Add 1 |
Add 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|2}} |
{{TOClimit|2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real (Ivy Queen album)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real (Ivy Queen album)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sperm whale/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sperm whale/archive1}} |
Revision as of 14:02, 10 August 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...it meets the FA criteria. I've spent years working on this article (since 2009), mainly on my spare time; I've immersed myself on the literature, read tons of books on the subject (which was pretty entertaining, to be honest). Aside from old peer reviews (which were of much help) and the aid of IP editors, I have pretty much worked on the article largely by myself. I modeled it after the Scotland national football team article, but I think this article is a good contender to be the new standard (depending on what happens in this FAC). I have tried to copy-edit the article as best as possible, mainly as a result of peer review backlogs and general lack of interest from other editors. I recently got the article Pisco Sour through a FAC, so I have good idea of what is expected and the procedures. If you find any mistakes, or have any improvement suggestions, please give me a chance to fix those things before opposing the nomination. Thanks in advance for reading the work; I hope you enjoy it!--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At a first look I don't understand why does the player tables show up while the World Cup and Copa America are hidden. I strongly suggest to auto-hide the two player tables (and perhaps add a couple of sentences summarizing the more notable recent players) and have unhidden trimmed versions of the records (for the WC just focus on the editions when it qualified, while for the CA one perhaps only on those times when it was in the top 3 or 4). Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment Nergaal. The current structure is a mixture between the FA Scotland national football team article and some new ideas.
- I hid the Copa America & World Cup tables because they made the article seem longer than it actually is. Instead, I decided to use text to describe the more memorable events in the tables (and overall-records as well, but only in the first paragraph of each of those sections).
- All football (soccer) articles have the player tables unhidden. I don't want to change that concept (unless everyone else here thinks that s for the best). Based on my experience, IP contributors (who are the ones who constantly update these tables) prefer unhidden player tables.
- What I can do is trim the records. However, this is again something I have never seen another football article do...so I'd like to hear further input on this matter before taking action on it.
- Good points. I think they are certainly on the idea of "setting a new standard".--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Parutakupiu
Comments – I will post my review in a gradual section-by-section manner, if you don't mind.
- Uniform section – I've made a few changes to this section already, mostly copyediting (see recent edit), but some things still need attention:
- The English variants "uniform" (American) and "kit" (British) are used interchangeably, when only one should be preponderant per WP:CONSISTENCY.
- My biggest issue in this section is the use of a personal blog source as major reference; I'm not sure it follows WP:BLOGS. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stadium section:
- Same concern about using a blog-type source, even if it's based in what appears to be some kind of higher education institution site.
- Supporters section:
- Do you antecipate pages being created for the currently red links Peru Campeón and polka criolla? Parutakupiu (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rivalries section:
- I would move this section after the "Supporters" one, as it fits into the earlier socio-historical portion of the article.
- Before reading the World Cup, Copa América and Olympic record sections, I would recommend nesting them under a "Major competitions record" parent section and then renaming them to just "FIFA World Cup", "Copa América" and "Olympic Games". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment to this general section is that the record tables should not be collapsible. The data should be in plain sight and, when collapsed, the table is not straightaway noticeable. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'll respond to your points in number format.
- My decision for using both terms ("uniform" and "kit") was to have a variety of words to play around with (to avoid repetition). Also, from personal experience, the term "kit" is increasingly (if not already commonly) used by the soccer community in the United States. Could they not be considered synonyms?
- Yeah, I guess they can. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied to your blog concerns in your talk page, but I will link to them here in case any other reviewer is interested in reading the explanation for the blog sources (see [2] and [3]).
- Yes, I plan to create articles on both subjects.
- Yes, I will move the rivalry section below the supporters section. It does make more sense.
- There seems to have been a change in the WP:FOOTY MoS for national teams (see [4]). I developed this article under the old MoS used for the Scotland national football team article. Although I am not opposed to the new MoS, my view is that the new MoS works better for achievement lists rather than sections with WP:SUMMARY text of larger articles (which, I think, is the case with the Peru article).
- I did not know about that MoS guideline, but the fact that the project decised for a change in favour of my suggestion gives it more value. Probably "Achievements" is not the best title (especially for team who have not had notable achievements), hence a more neutral title like the one I suggested could be more suitable to every situation and national team. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, I appreciate the suggestions up to now. I also like the last point you made (about the structure change), because I think it fits with the objective of making this Peru nft article the "new standard model" for other nft articles. Given this situation, perhaps having a discussion in this FAC's talk page would be good to reach a consensus?
- If you think it's an undertaking that could generate a positive feedback, go for it. But I don't think it should in any way hinder this article from reaching the quality necessary for promotion to featured status. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'll respond to your points in number format.
- FIFA World Cup section:
- In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
- "In the finals, the team hold..." – holds
- Unlink Mexico in "Mexico 1970 World Cup finals" and Argentina in "Argentina 1978 World Cup finals".
- Add a period at the end of the image caption.
- Unlink Budapest, Paris, and Algiers.
- "(upon returning home)" – Replace parentheses with commas.
- Copa América section:
- In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
- "... hosted the tournament..." – I'd change to something like "played as hosts", to avoid repeting the word "tournament".
- In the part about the player records, I'd replace the parentheses with em-dashes and the square brackets by parentheses.
- acquired→achieved
- "Peru ended the first stage as leader of Group 2
in the first stage..." - two-game→two-legged
- "... saw both teams win their respective home games..."
- "...in Bogota (1–0) and Lima (2–0)..." → "(1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima)". Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Olympic Games section:
- games→Games
- "during the controversial 1936 Summer Olympics..."
- "... became South America's representative
to the football tournament in the 1936 Berlin Olympics." - "The
representatives for thePeruvian team players..." - "... but in extra time Peru..." – Add a comma before Peru.
- Shouldn't the content from Note I deserve inclusion in this section? I think it's too large and detailed to be treated as a mere note. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed it now: the lead says that Peru participated in two Olympic football tournaments, but the second participation (in the 1960 Games) is nowhere to be read in this section. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable players section:
- First of all, I'd move this sub-section to the top, before the squad lists. It's a historical and less mutable section so it should come first, in my opinion.
- "South America won 0–2, with Cubillas scoring the first goal." – This should be in a different sentence, so replace the preceding semicolon with a period (to close the previous sentence which also runs too long).
- Managers section:
- Are refs 130 and 131 from a reliable source?
- Unlink "sports analysts"
- This section is small and you already give a link to the main list of managers, so I don't think you should have a navbox that, in addition, is shown collapsed by default.
