiny. Spectral R glaciation: what exactly am I looking for here? It's small and looks like a scene from the ski lift I use. Same throughout. BTW, the colours in the map up top jar, to me, with the lead pic above it. Unusually, this green-orange monster could be smaller (quite a bit). By contrast, the "Minor and major" map is far too small—can you read that text? It COULD be interesting. Twice the size, please, or whatever allows me to see it properly. The caption doesn't explain what the reddish dots are.

Together with the prose, the image issues make me oppose this one; sorry. Tony (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of these problems can easily be fixed. BT (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the green Level Mountain Range images? Yes the images are dark, but that is because the region is forested. And the darkness actually helps to expose the volcano; it's the lighter unforested area in the middle of the image. If the surrounding darkness was lighter, the volcano would be harder to recognize. And if I make the green-orange image smaller, it will make it look sloppy with the geobox because the image will not be centered with the geobox. BT (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I got all of your points solved apart from the problems I mentioned in my comment above. BT (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think it is quite well written and extremely comprehensive. Wonderful job! It's clear that all the work I've seen has paid off.
• Section: Origins and chemistry: But these faults were in a matter of dispute in 1997 by geologists, stating these faults were last active between 20 and five million years ago. - the were involved or were part of
• Same section: In 1999, a sequence of north-trending faults were mapped that seem to represent young rifting events parallel with the southwestern boundary of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province. - parallel to?
• Hot springs: They are formed if water percolates deeply through the crust and heats up from the primal magmatic heat under the surface. - Doesn't seem to flow well.
• Lava plains: Extensive areas of nearly flat-lying lava flows throughout the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province can cover areas of at least 100 km2 (39 sq mi) and are generally composed of highly-fluid basaltic lava. - fluidic? highly-fluid doesn't work

How does "highly-fluid" not work? Not all lava is very fuild; dacite and rhyolite lava is thick. And a reader with no knowledge of the subjuect would not know basaltic lava is very fluid. BT (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section: The extent of large lava plains is most readily grasped from the air or in satellite photos where their nearly-black colour contrasts with the rest of the landscape - hmm? Why is that relevant, and if it is, does the source actually say that?
• Looks really great - outstanding work! ceranthor 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by mav

Criteria 4

• At over 8500 words, I have some criteria 4 (Length) concerns. Many paragraphs are very long, such as, for example, the first one in ===Origins and chemistry== and the subjection-long paragraph in ===Lithosphere thickness===. Snakes and wordy prose as Tony mentions. Daughter articles per WP:SS will help a great deal. Is it really necessary to have whole subsections just about hot springs, lava tubes, xenoliths, megacrysts, and intrusions? Why not a single subjection on geologic features that summarizes those aspects? Mentioning how thick the lithosphere is can easily be done in a single paragraph in a subsection. Overall, I would expect a section on geology to be more clearly/cleanly organized by geologic forces (such as rifting/stretching/thinning or accretion) and then by descriptions of large scale and then small scale features. Since the ==Volcanic history== is the longest, creating a page size message of 54 KB, I suggest the creation of a Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article and a summary left at Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province#Volcanic history. A more thematic but still temporal organization of subsections in ==Volcanic history== vs the current purely temporal organization, may also help. But I'm not sure if themes can be gleamed from the material. If so, ignore this suggestion.

Lede

• Overuse of "However" in third paragraph.

Origins and chemistry

• Awkward sentence: "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province began to form 20 million years ago and it has been a zone of active volcanism since its very formation." I would flip those two phrases. Something like "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province has been a zone of active volcanism since it began to form 20 million years ago."

Nitpicks

• Not necessary to always say "Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province"; "the province" and pronouns will suffice most times once context is established (some sentences repeat the full name twice: "This indication is further provided if the geothermal gradient inside the lithosphere under the northern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is greater than that in the southern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province." Emphasis mine).

If it were not for the length and organization issues, I could easily support this article. But in its current form, I must sadly oppose this nomination until these issues are adequately addressed. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just did a major reorganization. BT (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already archived this nom; the bot will go through later (see WP:FAC/ar). The image oppose will need to be resolved before this is brought back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I will create the Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article later. BT (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (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 19:38, 16 December 2009 .

Merry Xmas Everybody

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

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

Comments

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

• I don't have a copy of that, unfortunately. It was added in by an IP in 2007. Majorly talk 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've put in a different ref. Majorly talk 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dates throughout are all Day Month Year. (added on 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

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

• Rather short. Tony (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did say this in the opening statement. Is the prose ok? Majorly talk 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c, 1c. No 1c problems, additionally believe that 1c sources have been exhausted. 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please supply the title of the work containing this item, or change the title format to italics to indicate that the Discography is the primary work? ""The Mission Discography". The Mission. Retrieved 15 November 2009."

I don't understand your concern here. It's the title of the page used as the reference... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Works in collections are cited as such "Work in collection" in Collection. Sole works are cited as such Sole work.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I've referenced as I have done for dozens of other articles. There is no problem here. Majorly talk 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a book, LP, video disc citation Book. Notice the italics? This is a citation for a work contained in another work, like a newspaper article, journal, track. "Track" Albumn "Newspaper article" Newspaper "Chapter" Book. There is a problem here. You're citing works as if they're contained in another work, but without indicating the work they're contained in. Please fix by supplying the work they're contained in, or by naming the work as a stand alone work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a web citation, that lists the songs on the track. Citing it as a web citation (title, publisher) is perfectly acceptable. Once again, there is no problem. Majorly talk 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarified publisher to make clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com is not a publisher. Please supply correct bibliographic details. They're listed on the Amazon pages (Anagram Records and Polydor Ltd.)

Amazon published the page used as the reference. I'm not citing the album itself... Majorly talk 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a 1c issue to do with quality of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sourcing information on Amazon, I am merely using it as proof the album exists. Amazon is a reputable music dealer who don't list items that don't exist. There is nothing wrong with doing this. Majorly talk 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon repeatedly lists items that don't exist. Their status as a reliable bibliographer is nil. Source bibliographic proof of existence from an appropriate sound archive or national copyright collections library: ie a High Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have such access to archives, so such a request is clearly impossible. I assume you want me to take your word for it on the quality of Amazon. It's rather difficult to cite a rather obscure album released in 1990, when you don't have the resources. It's mentioned all over the web, just not anywhere useful. Majorly talk 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, all Amazon references are gone. Majorly talk 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Very enjoyable; brings back some old memories. A couple of questions:

• I can't find an exact release date for Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day, so I can't be sure whether that single predates this one, but since they were the same year I'm not sure it's a great idea to say it was the first Christmas rock single. You also mention a Lennon single that predates it; was that not rock?

• I would disagree that Happy Xmas (War Is Over) is rock, but I'm no expert. However, it's not really about Christmas per se. As for the Wizzard song, according to Guinness British Hit Singles, it entered the charts on 8 December. This is apparently a week earlier than this song. I'll change it to indicate that it's one of the first. Majorly talk 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• You say that many began to associate Slade only with Christmas and that this contributed to their decline in popularity. The first point is more than plausible to anyone who was around at the time, and though a citation wouldn't hurt I don't think it's necessary. However, to say that this is the cause of their subsequent decline really does need a citation, and it appears not to have one -- the nearest following cite in the body just covers the song reaching the charts in 2006.

• Added one (it was there, just not right next to it). Majorly talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cover versions of popular songs can be quite numerous, and I don't think all need to be listed. Can you say what makes these particular covers notable and worthy of mention in the article -- the fame of the band, the unusualness of the cover version, the success of that version's release?

• I've removed three. It was not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think the notability of the six left is self-explanatory. Majorly talk 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• "On 15 December it became the third song by Slade to enter the charts at number one (the sixth during their career)": the parenthesis seems to say they had six songs enter the charts at number one; I had a go at rewriting this but couldn't easily find an improvement. I think this should be rephrased.

• Is that better? Majorly talk 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is going to be difficult to find, but is there any chance of getting contemporary opinions of the song? There isn't really a reception section at the moment; the release paragraph talks about the sales, and the legacy section gives the perspective from today, but there isn't much that says whether it was well-regarded critically at the time. I'm sure there are Melody Maker and NME reviews, though I don't know if they'd be usable. Back then rock and pop wasn't really reviewed in the mainstream media so there might not be enough to use, but it would be good to have.
  • I took a look in the NYT archives; there's a 21 Dec 1973 article on Christmas songs that mentions Slade but makes no assessment. Interestingly, it mentions three other Christmas songs of that year, which it describes as satirical: Elton John's "Who'll Be A Turkey For Christmas", Cheech and Chong's "Santa Claus and His Old Lady", and Martin Mull's "Santafly". Not sure there's anything you can use there -- the article argues that new Christmas songs were decling at the time, and that Christmas music was mostly recycled from previous years. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another possible source: . The writer comments on how Slade changed the popular perception of Christmas. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That last one is potentially useful, for the legacy section. However, when I was looking for sources as I was writing the article, I don't believe I saw anything to do with reception on its release - though I am guessing it was popular judging by the sales. Of course, I don't have access to unfree news sources, so there may be more I couldn't access via Google News... Majorly talk 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There's nothing about the record in The Times archive, or at Newsbank. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

        I don't think I would oppose on this point, since I can't be sure any usable sources exist, but I think anything else that could be found on the reception would help the article. I would suggest using that piece from the Guardian about the influence of the single. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

        • I've added it as an additional reference, but I think the influence has been described adequately. Majorly talk 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the timeline as presented is slightly misleading. The History and Background section starts "By 1973 Slade were one of the most popular bands in Britain, having achieved two number one singles—"Cum On Feel The Noize" and "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"—in three months. The band and their record company, Polydor, decided to produce a Christmas hit." However, it's apparent from the timeline given later that the decision to produce a Christmas hit must have predated the success of 'Skweeze Me Pleeze Me"; it was a hit in July, according to the article about it, but Powell was injured ten weeks before the recording session in August -- no later than early June. The source article does appear to get this right, saying "Early in 1973".

The recording session occurred in September according to the Q article. It is correct as written. In fact, the article describes how the idea came after the two number ones. Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll strike that -- if it was recorded in September then yes, it could have been ten weeks after "Skweeze Me Pleeze Me" became a hit. I could swear I saw a reference to August, but I can't find it now. By the way, the Holder bio only lets you view some pages on Amazon, and the story of how the song was written is chopped off at the start, but it appears he might give additional details about how he wrote the song, perhaps including a specific date. Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you looked at the Noddy Holder bio, Who's Crazee Now?? Seems like it might be a useful source. There are pages viewable on Amazon and it seems to have some material about the song.

I can't view it without an account. Majorly talk 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to head off to work in a moment, but I will see if I can pull some quotes for you tonight. However, I don't think I can see all pages of the book so it would be good to check a physical copy if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also just found Peter Buckley's Rough Guide to Rock on Google describing the song as "arguably the best single ever"; this might be worth quoting in the legacy section, though I'm not sure as I know nothing about Buckley and whether he's any kind of authority. It seems to be a substantial encyclopedia that's been through multiple editions and I think it could be used.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Buckley's work bio implies that he's credible. Rough Guides publishes on a commercial basis. Its an RS. Weight's a different matter for an expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link I could use? Majorly talk 13:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote is "During their glam phase Slade also produced arguably the best Christmas single ever, "Merry Christmas Everybody" (1973), which has recharted most Christmases since." Page 948 of the 2003 edition; visible in Google Books. I don't see the ISBN at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the quote. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, struck. I am curious about the title case used; shouldn't it be "Rough Guide to Rock", not "rough guide to rock"? I thought title case was the general rule for citations of works. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be so I changed it. Majorly talk 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Looking at some of the other FAs on individual songs reinforces my feeling that there needs to be something about contemporary critical reception, beyond what can be deduced from the success of the song. I will find it hard to support without this being addressed. The Holder bio might give you something in this direction. I understand it's not easy to research this sort of thing; I am planning a visit to a central NY research library to research some other articles over the next two or three weeks, and if there's anything I might be able to find there, let me know and I'll see if I can locate it for you. Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked someone who might have access to a copy of the Holder bio. I'm not sure if there is anything in the library. Majorly talk 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Good stuff although I think there really should be a credits/personnel section listing those involved, instruments played etc. Cavie78 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added who played what instrument, is that sufficient? Producer is already described elsewhere. Majorly talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lean support - I'm not seeing any real problems. The blockquote in "History and background" needs a citation. The end of "Composition" needs a citation. The language is rewritten enough to distance itself from the original from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating, since the block quote is now directly cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments—Looking good, writing down comments as I copy-edit:

• "beating Wizzard's "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday" into fourth place" - why is the fourth place single rather the second place one being mentioned here? I fail too see the signficance.

• Because it's a Christmas-themed song. I've clarified. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed." - oddly enough, "Merry Christmas Everybody" comes in a bit abruptly here, as you haven't yet stated that the song the duo were working on was "Merry Christmas Everybody". Also why "Christmas" and not "Xmas" in the song title here?

• Changed to "the song" again. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where are the cites for the last four sentences of Composition?

• It's rather difficult to cite - I actually used a midi file and literally described the music. The source is the song. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is original research.—indopug (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my view, it is no different from FAs for TV series citing episodes of the series in question. Likewise in science articles, it is permissible to make uncontroversial conclusions without it being disqualified as original research (e.g. converting the mass and volume of a planet to its average density). Isn't this simply the musical equivalent? Bluap (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, Indopug's quite right. Stating that, say, a certain meeting between two people occurred in a certain TV program is something any observer can do. Musical analysis is not the same thing at all. It requires a suitable reliable source, i.e. one qualified to provide a musical analysis. This is illustrated by Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Citing_sources, which advises, "Only basic information pertaining to a piece, such as track length or stereo placement, may be left to an editor or editors' ears". PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• In your opinion it's not the same, but that's just your opinion. Stating what chords are used and what instruments are played is hardly contentious, and any listener can describe this (MOS is not policy). Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if the personnel is required at all (apart from the name of the guy who plays lead guitar, the section is redundant to the rest of the article).

• I tend to agree; someone mentioned they wanted it, above though. I am happy for it to be removed. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a Tracklisting section though, namely to see individual song length of both sides of the single, as well as the catalogue no of the original release.

  I'm not sure where I could find this information. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Added something. Not sure if the format is ok. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could you be more descriptive in your description of the sound sample? It is necessary to justify fair-use.

• Please clarify what you mean by "more descriptive". Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've clarified the description. While its quite obvious that this clip showcases the most recognisable part of the song, I'll leave it to others to decide if that needs mention (and citing). Parrot of Doom 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would a chart section be useful? (Generally needed when a song charted in many territories; see WP:CHARTS)

• Not too sure. I couldn't find any sources for making a section, so it could be difficult to make one. Majorly talk 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You can probably insert the Netherlands and Norway as prose, using this as a source. I've used that website before and its passed WP:FAC with no issues. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've added in those two, if any others could be found I can add them in. It's not worth a section on its own yet though. Majorly talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think you can incorporate more of the info found here. Namely, this: "while they were still named the N'Betweens. The melody was Holder's first ever solo composition", and "his first draft was the final one".

• Done. Majorly talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• ""Merry Xmas Everybody" was the first song of its kind" - divorced from the explanatory context that comes in much later in the sentence, this opening bit seems rather bloated and pretentious. I wonder if you could make that entire sentence tighter, actually.—indopug (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence altogether, it doesn't really add anything as it happens. Majorly talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose on 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d

• "It is Slade's last number-one single, as fans began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated." - I'm really not sure about that! Apart from the questionable assertion that "fans began to associate the group only with Christmas", their popularity did not deteriorate in a timeframe that supports that statement: following this December 1973 #1, their next three singles, entering the charts in April, July and October 1974, reached #3, #3 and #2 respectively. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really familiar with the band - you might call me one of those people who only associates it with Christmas. I'm only following what the source wrote. I have clarified to say "many people" instead of "fans", which I hope is better. But the truth is, it was their last number one (out of 6 in total), and they got some top ten hits. This was their peak, and after being at a peak, you can only go down, which they did. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

*I dispute the assertion that the Christmas single had any adverse effect on the band's popularity whatsoever, and would be surprised if you could show a reliable source to back it up. This was indeed their last #1 but it is pure speculation to explain that in these terms—and in any case (as noted just above), the follow-ups over the next year were #3, #3, #2—very similar to #1, since of course it depends entirely on the competition at that precise moment. Now that I've looked at your source, I can understand where this strange idea came from! An article about a "Christmas curse"? Perhaps Guardian readers were titillated by this festive feature, amused to think that once John Lennon recorded Happy Xmas (War is Over), "inexplicably and ominously ... the curse began its work" with the result that Lennon later "indulged in self-destructive drink and drug binges", "temporarily split from Yoko Ono" and "was gunned down by Mark Chapman", while the workings of this same mysterious "curse" took their toll on Wizzard after I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day: "Alas, immediately following this Christmas cracker, Wood was struck by ulcers and managerial difficulties." This is a source? "Merry Xmas Everybody" was Slade's last number one, yes. The rest of that sentence, "as many people began to associate the group only with Christmas, and their popularity subsequently deteriorated", is quite misleading on two counts and I suggest it should be removed. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian is generally considered to be a reliable source, FWIW. I'll remove it regardless, and change it to something less contentious. Majorly talk 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• We read that when Slade were recording the song, "In an adjoining studio, John Lennon was working on his album Mind Games. The ex-Beatle had recorded his own Christmas single "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in 1971, and had contributed to seven Beatles Christmas records. He was about to use a harmonium, which Slade's producer Chas Chandler decided "Merry Christmas Everybody" needed. It took five days to finish, but the band disliked the first completed version." - This seems to jump all over the place chronologically, and mentions various different Lennon/Beatles recordings for no apparent reason and without their respective timings being clear, and we're forced to make a leap ourselves at the end to work out what took five days to finish from the fact that the band's dislike was relevant. PL290 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Removed the unnecessary detail. Majorly talk 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is now clearer. But what is the significance of the fact that John Lennon "was about to use" a harmonium? What happened next? Did he actually use it, or did Slade usurp it? The mind boggles on this point! Can it be rephrased to avoid or illuminate this aspect. Also, the section too seems superficial: surely there's more than four sentences (one of which is about John Lennon) that can be said about this five-day-long, unsatisfying recording session? PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I wish there was. I did spend a great deal of time hunting out suitable sources. It appears at least one of them isn't suitable. There probably is more, but it's either not been recorded, or is inaccessible. Majorly talk 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I expect Slade borrowed the harmonium, and then gave it back. I'm not sure what is so "boggling" about this. It's not really a big deal either, but considering how little information there is, and how many sources discussed it, I have included it. Majorly talk 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've edited the sentence to improve the flow. I'm not certain of the significance of the Harmonium so I've left that. Parrot of Doom 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Composition section also seems superficial—for an example of an FA song article where this is done more justice, see Hey Jude—and the information it does provide is incomplete and largely unsourced. It is also (to my ears, from memory) incorrect on several counts. For instance, I don't think the "short solo" is in Bb (although it certainly contains Bb chords), and the Bb chord appears far more often in the song than you say: it occurs twice in every chorus, for a start. This section needs expanding and sourcing. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dealing with this (as somebody who doesn't read music that well, this is very difficult), though I wish to point out that Hey Jude is nearly twice as long, so will inevitably have more to say about it. And as mentioned above, the song itself is the source, much like for TV/film articles. I have been unable to locate any sources that describe the song itself, other than the Pedler book, which I've used. Majorly talk 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• As Indopug has rightly pointed out, your approach constitutes original research (and this research has, as I pointed out just above, in my view produced significantly incorrect findings). You say you don't read music but that shouldn't come into it: the musical analysis should be based on reliable sources. You say "Hey Jude" being longer makes it "inevitably have more to say about it"; that again is speculation and original research (and FWIW, I would say, not the case: they are of similar (low) complexity, with perhaps half a dozen chords each, and the Slade one may even slightly win on complexity. Going on for longer by repeating the same thing over and over again does not imply there is much more to say about the composition and musical structure. There may even be more that can be said about the Slade one.). PL290 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• You claim I am speculating and producing original research, yet you then go on to do the same thing yourself! Where is your RS that the Slade song "win on complexity"? Where is your RS that says my interpretation is wrong? What makes you right? You saying it doesn't make it so.
• As I just said, I've searched high and low for any source for the song: I've come up with nothing. It's not an actionable oppose if you just state "here may even be more that can be said about ", because I've found nothing. Majorly talk 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Another point regarding reading music: the Pedler book uses complex musical descriptions (e.g. "harmonising a D major chord that acts as a big V chord for G itself..."). To a layperson, that is completely incomprehensible. It's all very well saying "use reliable sources" but it's only possible to do so when you understand what on earth the source is on about. Majorly talk 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't oppose when all your comments are fixable. I've had a busy week, and will probably get round to fixing these very soon. Thanks, Majorly talk 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixable? Within the FAC process it would be pointless for me to make objections that weren't fixable! Currently these issues prevent the article from meeting 1a, 1b, 1c or 1d and I do oppose—and don't consider it worth reviewing other aspects of the article—until these are fixed. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that various aspects are being worked on and I retain the hope that this might develop to the extent that I could strike my remaining opposition. It gives me no pleasure to oppose and I am sorry to think that my tone or my inclusion of illustrative statements have obstructed my intention of providing helpful pointers that could indirectly facilitate resolution of the issues identified. I will be continuing to watch developments and I look forward to striking my opposition once these remaining issues have been resolved. PL290 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which issues remain? Majorly talk 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the responses above, my remaining concerns (unstruck items) include the lack of depth; for example in both the Recording and Composition sections. This article is very short—as was indeed pointed out at the start of the nomination—but this appears in part to be due to over-summarization of detail that would actually be relevant to the article, in some cases with loss of meaning. To give just one example, "Its popularity, however, has occasionally produced a negative response, causing some venues to remove it from their Christmas playlist." When this sentence is examined more closely in conjunction with the sources, it transpires that it was not popularity that produced the negative response, but loss of popularity: the London Holiday Inn hotel deleted it because 'a large proportion' of customers told employees the song was irritating", and when Manchester Airport "canvassed opinion among 1,200 people about how to improve its Christmas service", they found that "Nearly 500 people said they did not want to hear it as it was 'unpopular' and 'outdated'". Turning to the Composition section, I take it from what's been said that the Pedler book does indeed contain the necessary detail to describe the song's musical structure; I understand that crafting a meaningful narrative would be challenging to someone unfamiliar with the terminology, and I would try to help improve that aspect if I had access to a source, but the Pedler book makes no mention of the song in the parts shown in the Google Books limited preview.PL290 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again: "it is very short" is not actionable if you cannot say where to get more information to expand it with. Of course, I can add more information from the sources I have already, but in reality, there is very little extra to add that is not already here.

The Pedler book, at least on the preview, does not contain enough detail about the song. It briefly discusses a few chords, but it does not describe the whole song in any way. It's most certainly viewable on Google books. Majorly talk 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any more passages you aren't happy with? Majorly talk 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Going to sort out the above issues tomorrow afternoon. Majorly talk 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image/media review: Everything's groovy. Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This claim in the lead is wildly overstated: "It was one of the first Christmas rock songs." The primary text support for that claim is this passage: "Before 1973 Christmas songs tended to be covers of traditional songs, or derived from themed albums. Slade were one of the first to produce a Christmas-themed rock song." (First off, this passage is not coherent: Themed Christmas albums had never contained Christmas-themed rock songs? Simply not true. Do you mean had never contained nontraditional Christmas-themed rock songs? Still, simply not true.) A solitary source is cited for that passage, a personal reflection published in the Guardian, expressed in a very colloquial tone. Here are the lines from the source that are clearly the ones seen as supporting the major claim made in our article's lead: "Christmas up until that point had been many things. Sentimental. Tearful. Confusing. Miserable. One thing it had emphatically not been was rock'n'roll. Slade changed that forever." On the face of it, this is not considered professional critical opinion, but hyperbole. However you take it, it does not support the assertions currently expressed in our article.

Elvis's "Santa Claus Is Back In Town" (1957), written by Lieber and Stoller, isn't rock'n'roll? A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (1963) isn't rock'n'roll? The Beach Boys' Christmas Album (1964), with five originals, isn't rock'n' roll? Elvis's amazing cover of "Merry Christmas Baby" (1971), an R&B (and thus nontraditional) standard, isn't rock'n'roll? As I said, the claim in the lead is wildly overstated; one could even say, simply false. I can certainly provide more authoritative sources providing evidence to contradict the claim, if necessary.

I'd say this whole claim should go. It is possible that another source might be found that would support a much more modest claim relative to Christmas music from British sources. DocKino (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very valid concern and I'll be honest, that when I was writing it I noted the conflicting statements, but assumed the writer had made errors. As somebody who knows little about the topic, I could only follow what the source said, which is perhaps not a good idea. The Guardian, as I mentioned above, is a generally reliable source, but having read this piece, it probably isn't in this case - or as you say, it might be for the UK only, but I've found no sources saying that. I've removed the statements. Majorly talk 11:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Prose Support - Seems concise and well-written.
• Lead seems a little awkward.
• I asked Majorly if the background section was comprehensive, he assured me it was. I have some hesitation though, so my support is on prose only.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceranthor (talk • contribs) 14:41, December 12, 2009

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (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 19:38, 16 December 2009 .

Battle of Bardia

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

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

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

• All my sources are agreed on "bitterly cold". The 16th Infantry Brigade diarist provided a daily weather report but clearly had no access to a thermometer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check No dablinks, no bad external links, images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eubulides' alt text clearance moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

Support: 1c fine. 2c fine. Moved commentary to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this well written, well structured and well illustrated article easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support

"assisted by air and naval gunfire" -> "assisted by air support..."

• Done.

"This was compounded by qualitative problems with ammunition." Clumsy phrasing. That paragraph could do with a rebuild.

"But new factories were required to produce the latest equipment like 3 inch mortars, 25 pounders and motor vehicles, and War Cabinet approval was slow in coming." Please don't start start sentences with But... and take a look at that paragraph as well. For example, "The result was that when war came, the Army's equipment was largely of World War I vintage and obsolescent and its factories were capable only of producing small arms." is clumsy.

• Done.

"As it moved into position around Bardia, the 6th Division was still experiencing shortages." I would like to see "As it moved into position around Bardia on ,..."

• Done

"This, the other teams heard and followed suit." should be "This, the other teams heard, and followed suit." The idiom may be hard for non-Commonwealth readers to follow, but I love that sentence.

• Done.

Please fix typo in "The Italians defenders were cleared with grenades."

• Done

Ditto " He sent a platoon around the flank to silent cut the wire on the western side,..."

• Done

Ditto "Capturing the two posts cost one Australian was killed and seven wounded."

• Done

And "The others had been hit by shells, imobilised by mines, or had simply broken down."

• Done.

"...and the intended two company attack had to carried out by just one"

• Done

"Within the 6th Division, there was were recriminations over what was seen as favouritism by Berryman towards Robertson,". What is the relevance of ", and the 19th Infantry Brigade," in that sentence? Difficult to fathom, please rewrite.

• Done

"In many ways the 6th Division was fortunate to have drawn the a "set piece" type of battle that most suited its Great War based doctrine and training" This paragraph appears internally inconsistent. They were lucky, or they weren't.

• Done

Best concluding sentence of a battle article I have read on WP.

Overall:

Great maps. It may make even better use of that resource to cut out sections of "Bardia map.jpg" to highlight aspects of the description close to the relevant text.

Meets 1a, 1d, 3 and 4. Good job. Dhatfield (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I found it rather odd that the lead does not mention what year this event took place. Also, it doesn't mention that Bardia is in Libya (not common knowledge I suspect). Further, only by using deductive reasoning would I be able to figure out that the battle only lasted three days. Now it is true that all of this information is in the infobox, and I'm not familiar with the format of MilHist articles, but shouldn't basic stuff like this be in the first few sentences of the lead? Sasata (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The lead should stand by itself, without recourse to the Infobox, the article or the links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review:Image issues resolved

• As I understand the tagging, for File:Bardia map.jpg to be in the public domain, Hugh Groser would have to have died before 1955. Do we have any indication that that is the case?
  • No, it is in the public domain because it was a work commissioned by the Australian government before 1955. I've switched the copyright notice to {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, it wasn't hitherto clear that it was a government work. Very good.
• File:Matilda Compass.jpg and File:CompassPrisoners.jpg are indicated as being both under crown copyright and in the public domain; these characterizations are mutually exclusive.
  • I've moved the copyright notice into the permissions, as per the Australian pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• The Australian War Memorial images are all tagged as having been taken in Australia, when they obviously were not. They all still appear to be subject to Australian copyright law, and therefore in the public domain in Australia (and in the US, by virtue of having been in the public domain in Australia by the date of restoration), but they really shouldn't be tagged as having been taken in Australia, because it looks silly. Steve Smith (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct. It probably should say "...or by an Australian" But it is the template. A discussion and consensus is required to change it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh. Somebody less lazy than I am should initiate that discussion (though a preferable wording would be "first published in Australia or, for unpublished works, created by an Australian). In any event, I'm not going to hold up an FAC here on the basis of a poor choice of words on a Commons template. Steve Smith (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I read this article twice and both times I became a bit confused about what was precisely occuring and slightly bogged down. I think there are three reasons for this:

• 1) At times, the article becomes overly detailed, obscuring the general plan of the battle. For example, in the "Planning and preparation" section, it was hard to understand why so much detail was given on the types of guns which were used in the battle. Either the details need to be better placed in context or some of them need to be deleted.
  • The former is required. The point is that the usual rule of thumb for winning a battle is to show up with a bigger army. Bergonzoli did that and lost. So an explanation is required. Without the technical details, that could become "Australians are better fighters than Italians." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • As I said, you either need to place the details in a context that explains why they are relevant or you need to delete them. It sounds like you are leaning towards the first solution. Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• 2) Because the article is so concentrated on the details, I started to lose the thread of the battle and sometimes even forgot which side was which. I think the article needs to take a wider view of the battle more often to remind readers of what is going on. Here are two places where I was lost:

• The 2/3rd Infantry Battalion were now assailed by half a dozen M13/40 tanks who freed a group of 500 prisoners. - I was confused at this point - which prisoners were these?
  • It's not clear where they were captured; the men guarding them may not have known. Prisoners tended to be passed from unit to unit. They just appear in the reports as "500 Italian prisoners". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, Italian - that's what I was confused about. As I said above, the sides became somewhat confused as the labels disappeared. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Major H. Wrigley's 2/5th Infantry Battalion of Brigadier Stanley Savige's 17th Infantry Brigade, reinforced by two companies of Lieutenant Colonel T. G. Walker's 2/7th Infantry Battalion, now took over the advance. - I was no longer sure which Battalions were on which side and was guessing by name ("that sounds British").
  • Clicking on the link would have brought up a nice article on Savige. He is a really interesting guy, quite revered in the Assyrian community. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sure the article is lovely, but basic information such as which side combatants are on should not become unclear in a battle article. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• 3) I didn't really get a good sense of the overarching idea of the battle - it just seemed like a lot of little post battles. Reminding the reader of the goals of the battle, starting with an overview and returning to it, would help.
  • Will do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Prose issues:

• This portion of the Libyan Desert is stony rather than sandy, and arid, supporting little vegetation - What is "this portion"? As this sentence is at the beginning of a section, it should be made clear what "this" is referring back to.
  • Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• The dearth of population meant that bombs and shells could be used with minimal risk of civilian casualties. - Awkward phrasing - "the dearth of population"
  • Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• However, the trenches had no fire steps and the weapons pits lacked overhead cover - Should "weapons" have an apostrophe? Seems like it to me.
  • No, it is correct. Weapons is an adjective here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Interesting - it isn't "pits of weapons"? Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No, "weapons pits" is the correct term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• The 6th Division's training in Palestine, while "vigorous and realistic", was therefore hampered by shortages of equipment until they could be made good from British sources - "made good" doesn't sound quite right
  • Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• The defences here were weaker than in the Mereiga sector; the ground was favourable for employment of the Matilda tanks; good observation for the artillery was possible; an attack here could split the fortress in two; and it was hoped that attacking at the junction of two sectors would confuse the defence. - Sentence is a bit long
  • Broken it up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• By 0920 all companies were on their objectives - How about "had succeeded in achieving their objectives"?
  • I think the former is more succinct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The final "paragraph" of the lead isn't actually a paragraph; by definition you need at least three sentences. Doesn't appear to be an issue anywhere else in the article.
    • I've added another couple of sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I share some of Awadewit's concerns on details. Compared to most MilHist articles I've read, this one is quite comprehendible even if you aren't a war buff, it just suffers from occasional excessive details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on refs