- Fixtures and records section:
- "Since 1927, Peru has played
approximately545 matches, including friendlies, since 1927;..." - Ref 134 is quite odd, I've never seen four sources in a single ref tag. I would say you should add separate ref tags after each corresponding citation, but maybe your solution is valid? I don't know...
- "... at the Copa America held in Bolivia." – Link "Copa América" to the 1997 tournament article; unlink "Colombia" (in an earlier sentence) and "Bolivia".
- "... no yellow or red cards
in its games."
- "Since 1927, Peru has played
— Parutakupiu (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for the comments.
- The common structure for these sections is Current -> Recent -> Notable. However, I personally like your suggestion better.
- Yes, the Dechalaca.com references are reliable. They have a professional structure to their publishing (see in Spanish), and I find no reason to distrust them. However, some of their articles are guilty of biased opinions (which I usually don't agree with), but that's not unusual.
- Yes, the ref 134 style is rare. It was suggested during the GA review several years ago, and I have seen other FA articles use it (so it seems valid).
- Everything else you pointed out should now be fixed. Thanks!--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you let the competition record tables be visible by default? They are probably one of the most important piece of data for people consulting this page, and their length should not be an issue.
- In the external links section, change the title of the navbox "Finalists" to "World Cup final presences".
— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Length was my primary concern with the tables. I will make them visible.
- Yes, I changed the title.
- Thank you very much for the heavy copy-editing in the article. It was absolutely awesome to read all of it again.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, happily. I believe this article is adequate shape to achieve featured status. Congrats to the nominator for his work. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Giants2008
Comments – I haven't read the article in depth yet, but here are a few initial impressions that I have from what I did look at:
The FIFA Fair Play diploma image isn't needed to understand that they were awarded the honor. Therefore, this image likely doesn't meet the non-free content criteria as far as this article goes.- I'm also uneasy about the blog that was referred to earlier. It's good that he's apparently a published author, but if there are opportunities to replace some of the uses, I'd suggest doing so. Better to have the most reliable sources possible.
Check that the page ranges in the refs all have en dashes. I noticed a couple citations without them."A series of staggering victories in the late 1960s". I don't understand the use of "staggering" here. Were they big upsets, as we Americans would say? That sounds more neutral in any case."eliminated only due to a goal difference with Chile." Not sure if non-football fans are going to get this with the current wording. How about "only due to a worse goal difference than Chile" or similar?Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the comments Giants. I'll also reply here with the number list.
- I also had my doubts about the image, so it is now removed.
- The current version of the article only has the Pulgar blog used for non-controversial facts. I have checked and no other source covers these topics (particularly the uniform's history). The other blogs are from university professors, and all should also be referencing uncontroversial facts.
- All page ranges in the refs should now have en dashes. Thank you for pointing this out. :-)
- The sources (Witzig and FIFA) indicate that Peru's qualification was surprising because Argentina was the clear favorite. Perhaps replacing "staggering" with "unexpected" might do the trick?
- Yes, I changed the goal difference sentence with your suggestion.
- I appreciate the comments. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the comments Giants. I'll also reply here with the number list.
- @Giants2008:, I removed the word "staggering". I think that is the best solution for NPOV.
- I again checked the blogs. They're all reliable and follow the guidelines per WP:BLOGS. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments -- Open six weeks and quiet for last two, I can't see this nom achieving consensus to promote any time soon, so will be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a Good Article that covers an important subject in the Plantagenet family. It examines their impact and importance and covers the significant events and changes that impacted the members of the families explaining in some way why they acted as they did. Without this nomination it is hard to see the article will be challenged enough to improve further Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - suggest to install this useful tool User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and check harvard citations for consistency (errors will be highlighted in red). The article has several cases of missing bibliographic entries or mismatches between the details of "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" (author's first and last name and year of publication need to be exactly the same). I'll try to read the full article and give some more comments later. GermanJoe (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch, I thought we had cleared these up when we worked through the citations. Thanks for the tool - I'll get to it.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Most of Caroline phase first paragraph needs citations, as do the second and third paragraphs of Lancastrian war
- FN34 is missing pages, as are FN 68, 103, 106
- All done apart from StubbsNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Stubbs replaced with more relevent citations Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- Done - thanks for the tips Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawless: BiblioBazaar is a reprint service - what is the original publishing info?
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
- Locations removed for consistencyNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of Bibliography
- ISBN for Mate?
- Smith: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get on these next week, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, I think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns A) I've still got concerns over a point raised in the GAR:
- ":::There's no "right" answer, of course, but I think that to meet the GA standards the article should also note the alternative definition - not least because it the one used by the British monarchy itself! Possible sources would include the Royal Household's own website, here; J. S. Hamilton's "The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty", introduction, para 1; "Angevins and Plantagenets" in John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves' "The Kings and Queens of Britain"."
- I still think the article is putting forward the Henry II start date for the Plantagenets as the only definition, rather than one of two.
- Thanks, good point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've used the royal.gov.uk citation you gave and added to the lead the alternative of four distinct houses. I've also referenced the death of John as the end of the Angevins in some eyes. I think it was left like it was due to one particularly vociferous editor - much more balanced now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B) I'll work through at least the earlier periods:
- "Henry saw an opportunity to reassert Plantagenet authority over the Church in England" - I don't think that this is supported by the cited source (Schama). Schama notes on that page that Henry, an "Angevin king", wanted to reassert the rights of Henry I (a Norman) over the Church; there's nothing about his own/future dynasty here.
- Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " In response to please Henry three of his men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral." - worth looking at Barlow (1986) "Thomas Becket", here; Barlow's probably the standard text, and it's not quite that simple/ Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended to reflect this was probably misadventure (and cited) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give a demonic origin to the Plantagenets, and several early Plantagenet kings are said to have claimed such a heritage for themselves." - this is cited to Warren, p.2. What he actually says is Henry II's "were prone to joke about the story", which isn't quite the same as claiming to be demonic. Incidentally, Warren talks not about the Plantagenets, but the Angevins.
- Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Benjamin, Marcus (1910). Appleton's New Practical Cyclopedia. University of Michigan." - I'm not convinced that this is a "high-quality reliable source" for medieval history any more.
- Removed and replaced with link to King of Jerusalem Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "When Stephen was captured and declared deposed because there was no precedent for a ruling queen rather than a queen consort, Matilda was declared "Lady of the English"." - there are some mild grammar issues here (Stephen wasn't deposed because there was no precedent), but also it's also not quite right - see Marjorie Chibnall's biography of the Empress, p.102, for an explanation of the issues surrounding the title.