• All OK except minor quibbles, as follows:
• Could use named refs for: Long 1952, p. 155; Playfair 1954, p. 283; Playfair 1954, p. 287.
  • Done. Do you have a script that checks these? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• AWB catches them occasionally but not always; it's a very good idea to run AWB over a nom before nomming it. No, after using AWB, I just copy/paste the whole mess to a text file (to rmv formatting) and from there to MSWord, then I put them into a table and sort the table. A bit time-consuming, but usually works. • Ling.Nut 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• In refs but not notes: Sadkovich
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• "Perhaps most satisfying of all" Satifying to whom? Misplaced Pages? Please rmv.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• "staffs"? Is "staff" countable in BritEng?
  • Yes. The plural is "staffs" when you are talking about a military staff; "staves" is used for a stick or a musical staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• "conference at 1030, but with ten minutes to go". At or for 1030 (different meanings)? Ten minutes to go means it was 1020?
  • Re-worded: " Wrigley called a final coordinating conference for 10:30, but at 10:20 he was wounded by a bullet" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• "This is a Q war." Huh? What does that mean?
  • Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per 1a and 1b. The over-long section on this battle in the Operation Compass article seems to bring the info together in a more pellucid (love that word) manner. I just skimmed over it a bit; it even seems to have facts that the main article doesn't (e.g., "The Italians put in a last-ditch heavy regimental-sized counterattack in the southern sector"). The two accounts need to be carefully reconciled. The clarity of the Operation Compass section should be duplicated herein (love that word too). No major facts should be omitted in this article. Moreover, the subsection of Operation Compass should probably be greatly reduced, IMO. • Ling.Nut 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that section of the Operation Compass article contains a number of errors. Originally I was trying to fix it by footnoting it but then decided in view of its overly-large size to create a separate article on the Battle of Bardia and then to reduce the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I have reduced the Bardia section of that article, but I am not going to overhaul it. This is the article under review, not Operation Compass. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• It's not that the other article is under review; it's that that one is easier to understand. Moreover, it contained info not in this one. If that other info is simply wrong, then (and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm speaking in a sharp tone or ordering you around; I'm making a philosophical observation) you certainly should remove it at some time or other – to help prevent Misplaced Pages from disseminating false info... back to the discussion at hand, however: I think the problem with this article is that it has a number of unstated conclusions or assumptions. As Awadewit said, there are many facts, and few passages to guide the reader into an understanding of the larger picture. For example, ""Germans cannot possibly keep out of Africa now." Is that supposed to be good or bad, from the Allies POV? Did the Allies want German forces in Africa, perhaps to force the latter to open up multiple fronts and expend their resources? And: "In turn this would lead to German intervention in the fighting in North Africa, changing the nature of the war in that theatre." "Changing the nature of the war" seems to be an overly vague understatement. And: "Hardy Wild-Eyed Aussies Called World's Finest Troops" You yourself made the point that the Aussies were outnumbered but still prevailed... but... I must have missed the part where this point was made clear in the article... and what else contributed to the Italian defeat: how much was due to their crappy equipment, or their untrained troops, or low morale and poor health, or tactical errors (if any)? What were the deciding factors? Aside from simply fighting well, did the Aussies make any particularly effective tactical moves, or particularly wise decisions? All or at least most of this should be in the article and should be summarized in the WP:LEDE. I sorta think you should take command of all this info (pun intended) and marshal it into a shape/system that guides the reader into understanding the big issues. • Ling.Nut 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: very well done in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. 19:41, 16 December 2009 (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 20:11, 15 December 2009 .

Bigipedia

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article is of a high enough quality, despite the length. Also, I want this article to be the featured article for April Fool's Day. Over the past few years all of the featured article on April Fool's have been American subject, so I think something from Britain would make a good change. Also, as it is a Misplaced Pages related subject, I think it will be of interest. It is currently a GA and it has already undergone a PR. ISD (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No dab links or dead external links - I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This article strikes me as a bit short (although there are shorter FAs around). Therefore, would it meet criterion 1b : It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context? Anyhow, the alt text on the Bigipedia logo might need a little expansion - mention the ears and the eyes that differentiate it from the actual Misplaced Pages logo. Also, the "episodes" section needs a little bit of cleanup, perhaps some refs. "Product" section consists of one sentence - perhaps you should combine that with the main body of the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Comment: I've sorted out the "Product" section and image alt text. Concerning the episodes is there anything that needs cleaning in particular? What sort of references do you need? ISD (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - very sorry. Yes, there are shorter FAs but they are comprehensive. It seems to me that there is much missing from this short article. Based on only eight sources, the article tells the reader little about the writers, producer, actors and there characters. Linking alone is not enough for a featured article. The production section, which is really about development needs expanding. Having read this, I am left with all sorts of questions such as what else has Pozzitive Productions done, do we know how much the BBC paid them, are the actors famous for anything else, what was the date of Doody's first meeting, who is Doody? Links can be helpful, but I suspect many readers will click but not return. I do not like opposing FA candidates, but standards have to be keep up and this article is not ready to be featured yet. Graham Colm 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid I second some of the opinions GrahamColm expressed above. Try expanding it as much as you can, take it through a peer review, then come back here and re-nominate it if you feel it's ready, posting all the changes made. It's a nice article, but definitely needs some expansion to meet criterion 1b. Very sorry - I.M.S. (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Comment: I've already put it through a peer review - did you not read what I wrote at the beginning? ISD (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - what I was suggesting is taking it through another after you've expanded it. If you feel that will take too long, and you are a competent copyeditor, then take it back here in a few weeks (if this nomination is unsuccesful). It's not over yet, however - you've still got a while to work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Anyway, to return the current nomination, what sort of references would suit the "episodes" section and what bits need to be cleaned up? ISD (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of my questions and responses to your questions:

• At the very least you could use the episode itself as a reference for the "Episodes" sections. Although plot summaries do not always require references (see some Movie FAs), it would be good to at least back up the claims made.
• I think phrases like "There is love in the air" should be avoided, as a summary exists, well, to summarize and not to sell a product.
• The line "online dating service Bigiromance (which does not exist)" - does this refer to it being non-existent within the Bigipedia universe, or within real life?

-- I.M.S. (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've carried out some improves to the section. Sorry for using the British Comedy Guide as a source again, but I cannot find another similarly accurate source. ISD (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Reading through the comments above, I find myself in agreement with User:GrahamColm. I wish that I had made my yearning for more detail more explicit in my rather thin peer review of this article. I hinted at this yearning in my general comments about audience reactions, listener statistics, and possible inclusion of a sound file. Reading the revised version, I still find myself wondering whether this series is the end of Bigipedia or whether the BBC is planning a second series. My suggestion is to withdraw the article from FAC, to flesh it out with anything relevant you can find, and to return to FAC when you've taken the article as far as you can. Nothing would be lost by doing this, and you have plenty of time before April Fool's Day. I'd be glad to do another peer review of a more complete article later. Finetooth (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.comedy.org.uk/
  • http://www.audible.co.uk/aduk/site/product.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0654784086.1260220811@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccladeimljeiiecefecekjdfikdfij.0&p=BK_BBCW_003102UK
• Current ref 4 (Mahoney..) lacks a publisher

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment: Considering that the BBC Comedy links to the British Comedy Guide, I would consider that proof that it is reliable. Also, it is closely monitored by a select group of editiors. I am not sure about Audible, so I've swapped to the BCG as a source. I've corrected ref 4. I cannot seem to find audience reactions or listener statistics. Concerning sound files, the production company Pozzitive has posted a collection of clips on YouTube, but whether Misplaced Pages can use them I am not sure, and even then I don't really know how to make sound files. Concerning whether or not there is a second series in the making, I could always ask the producer/director David Tyler on his Twitter account, but I don't know if Twitter is a reliable source. I could however always give the BCG the source and then they could use it. ISD (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. The best method is a mix of all of the above. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Merely showing that some other site links to them, doesn't show reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked David Tyler about a second series. He wrote on Twitter that: "Ahahah, don't know yet; will find out in early January, or MonthOne according to new BigiCalendar". ISD (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenative support: It short, very short...but I like it (ooch, horrible reason ain't it?), and it's properly referenced; if Eaglyth's comments are resolved, I'm ready to support. (btw, if you can talk to him through Twitter, why not use it to see if you can't get more info/reliability statements from him)? ResMar 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: One image: File:Bigipedia.jpg: TV program logo (fair use/logo), used as main infobox image. Good usage, good rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (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 20:11, 15 December 2009 .

Cleomenean War

Nominator(s): Kyriakos (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured article criteria. I created the article in 2007 and since then it has passed a GAC become an A-Class article on WikiProject Military History. Kyriakos (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. 1b/c: Inappropriate use of PRIMARY sources to demonstrate points, this amounts to OR in a historical field. Inappropriate use of Tertiary sources (no specialist authors indicated). Inappropriate use of sources out of date (Classics has moved on since 1873/1875). Lack of expected specialist secondary works, including media formats where expected articles would exist (book chapters, journal articles) which puts a massive independent doubt in my mind that 1c has been met. Some 2c fiddle about correctly citing chapters contained in other works, missing locations, volume number of a work in the title. Niebuhr's lectures miscited, and they're 1875. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply. Unfortunately, as is the case with the more obscure conflicts of the Hellenistic era, secondary sources are hard to find leading to a reliance on primary sources as is the case with this article, with has a reliance on Plutarch. The lack of specialist comtempary sources had caused me problems throughout the creation of this article and I have tried to use as many secondary sources as possible (such as Peter Green, who is a prominent historian on the era). I will try and find more secondary sources but as I have stated above, there are very few on this topic and thus I don't think I will find many. Kyriakos (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There are modern sources.

• N. Hammond, A history of Macedonia/volume 3 (Oxford 1988) p.349-362 (contains footnotes to other sources)
• Hölbl, Günther. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Translated by Tina Saavedra. London: Routledge Ltd.
• G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches (Darmstadt 1994) p. 50-53 (contains footnotes to other sources in English, German and Dutch, look above, the book has been translated) Wandalstouring (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply. ONce again Wandals thank you very much. You always seem to find great sourcres. Kyriakos (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Will be more than happy to review again if you can appropriately incorporate these sources to demonstrate a majority of points. (Occasional stuff verified out of primary in a difficult, small, area of study is tolerable, but working these through an Oxford history in volumes, and an explicit history published by Routledge would be best). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reply. I've fixed all the dabs. Kyriakos (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I read through the article and overall it looks good; specific issues I had are noted below. I'm not sure about the article's accessibility and background and will come back later to have another look at that.

• Images are all missing alt text.
  • Alt text is present for most (though not all) now, but I'm afraid it's not yet sufficient. As you can see at WP:ALT, alt text"summarizes the image's appearance, not its meaning, and typically has little in common with the image's caption." How would you describe the image itself when you would describe it to someone over the phone? In particular, the alt text should generally not repeat the caption. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I've redone most of the alt texts. Kyriakos (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty good, but someone more experienced with alt text may be should confirm that it's sufficient. Ucucha 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• The map in the infobox contains unreadable text. I think you should change it to a map that clearly indicates the parties of the war.

Lead

• Please tell us who Aratus is before mentioning what he was doing.
• "failed revolt" - what failed revolt? Against Ptolemy, the new rulers of Sparta?

Prelude

• "the translator of Plutarch on Sparta, Richard Talbert and historian N. G. L. Hammond, says Cleomenes took them at their own request." - somewhat vague. Did they both translate Plutarch or is only Talbert a translator?
• Somewhat odd that you refer to the Achaean League as "she". Is this usual?

No it is no usual. It must have been a typo but I could not find this reference in the article. Kyriakos (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Early years and success

• Whose success?

It was the Spartan success and I have changed the title iof the section. Kyriakos (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again, map has unreadable text.
• "Initially, Cleomenes made only minor requests of the Achaean delegates; the Achaeans continued to send ambassadors, however, and Cleomenes eventually demanded that leadership of the League be surrendered to him; in exchange, he would return to the Achaeans the prisoners and strongholds he had seized." - this goes on a little too long, please split the sentence. Also, the part about the ambassadors makes little sense to me.
  • It's better now. However, it still seems to be saying (or, at the very least, implying) that Cleomenes made more demands because the Achaeans send more ambassadors, which makes little sense to me.
    • I've rephrased the sentences. Kyriakos (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Domination of the Peloponnese

• "When he heard what had happened at Corinth, Aratus expected the city to fall to Sparta." - do you mean "When he heard what had happened at Argos, Aratus expected Corinth to (also) fall to Sparta."?

Macedonian intervention

• Now that is a good map. The other maps should be like this in legibility.
• League of Leagues - why did the Thessalians acquiesce to this when they had opposed Antigonus a short time before?

  It was the Aetolian Leahue that had occupied some parts of Thessaly that opposed Antigonus.

  Fair enough then. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha 02:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply. By unreadable text do you mean the writing is too small? Kyriakos (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do. Another point: only the reviewer is supposed to strike comments. Ucucha 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

SOrry about that. I have removed the strikes. I'll try find some more maps, I but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. Kyriakos (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I kept the strikes I was satisfied with. I may be able to help with the maps, but can't guarantee. If not, there are other possibilies: User:MapMaster may be kind enough to help, if he's around, and there is some other place where you can request maps. Ucucha 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone over all the points now except for the maps. Kyriakos (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a few more left. As for the map, I would prefer the first one to show clearly the parties in the war and the essential places where battles occurred during the war. The first map has a lot of information that is not necessary to this article and the scale is such that it's impossible to see where Sparta actually is, which is one of the essential pieces of information it should give. Ucucha 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted MapMaster as you suggested and I am going to have a simpler map generated of the combantants, battle locations and cities. Kyriakos (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. I'm confident he'll do a good job, so I'm striking my map comments. Could you have a look at the two (very small) remaining issues I raised? Ucucha 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it's missing for File:Lechaeum.png. The alt text for File:Macedonia and the Aegean World c.200.png conveys mostly useless info (such as colors): it should give the gist of the image, such as the way that Macedonia covers the northern half of Greece; see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. The phrases "The diagram depicts", "shows", and "A drawing" should be reworded and/or removed, as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Please check the punctuation; there's a missing period after "drapery" and an extra comma after "shows". Eubulides (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done some work on the alts. Hopefully they are better now. Kyriakos (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2009 (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 20:11, 15 December 2009 .

China at the Olympics

Nominator(s): Sophie2895 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. I am aware it is shorter than most FAs, but I have literally squeezed every source I could find on the topic to get more information about it as I could. I don't believe it omits any important information, in this respect, and covers the topic fully. Otherwise, I think it's fine. Thanks Sophie2895 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Fails to cover the topic adequately and looks more like a list. Probably need to have a summary of each olympics or each decade. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – In its present format, this is much more of a list than an article. A better place for this to be nominated is at featured list candidates, which deals with pages like this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This has the potential to be developed into a featured list, but its content needs to be referenced and expanded first. The article's sole focus on China's successes at the Olympics is also troublesome from a NPOV perspective. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I also don't think this is FA quality, but this should not be made into a list. If it is, it should probably be renamed. A better idea is to expand and reformat the article so that it covers various aspects of China's Olympic exploits (history, summary of the country's participation in each sport, etc.). An example of this would be Australia at the Winter Olympics. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal and peer review per above—does not look comprehensive.

• I agree with Nick-D and Dabomb87: it needs at least important losses and more related historical events as well as wins.
• Any important people within PRC's Olympic committees, or other people who helped push for their inclusion or impacted their participation?
• The medal counts could probably make a small section of a much larger prose article—we are talking about the PRC, after all—with the title's scope. (Have you checked for books and academic journals on the subject (see criterion 1c)?)
• Good use of contextual links such as Hong Kong at the Olympics for "Hong Kong", though.

Put it through peer review and nominate for Good Article first, and exhaust all sources on the subject. China is rich in history, and I'm not sure their Olympic involvement differs. --an odd name 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. All the images are purely decorative in the W3C sense, so please mark them with |link=|link= as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhonghuo (talk • contribs) 12:02, December 15, 2009

  Thanks. A couple of images still had alt text problems, but I fixed them too.. That should do it. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2009 (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 20:11, 15 December 2009 .

Death Has a Shadow

Nominator(s): Pedro J. 15:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I think this artical is ready for FA as it is sourced and well written Pedro J. 15:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Just glancing at it...