- I've rewritten this to match the history more precisely. The title is not explained but I've removed the assertion.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "After the consolidation of the English lands, Henry II considered further expansion to find a fiefdom for his brother William FitzEmpress. The Catholic Church blessed a campaign in Ireland that would bring the Irish church under papal control, but plans were delayed until Dermot of Leinster was allowed to recruit soldiers in England and Wales for use in Ireland. Henry became concerned that Dermot's knights' success would give them independent power so he visited himself. This enabled the recognition of his overlordship by the native kings and the appointment of John of England to the notional first Lordship of Ireland." - worth double checking the sequencing here against Astley (whom, incidentally, prefers to label the English monarch the House of Anjou from 1154 to 1399!)
- Rewritten to reflect chronology - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Henry II recognised that his vast holdings were unsustainable and planned for partible inheritance common in the feudal system." - I'd be keen to see the first part of this cited. The second half needs clarification - partible in inheritance was common in some parts of Europe, but not all.
- Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Philip II of France attempted to destabilise his mightiest subject and encouraged the sons not to wait for their inheritance. They rebelled in the Revolt of 1173–1174." - John didn't rebel.
- Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " The younger Henry rebelled again, but died of dysentery before Richard and Phillip took advantage of a sickening Henry II with more success." - the events are separated by many years (Young Henry died in 1183, the rebellion in the second half in 1189, but it reads as though one followed closely on the other).
- Rewritten to reflect chronology Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Richard inherited all the Plantagenet holdings in 1189. His English coronation was marked by a mass slaughter of the Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust"" - I'm not sure "marked" is the right verb here.
- Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Richard had little interest in governance and rarely spent time in England beyond that necessary to raise revenue to support his military adventures. " This needs a stronger citation; the Victorian concept that Richard "ought" to have spent time in England or that he conducted "military adventures" is a little old fashioned.
- Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "He is reported to have said "I would sell London itself if only I could find a rich enough buyer"." - this needs qualification: is this taken seriously by modern historians?
- Removed - doesn't really add anythingNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " According to Roger of Hoveden, when Richard was released, Philip II warned John "Look to yourself, the devil is loose"." - again, needs qualification - is Roger regarded as a reliable source?
- Removed - doesn't really add
- " Philip II of France had been dividing up the Plantagenet realm with John of England." - could you double-check against the cited source? If memory serves, John allied himself with Philip, but didn't go about dividing up Ireland, England, Normandy etc.
- REphrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The French lands selected Richard's nephew Arthur, while John succeeded in England. " - I'm not sure this is accurate. Brittany went with Arthur, but Normandy went for John.
- Added detailNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The contested succession and resultant rebellions by the Norman and Angevin barons" - I don't think that the contested succession was a strong factor in the Norman baronial revolt.
- Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and led to the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, even if de jure it lingered until 1259" - um, Gascony wasn't exactly held de jure! I'm also not convinced that the French King regarded as lingering de jure at all! :)
- Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "John's defeats in France weakened his position in England, resulting in his vassals rebelling and enforcing the treaty called Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established common law." - I don't think that John's vassals did enforce the treaty called Magna Carta; it famously wasn't enforced by either side under John.
- Agreed - rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " leading to the First Barons' War in which the barons invited an invasion by Prince Louis." - the "rebel barons" invited the invasion. The loyalist ones didn't.
- Agreed & changes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some historians consider the Angevin monarchs end and Platagenet monarchs" - check the grammar here.
- Grammer fixed and cited to match the lead giving alternative definitions of dynasty or dynasties (see above) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Plantagenets exhibited typical antisemitism" - all the Plantagenets? Or just Henry III?
- Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Henry saw such similarities between himself and England's then patron saint Edward the Confessor in his struggle with untrusted advisers that he gave his first son the Anglo-Saxon name Edward and built the saint a magnificent still-extant shrine." I don't think the bulk of the literature would include the "struggle with untrusted advisors" clause here.
- Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Henry III could not motivate his barons to support a foreign war to restore Plantagenet holdings on the continent - they would not supply the men and money required to do so. Facing a repeat of the situation his father faced, Henry III reissued Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest in return for a tax that raised the incredible sum of £45,000." - I think Henry did motivate them; isn't the £45,000 the money that was spent on the reinvasion of Poitou?
- Yep, rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This was enacted in an assembly of the barons, bishops and magnates that created a compact in which the feudal prerogatives of the Plantagenets were debated and discussed in the political community." - the prerogatives of the Plantagenets weren't debated; I think the argument swung on the pre-Plantagenet legal situation, in particular Edward the Confessor.
- Agreed & rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Matthew Paris wrote that Richard responded to the price by saying, You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon – step up to the sky and take it down'. " - missing speech marks
- Done
- "Henry's extravagances left a longer lasting legacy in his building projects including Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle and the town of Harwich. " - I'd look for a direct cite for "extravagances".
- Checked and apart from warfare costs seems he wasn't - added detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " regarded as the first Parliament worthy of the name because it was the first time cities and burghs sent representatives" - regarded by who? The "model parliament" idea is quite old-fashioned now; see Carpenter's article on Henry III's parliaments.
- Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Edward, having pacified the realm, left England to join Louis IX on the Ninth Crusade, funded by an unprecedented levy of one-twentieth of every citizen's goods and possessions." -movable possessions... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll start working through these (or at least the easier ones) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers - give me a shout if I can help at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't know about this article. It seems to function as the main summary article on English history over the period when the Plantagenets ruled, and therefore attempts to both cover the dynasty itself and the general history of England. This is a far from ideal way of doing things, which no doubt the nominator inherited. Both aspects of the article suffer from the inappropriate dual function. In an ideal world we would have a history article England under the Plantagenets - not an unreasonable periodization - that covered the history properly, rather than just wars, dynastic politics, and some other stuff like the Black Death. Then this article could cover better the full ramifications of the family, including the few left after 1485. The history side seems to be almost entirely restricted to the 100 Years War once that gets going, and rather peter out after 1389, except for the Wars of the Roses - nothing else seems to have happened in England 1389-1485. Some of the sources used are rather embarrassing, & not acceptable at FA level, although the article is so summarized I doubt the actual text would need changing if for example a better source than "Morris, John E (1910). Great Britain and Ireland: A History for Lower Forms. Cambridge University Press" was used for "In 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, deposing and exiling Balliol"! "Marshall, H.E. (2006). Our Island Story: A History of England for Boys and Girls. Yesterday's Classics" - a reprint of an ancient childrens' book, is used once & should go too. Most sources used are fine. As things are I can't see myself supporting this at FA, not least because while it functions as a general period article it is uneven and too narrow in that role, though I appreciate the work the nominator has put in. I'd advise splitting it into two, and building those up. Sorry! As a GA I think it is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you think it stands up at GA at least, Johnbod. I have addressed the citations you raised above anyway. You are correct in assuming this article was inherited in the state where it covered both the family and the period and it has undergone some contested change since (it once got to twice the size which explains the feeling of summary) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think this article is fantastic. It is very coherent and the level of detail is superb. It's such an interesting read and you have improved it even further than a month or two ago. It clearly explains the start and end of the line and gives the reader knowledge about the history of the dynasty without being too complicated or needing to know about it more professionally or with expertise. — AARON • TALK 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments -- As this review has been open a month and a half without achieving consensus to promote, and has been quiet for the past week, I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the last Peer Review appears to have been some years ago, I'd suggest going through that process again before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Real is the fourth studio album by Puerto Rican reggaetón recording artist Ivy Queen, released on November 16, 2004, by Universal Music Latino. On Queen's debut full-length English-language studio album, she collaborated with hip hop and fellow reggaetón artists Hector El Father, Fat Joe, Getto & Gastam, La India, Gran Omar and Mickey Perfecto. The album was primarily produced by Rafi Mercenario, and included guest production by American producer Swizz Beatz, Puerto Rican producers Ecko, Noriega, Monserrate and DJ Nelson. The executive producers were Goguito "Willy" Guadalupe, Gran Omar and Queen. I am nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it that meets the criteria. After a successful GAN, it was placed for peer review and received one as so. After some time, the article received an excellent and much needed copyedit by Miniapolis (talk · contribs). I proudly present my first FAC nomination, Real. DivaKnockouts 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I see several issues with inaccurate representation of Spanish-language sources (I looked at these two), and because User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts is still pending, my first question would be if User:Miniapolis speaks Spanish, or merely smoothed out prose without being able to consult the Spanish-language sources, and my second suggestion would be that someone undertake a thorough review of sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sandy. No, I know a few words of Spanish but don't speak it; I copyedited the article because it was next in line on the GOCE requests page. Not wanting to muddy the waters, I wouldn't have taken it if I thought there were copyvio issues. Miniapolis 01:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Inaccurate representation of Spanish-language sources"? Really? Please explain. — DivaKnockouts 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's quite clear: Sandy is referring to possible misrepresenting of facts or opinions presented in the Spanish-language sources. I would like to add that, based on your DYK work and the non-formal CCI listed above, a spotcheck for copyright violations by translating the sources word-for-word is also needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy said she looked at the two above but did not provide an example. How am I suppose to understand what she is referring too. If Sandy doesn't know Spanish how can she tell if something is misinterpreted? Google Translate is a very good translator as it does misinterpret things. — DivaKnockouts 00:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy never said she doesn't speak Spanish; she seems, from my experience, quite fluent. She was asking if your copyeditor spoke Spanish and could thus consult the sources (and perhaps spot close paraphrasing or representation issues) or was just basically polishing the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Google translate can be terrible, especially for paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant Google Translate is not a very good translator. Also, Sandy said she specially checked those two sources. — DivaKnockouts 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but where does that imply she doesn't speak Spanish? That she checked 2 sources on her holiday, found issues, and has asked for someone to give a detailed spot check means there are quite likely issues with close paraphrasing and source representation that you should be dealing with, rather than misreading her comments and arguing about what she meant... particularly as I have already told you in no uncertain terms. If I were you, I'd find a fluent speaker of Spanish who has time to do spotchecks, and if they find widespread issues you should withdraw this nomination. If there are just a few, you can fix them quickly; the delegates may not mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Inaccurate representation of Spanish-language sources"? Really? Please explain. — DivaKnockouts 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks User:Miniapolis (and User:Crisco 1492) for clarifying. Yes, the concerns relate to the issue that occurred at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1, where because a competent copyeditor had smoothed out the prose, reviewers failed to notice the copyvios (all of the prose was at a level higher than was typical for the nominator, but reviewers and delegates thought that was because a competent copyeditor had been there, hence many failed to check the sources and detect the copyvio). In this case, in my very quick search I didn't see any copyvio, but my check was not thorough (limited time). I am additionally concerned about accurate representation of sources in this case ... by smoothing the prose, it is possible subtle inaccuracies are introduced even by a competent copyeditor (as Miniapolis certainly appears to be). I am out of time for the moment, but will again go through and look for samples the next time I have a free block of time. (Diva, yes I speak and comprehend Spanish at a fluent level, although reading takes me a bit longer, and my written Spanish is not fluent as I learned Spanish "in the street" and in the workplace ... I believe you should recall this as I detected multiple copyvios in your past DYK work, although I have been unable to complete the CCI with Moonriddengirl because of time constraints). Perhaps you could ask HcHc to check for accurate representation of sources if it takes me more than a few days to return to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and recommend withdrawal. Aside from the significant concerns about use of Spanish-language sources above, I did a random check of English-language sources and every one I checked had problems. Just the first three are listed below. Additionally, there are statements and whole sections in the article that lack citations altogether (see for example the first section in Recording and Production). This is far removed from FA standards, and at the minimum needs a thorough audit of all sources (Spanish and English) by an uninvolved editor.
- Ref 4a, close paraphrasing:
- Article text "she was dropped from the Sony label"
- Source text: "was dropped from Sony"
- Ref 4b, failed verification:
- Article text: "Her next single, 'Ritmo Latino', and its parent album failed to chart."
- Source text: Mentions the album "fizzled" but nowhere does it say that the album failed to chart.
- Ref 11, failed verification, and not a reliable source:
- Article text: "The following year, Queen released a platinum edition of the album with extra tracks, including 'Papi Te Quiero' and 'Tu No Puedes'"
- Source text: First of all, you used an ad in a magazine as a source, not the magazine itself. Second, the ad doesn't support these two songs being "extra tracks".
Please withdraw this. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on WP does it say that an ad in a magazine is not a reliable source? I would just like to know. — DivaKnockouts 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomaination I will work more on the article and present it back before my peers in the future. Thank you for your comments Sandy and Laser brain. — DivaKnockouts 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has already met the GA criteria, and I think that after improvements by myself and other editors it is now worthy of FA status.Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not yet ready to be evaluated for FA status. Without even delving into the text itself, a quick glance shows many problems: citation needed tags, many unsourced sentences and paragraphs; there's a sentence with 9 citations after it (!) (and another with 8); single-sentences subsections, etc. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Sasata. A wide range of sources and facts has been assembled, but the actual structure and writing of the article has a way to go. Also looks like there is insufficient information on the ecology, which is really a section on distribution, while "diet" is a top level heading rather than being part of either ecology or behaviour. Other examples of issues:
- Paragraphs beginning with sentences that don't specify the subject, eg. "How they choose mates has not been definitively determined."