• Most of background/production is more relevant to the series than this episode (and is already present on the main article), so should be trimmed down or removed.
• Reception section is rather short, and the reviews are rather vague.
• Article needs thorough copy-edit. Ωphois 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Per above. Article needs a complete copyedit, plus it needs to be refocused to target more so on the episode then the series by clipping down some of background. I'd suggest withdrawing this nom, getting the article copyedited, peer reviewed, then renominate it. Cheers, The Flash 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry Pedro, I don't like to pile it on but the prose is poor. Here are some examples to show why another thorough copyedit is needed.

• Here the meaning is not clear, " In the episode, Peter loses his job after drinking too much at a stag party and falls asleep at work." The sentence does not have a logical flow something like "In the epidode, Peter gets drunk at a stag party and he is fired from his job when he falls asleep at work (? the following day)."
• There is a similar problem here, "He then signs on to welfare to keep his wife Lois from finding out, but gets much more than he expected." I think it means "He signs on for welfare to prevent his wife Lois from knowing, but he gets much more money than he expected".
• Here " Eventually, Lois finds out however, and Peter decides to dump the money from a blimp, at the Super Bowl" what purpose does "however" serve? And again the logic is poor. Why should Lois's discovery of the truth make Peter want to dump the money?
• Here "He is then arrested, and must await his family's rescue." Why was he arrested and why must he wait to be rescued?
• Should "featured" be "featuring" here: "During this time, he created his thesis film entitled The Life of Larry, featured a middle-aged slob named Larry Cummings, his cynical talking dog, Steve, supportive wife Lois, and pudgy teenage son Milt." Or you could say "which featured" but don't forget the preceding comma.
• There is a word missing here, "This caught the attention of Fox, and gave MacFarlane $50,000 to make a pilot."

These concerns are all from the Lead alone, there are many problems throughout the article. I think the nomination should be withdrawn, it's far from ready to be featured. Graham Colm 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Since this is the first episode of Family Guy, I think some background is important. I worked on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, which is the first episode of South Park and included quite a bit of background information. The point is to show how the background material is relevant to the episode itself. Just some helpful advice. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (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 00:06, 14 December 2009 .

Dan Povenmire

Nominator(s): The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:

• http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html is a press site for news related to Alabama.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 are internet talk shows hosted by internet personality Piper Reese.
• http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue/Articles/Story.cfm?StoryID=1020 is a news website which is associated with Variety magazine.
• http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=1 , http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=2 , and http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=3 are e-zine versions of the popular animation website Animation News Network, which is referenced in countless books.
• http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html is a website dedicated to alumni of University of Southern California and funds USC's official magazine, Daily Trojan.
• http://www.badmouth.net/comic-strip-war/ is a website co-published by award-winning writer John Marcotte and also features, as you can see from the article, Povenmire's official drawings.

Thanks in advance, The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Decline: 1c/2c. I've walked through all the bloody citations. They are now what they claim to be. Two of them don't meet WP:RS/N, which I've noted. I'm 1c on that basis. Also a dead link needs removing. Resolved at Talk. Some other sources aren't HQRS, even if they're RS... but I don't know if HQRS have been exhausted for this. To other editors, the citations now accurately represent the sources used, good luck determining if they meet 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) citation style is consistent. 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The archive for Bond, Paul. (2009-06-07). "Q&A: Dan Povenmire". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. is down. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Archive fixed. Also, please just mention supposed unreliable sources here at the FAC in stead of just tagging it as unreliable in the page, like you did with the Toon Zone ref. It's totally reliable and has been cited in several books. Same thing with the Hop Studios thing, just put it here so we can discuss it in stead of tagging, it makes it much easier and doesn't make the page look bad as it does now. The Flash 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scratch the first bit (wrong archive). It's not messed up, the website just requires log-in to read it. The Flash 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 comments and SUPPORT (see below) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17

24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are several good things about this article. This is comprehensive, and reasonably well written, not brilliant, but sturdy (1a, 1b). It is neutral (1d), and seemingly stable (1e) (given the number of people telling him to change this and that, it's stable). The structure is good, lead is sufficiently "summary" style, and individual sections cover what they purport to cover (2a, 2b). The info on "personal life could probably be integrated into the rest of the material, since it is so short, but based on WP:BLPNAME, which is the Biography projects' policy on including names/info of minors and spouses, this is reasonable. Images seem to be okay now, but that is not my bailiwick, and I'm not assessing those; it is sufficient for me to see a few images, and they are distributed to break up the text, and offer me an image to illustrate some point or other. Although I would prefer an image of Phineas, for example, I suspect that falls outside "fair use." The length is good, focused on the subject, no discursiveness (crit. 4).

• I could add this if you'd like, but, like you said, it's fairuse. The Flash 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• The remaining problems seem to be with reliability of the sources and citation styles (1c and 2c), which is a contention. It seems to me that the sources are reliable within the realm of current popular culture, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a great deal of scholarly discussion of Sponge Bob Square Pants and Phineas and Ferb. One hundred years from now, possibly. But in 2009? Not so much. I've looked at the sources Flash has used. As a scholar and historian I'm not happy with them, but as a reasonable and practical person I must admit they are not only what is available, they seem to be the best of what is available. Is it reasonable to continue demanding specific kinds of sources that are not available for this topic? Flash isn't writing about Milton or Rembrandt, for whom millions of trees have been destroyed, and gallons of ink expended. So in fairness to Flash, I have to say he's met reliability requirements. He did not cite gossip columns, and in most cases, he has two or three citations for the same assertion. Although I find this particular cite style extremely difficult to follow (a b c d etc.) this is not an actionable objection, just a personal preference; others find my cites equally objectionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks you; I too believe all the sources I'm using fall as RS through some standard. Thanks for the support! :) The Flash 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific examples that have raised issues: The website Al.com. This website appears to contain news articles from the Mobile Press Register. It is their online presence, instead of using the newspaper name itself, which is where one goes to advertise, apply for a job, or subscribe. So this is a choice that the newspaper made on how to present its material. It is also an interactive website (hence the word "blog" I suppose). The latest trend! That is some 12-13 citations from an article on the subject. I've read the article from the paper and it is accurately presented in the wiki article. Animation World magazine, while not a scholarly journal, nor a juried one, is still a central source for information about animation. Again, see my comments above re the amount of literature available on this subject. Four different articles are cited from that. Okay, so these are not deep, intellectual stuff. But again, the material is well represented in the wiki article. The newspaper articles look fine. I've never been overly impressed with the Bergen Record, but they are reliable if not particularly inspired, and it was an interesting article. I have not got a clue what Badmouth is about, but the information in the wikiarticle does describe what is on the badmouth site (and cite). The last one is the Daily Trojan "Where are they now" list. I read what was on there, and it looks like a class notes type of thing, ex officio. The material Flash has cited is predominantly the personal information stuff--his house has a view of Mt Wilson (or ?), he married Vanessa,and his last DVD was released online. Most of this is "flavor" for the article, gives a sense of the character of the LP, but of little substance, just rounds him out. There is also a cartoon character on the site that is in the style Povenmire draws, so its quite possible that he sent the info in himself. AND wrote "over the hill" on his character's drum. Someone has a twisted sense of humor, and i like it.:) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Auntieruth. I believe that is what Sandy was looking for. :) The Flash 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I supported last time, I don't have the time right now but was asked to comment. As I'm writing an essay at the moment, I'll have to get back to this some other time. ceranthor 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable:

** http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html the fact that it's a news site for alabama related news is not enough to show reliablitiy

• • Once again, same as last time, look here where news sources cite it for information. The Flash 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Was this article run in the Mobile The Mobile Press-Register? Perhaps you might check there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    According to this they're owned by the same people and are sister sites. The Press Register site has an awkward navigational system, I couldn't search for it, but as the website is near the same as Press-Register, I think it makes it a reliable source (related to/heavily affiliated with and owned alongside a published work?) The Flash 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    This can then be left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm okay with al.com and mobile press-register sites for an article like this and for the kind of material Flash cites from it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can the comment be struck then? The Flash 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know Flash, but I just struck it. It uses the same material that goes on the Mobile Press Reg website, just reformatted for "only" Alabama news. So it seems to me that it is a legitimate source, as good as the newspaper. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks then. :) The Flash 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=8691491442 You need to show that Classmates.com does fact checking on the entries.

    It's Classmates.com, look at this source for all the news sources that cite it for information. I don't see how you expect me — or anyone — to know how anything does it research. Does anybody but The New York Times know how they get info? They did researched, they sourced, etc., but there's no source for almost anything to explain how anything finds it's info. The Flash 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    the first result there is talking about Classmates.com, same with the second. Third, fifth, sixth also. Seventh has a news results that says "In addition to his criminal record in Utica, Facebook and Classmates.com pages indicate that...." not exactly a uniequivical endorsement. Eighth, ninth and tenth results again are about classmates.com, not citing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    A lot of the sources refer to its high profit margin, among several other websites. This stands for something itself right? The Flash 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    No, not really. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    No problem. Removed the source; it was only used to support a very brief, non-important thing, didn't really defend it that strongly. The Flash 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html Again, you need to show that it's not just affiliated with, but that it actually fact checks.

    It is created by a former Daily Trojan editor and alumni of USC himself, who is also a web designer and teacher. see here. I'm apretty sure he gathered this info through personal interviews/e-mails. I hope that covers it because, this is the only source for several bits of key personal info in his life that would probably make people oppose this article for lack of info on key topics like his personal life. :) The Flash 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    So essentially it's self-published? Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's a requirement here that sources for BLPs satisfy WP:RS, and this one is definitely iffy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    I know you're not trying to be mean, lol. I'm pretty positive it is self-published, yes. The Flash 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Upon further research, I can safely say this constitutes as an RS. It is written, maintained, and edited by a longtime editor and writer for both Variety magazine's website and the Los Angeles Times. Ealdgyth, if you can get back to me on this, it'd be appreciated. The Flash 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

    He also actually teaches online courses at USC itself. You can read it all on the website. The Flash 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Personal life section is two lines. Could it be expanded, or merged elsewhere? It seems a bit short on its own. Majorly talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• The other info that was there can be seen here, but it was removed after a suggestion from the copyeditor showed how they really didn't meet WP:NOTABLE. I could add them back if you like. The only other thing I can do is merge it with early life, renaming the section "Personal life." Which one works for you? The Flash 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge it in with early life and rename is the best idea. It's just two short to stand on its own. Majorly talk 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. The Flash 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not add them back. They do not meet notability requirements in and of themselves, and the bio project's policy on this is very clear. See WP:BLPNAME. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Last time i edited this artical i said something and iam saying it again Supporrt --Pedro J. 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, involved reviewers should indicate so in their declarations; Pedro J. passed the GA on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a note for the reviewer to go back and add it into their support or just for future reference? The Flash 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Supporters need to specifically and explicitly discuss the text cited to the questioned sources above, and explain why they think the sources are reliable for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can see, supporters who mention the sources and source it give their reasons specifically why they think it works. See Auntieruth's comments/supports above. The Flash 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support No more issues from me. Majorly talk 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This a BLP and reliability of sources and how they are used to support statements in the text is paramount. I think this candidature was premature, and were it not for the efforts of Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo, it would have been quickly archived. That the nominator needed to defend the sources used in the nomination from the outset, immediately raised my doubts. One of Ealdgyth's concerns remains, and I agree with her on this. I have spent an hour looking at the sources and I am left with impression that the FA standards have not been met. Graham Colm 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Flash, while I don't think the Hop studio cite is problematic -- the data appears to be entered by alumni about themselves -- generally, these sources are problematic. I suggest you take out the bits from Hop. They are about the man's personal life, which is not related to his notability, and I've always been uncomfortable including data on his private life. You can still include the info on his daughter sharing her name to a Phineas and Ferb character without having to cite Hop, because it's from somewhere else. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked Sandy to archive this nom, as several comments have been brought up and lead me to believe that this truly was premature. Thanks for the comments everyone. The Flash 23:00, 13 December 2009 (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 17:09, 13 December 2009 .

Family Guy

Nominator(s): Pedro J. 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...i think it is ready for an FA status it has been through two Peer Reviews after it got to GA and i have expandedit and copyeitit so i think it's up for it. Pedro J. 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

"Music" and "Road to" sections need sourcing that they are "hallmarks". Ωphois 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted that earlier, hallmark AFAIK it means some aspect that reapets itself in a way along the show i think the musical numbers and the road to episodes count .--Pedro J. 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only five episodes. Needs sourcing. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain that way i may agree--Pedro J. 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only five episodes out of the entire series. Not really notable, unless noted by a third-party source. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a refrence that calls it a Road to episodes of the IGN.--Pedro J. 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That would probably work. Can you list it here? Ωphois 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a review of one of the episdodes he called it one of the road to series.

done--Pedro J. 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural influences" section doesn't appear to have any cultural influences. It just talks about how Family Guy influenced spin-off series of MacFarlane (which exist for any series' spin-off). Same with "Music and idioms". It's basically a list of parodies. Ωphois 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It dose, it influenced on American Dad, the cleveland show, the winner, and it has influenced music and idoms.--Pedro J. 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which are all related to Family Guy. No influences outside of MacFarlane's shows are listed. Fans looking up the meaning of an invented word does not infuence popular culture. The music is just songs parodied by the show, not the other way around. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with the songs but the word is an influecen and even if it is MacFarlanes job he used them to influence them.--Pedro J. 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And what cultural influence did the word have? Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

well i took it from an example of the simpsons.--Pedro J. 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between that word and D'oh!. Ωphois 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah alright i fish freaking sweet would become the douh of Fg--Pedro J. 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Characters and Voice Cast sections should probably be combined. Ωphois 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That those not seem right i see many other FAs and have there characters section.--Pedro J. 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reception section is heavily biased in favor of the show. It only gives one negative critical review of the series, while an entire section is dedicated to praising it. Ωphois 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Going to have to disagree, as we had hard time finding good reception, there is plenty of negetive recepction.--Pedro J. 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is plenty of negative reception, then why didn't you add it? Right now it only lists one negative critical review. The rest is from other TV shows and cartoonists. Ωphois 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It has criticisam, bad reviews what more can it have--Pedro J. 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it has one negative critical review. Ωphois 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

will see what i can find ohpios--Pedro J. 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

done--Pedro J. 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Television critics have commented that the first season episodes where some of the best of the series, includeing "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" and "I Never Met the Dead Man"." - Spelling/grammar needs to be fixed. Also, it cites "television critics", but those two episodes are only listed by one critic.

"The IGN, a multimedia news and reviews website that focuses heavily on video games has called the show a hilarious experience brand of humor." - Needs copy-editing.

The page has also wrote lists of the show naming there best moments on different categories. - Not really relevant, IMO. It's a list of the show's best moments, not moments in comedy, so there is no comparison. Ωphois 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Sydney Morning Herald named Family Guy the "Show of the Week" on April 21, 2009, calling it a "pop culture-heavy masterpiece"." - That is related to a specific episode, not the series in general. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Things do not need to be source to be a hallmark it reapets itself maany times so it counts as a hallmark, and that is influceing--Pedro J. 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. That is an observation by you, not a RS. Ωphois 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

show me examples that do have sources of that--Pedro J. 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are making the claim that it's a hallmark. It's up to you to find sources. Ωphois 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Characters and voice cast are completely difrent things should not be toghether--Pedro J. 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

TV articles generally have them combined. Ωphois 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

whats a hallmar for lets say the simpsons: the halloween episodes and humor, for FG the music, the cutaways and the Road to episodes, plus you work alot on Supernatural right thats difrent from anaimated sitcoms as we have difrent stlyes --Pedro J. 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a hallmark, then it will be noted as such in third-party sources. Ωphois 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you do not need to source things that are obious--Pedro J. 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not something "obvious". It's original research.

Another note... have all the reviewers from the previous review been notified that it is back up for nomination? Ωphois 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

working on that elimanated recep from IGN--Pedro J. 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, oppose. In addition to my previous comments, the prose needs work. I would suggest a copy-edit. Ωphois 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm afraid the article is not ready yet. Take the following sentence for example: "The show has also had showrunners as Mark Hentemann and Steve Callaghan," First of all, there should be a period at the end, not a comma. Secondly, I think there's a missing "such" in the sentence. Also, the dates in the article's references are formatted incorrectly. Some use "yyyy-mm-dd", while others use "Month day, year". Theleftorium 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

comeing from you that means its bad--Pedro J. 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad. Just needs some more work, that's all. :) Theleftorium 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya think it needs to be dis-nominated--Pedro J. 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If i mau ask what do you think about ohpios requests takeing in mind your an animated editor--Pedro J. 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which of the requests are you referring to? Theleftorium 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All of them--Pedro J. 20:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They make sense to me. Theleftorium 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

realy all of them--Pedro J. 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

soon someone will copyeit the artical left--Pedro J. 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you want to continue with the nomination, you need to alert the reviewers of the previous nomination. Ωphois 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Took care of that--Pedro J. 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. From what I can see, you just notified people associated with the Family Guy project and left out people who had previously opposed. Ωphois 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

From the previous FAC i notified most of them and looks like you did the ones that where left--Pedro J. 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you please check spelling as you type your replies here. Not that we're reviewing the nominator, but seeing so many typos here I can not trust the article.