- Single sentence subsections in "description"
- Subsections or paras that lack appropriate overview, but contain random specifics, eg. skeleton subsection begins "The ribs are bound to the spine by flexible cartilage,..."
- The only substantive text under skeleton relates to echolocation, which is actually the main subject of a later subsection on vocalisation
- Random info hasn't been culled, eg "Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, mentions cachalots (perhaps incorrectly) as preying on fellow whales."
- Looks to be too many external links per WP:ELNO
That said there is plenty of information assembled read to support rapid improvement.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and urge withdrawal. Criteria 1a and 2b are the most obvious problems; the prose and article structure are simply not ready for FAC. Frankly, many of the core problems from the 2008 FA delisting still persist here as well (including inconsistent capitalization of the name and a prune-worthy EL section). The usual reference formatting problems and probable objections to image use and layout seem secondary at this point. This is badly in need of a thorough peer review, and, frankly, I think the GA reviewer was generous regarding the article's organization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator: — Arre 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I've been working on this article since December 2011. With much work, it finally became a good article in March 2013. Miniapolis (talk · contribs) of the Guild of Copy Editors thoroughly copy-edited it a month later. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a FA. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. It's a bit lengthy, but it goes into comprehensive depth regarding the topic and covers everything. Thankyou, Arre 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- This page was only transcluded to WP:FAC today so, although it has garnered some comment through a notice on the Soap Opera project page, it's only as of now that it can be expected to pick up any reviewers trawling the FAC list... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Creativity97
- I am one-hundred percent for this FA nomination. The article has been worked on immensely in the past few years (mostly by Arre) and it really deserves the recognition of featured article status. It would also be the very first FA for American soap opera articles, which would be a big deal. Regards, Creativity97 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou C97:) Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Casting
- The paragraph should not start with the surname, full name required.
- Again with Case. This should also include a link.
- "...who plays Sharon to the present" -- check the prose. This doesn't read at all right.
- "...was the third actress to have the role in a four-month period." -- Play the role surely?
- Made adjustments, done. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Characterization
- Shero should be in inverts
- Sorry, I am not familiar with Zap2it and I was forced to use the link to find out. Could you include a brief introduction to it?
- What do you mean? Introduce it in the prose? Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, for example: "The theatrical newspaper The Stage thought that the performance was..."
- Too many quotes leads to bumpy prose and interrupts the natural flow. See WP:QUOTEFARM. There are far to many quotes within this section IMO.
- Well, a person who took the article Poppy Meadow to FA status mentioned that quotes are extremely helpful for articles like this. Considering they are actual quotes from people. And they aren't long quotes... But I've slightly fixed that issue. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough I had the Meadow article open which I have used for guidence in my review. This maybe the correct style, but it caused for a very bumpy read. -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, the actress has expressed displeasure with Sharon's..." -- Why the 's for Sharon?
- Done, couldn't believe that hadn't been noticed before. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick and Sharon
- Link to Madison.
- "In January 2009..." -- Be consistent if you are to use an American comma after a date opener, such as you do everywhere else.
- I'm certain that formatting it that way would be incorrect, are you sure? Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In January 2009 Nick and Sharon reunite..." compared to "In May 2005, 14-year-old Cassie..." and "In February 2003, Case temporarily exited the show..." and "In 2012, after Victor disappears..." etc. Having gone through, I note some are given the comma and some aren't. I don't think there is a correct way, but I would make it consistent if nothing else -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohh sorry I misread that, I thought you meant write it as "January, 2009". Fixed. Arre 11:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Morrow (the actor playing Nick)..." -- I don't feel we need to be reminded of this.
- "After another one-night stand..." -- Another? Surely one-night stand should then be linked on the first mention?
- It's not mentioned before, it's just implied. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok. -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "After another one-night stand Sharon becomes pregnant,[33] briefly lying that Jack is the baby's father when Summer becomes ill and Phyllis needs Nick.[33] Nick soon finds out, but their daughter Faith is kidnapped at birth by Nick's brother (Adam) and given to Ashley (Jack's sister). Sharon, believing Faith has died, seduces a guilty Adam.[33] " -- Why do we repeat the same reference three times in one paragraph? One is needed at the end, that's all.
Cameron Kirsten ordeal
- "While away, Sharon becomes suicidally depressed..." -- One or the other I think, suicidal or depressed.
- "That night she meets (and had an affair with) businessman Cameron Kirsten..." "She meets...had an affair with..." →"She meets and has an affair with..."
- "When Sharon return to Genoa City, she is horrified when Cameron follows her for "business" with Newman Enterprises." -- Who said "business? Why is it a quote?
- I've re-worded this. It's like that because the business was fake. The article it was from had quotes too. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "When she arrives they have a fight in which Sharon throws a bottle at him to keep him from raping her, "killing" him." -- Again here.
- "Detective Weber (Sherman Augustus) is suspicious of Sharon about Cameron's disappearance." →"Detective Weber (Sherman Augustus) is suspicious of Sharon's involvement in Cameron's disappearance."
- "When Sharon return to Genoa City, she is horrified when Cameron follows her for "business" with Newman Enterprises.[39] He blackmails her into meeting him at a motel. When she arrives they have a fight in which Sharon throws a bottle at him to keep him from raping her, "killing" him.[39] After driving around with his body in her car trunk for days, she dumps it in an alley.[39] " -- Repeated ref again. This only needs to be given once at the end.
- "Sharon begins "hallucinating" with visions of Cameron's "ghost" (him, alive)." -- Why the quotes?
- They are in quotes because they aren't literal events. She wasn't hallucinating and it wasn't his ghost, as in explained in the brackets. I think that should remain. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of quote marks here is confusing. Try reading it without; the sentence still reads the same which proves the inverts are redundent. Lets see what others think. -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Case noted that Sharon was getting into "deeper" trouble by making mistakes "trying to do the right thing". -- Again here.
- "Cameron reveals himself while Sharon has lunch with Nikki (Nick's mother). He had murdered Sharon's ex-boyfriend (and Cassie's biological father) Frank Barritt (Phil Dozois), who was visiting town, and hid the body in Sharon's car trunk.[39] Cameron's crimes are revealed; he is jailed, leaving Sharon free to live a normal life.[39]" -- ref repetition.
- "The actress felt that Sharon was still a romantic lead: 'Your romantic lead shouldn't just be a simple romantic lead...' " -- Too many "Romantic lead"s. Sure the quote can't be helped, butI would swap your one.
More to come. -- CassiantoTalk 23:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done everything else. Thankyou :) Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cassie's death
- "A weakened Cassie escapes from the hospital to find Daniel and tell him she was driving; she is returned to the hospital." -- Repetition of hospital. *Suggest* →"Cassie becomes hospitalised and escapes to find Daniel to tell him she was driving, but is soon re-admitted." Also, did she manage to speak with him?
- Fixed & she sort of did find him but didn't say anything to him. Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to link drinking and driving? Also, was the foundation solely aimed at teenagers, or drink driving per se?
- OVERLINK to Zap2it.
- Fixed overlinks. Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2005 good-girl Cassie becomes a rebellious teenager; Nick and Sharon have a difficult time dealing with her.[41] Cassie has a crush on bad-boy Daniel Romalotti (Michael Graziadei), who is dating Lily Winters (Christel Khalil). One night, against her parents' wishes she sneaks out to a party. In a ploy to impress a drunken Daniel she attempts to drive him home, despite being underage. The car crashes, leaving them with no memory of the accident. Daniel is thought to have been driving, and is blamed for the accident. A weakened Cassie escapes from the hospital to find Daniel and tell him she was driving; she is returned to the hospital."[41] -- Repeated ref.
- Other romances
"According to Case, Sharon loses her 'entire identity' after Nick cheats on her and 'needed a new one' " -- more pointless quotes. Needed a new what? This is a little ambiguous.
- Well, needed a new identity. It would be weird/repetitive to say "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick cheats on her and needs a new identity", don't you think? Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asking you to repeat the word. Please think further afield than that. Is there another word for "identity? Is there a different way the phrase could be written so we only use only one identity? I would also change "cheats" to something a little less tabloidy. Perhaps "needed a new one" is redundent here? Or even "loses her entire identity". *Maybe* "According to Case, Sharon needs a new identity after Nick's infidelity." Or "Sharon becomes depressed at Nick's infidelity. Case thinks that Sharon 'needs a new identity.' " or "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick's infidelity and the character needs to reinvent herself". Or "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick's infidelity and needs to adopt a new personality". What about; "According to Case, Sharon loses her 'entire identity' and needs a new one after Nick's infidelity. " -- CassiantoTalk 04:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed this. Arre 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "She begins a romance with Jack Abbott (Peter Bergman), Phyllis' ex" *Suggest* "She begins a romance with Phyllis' ex-partner Jack Abbott, played by Peter Bergman." IMO, I would introduce the actors sometimes to help the prose flow as an over reliance on parenthesis can cause messy prose.
- I've done that, but it sort of upsets the consistency of all actor names in brackets following the character names. Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a personal rule, I adopt an "anymore than three, give parenthesis" when doing this. Maybe you could do as I suggest if there are singular characters mentioned, but not more than two or three. Keep them as they are. I just think putting the singular ones in prose form breaks down the monotony and awkwardness of relying on parenthesis. -- CassiantoTalk 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "She begins a romance with Jack Abbott (Peter Bergman), Phyllis' ex.[45] Bergman called the courtship "only appropriate", explaining: "Wherever Sharon goes, she is embarrassed. Will Phyllis come walking around the corner? But Sharon doesn't have any reason to be embarrassed with Jack".[45] -- Repeated ref.
- In fact, before I go on can you please check the whole article for consecutively repeated references, choppy, unnecessary quotes, and consistency in American style commas following dates beginners. I am seeing more and more as I continue, and it is slowing down my review as I have to keep listing them. Cheers -- CassiantoTalk 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do.Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Life as a fugitive
- "In January 2011, Sharon is arrested for the murder of Adam's ex-wife, Skye Newman (Laura Stone). Sharon had previously gone to Hawaii to find Skye, who fell into an active volcano. CBS Soaps In Depth reported that a distraught Sharon might commit suicide." -- Why? Obvious to you I know, but could we explain that she felt depressed or upset prior to this as it looks a bit redundant without it. Remember, some of us have never seen this series.
- Fixed. Arre 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mental health
- "In 2009, Sharon suffers from kleptomania (an impulse-control disorder), causing her to steal items from people and stores and eventually forcing her to admit herself to a psychiatric hospital while she is pregnant." -- "In 2009, Sharon suffers from kleptomania (an impulse-control disorder), causing her to steal items from people and stores. As a result, she is forced to admit herself into a psychiatric hospital while she is pregnant."
- "In 2012, after Victor disappears after his wedding to Sharon..." -- repetition of "after". Suggest: "In 2012, Victor disappears after his wedding to Sharon"
- Fixed Arre 11:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Storylines
- "Noah survives, and Grace decides to raise Cassie as her own; however, her plans are foiled when Nick and win custody." -- Check the ending of this sentence.
- Corrected Arre 11:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception
- (including Case, Braeden, Morrow and Muhney),[57][18][55][58] -- Ref order
- Corrected Arre 11:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead section
- is a fictional character in the American CBS Daytime soap opera The Young and the Restless, portrayed by Sharon Case." -- I don't know if using "on" is American English, but as an Englishman it sounds odd.
- JMO but "in" sounds odd too. I changed it to "from", is that okay? Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That works too. -- CassiantoTalk 08:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...character made her debut March 24, 1994." →"...character made her debut on March 24, 1994."
- "When first introduced, the character was described as a "young girl from the poor side of town". -- By who?
- It's said by the official website for the soap; it'd be awkward to say "according to the soap's website" in the lead. I altered it to something else; "When first introduced, the character was a young girl from the wrong side of the tracks". Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about "from the wrong side of the tracks". Out of the two, I preferred the first version.
- Okay, altered. Arre 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You call him Nick, but the link refers to him as Nicholas. How was he known in the series? If it was Nick, I would pipe the link to Nick Newman and refer to him as Nick throughout.
- I've written Nicholas "Nick" Newman; is that okay? Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. -- CassiantoTalk 08:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you "obtain" custody, you either win it or lose it don't you?
- Obtain means to acquire something. They acquired custody of the child. Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obtain is to acquire something yes, but my understanding would be that you obtain something physically. You don't obtain an appeal? You win an appeal as its a battle between two people with one outcome. Similarly, this would work for custody as that too is between two people. -- CassiantoTalk 08:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm true, okay I've changed it to "won". Arre 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite her marriage to..." best to mention that this was her second marriage.
- "...which Case called incestuous." -- if she called it incestuous then I would use speech marks here.
- The once-"beloved" character was now perceived as "crazy", with critics blaming Bell for the character's "royal destruction" "via one ill-conceived storyline and/or romance after another" amid promises to strengthen Sharon's character." -- Why all the speech marks? Say who perceived the character to be all these things and it may look a bit better. IMO, I wouldn't bother and would delete the inverts altogether.
- Why have you cited the end of paragraph three?
- "Sharon has been characterized as "kindhearted", "insecure" and "not your typical romantic lead"." Again here, why the inverts? If you want to use them say who said it.