Will do.--Pedro J. 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please click on the "external links" and "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page and fix the problems you'll find there, such as dead links and unclear redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

External(removed the dead links, disambig(done)--Pedro J. 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reference 117 is dead. So I think you should replace it for find an archive of it. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done--Pedro J. 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, if a link is dead, you don't have to automatically delete it. Check first if an archived version is available at the Wayback Machine. Ωphois 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• Unusually large number of spelling errors in the article (for a FAC). I fixed all that I saw, but this doesn't bode well... • Ling.Nut 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Depth and extent of 2c errors make the citations unverifiable in particular not naming the sources correctly and timing data, plus the citation of copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of timing data when citing videos. For example, "His main inspiration for Chris' voice came from envisioning how "Buffalo Bill" would sound if he were speaking through a public address system at a McDonald's." => "^ Green, Seth. (September 27, 2005). Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story: Audio Commentary. .". We could really do with timing data for that.

Copyvios have been cited

Cite correctly: "Plenty of Changes at Fox, UPN, Fox Tinkers With its Prime-Time Lineup on 6 Nights, UPN on 3". newsbank. Retrieved October 3, 2009. is from Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - May 17, 2002 - B7

Cite correctly: " "ARTS & TV in Brief; `Family Guy,' `SportsNight' may move to new networks". pqasb. Retrieved October 3, 2009." is Boston Herald - Boston, Mass. Date: Apr 25, 2000 Start Page: 052

Cite correctly: ""News Corp. Wins Suit Dismissal Over ‘Family Guy’ Song (Update1)". bloomberg." is by "By David Glovin and Erik Larson" and bloomberg takes a Capital B.

And I take it you read those three articles when conducting the research?

IGN is sometimes Italic sometimes Roman.

Inappropriate bold in: "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire". Family Guy. Fox. June 12, 2005. No. 3, season 20.

Additionally MOS on caps "TIME", titles incorrect "allmovie" for "AllMovie"

I'm not going to outline more of the errors, basic work like seeing if a weblink is infact a newspaper article has not been conducted, obvious errors in formatting abound: the citations do not allow for verification of the research, thus the research is unverified. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (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 18:59, 12 December 2009 .

The Kinks

Nominator(s): I.M.S., MadHatter

I am nominating this for featured article because I have substantially expanded the article over the past few weeks, slowly adding references and text. I have looked over the FA criteria, and it looks to me that this article meets them. I hope that whatever problems reviewers find here are small and fixable ones; please state your concern and I will attempt to address them as soon as possible. Many thanks for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Primary contributor knows about nom, no dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support (1, 2 and 4 - cites and images not checked). Great work—a comprehensive article and an engaging read. A couple of minor points picked up on the last read through:
  • "The album contained only seven full seconds, the remainder being instrumentals" - not sure what this means; is there a missing word?
  • "In early 1986, the group signed with MCA Records in the United States and London Records in the UK. Their first album for the new label, Think Visual," - that was two new labels by my reckoning. PL290 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! That mistake with "seven seconds" was something I wasn't aware of - it must have been a mistake the copyeditor made. I'll fix these errors in a second... - I.M.S. (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Added an "s" to "label", and changed the sentence in the Percy section to:

• • The majority of the album consisted of instrumentals, and did not receive ...

--- I.M.S. (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm part-way through my first pass of the article, and my first impression is that it looks good. I've made a couple of minor edits, and I'm starting some comments here.

• • "Before signing to the label, drummer Willet left the band" - needs recasting or possibly combining with an earlier sentence since it was the band, not Willet, that signed to the label.
  • "They also performed and toured relentlessly, headlining package tours with the likes of The Yardbirds and Mickey Finn, which caused tension within the band." - please clarify whether the tension was caused by the relentless touring or the company of those latter acts.
  • "Some legendary on-stage fights erupted during this time as well. The most notorious incident was at The Capitol Theatre" - suggest "legendary" is not really encyclopedic here, and "most notorious" needs a cite or needs to go.
  • "Solo work" section - I don't think this really belongs in the band article. It's only a few paragraphs anyway; suggest removal.
  • General - per wp:Mos#Em_dashes, em dashes should not be spaced.

That's all for now... time permitting, I will continue to add comments as I read more. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all the issues... thank you for taking the time to review it! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lead needs further work. See WP:LEAD for guidance. Consider its structure, and the role of each paragraph. Currently the last paragraph simply takes up the history again and drifts to something of an anticlimax. An effective and commonly used approach is to keep the history summary to the middle paragraph and devote the final paragraph to the material about awards and recognition. Also the lead seems unable to make its mind up whether the band is a thing of the present or the past. The infobox assures us they remain active, but although "The Kinks are an English rock group", we're told that "Their music spanned a wide range of genres" and "Ray and Dave Davies remained the two permanent members of The Kinks throughout it's run" (also watch the possessive there).

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is definitely taking shape. It still needs a bit more work! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an example, the two statements, "The Kinks continued throughout the 1970s and found little success" and "Due to a lack of success ... the group split in 1996" both need to acknowledge the wider context, i.e., the band was indeed successful in the 1960s. To make the point, "but found little further success" would make all the difference for the first one. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How about:

The Kinks continued recording throughout the 1970s, creating theatrical concept albums, but found little further success. The band eventually experienced a revival...

And:

Due to the commercial failures of the band's past few albums as well as creative tension between the Davies brothers, The Kinks split in 1996.

What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think those would be much better. "Due to" can probably be bettered, to make it more of a description of events than an explanation. PL290 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "In May 1967, The Kinks returned with "Waterloo Sunset", an emotional single with the melancholic observer spying two lovers meeting ..." - I could be wrong but it strikes me a single can't really be "emotional", or have a melancholic observer, per se; to become encyclopedic it may need spelling out more (perhaps "an emotional song written from the point of view of a melancholic observer ...")

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Too hasty perhaps: "an emotional song with about an observer spying" doesn't quite make sense! PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this sound (I'll add it to the article if you like):

• The tune describes two lovers passing over a bridge, with a melancholic observer reflecting on the couple, the Thames, and Waterloo Station.

preceding unsigned comment is hereby signed by PL290 'bot': I.M.S. (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• A vast improvement! Except for tune. (The band would find it hard to convey such detailed information in a tune alone!) Song. PL290 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks for the suggestions! I appreciate it. I'll get to work on the choppy paragraphs in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The song went on to become one of their most popular and best-known, with pop music

journalist Robert Christgau calling it ... " - rephrase to avoid Noun plus -ing

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mix of UK, U.K., US and U.S. throughout - per WP:ABBR please use UK and US.

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Golden age" section contains several two-line paragraphs which don't really make for engaging prose. Such "stubby" paragraphs often draw complaints from reviewers. Try to focus the essential material into decent-sized paragraphs crafted to hold the reader's attention.

Done. Combined - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still some remain (in that section and also elsewhere in the article). These short, choppy paragraphs interrupt the flow and should be rethought and combined. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've rewritten/replaced/removed all of the inessential ones - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1a: The article is still, in places, characterized by short paragraphs. It's not proseline, but please see that article anyway for the extreme case of what I'm talking about. Have a look too at a range of the current nominations at WP:FAC and see what effect you think paragraph size has on section readability. From a 1a point of view I feel things can still be improved if time is devoted to carefully combining paragraphs, crafting longer ones that capture and hold the reader's interest. The lower number of paragraphs per section that results also helps the reader to maintain a sense of progress and place within a section. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it look alright now? - I.M.S. (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Having said which, the Village Green paragraph is too long and rambling. As this album was something of a breakthrough, dwelling on it to some extent is justified, but it needs to be shorter, more focussed and make the point of the breakthrough more immediately.

Done. Removed some clutter. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PL290 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. My favorite British Invasion band. Needs a serious copyedit--does not meet 1a standard at this point. Queries on lead:

:*It is customary to name the most important members of the group in the lead. In the case of The Kinks, I would say that's the four founding members plus Dalton, though other positions are defensible.

• "In the remainder of the decade Ray Davies' writing skills slowly evolved". Did they suddenly stop evolving at the turn of the decade (i.e., before Lola and Muswell Hillbillies?) Are we sure that it's appropriate to characterize the evolution as "slow"?
• "Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, Muswell Hillbillies". If we're giving Lola's full title, than all the titles need to be separated by semicolons, else Part One is plausibly read as a stand-alone title.
• "During the New Wave era, groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs and Britpop acts such as Blur, Oasis and Supergrass have cited them as a major influences". In the same sentence, we have one list with the serial comma and one list without. Please choose one style or the other and apply consistently throughout the article.
• "The Kinks' influence has carried on until today". Not idiomatic.
• "The Kinks are mentioned as one of the early bands that can be traced with a heavy metal sound". Improperly phrased and unclear. Do you mean to say that they have been identified as one of the earliest bands to play with a heavy metal sound (i.e., one of the first heavy metal bands), or that they are one of the seminal bands to which the later heavy metal sound can be traced (i.e., one of the most influential proto-metal bands).
• "The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame". The group has had many members; I'm sure not all were inducted. Please make clear who was.
• "As self-professed Kinks fan Pete Townshend said for The History of Rock 'n' Roll: 'The Kinks were much more quintessentially English'". Awkward use of quote. Much more quintessentially English than whom? Than The Who? But the lead of an article on The Kinks is not the place to bring in The Who (or whomever). Suggest eliding "much more": "The Kinks were ... quintessentially English".

• That's just the lead, which tends to be the most carefully composed element of most articles. The services of a copyeditor need to be retained for a thorough working-over of the whole piece. I would be happy to volunteer, but I'm devoting what time I have to Tender Mercies, further along in FAC. I'll return in a week to see what progress has been made. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on it... will post back here when completed. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed these issues. Please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please strike these issues - I believe I've addressed them. Again, please tell me if I've missed any. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved "Comment to AnOddName" to my section above to keep shit together. :) --an odd name 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Good start, but needs work to become the standard of FAs like The Beatles or Joy Division:

• List out the studio albums in the discography section (see the two example articles for correct format).

Mad Hatter went ahead and did this. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Remove members' birth info, that can be found on their individual articles.

Will do. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of info is potentially more suitable for Ray Davies article. In particular, I'm thinking that big blockquote about his depression.

Will do. I've already removed the blockquote. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody should be doing a more thorough sources/references review soon, but I find many problems from just a cursory glance:

• Sure Allmusic is a good, reliable site, but using its one page biography as a source >30 times is inappropriate. I'm sure there are many books on the group, they should be used more frequently to cite stuff.

Will find other RSs. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced a few of the Allmusic refs and added another book I have as a source. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Don't link to potentially copy-vio article reprints on fan-sites. (Kindakinks)

Will remove. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Removed and replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Kindakinks a reliable source? I highly doubt that it is actually, I suggest using Billboard or Allmusic for the chart info instead.

Will replace. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Refs replaced. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please copy-edit throughout for WP:MOS errors. Also, plenty of incomplete references.—indopug (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just now gone through the article and done my best to copyedit it. If you notice some specific problems, please tell me and I'll try my best to address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, these issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indopug, will you please strike these comments, as I have addressed them. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interim report: Serial comma crisis! In the lead section alone:

• "Their music was influenced by a wide range of genres, including R&B, British Music hall, folk and country." No serial comma.
• "The group's original lineup consisted of Ray Davies (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Dave Davies (vocals, lead guitar), Pete Quaife (bass guitar), and Mick Avory (drums and percussion)." Serial comma.
• "They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of bassists, keyboardists and backup singers." No serial comma.
• "Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Muswell Hillbillies and their accompanying singles". No serial comma.
• "groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered Kinks songs". Serial comma.

Again, please choose one style or the other and apply throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead says the band was formed in 1964. The infobox says they became active in 1963. May we have these items agree, please? DocKino (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed. I've recently been expanding and rearranging the lead section - at the moment, it is a work in progress (please see the discussion above with PL290). The rest of the article should uniformly feature serial commas. If you see any instances of this not being true, please tell me and I will address them. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done about the lists of "Members"/"Former members" in the infobox. There are various ways of handling this that are appropriate; not among them is the current presentation, in which the listed "Members" are the group as it existed between 1979 and 1984. Kwite Kinky! We can debate the best way to handle this, or simply follow the standard arrangement for defunct bands, which is to list everyone as "Former members", in the order by which they first became members of the group. DocKino (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the lead, DocKino! The "Members"/"Former members" box is something left over from when the article stated that the group was "active 2008 - present". I'll go ahead and combine it under "former members", like you suggested. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Combined. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Head's up: While the nominator's efforts to copyedit the article are appreciated, it appears I did not make my initial point clearly enough. This article requires the dedicated attention of an experienced, independent copyeditor. There are 1a problems throughout, far too many to list. I provided an extensive list of problems in the lead as an example, and while a sincere and productive attempt was made to address them, I still had to follow up with relatively heavy copyediting just to bring that brief element up to standard.

I would dearly love to see a Featured Article on The Kinks, but I believe this article was brought here well before it was ready. The odds of it rising to FA standard during this initial candidacy strike me as slim, but if it is to have any chance at all, the services of a skillful copyeditor ready to devote considerable time to it should be retained now. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find one? By the time someone got around to a request at the Guild of Copyeditors it would be too late. I must admit, as thorough as I try to be, I am not the best when it comes to searching for one version of an character throughout a page several hundred times. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See here: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/volunteers--copyeditors at the bottom. The article never went through a peer review, did it? I think it would really benefit from that process, as well. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I'll ask one to informally go through the article and copyedit it. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am taking care of this request. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All set. I spent five and a half hours copy editing this article. Didn't really intend to take that long, but hey, what's important is that it came out well. If there are any additional concerns please let me know. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I think we can safely say this article meets all FA criteria now. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone support or oppose this? - I.M.S. (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see the lead was edited to include Andy Pyle. I happen to think that's not a great idea, but as that appears to be the consensus between nominator and lead copyeditor, that's fine. However, this has consequences. If we're going to mention Pyle, who played with the band for two years, then we have to mention drummer Bob Henrit, who played with the band for twelve. It also requires reworking the keyboardists' bit. It's hardly possible to argue that Pyle is more significant to the history of The Kinks than, say, John Gosling, who played with the band four times as long and whose tenure included a couple of their most significant albums. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• While illustration is vital to Misplaced Pages articles, it's simply not good style in an article on a band that existed for 32 years to include two photos from a single concert, especially when they each show only one full-time member of the band--the same member. One or the other of the Toronto 1977 images should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added some new photos and re-arranged the old ones. In a bit I'll get around to the info on Pyle - I think I might just go ahead and delete him from the lead. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How would this look:

-- I.M.S. (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) It's not clear how are you imagining the entire passage would read. Please show what you have in mind, so we can judge it.

(2) The primary text says nothing about "try out several new bassists". Beside Pyle, who else was tried out? Please add some detail on this to the primary text.

Actually, several bassist were tried out before Pyle - I'll have to check my books to remeber their names. I think I'll go ahead and remove Pyle altogether (see post below) - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(3) "An interim period followed" is entirely unnecessary. DocKino (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with you about not including Pyle in the lead - but what should we do instead? Should I just put that he was replaced by Jim Rodford? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view. I had edited a version that did that a while back. Here's a somewhat terser version that elides Dalton's going-returning-going episode in 1977–78:

John Dalton played bass with the band for part of 1966 after Quaife was involved in an automobile accident and replaced him when Quaife departed for good in 1969. Dalton was a member of the group through the late 1970s; Jim Rodford was eventually chosen as his permanent replacement.

I'm wondering again about the keyboardists' bit. Just to toss something out, what's your reaction to the following?

They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of keyboardists, most notably Nicky Hopkins (for studio sessions only), from 1964 to 1969, and John Gosling, from 1970 to 1978.

I'm not adamant about this by any means, I just have a sense that since Rodford is worthy of mention, so is Gosling (he does appear in three of the article's images, yes?)...and then it's hard to mention Gosling without mentioning the more famous Hopkins, who did appear on most of the band's best-known albums. Oh, but how many of them...?