- Fixed all of these. Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per resolved comments. A good article on a character who I knew nothing about prior to this. CassiantoTalk 05:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Caringtype1
- Comments Many of the quotes in the Development section are chopped up and very awkward to read. For example, sentences like this "According to Case, Sharon loses her "entire identity" after Nick cheats on her and "needed a new one"." They are confusing to read. I think either the full quote should be used, or the sentences be reworded. Adding to the confusion, quotation marks are used in sentences like this one, "Sharon begins "hallucinating" with visions of Cameron's "ghost" (him, alive)." This reads very similar to a sentence using an exact quote, which isn't the purpose here. That sentence should be somehow rewritten to read more clearly, like "Sharon begins hallucinating with visions of Cameron's ghost, revealed to be him alive." Or something like that, so it removes the unnecessary quotes and parenthesis. Also are you sure "Cameron Kristen ordeal" is the best heading to use? It's not very descriptive at all. Also, in reply to Creativity97's above comment, the article can't be made a FA just because someone worked very hard on it, and you want it to be the first FA for an American soap. It's definitely a good article, but in its current state, it's jet not ready for FA.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my points above. Thanks for your view Caringtype1. Arre, I think these will need to be sorted for this to stand a continued chance at FAC. -- CassiantoTalk 20:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to intrude here, but Caringtype1, all I meant when I said the article had been worked on very hard was that editors should continue to work on it and get it to the next stage, which should be a given when someone says something like that. I didn't mean it in any way that it would just be an accomplishment for WP:SOAPS or anything. Just wanted to clarify. Regards, Creativity97 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh okay, I just wanted to make sure those were observations you were making, not reasons to pass.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Caringtype1, I think it would be even worse if full quotes were used, then everyone would be saying the article relies too heavily on quotes, which it would. Like I said before the Poppy Meadow article contains plenty of quotes (not to knock on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' door), just saying. I didn't know paraphrasing was this difficult for people to read, to be honest. The person who copy-edited this didn't. I've begun fixing it up anyway.Thanks for your comments. Oh and another thing, yes I do feel that "Cameron Kirsten ordeal" is an appropriate title; that storyline consisted of many tumultuous events and to list them all would be too much. But I'd be open to changing it, do you have suggestions, Caringtype1?Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess using several lengthy quotes would be worse. But I think less chopped up quotes would really help the flow of the article. Maybe your right about the title "Cameron Kristen ordeal", doing more research about the topic, I see the storyline took many different routes that would be hard to sum up in another heading. Also in that section it says "When Sharon return to Genoa City...", needs an 's' after return. Also the story lines sections frequently mentions "Newman" as a company, whereas elsewhere, it is referred to as "Newman Enterprises". It "Newman" what it's called on the show? If so, the first time it is mentioned should include "...Newman Enterprises, commonly called Newman", or something. That's all the comments I have for right now.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. -- CassiantoTalk 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess using several lengthy quotes would be worse. But I think less chopped up quotes would really help the flow of the article. Maybe your right about the title "Cameron Kristen ordeal", doing more research about the topic, I see the storyline took many different routes that would be hard to sum up in another heading. Also in that section it says "When Sharon return to Genoa City...", needs an 's' after return. Also the story lines sections frequently mentions "Newman" as a company, whereas elsewhere, it is referred to as "Newman Enterprises". It "Newman" what it's called on the show? If so, the first time it is mentioned should include "...Newman Enterprises, commonly called Newman", or something. That's all the comments I have for right now.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while. I would just like to say, I've been trying to see if I could remove some of the quotes. But it's extremely hard, considering without quotations these words seem odd and awkward. I've fixed other issues too. But, I haven't done anything to the quotes in "Reception" because there has to be a lot of quotes in that section.Arre 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is usual to have a lot of quotes in a "Reception" section. As long as the amount of critical comments are equal in terms of positive and negative, I don't foresee too much of a problem here. My concerns were over pointless quotes from the other sections; as a rule of thumb, a quote should only occur if it adds something of value to that particular sentence. If it doesn't, then I would avoid. -- CassiantoTalk 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up all issues such as unnecessary quotes, consistency in American style commas following date beginners and also references which have been repeated. Arre 01:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Laser brain
Oppose due to sourcing and plagiarism issues. I do not think the plagiarism is intentional—it looks like a case of the editors not understanding how to properly quote, paraphrase, and summarize sources. Quotations have been used improperly, and I found instances of close paraphrasing or outright copying of text outside of quotations. Of the first four refs I checked, each has issues. This sample indicates that the whole article needs to be audited for plagiarism.
- "Despite her crimes and faults, Global Regina describes Sharon as a central heroine who has endured many challenges to get to where she is." This is the first sentence I read at random and it suffers from problems:
- The opening modifying phrase is misplaced. It's currently modifying "Global Regina", which I'm assuming isn't the thing that has crimes and faults.
- Global Regina redirects to a TV channel article.. what is it really?
- The sentence itself is too closely paraphrased to the source text.
- Ref 101: You selectively quoted phrases from the source, but simply changing "masks" to "might mask" in your own writing does not sufficiently paraphrase. You are thus plagiarizing.
- Ref 102: I don't understand why you have quoted "seem to think". Are you quoting the source text to avoid having to paraphrase? Quotations should be used only when the source text is profoundly written or when you wish include a quotation by an authority rather than paraphrasing or summarizing.
- Ref 74b: Same problem as ref 101. You've selectively quoted the source, but included source text elsewhere in the sentence without quotation. That's plagiarism.
It looks like the entire approach to sourcing and quoting needs examination. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Kgarson (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...of current events Kgarson (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This was nominated by a newly registered user who has three edits at the time of my entry. They are unlikely to be familiar with the Featured Article Criteria, as demonstrated by the reason for nominating. The primary reason for submitting an article for this process should be because the nominator believes it meets the criteria. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Important article but probably not yet even GA quality, let alone FA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with the comments above, having actually read the article, I believe that it can meet the requirements for FAC.
- Nominator: please resolve the {{citation required}} tags Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention a bunch of the current sources needs to be replaced, as their reliability is extremely doubtful just one random example I recommend withdraw and go to the regular review process Secret account 05:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this was a drive-by nomination. The nominator has made no further edits since 1 August, and the three they made all relate to this nomination. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention a bunch of the current sources needs to be replaced, as their reliability is extremely doubtful just one random example I recommend withdraw and go to the regular review process Secret account 05:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator: please resolve the {{citation required}} tags Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been comprehensively and completely rewritten, and the rewrite itself has been modified to a significant extent, since the last time it was assessed. I feel that after having rewriting the article it is far stronger than the C-class work that it was assessed to be before. The article has seen little major change day-to-day since the period immediately after the rewrite, and uses the latest literature in order to produce a high-quality, authoritative work. For those reasons, I feel that "Circumstellar habitable zone" should be a featured article. Wer900 • talk 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Jamesx12345
- This was on my list of articles to look at, so I feel I can make some (hopefully useful) comments.