Just noticed this: In the "Line-up" section, you have Hopkins doing sessions from 1964 through 1969, which would encompass everything from Kinda Kinks (if not before) through Arthur. In the "Commercial breakthrough" section, however, it says he "first played with the band during the...recording sessions for The Kink Kontroversy" (thus excluding Kinda Kinks) and "would continue to play on the band's next two studio albums " (thus excluding Arthur). Please check your sources and make sure this is absolutely tight. If the implied album credits are correct, the current dates in "Line-up" are still not necessarily wrong--it is possible he played with the band in 1964 and/or 1969 on non-album single tracks, BBC recordings, or unreleased sessions. This may take some work and possibly a footnote or two to clarify any apparent discrepancies. DocKino (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think those suggestions would work great. As to the info on Hopkins; I was not aware of these discrepancies as they were not put in by me. I will try to address them as soon as I can. I am, however very busy at the moment. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K. - I think I have solid evidence now that Hopkins came in first for the Kontroversy sessions (Hinman p. 68). He might have even played with them at earlier sessions as well, because Hinman states that Ray Davies made his acquaintance a few years earlier in Soho. I'll attempt to sort things out - I.M.S. (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've got a soft spot for The Kinks, or at least for their early stuff, so I'd like to be able to support this, but there are still a few too many rough edges in the prose. For instance:

• "Many of the songs featured on the record had already appeared on solo versions on Ray Davies' companion album".

Done - I.M.S. (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... the band's output remained uneven and their already failing popularity eroded further". I'm not certain that popularity can "fail".

Done. Failing --> Falling. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "It was an immense success both critically and commercially, charting in the Top 40 in America". Gettinto the Top 40 is "immense"? Seems a bit overblown to me.

It was an immense success considering the complete failure of some of their past work... I will, however, remove it if you aren't comfortable with it - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... the band received heavy publicity". They might have been heavily publicised, or heavily promoted ...

I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've already fixed this. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The tour fell apart as the group struggled to find a hold in the American concert scene". What does "find a hold" mean?

Find gigs, promoters, money, even people coming to see them. Again, I'll clarify this - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry about the delay - I've been extremely busy outside of Misplaced Pages lately. I beleive I've clarified the above question you raised - correct me if wrong. I'm working on the others. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... entry into the album charts at number one hundred twenty-two". It's one hundred and twenty-two. There are several other similar errors as well. In general this way of presenting chart positions (instead of just writing 122) seems rather laborious.

There are multiple, acceptable ways of spelling this, and it seems the copyeditor chose one of them. I'll work on it if you don't think it is proper, however. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No British English speaker would say "one hundred twenty-two". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - I've got the number issues sorted out. Numbers under 10 are represented with words; numbers above use numerals. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also not happy about using the Encyclopædia Britannica as a source.

Really? Is it not considered a RS? I'll remove it. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One general encyclopedia can't really use another as a source, reliable or not. We should in general be relying on secondary sources, not tertiary ones like EB. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - I.M.S. (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically I think someone needs to go through the whole thing once more before it's ready, tidying it up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this FAC has been semi-successful, but it's time has nearly run out, I'll try my best to improve it as best as I can. If it fails, however, I'll keep improving and take it back here in a week or so. Update: I just checked and it seems you're vigorously ironing out some of the mistakes within the article. I appreciate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been busy behind the scenes. ;-) If you can deal with the issues I raised above then I'll probably be able to deal with the rest and then hopefully be able to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Malleus's work today has led to major improvements in the article. I.M.S., I know there haven't been many books written on The Kinks, but I see there is one that has not been referenced: The Kinks by Neville Marten and Jeff Hudson. Have you encountered it? It's not searchable on Google, but it is searchable on Amazon. If there's anywhere in the article where the sourcing, or the information itself, could use some beefing up, this could be a good resource. DocKino (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that almost none of the citations of online sources include the dates of online publication. If the page shows a date, our reference needs to give it. (I know Allmusic pages don't have dates, but most others do.) While you go through the sources checking for that, please make sure you haven't missed the names of any article authors. DocKino (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I look more closely, I'm finding lots of issues with the online citations. In "Potential reunion", a Ray Davies interview with the Independent is sourced to a summary Rolling Stone piece, when the far more informative Independent feature is readily available online. In "Split and solo work", the band's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is sourced to an article that (a) does not support the assertion that the induction happened in the "autumn" (improperly phrased, as well; we use months instead of seasons wherever possible) and (b) does not support the assertion that all four original members attended. (That online article is also dated; this is one of the many citations that fails to provide the date.) Hall of Fame inductions are very well covered events, and it should be possible to find much higher quality sources for the pertinent coverage. I'm beginning to sense that a thorough review of all the online citations is in order. DocKino (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to work on these issues, DocKino - as I said, I am very busy at the moment. Many of these problems with refs seem to be ones that were left over from before I began work on the article. I thought I'd caught all of them, but it seems that some were swallowed up in the massive table of refs. I'll try to look over all of the refs as soon as I can, as well as add publication dates where I can. As to the book: no, I have not encountered it, but I appreciate you telling me about it. As I don't own the physical copy I will definitely take a look at it through Amazon book search. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just an note that I am in the process of updating all of the references. It is very tedious, and it might take a while before they are completed. I'll post back here upon completion. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. In the interest of full disclosure, I've probably done far more work on this article over the last day or so than is proper for an independent reviewer. Nevertheless, I believe that it now meets the FA criteria, although it's quite possible that I'm swayed too much by my fond memories of the first time I heard "You really got me", about the only song of theirs I thought was worth more than spit. Thinking back though, I'm reminded of a fashion in jackets introduced by The Kinks, a sort of high-collared red hunting jacket (which I very nearly bought until a good friend talked me out of it). In their early stage performances every member of the band wore them, as you can barely see in this rather poor image. It might be an idea to include something on that if a reliable source can be found. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While, thanks to Malleus and I.M.S., a lot of progress has been made in the past 2 weeks, I'm not sure it's quite there yet. In addition to the sourcing/referencing concerns I raised above, there are still some important gaps in the article's coverage. Here's a major one:
• The "History" section entirely fails to mention The Kinks' debut album. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on adding it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the online sourcing problems appear to be endemic. I just went to the cited source in order to clear up this confusing passage: "One single, 'Only a Dream', narrowly failed to reach the UK chart, climbing to number 79." The cited source (Allmusic, "The Kinks: Charts & Awards") gives absolutely no UK chart information. I observe numerous other passages in the article describing UK chart positions that are baselessly cited to this same source. I don't believe we can feel confident about passing this article for FA until we know that nominator has vetted every single online citation--counting multiples, I estimate there are 155 such citations. I understand the process is laborious, but it's truly fundamental to the FA standard, and to our verifiability policy in general. This may require downtime and a second nomination. DocKino (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original chart info was covered by one ref, but I was advised to replace it with an Allmusic one - it now only covers UK charts. I just discovered this as well - do you know of a reliable source with chart info? My books do not offer complete coverage for chart positions. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this be considered an RS? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another example of why this article would benefit from some downtime and a pass through peer review or GA vetting or both: In the second paragraph of "Commercial breakthrough", we learn about "the on-stage fight between drummer Mick Avory and Dave Davies...on 19 May 1965". In the third paragraph, we learn about "their first tour of Australia and New Zealand in January 1965". That's poor, confusing chronology. The article needs some careful, thoughtful restructuring that goes beyond the copyedit level, yes? DocKino (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments What makes these reliable?

• http://www.drumsoloartist.com/Site/Drummers/Mick_Avory.html
• http://www.retrosellers.com/features69.htm
• http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Mick_Avory.html
• http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showsong.php?song=50; http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showsong.php?song=393

I used that lyric link to source the lyrics of the song. Is there ever a reliable source for lyrics? Are all of those other lyric websites considered RSs, such as metrolyrics.com? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• The YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ZW2YsxrIU&feature=related needs to be removed/replaced.

The youtube link was determined to be reliable earlier in the FAC, as it was published and uploaded by the Dave Davies sanctioned/owned Detune.tv - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The ref list needs a complete overhaul. I suggest you start with the following advice and I'll have another look in due time:

• Make sure every ref has a publisher.
• Print media needs to be in italics and non-print media needs the italics removed, as appropriate.
• Ensure all references of the same kind are uniform, i.e. books, web etc, and follow the same order of contents, e.g. name, title, publisher etc.

RB88 (T) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the suggestions! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose needs a clean-up.

• I wonder why this FAC page is so long. It suggests the nomination was premature. I've piped in the first sentence to avoid a repetition of Davies. In fact, there are so many of the two around, why not "The Davies brothers were ..." instead of "Ray and Dave Davies were the only members", on Line ~7?
• I relocated the "hidden" year in music link to "See also", where it's much more likely to be clicked on.
• "stayed in the ... existence" nicer as "were in the ... history"?
  • Remove "in the band" and "with the band" and "with the group"—it's quite clear what you're referring to.
• "different" is redundant.
• "during their career"—refers to the band, not individuals. Does a band have a "career"? There, "its history", or some other word? Can't think of one right now, but you probably can.

I gave up and did it myself at the top. Rather a lot of copy-editing required throughout to bring this up to the required professional standard, given the FAC reviewing resources that have been sucked in already.

• I don't see that the efforts that have been put into this article have been "wasted" of "sucked in". If it has improved the article and made it a more informational, educational, and enjoyable read for everyone, why, then, has this FAC been put to waste? I see no reason why this article has to have a star in the top of the page, although I would certainly like it to be. I think this article in its current state is a vast improvement on what it was a month ago. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amongst ... among
• Boost their record sales: whose?
• 1996: another "hidden" link, better in the see also section. There are high-value link in the vicinity, so why dilute with what will appear to readers to be a lame year-link?
• "honors"—why US spelling. Please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English.2A.E2.80.89.2A. Tony (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• PS Five NFC sound files is getting too many for WP:NFCC 3a, and Cr. 8 is not satisfied by some of them, including Come Dancing. Please reduce, probably to three. Tony (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there are four sound files on the page. Apparently "Come Dancing" was added yesterday, and I am not sure if I support that decision entirely. I do see reason to illusrate that particular point in the bands career. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is crass to characterize the efforts attracted by the article as the "sucking in" of "resources", unless (a) we wish to ignore the significant improvement that has occurred and (b) Tony has somehow read our minds and knows that we would have been spending the same moments we spent reviewing this article instead reviewing some other article. I feel violated, Tony. Please inform me the next time you are reading my mind. Thank you. (N.B. If copyeditors spent less time mind-reading, perhaps their copyedits would be less likely to introduce a grammatical error and two typographical errors in the space of one paragraph.) If the nomination was precipitate, it was also clearly sincere and the nominator has facilitated an enjoyable, productive working environment.

The use of four, or five, or perhaps even six audio clips to inform the reader about a band that released original material over a 32-year span is necessary, proper, and well within the bounds of NFCC 3a. I would oppose any elimination of song samples based on the specious argument that the criterion is violated because some ad hoc numerical limit, unfounded in policy, has been traduced. That said, the rationales for the clips could use some improvement--see, for some good examples, the rationales for the samples in the article on The Beatles. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - image concerns and prose. I am not convinced of given provenance of the two 1970 photographs. It seem to me that they were taken at the same time as the one used on the Lola album cover here. Also two of the source statements say "Picassa Creative Commons" but I cannot find the license but I am not convinced that "Picasaweb Creative Commons user Geof" is entitled to release them, i.e. he apparently found them somewhere.. Same goes for the photograph of Dalton, Gosling and Avory. My prose concerns are essentially the same as Tony's above (we had an two edit conflicts). Graham Colm 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I've gathered about the "Geoff" fellow (I believe his last name is Lewis, from the URL of his photo album), he has been a friend and photographer of the group for quite a while. If he took the photos for the "Lola" session, I see no reason why he isn't entitled to release an unused one under a free license. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If he is the original photographer, and this can be proved, then there isn't a problem. But the current provenances are not acceptable for images in a featured article. Graham Colm 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to contact him and see if he is the actual creator of the image? Can the OTRS system handle that? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. Is the photographer credited on the original Lola album cover? Graham Colm 18:54, 12 December 2009 (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 18:59, 12 December 2009 .

Ashley Tisdale

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt it has the quality of a Featured Article, after eight months of hard working. It's well-written and well-sourced, as well comprehensive. The article has also a good image and also an informative infobox. To conclude, it has been improved a lot since the last FA nomination, back in July 2009. Decodet (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• No dab links or dead external links, images all have good alt text, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name (help honey) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Could you please expand the alt text for the lead image File:Emmazcamera187-2 crop.jpg, somewhat? "A brunette female in a black dress" doesn't do the image justice. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for examples. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I was the one who called it "good alt text", so I'll try. It shows her head, shoulders, and chest area, but I don'wanna sound weird talking about her chest. :) I'll get back to you. --an odd name 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this alt more like it? --an odd name 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks, that's good, though I'd add "low cut" before "dress". Eubulides (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Noted and done. --an odd name 07:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I ran a script to correct faulty WP:ENDASHes and WP:FN footnote placement; a MOS review is needed. Citations are incomplete (some publishers missing), and WP:ITALICS are not correct in all citations (journals, periodicals, newspapers are italicized, websites are not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I think all references are good now. Any other issues? Decodet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - No issues. NW (Talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• In a quick read of the WP:LEAD, I found the claim "first female artist to debut two songs simultaneously on the Billboard Hot 100" to be literally incredible at first. I had to reread it three times to understand it well enough to believe it. I think it would be instantly believable if you added the specific week that they debuted to the sentence (probably the end of the sentence), but recall the lead should include no more detail than the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I added the specific week with a reference in the lead but shouldn't it be in the main body instead of the lead? Decodet (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Source comments. Everything fine, but go over the references and put in italics all the print media (and remove the italics from non-print media). RB88 (T) 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I guess I'm done with few I noted. I went over the references list twice an did not find anything incorrect. Decodet (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I peer reviewed the article and later made a few more comments at Decodet's talk page as a follow up. Since my concerns were all addressed there and no one else has come up with a reason to oppose, I don't see a reason not to support. One comment, though; standardize the wikilinking of publishers in the citations- For example, in current citation 19, the Washington Post is wikilinked but, in citation 20, Time is not. I like wikilinking these myself, but I'm not aware of a policy on this so do as you like. Liqudluck✽talk 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I forgot to wikilink Time. The other references with no wikilink is because it was already wikilinked previously in the text. Thanks for the support! Decodet (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article still needs some work, and still reads like a loose collection of facts without any real narrative flow. "She did this ... she did that ... she did the other ...". A few specific examples of problems:
  • I'll read the entire article and correct it. It should be finished in few hours. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I did the best I could. I rewrote few sentences and switched few terms. Since English is not my first language, it was not easy for me. I hope it's OK after my edits. Decodet (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "She also performed several song as Evans in film's 2006 soundtrack." I've got no idea what that means.
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "In 2006, she signed a record deal with Warner Bros. Records and covered Wham!'s "Last Christmas", which was her first single in her Warner Bros. deal." Do we really need to mention Warner Bros. twice in one sentence?
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "A 2006 three-song EP, He Said She Said EP was released to promote Headstrong." So what's Headstrong?
  • Switched Headstrong for debut album. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Entertainment Weekly labeled her one of film's breakout stars, they said her portrayal of the narcissistic Sharpay Evans makes "narcissism a goofy, bedazzled pleasure". Punctuation between "stars" and "they".
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "At the age of three, Tisdale was discovered by her current manager Bill Perlman at a New Jersey mall." How do you "discover" a three-year-old girl without getting arrested for child molesting?
  • Switched for "met". Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Tisdale went on to appear in more than 100 commercials as a kid ...". As opposed to as a pensioner? How could she appear as anything else? Is it not possible to be more specific?
  • Sorry, I did not geot what you meant with that. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "'Be Good to Me' was released as album's the first single in the fall 2006 ...". Eh?
  • Corrected the sentence. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... she landed a JC Penney spot". So what's a "JC Penney spot"?
  • Switched for "commercial" and wikilinked "JC Penney". Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The writing lacks variety. Of the six sentences in the final paragraph of the 2007–present: Career development section (should be 2007–present: career development btw) half begin "Tisdale ...".
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• "... and also executive produced the film". What does "executive produced" mean?
  • Switched for "...and was also one of the film's executive producers". Decodet (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• This was just a selection of examples. Fundamentally, the article is written as a series of loosely connected facts, without any real narrative flow. For instance: "Her elder sister, Jennifer Tisdale, is also an actress and her maternal grandfather, Arnold Morris, developed the Ginsu Knives." In what way are these facts related sufficiently to justify inclusion in the same sentence? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In this specific sentence, it's cited some of Tisdale's famous relatives, that's the relation between the inclusion of these facts in the same sentence. I can try to rewrite it if you really think it's necessary. Decodet (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Mine is just one opinion Decodet, and I could well be wrong. Nevertheless my opinion stands; I do not believe that this article meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you know any FA about a celebrity (with a similar career to Tisdale's would be good) I can use as an example? I don't have any idea about how to make a good narrative here. Decodet (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I'm afraid that I don't, but it's about making a story; not she did this and then she did that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • It's ok. I've found some references. I've rewritten the lead so far and tomorrow I'll finish with the entire article. Decodet (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I went through the entire article and rewrote several sentences and paragraphs. Now I think they have a good narrative flow, as required by User:Malleus Fatuorum. It was a hard work that took me few hours but I think it's done. I have to say I tried my best and I'm not sure if I can't do something better. I really hope everything is ok right now. Decodet (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—not a professional standard of writing, per Malleus above. Too late to do a major fix; I suggest you bring it back in a month's time, shining new.

• Comma glitch before "Guilty".
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Instead of covering half a sentence in blue—"West Deal, Monmouth County, New Jersey"—why not just West Deal, Monmouth County, New Jersey"? If the reader hits "West Deal", won't they get immediate access to links to the more general geographical entities?
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unlink "Jewish", especially as there's a specific link a few seconds later to the Jewish Community Center.
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• So Bill Clinton was president in the White House? They didn't force him into a tent on the lawn outside the Capital Building?
  • With "At the age of twelve, Tisdale sang for Bill Clinton, who was then the president of the United States, in the White House", I meant that Tisdale sang in the White House, not that Clinton was the president in the White House. Is that confusing? I can try to rewrite this sentence. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• First pic in "Career": may not be high-res enough, but if it is, please boost the size a little.
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• More punctuation mess,.
  • I think it's done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redundancies such as "also" and "ever" in the 1996–2006 section. I see idle "alsos" all over the place. See

these exercises.

• • I removed all the "ever" and some "also" I thought were redundant. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Parts of it, such as "2007–present" are heavily blued out. Much of the linking is good, so why dilute with items such as Germany? Who's gonna divert to that article? Tony (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not able to do a better writing here in the article. I'm not fluent in English yet. If the writing is the main problem, I guess I'll not be able to promote the article to FA, unless I have help. Decodet (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Malleus and Tony. I've made some slight changes to 3rd para of "Early life" section, but needs more. For instance, check the spelling of Cossete; how long was she in Les Mis; what part did she play in Annie, and did she stay for the entire tour? Just some examples of information that help to make the article seem a bit less choppy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that we don't know too much about Tisdale's early life. I've been looking for more information about Les Miserables and Annie for months, but all I find is already available in the article. Decodet (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Found this source, claiming that Annie tour lasted a year and a half but can it be can considered a reliable source? Decodet (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

The Political Cesspool

Nominator(s): Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets all the criteria and is a worthy addition to FA.

This article was given GA status in early October. I have greatly improved, expanded, and streamlined it since then, however, and I now think it has improved enough to "move up" to FA. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

• Add alt text to the large images. File:Feed-icon.svg should be treated as a decorative image.

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 21's link appears dead.

Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No dead external links. --an odd name (help honey) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dates are in Month Day, Year format throughout—good.
• See if you can expand the lead's paragraphs a bit further. (added on 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name (help honey) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanded. Is there anything particular you would like me to add to the lead? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, looks good to me now. I rearranged it to emphasize the guests and make it two big paragraphs. --an odd name (help honey) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The Jared Taylor image being used in the article needs permission sent through OTRS and be tagged as such.--Rockfang (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the questionable image and replaced it with a non-deletable picture of Pat Buchanan, who has also been featured on the show and whose writings were a formative influence on the show's primary host, James Edwards. Hope that clears everything up. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Never say never (though if it ever reaches that point we'll probably just plunder the pictures, yarr). --an odd name 00:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately they have had a huge number of guests on their show, so I doubt there'll be a shortage of usable images any time soon. If the Buchanan image gets axed, we can always go to Chuck Baldwin, and if that image gets deleted, there's always Ted Nugent, and if his picture gets taken down, there's always Larry Pratt (and so on ad nauseum, or ad Nazium in the case of Lynx and Lamb Gaede, who have also appeared on the show...) Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 12 (Why the Buchanan...) lacks a publisher.
• Current ref 16 (The Crew..) lacks a publisher

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

• The prose is quite bloated, uses the passive voice excessively, fears pronouns, etc. I've copyedited the lead and first section, which should give you some idea of what I'm talking about. I haven't gone farther than that because, as indicated below, many of the other sections require substantive edits, so copyediting before those edits were made would be premature.

When you copyedited the lead section, you added the phrase "...believe that is promotes...". I changed that to "...believe that it promotes...". Stonemason89 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and my apologies for introducing the typo in the first place! This is why copyeditors need copyeditors. Steve Smith (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've improved the prose in the City Park section (also removing a redundancy in the process). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an article on Misplaced Pages (perhaps in the community portal) that gives advice on how to copyedit? That would be useful, thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s Misplaced Pages's acknowledged copyediting guru, and he's written a series of pages on the subject, beginning here.

• There are quite a few single paragraph sections; have you considered merging some to improve flow? For example, I'm not sure "Controversy and criticism" is long enough to merit subsections, and "Association with Stormfront" seems to me to be a good fit for "Foundation and history" (apart from section length, I find it odd that the association with Stormfront isn't dealt with until so late in the article; it seems like a fairly important point).

The Stormfront section has been merged; most of it was about James Edwards personally, so I merged most of it into the part about Edwards. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Controversy and Criticism" has been consolidated into one section, with the exception of the city park incident, which gets its own subsection. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:EL, external links should not generally be included in the body of the article.

I removed the micro1650am external link, which as far as I am aware was the only external link in the body of the article. That link was not added by me, but by a one-time user who claimed to be the owner of the radio station. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is the show called Political Cesspool or The Political Cesspool? The article is currently inconsistent on this point.

The show's staff have been vague on this point. They have also referred to it as "The Political Cesspool Radio Program" at times, too, so I don't think there's one standard name for it. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe adopt one for internal consistency? The article has generally been attached, so maybe go with that. As well, italicization is currently inconsistent.

Edited for consistency; I'm pretty sure I got all of them. The Political Cesspool it is; all mentions of Political Cesspool or Cesspool have been replaced by either the full title or simply a reference to "the show". Stonemason89 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Parts of the article are presently somewhat under-referenced: there are no citations in the first two paragraphs of "Foundation and history", for example.

Will do. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think information about the birth and earlier careers of the show's staff is generally useful for an article about the radio show. What would be useful is information on the views they express on the radio show, and what role they play on it. This is another section where merging subsections would probably be advisable, incidentally.

I already mention the roles they play (for example, Art Frith is the production engineer, and Goeff Melton designed the show's website). As far as views, there already are some references to that (for example, Bill Rolen has neo-Confederate views, while Winston Smith is a Calvinist, etc.) I merged the subsections on Bill Rolen, Austin Farley, Art Frith, and Goeff Melton elsewhere into the article. Thanks for the advice. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's still too much focus on the outside lives of the staff, epitomized by (but not limited to) " interests include classical guitar, woodworking, literature, and writing."

I took out that part about Smith, but left in the mention of his beliefs (Calvinism and Kinism), since these are relevant to his (and the show's) ideology. I also removed some of the extraneous detail about Miller's career in the Army (I think it is relevant to at least mention that he was in the Army, though, since it explains where he got his nickname from). Also removed excess information about James Edwards (his childhood, etc.); most of this information is already covered in his own article, James Edwards (radio host). Stonemason89 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that the "City Park" section is not part of "Criticism and controversy"?

Well, it's not really a "criticism" of the show. I suppose one could argue that it is a "controversy", though. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to revisit my oppose (and do some more copyediting, time permitting) if the above issues are addressed, but I fear that they may be too fundamental to be fixed during an FAC. Steve Smith (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, I note that during the peer review, Brianboulton (talk · contribs) suggested that you bring it back for a second peer review after you'd addressed his points. Listening to Brian is almost always a good idea, and that piece of advice is no exception; I think you'd have done well to follow it. Steve Smith (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a second (formal) peer review from him, but I did ask him for his opinion a second time. Instead of giving the show a second formal peer review, he left some of his thoughts on the article's talk page. I acted on some of his suggestions, but others (such as ratings) I was unable to do, since there is no information on what the show's ratings are. None of the stations it airs on are audited by Arbitron. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had a look at his comments, and I don't find it encouraging that he mentioned some of the same stuff as I did (regarding the short sections, the excessive detail about the hosts' personal lives, etc.). Your edits have certainly improved the prose, but there's still some copyediting to be done. Even besides that, the organization of the article is somewhat disjointed. For example, the "Guests" and "Criticism and controversy" sections appear to be lists of anecdotes with no particular indication of why those particular ones were chosen and no apparent attempt to construct a coherent narrative from them. Finally, I have some concerns about the sourcing: what steps have you taken to attempt to find offline sources as Brian recommended? Besides that, quite a bit of the article is sourced to primary sources and advocacy groups; it would be better to see more material cited to sources removed from the show and surrounding controversies (media stories if need be; books and journal articles would be still better). I'm afraid that at this point, my oppose stands; my advice would be to open another peer review, seeking particular input on some of the points I have raised. Steve Smith (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I have not cited any offline (print) sources is for two reasons:

• They may not exist (seeing as how the subject is fairly new, founded in 2004)
• Even if they do, I'm not sure how to find print sources; is there a Google-like search engine especially for print sources or books? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, since when have online sources been unacceptable? The current FAs Tropical Storm Marco (2008), 300 (film), and Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) all rely entirely (or almost entirely) on online sources, so I'm pretty sure having offline sources is not a prerequisite for being an FA. There are also an extremely large number of video-game-oriented FA's (such as Grim Fandango), which rely mostly on primary sources and videogame reviewers and have very few sources originating outside of hardcore video game fandom. I agree that, ideally, it would be good to have some more sources that were farther removed from the subject, offline, or both. However, this is not possible at the moment due to the limited amount of coverage the subject has received in the media. I don't believe this should preclude this article from getting FA status, though, since quite a few other articles with the same issues have managed to pass FAC.Stonemason89 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"...the "Guests" and "Criticism and controversy" sections appear to be lists of anecdotes with no particular indication of why those particular ones were chosen...." The reason why those particular ones (guests and controversies) were chosen is because they have been mentioned in outside sources, making them notable to an extent that the other guests and controversies are not. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

Gateway Protection Programme

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured article because I believe that it provides a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The topic receives little attention in the media and promoting the article to featured article status would increase the visibility of this interesting and important scheme. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name (help honey)

• I fixed a link that redirected to a dab page. It was spelled wrong in the text anyway.
• Refs 5 and 11 link to completely blank (0-byte) pages.
• Add alt text to the images.
• Add a bit more text to the lead.
• Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
• File:Home logo.gif may actually be outside of copyright, because it just uses simple shapes, colors, and text. See Misplaced Pages:Public domain#Fonts, Threshold of originality and Template:PD-textlogo. Would anyone else like to confirm this? (added on 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name (help honey) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the URLs for references 5 and 11 and expanded the lead section somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text added, although it's the first time that I've done this so perhaps someone could check it for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Alts look good. --an odd name 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is still too much about this program and the public's reaction to it that isn't known, per the discussion during the GA review at Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1. While in the end I didn't think these matters were severe enough to keep the article from attaining GA status, the bar is higher for FA. Not only is there is too little known about this program, but the program is very recent and its long term wisdom and efficacy is still an open question. So I think granting FA status is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wasted Time, on which featured article criterion are you basing your oppose? This isn't a loaded question by the way; I'm just unsure whether you're saying information is still forthcoming (unstable; 1e) or it doesn't reflect "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (non-comprehensive; 1b). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm basing on 1b, not 1e, but in this case the 1b problem is exacerbated by 'the future not having happened yet' for this very recent program. I also am of the school that says a good job on 1c (well-researched) doesn't mitigate 1b; just because someone has found everything that's online about a subject doesn't mean that the subject has been comprehensively treated. In fact the nom seems a backwards admission of this: hoping that making the article FA will cause the media to write more about the program, thus causing more sources to become available. A nice if unrealistic notion (the journalism world doesn't give a hoot about WP FAs), but not a justification for FA in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I just want to respond to the point about the visibility of the topic. The point I was trying to make in the nomination wasn't that I was trying to attract media attention to the topic, but rather that I think that the topic should be more prominent on Misplaced Pages. I'm suggesting that the topic receives very little mainstream media coverage despite its importance, and that Misplaced Pages can fill this gap in public knowledge (which I think should be a guiding principle of Misplaced Pages - to inform its audience), not that it should attempt to shape the media agenda (which is unlikely anyway, as you suggest). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 2c, it looks very good. You might want to check some of the government series for volumes and issues. You may want to consider Template:Cite report for unpublished reports rather than cite web. The essence of the media is that they're reports, the media they're transmitted in just happens to be web based. (Also, for article longevity, you may want to get an internet archive to back these up for you for courtesy links, governments and organisations are somewhat notorious for removing access to reports). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UNHCR.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

7th Infantry Division (United States)

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

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

Comments Some minor stuff.

• The second link in External links merely shows a Indian Head test card and nothing else—it might be dead. Otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text where needed.

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

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

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

1a:

Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed! 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2c fiddle to fix at Talk: 01:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

A request has been made. —Ed! 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is now in SVG format. —Ed! 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 (Allen, Thomas B....) needs a page number, its 351 pages.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added page number. —Ed! 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Support

• I've made a few copyedit tweaks, nothing major.
• World War I section, "the Allies signed an Armistice ending hostilities." Should Armistice be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War I section, "the 7th Division was inactivated.", per the discussion above.
  • Fixed. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "Most of the soldiers in the division were selective service soldiers,". "Soldiers" twice in the same clause, could this be reworded?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "the division formally redesignated as the 7th Motorized Division." Should this be "was formally redesignated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Eastern Mandates section, "4th Marine Division forces stuck the outlying islands". Should this be "struck"?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Occupation of Japan section, "Seven thousand, five hundred members of the unit returned to the United States,". How many did this leave there? Or was this all of the soldiers? I guess I'm not really sure why the exact number of soldiers returning is spelled out...
  • Clarified. —Ed! 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "The 14th Infantry Brigade reactivated". Again, should this be "was reactivated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "and inactivated at Fort Lewis, Washington." A "was" should be included, and "inactivated" per above discussion.
  • Fixed. —Ed! 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "On October 1, 1985 the division redesignated". Should be "was redesignated". For all of these, the division (as a concept) cannot redesignate or reactivate itself, and so it must be redesignated by people, hence "was".
  • Fixed. —Ed! 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "By 1994, the garrison closed the division subsequently relocated". What?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• A division in name only section, "organization of Active duty,". Should "Active" be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed! 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice article, I look forward to supporting in time. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed, so I've changed my comments to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the ISBN for 'McKenney, Janice (1997). Reflagging the Army. Center for Military History. ISBN ASIN B0006QRJPC.' - doesn't seem to be working. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The book is out of print, but I found its ASIN from Amazon.com here...it's the only ISBN code that I have. Is there some other number for the book that I should use? —Ed! 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps instead of ASINs (which I believe are just Amazon's internal code for the books) for the books that don't have ISBNs you could use OCLC numbers? These are available through Worldcat and have their own field under the cite book template (oclc=). Just a suggestion. Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
      • All right. I have replaced the ASIN number on the book with an OCLC number. —Ed! 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me now. Comments Great article, BTW. I believe I reviewed one of your earlier FACs (Ah yes, 24th Infantry Division (United States)) and was equally impressed then. Staxringold _talk 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "On October 11, 1918 the 7th Division first came under shelling attacks." needs a cite. I see that it's ref'd by the next sentence's ref, but since there's a period I would throw the extra reference in.

• Fixed. —Ed! 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "A division in name only" seems like a misleading title for the final section, as it did come back as an actual division. Perhaps "Reactivation and deactivation"?

• Fixed. —Ed! 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless they're covered by a general reference I"m not seeing (in which case it should get listed as a general ref) a lot of the people in the "Legacy" section need referencing.

• I've added sources to the people in that section. —Ed! 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick responses! Last thing, Fred Bass still needs a cite here.

• I've been looking for a cite for him, I can't find one. Since it isn't that important to the article, I just removed his name. I suppose it can be added later, when his article is improved with better sources. —Ed! 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

- Staxringold _talk 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment refs look OK. • Ling.Nut 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until the prose is signficantly improved. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are samples at the top.

• Opening para very stubby. Could you tell us when it was established at the end of the para, having referred to "its history"?
• "Activated for service in World War I, the division saw brief service in the conflict, but never fought as an entire division." "Service" appears twice.
• "It is best known for its exploits during World War II, fighting in the Pacific Theater against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa, suffering heavy casualties." My US dictionary says "best-known". "Exploits" could be replaced by a more dignified word. Too much "ing" (three instances). Did they suffer heavy casualties in all locations? If so, this might be better: "It is best-known for its participation in the Pacific Theater during World War II, in which it suffered heavy casualties—against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa." Did I get it right? (Unsure)
• Is "deploy" transitive? I'd have thought "to be deployed".
• "The 7th would later go on to fight in such engagements as ...". "Later" is redundant, and the conditional future is a little awkward here, perhaps. "The 7th went on to fight in such engagements as ..."?
• "After Korea, the division was returned to the United States and later saw action in Operation Just Cause, Operation Golden Pheasant, and Operation Green Sweep,..." What, these were battles within the US? No.
• "... as well as" onwards in the lead is good.

See User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials. Tony (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• What is gained by closing this? Ed was clearly responding to the comments people made. Staxringold _talk 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Once again, the FAC has been closed before I even had the chance to respond to criticisms, because the latest user waited until the last possible minute to express his concerns. —Ed! 06:36, 13 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

The Battle of Alexander at Issus

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

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

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Technical check The links work, Dabs all fixed now but Apostle, Hellenism, Issus, National Museum of Fine Arts and Paul go to disambiguation pages. Infobox lacks alt text, format is | image_alt = Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous Dissident 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c: High Quality Reliable Source, use of Britannica 10:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC), 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c:

An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:

"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."

"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."

"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."

Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous Dissident 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous Dissident 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the commentary of others, I'm going to leave Britannica be. The sourced material is not contentious, and Britannica is respected. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "dog doesn't eat dog." —Anonymous Dissident 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Britannica being the world's other credible English language encyclopedia, we should produce research independent of theirs. The fact that its an unsigned Britannica article amplifies the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main, Misplaced Pages is not credible. Therefore, it's perfectly fitting we should source to a credible encyclopedia. Since Britannica is credible, that the article is not signed should not be a problem. Plenty of credible sources do not sign their material – half the news sources on the Internet, for example. —Anonymous Dissident 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a fair catch to me. Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident 10:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous Dissident 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Misplaced Pages would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous Dissident 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm only saying you should make the effort to incorporate foreign language sources if they will allow the article to be significantly improved and expanded. You can't justify excluding superior sources just because they're in another language. Articles are supposed to be comprehensive, not just comprehensive in terms of everything that's been published in English. If your argument is "there's nothing much more we can add to justify the effort", then that's probably reasonable, but if your argument is simply "English language sources are more convenient", then I must object. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I think his argument is basically that incorporating foreign sources would lend no additional value or comprehensiveness to the article, and personally I think that barring a reason to believe otherwise, we should trust the nominator's judgment. Can you point out any specific weaknesses in the article's coverage of the topic? –Juliancolton |  06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (I had written quite a bit of the article at GA stage). There does indeed seem to be a surprising shortage of material on the painting in English, to judge from Google/books/scholar and Wood's bibliography as at 1993. But I'm sure there is more tucked away somewhere. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism, Issue 9 of Studies in the fine arts, Reinhild Janzen, Publisher UMI Research Press, 1980, ISBN 083571120X, 9780835711203 must be relevant, and the Paris exhibition catalogue Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism (ISBN: 0847854108 / 0-8478-5410-8) Maurice Guillaud, Jacqueline Guillaud, Rizzoli, 1985, especially if the painting was in the exhibition. But I don't believe there is nothing more to be said - for one thing, what the Hagens have about the painting being cut down in size is not I think in yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added about the cut down, good find. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism definitely sounds relevant. I'll see what I can do to find a copy. —Anonymous Dissident 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Given that the subject of this article is an artistic work, citing facts about Alexander the Great to Britannica isn't really a big deal. None of the facts cited to the Britannica are contentious.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support "Historical Setting"
• "The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May, was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but nonetheless resulted in an easy victory for Alexander." Why nonetheless? Seems clumsy.
  • Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "A core vanguard of traitorous Greek mercenaries" By definition, mercenaries fight whomever they were told to fight. Is there a good reason for this POV? Again, "renegade Greek mercenaries". In my opinion, "Greek mercenaries" will do. Their ethnic origin is relevant primarily in informing the reader that they would have been hoplites, nearly the equivalent of Alexanders heavy infantry, although the Macedonian hoplites were notably superior to their mercenary counterparts.
  • Consider how it would read without "traitorous". The layreader (who, perhaps, knows more about art than war), might be confused: "why were the Greeks fighting the Greeks?" Strictly speaking, the adjective is not needed, but it makes the text clearer. That the mercenaries were traitorous is not really disputable, but if you can think of a better term I'm happy to apply it. —Anonymous Dissident
• "a counter to Nabarsanes' mounted conglomerate" A cavalry force is not normally known as a 'conglomerate'.
  • Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Other than the above, I really like the concise description of the battle. I'm not well enough informed to comment on the rest of the article, but the "Historical Setting" is FA-worthy. Relevant image, excellent map (arrows would be nice), tight prose just a little theatrical at times, as noted above. Dhatfield (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review:

• Source needed: File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg

• The issue above is all that's remaining on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Source of original art given, but source of digital version (with links if it's from the internet) required: File:BattleofIssusDetail2.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail1.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail3.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail10.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail9.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail6.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail7.jpg, File:Battle of Issus by Altdorfer 1529 Pinakothek-Mus Munich detail2.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail11.jpg, File:BattleofIssusDetail4.jpg

• Done all but one (uploaded by someone else). I can easily upload a new (and better) version myself. —Anonymous Dissident 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. —Anonymous Dissident 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um, I still don't see a source for the electronic versions. Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. The images are self-created. —Anonymous Dissident 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you mean that you cropped them? We still need the source of the original image. Steve Smith (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Provided. —Anonymous Dissident 14:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Information is present in German, but should be added in English: File:Mathis Gothart Grünewald 036.jpg

• Done. —Anonymous Dissident 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Confusing tag - tagged as being in the public domain, but in the next breath states "copyright is held by Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." Can you clarify what is meant by this? File:Albrecht Altdorfer, The Battle of Alexander at Issus.jpg, File:Albrecht Altdorfer 045.jpg, File:Albrecht Altdorfer 039.jpg, File:Albrecht Altdorfer 037.jpg

• See —Anonymous Dissident 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied that it's in the public domain as a US government work, but the "permission" field of the description template is currently confusing (not least because it refers to "purposes stated below" without providing them). I'd suggest just replacing that with a note that permission is not required, as the work is in the public domain. File:Battle issus initial.gif Steve Smith (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. —Anonymous Dissident 07:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Beautifully written, lovely content in the text. But I find much wanting WRT the images.

• Hands up who can read the small text on the map? AD, do you have control over the text size alone (larger would be great), or can you enlarge the whole image? (The icons are just big enough as is, so bigger text would do it.)
  • Made larger; how now? —Anonymous Dissident 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• The Alexander image is superb, so why so small?
  • Larger now. —Anonymous Dissident 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've upsized the two in Background and relocated the Triumphal one. Is it OK? The St George one is a slight problem in that it's hard to make out even at my larger size, yet if you click on it, the image is humungously large and of poor res. Is the original that dark?
  • I found the new layout overbearing. I don't think the St George one is going to be clear without clicking on it – it's just the way the painting is. —Anonymous Dissident 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• The women on the battlefield: can't make it out, and can you use the sizing that is best for very vertical pics? Eubulides knows how ("upright"?
  • I've applied "upright". I can't see too much difference though. Have I done something wrong? —Anonymous Dissident 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• There may be too many pics squashed in and made small to fit. Have you thought of a gallery at the bottom for some, to which you could refer in the main text? Nile River and sign suspended look cluttered and untidy, for example. Put them down the bottom and enlarge Darius? Fictitious mountain and island down and larger, then we could have the women beneath the soldiers, both on the right and larger, and the text isn't squeezed in the same way. Tony (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I quite like the current format. For the most part, the text isn't squished too much, and it's not atypical for art articles to have a large number of images (example, example). —Anonymous Dissident 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll concede, though, that the sign and Nile images were cluttered. I've removed the sign image altogether, since it was too small for the gallery. —Anonymous Dissident 07:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments on refs

• Is it Bunson or Bunston? Pinakotek or Pinakothek?
• In notes but not refs: Jean
• In refs but not notes: Ansell; The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia. • Ling.Nut 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• All fixed. —Anonymous Dissident 10:11, 11 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

Nicholas Mayall

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

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

Support on 2c. Comment, noting there are no problems with 1c but, I'm not qualified to support science biography on 1c terms. 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Citing the other Encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c: Please see Talk: 2c there are a few fiddle issues left, but its mostly resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c all problems resolved with 1c 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC):

Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am really quite unhappy about this. Dog doesn't eat dog, and your reviewers may have been correct in their time about the density of citations, but citing the Other Encyclopedia is bad form in a Featured Article. Also, its not authored by a specialist so its not HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have removed the Britannica cites. WilliamKF (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. I think the alts are excellent, except for the third one (would it be obvious from seeing the image alone that the large yellow structure is a telescope? See WP:ALT#Verifiability).

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

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)

    Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is not a purpose, but a description. A rationale should explain why the image is necessary (its purpose) and be specific and detailed (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose now reads Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included. If this is not sufficient, I would appreciate more direction, or better yet, another to edit the purpose further. The fair-use seems self evident to me. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's still not there. What you're trying to accomplish is to articulate to the reader what understanding the image is intended to convey. You say "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly", but not why that is the case ("because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included" is a non-sequitur; it discusses the article, not the image). The "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch may be helpful. Typically images depicting deceased individuals in this manner (infobox) have purposes generally summarized as "to facilitate identification of a notable individual". (i.e. Why is the image being included? So the reader can visually identify the subject.) Эlcobbola _talk 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    I've updated it again to now read: "This image depicts the appearance of Nicholas Mayall. His appearance is used in this article to facilitate identification of Mayall by the reader. Mayall is a notable deceased individual with few known photographs, none of which are known to be free sources." Please assist directly if this is not sufficient as you seem to have a clear idea of what is needed here. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    That's sufficient. I was not in a position to write the purpose as I didn't upload or insert the image and, therefore, had no knowledge of its intended purpose. I commented on the typical purpose I see for such images and what was presumably the case here, but you may well have been going for something completely different. The Iwo Jima flag example in that dispatch, for instance, demonstrates how one image can have any number of purposes. Эlcobbola _talk 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola _talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

    How is his appearance later in life relevant to the reader's understanding of the man? If seeing the telescope is important, as a device still in existence, a free alternative could be created (NFCC#1). The telescope may well have been meaningful to Mayall, but the threshold is a significant contribution to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). What understanding of either Mayall or the telescope is conveyed? (Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is identical to the above image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why would two images be needed to depict Mayall?) Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Removed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola _talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    My comment wasn't phrased well. The author field should be updated to avoid confusion. When articles are compiled (for example, hitting the "Download as PDF"), the information from this line is fetched for the credit appendix. As is, Walker will be credited only as the uploader, as the summary line does not carry over. Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Done. WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    Please ping Elcobbola for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Gregory ref in your sources lacks a last access date.
• Lindsley ref in your sources lacks a publisher.

  Done. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. For future reference, at FAC, practice is to let the person bringing up the concern strike it when they feel it is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have already seen the article when it was going through the peer review. I think it is a comprehensive and well sourced. After a copy-edit that I recommended the quality of prose also improved considerably. The only suggestion that I have now is to expand the lead. At 1.5 paragraphs it seems to be rather short. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the prose is adequate to meet the FA standard. A few examples:

• "Mayall hoped to join the Mount Wilson team upon getting his doctoral, ...". Should be "doctorate", and "getting" is too informal.

• "... the only time in his adult life that he resided other than in California and Arizona". California or Arizona.

• "Mayall and other young faculty at Lick thought that older Moore and Wright were too complacent with the small telescopes and should have tried harder to attain a larger reflector." Very strangely written. Complacent with? Should that be "obtain" instead of "attain"?

• "Unbeknownst to Mayall ...". What kind of a ten dollar word is "unbeknownst"?

• If there isn't a rule against using templates like {{convert}} in section titles then there damn well ought to be.

• This prohibited him from observing small color changes ...". It didn't prohibit him, it prevented him.

• "... found the Milky Way had about one half the mass as previously thought." Why "as previously thought"?

• "... argued to Sproul". I've never seen argue used in that way before; usually one argues with, or about, not to.

• "Doing most of their work by letter, Mayall began by convincing the others ...". So Mayall was doing most of the committee's work?

• "Surviving Mayall were his widow, Kathleen Boxall, his wife for 58 years." The plural "were" implies that he left behind an unnamed widow plus a wife of 58 years.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all the above identified prose issues. If more remain, please let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs looking at, as there are innumerable other examples. From the lead, for instance: "Mayall also spent 11 years as director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, where he shepherded it and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory into top research observatories". I'm really not sure what this is trying to say, but whatever it is it's being said rather awkwardly. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It now says 'guided' instead of 'shepherded', hopefully that is clearer. How can we identify the remaining issues? WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you need to try and find someone to do this kind of thing to the whole article; it's not just changing the odd word that's needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find someone. Thanks for your helpful edits. WilliamKF (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony1's offered some good general advice, which is to look at similar FAs and try to persuade their editors to help out. You've written a good, informative account of Mayall's life and work, but you can't be expected to do everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 8 December 2009 (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, 12 December 2009 .

Battle of Villers-Bocage

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

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

Eubulides' alt text clearance and Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I largely approve of the nicely written article. However I want to recommend an expansion or counter balance of some of the elements in the article. Especially since the article states that the German propaganda exploited the battle. I therefore have checked what the Wehrmachtbericht reports about the battle at Villers Bocage. Interestingly I find it very moderate in comparison to what is stated in the article. It reads on 14 June 1944

In der Normandie stieß eine gepanzerte Kampfgruppe in den feindlichen Brückenkopf östlich der Orne vor und brachte dem Gegner hohe Verluste an Menschen und Material bei.

My translation An armoured battle group attacked the enemy bridgehead east of the Orne in the Normandy and caused the enemy high numbers of casualties in men and material.

Taylor claims that it was Signal magazine in which doctored photographs appeared giving a larger sense of the destruction. On top of which Wittmann's account of the battle is also translated and presented in Taylor's work. Wittmann does give a bit of an over the top description and then clearly states that two battalions had been practically wiped out. The above from Wehrmachtbericht only appears to further support the article; however are you sure it is about the Villers-Bocage battle? V-B is west of the Orne and the Germans were reacting to the British move in this battle. 21st Panzer was operating east of the river and had launched numerous attacks on the 51st Infantry causing heavy casualties iirc thats why they could take no further role in Operation Perch.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Too be honest I am not sure, but this was the only reference I found about a battle in the vicinity of Villers Bocage at the timeframe in question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add that part of the point of that section is not so much that German propaganda exploited the battle - both the Axis and Allies did plenty of that, though the doctored photographs are an interesting nugget - but that the propaganda was given so much credence by the British both at the time and by professional historians for years afterwards. I think that's what makes it notable enough to be worth examining in such detail. EyeSerene 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly I also miss references from the German point of view such as

• Agte, Patrick (2000). Michael Wittmann erfolgreichster Panzerkommandant im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Tiger der Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Preußisch Oldendorf. ISBN 3-920-72218-3. (in German)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I started reading Agte and the general story matches the article. I could add a lot more information on the prelude to the battle from the German side as well as how the chain of events evolved in detail from the German side, especially on 1st Company SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101. Let me know if this is wanted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have left some comments on the article's discussion page in regards to the information jsut added by yourself - would be very much appreiacted if you could respond there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)