- The first sentence is perhaps a bit too technical. In no way demeaning the intellect of some readers, the word "commensurate" is a bit long for a first sentence. Perhaps there is a simpler way of saying that it is where liquid water is found?
- done. Replaced with "sufficient", even though that doesn't get across the whole concept (a gas giant in the CHZ will not have liquid water at its core, but exotic ices). Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with "inferred"
- done. Replaced with "[t]he bounds of the CHZ are calculated"
- "Most are more massive than the Earth" make explicit the differences in composition?
- done. Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the CHZ concept has been broadly challenged as a primary criterion for life." Nuff said. I defy you to find an 11-year-old doing a class project on aliens that will explain that sentence to you.
- Removed "broadly", hopefully that should help (and make clear that the scientific consensus is very much in favor of the CHZ being the most likely location for life, or at least intelligent life). Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the basic conditions for water-dependent life may be found even in interstellar space" I was under the impression that there are flecks of comet and suchlike but nothing really conducive to life. It's the interstellar space I don't get - that would probably have to be referenced
- done. This refers to rogue planets and their moons, and so I clarified. Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good opening - it is nicely written, but perhaps a bit denser than it needs to be. Looking at FAs like Big Bang and Sun, they tend to assume nothing, but there are some more advanced concepts as well. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- History looks fine. Could mention be made of earlier hypotheses regarding extraterrestrial life? It has been a question for at least a few hundred years, so perhaps its lack of consideration is worth a mention.
- Nobody really spoke of the idea prior to Strughold and Shapley. I think that general speculations belong more in extrasolar planet, extraterrestrial life, and search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
- "various planetary scientists" looks like a weasel word. (If "various" is given in the reference perhaps that could be made clearer?)
- done. Replaced with "several".
- "put ηe at 0.48" 48% is a bit less intimidating (in brackets maybe?)
- I already mentioned ηe as being the fraction of stars with Earth-like planets, so I think that that usage is fine. Wer900 • talk 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Extrasolar extrapolation" I think people will either understand the maths or not - the inverse square law is pretty elementary, so you could just say "quarter luminosity, half the distance," with a link somewhere to the inverse-square law. I'm not sure if that needs a ref as it could be WP:OR. (Not that I contest it!)
- The relevance of the inverse-square law and the complications to its use are already mentioned, and as you said, it's pretty elementary, so I don't think that such a level of explanation is necessary. Wer900 • talk 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "numerous roadblocks to a perfect extrasolar extrapolation of the circumstellar habitable zone concept" a bit verbose again - sorry.
- done. I reduced the verbosity a bit, and gave each word more meaning. Wer900 • talk 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
- "However, stellar evolution is at play with red dwarf system habitability as well, reducing the wild fluctuations in luminosity so planets are more likely to have life." I can't say I am entirely clear what this sentence means - it seems to be that the first and second sentences in this paragraph contradict each other, and then the final one clarifies the point. I think the use of "is at play" is causing the confusion - if replaced with a direct statement saying that red dwarves stabilise as they age, it would help with comprehension.
- done. Wer900 • talk 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "could render water unable to form a liquid" - could you be more specific and say it would sublime? (Or come very close)
- It could go in both the solid and the gas directions based on which direction the temperature and pressure fluctuate, so I think that added specificity is unnecessary. Wer900 • talk 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "55 Cancri f was discovered within 55 Cancri A's circumstellar habitable zone" - this could be embellished to "55 Cancri f was discovered within the circumstellar habitable zone of its host star 55 Cancri A" for those not familiar with naming conventions.
- done. Wer900 • talk 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "While conditions on this massive and dense planet are not conducive to the formation of water or for that matter biological life as we know it, the potential exists for a system of moons to be orbiting the planet and thus transiting through this zone and being conducive for biological development." This would most likely need to be sourced.
- done. Found a source, reworded it to not beg the question, "Do we know if there is a moon?" Wer900 • talk 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The planet is currently listed as unconfirmed by the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia." I'm not clear about this reference - I can't find any suggestion of a planet g in the database.
- done. I fixed the link, it now points to the right planet and shows it as unconfirmed. Wer900 • talk 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "preclude the planet from being habitable" does this merit further explanation? Sounds interesting.
- done. Nothing too interesting, just it was kicked outside the HZ. This article is not the place
- "Many argue" - another weasel word (although it may be correct to use it here)
- The usage of "many argue" is correct, as it is the general consensus that CHZs are the most likely locations for the emergence of life. Wer900 • talk 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The last section is not as strong as the rest of the article. Aside from the obvious tag, it seems to be based too largely on a single source, and under-referenced in general. As an aside, no mention is made here (except in the image caption) of carbon chauvinism or the potential for alternative biochemistries.
- Both topics are covered in the greatest detail that I know of. Nobody really knows exactly how alternative biochemistry will work. In any event, I removed the last section as OR synthesis. Wer900 • talk 03:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Please look at grammar in image captions
- done. I fixed the grammar where necessary. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Habitable_zone_-_HZ.png: source image has been deleted as incompatible with Commons' licensing
- done. Replaced with another image compatible with our licensing; the image indicated was deleted as text and another image later convey the same information; plus, it doesn't look good to have a non-professional, technical image at the beginning of the article. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Estimated_extent_of_the_Solar_Systems_habitable_zone.png: what is the source for the information conveyed by this diagram?
- done. Sources for both conservative and extended CHZ indicated. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:UpsilonAndromedae_D_moons.jpg: not sure about this - it's claimed as own work, but compare for example the current front-page image here.
- done. A bit of poking around shows that the image predates the Basel Peace Office by over a year, so they took it from us rather than the other way around. I could see nothing indicating it is not own work. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Phot-15b-09-fullres.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, that image is not even used in the article. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes
- Most recent changes to the page are minor, but I think that the ultraviolet habitable zone needs further explanation. I am concerned that an "ultraviolet habitable zone" is a bit arbitrary, given that it depends on the atmosphere of the planet and the type of organism considered. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The liquid water CHZ is also "arbitrary" in the same way, but based on general climate models for different masses of planets it *can* be predicted. the UVCHZ is the same. Anyway, I will clarify that section, as the UVCHZ is just the region where a forming planet can escape photoevaporation of itself or its atmosphere while it is forming and after. Wer900 • talk 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber comments
Reading through - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In June, 2011, two additional habitable zone candidates around Gliese 667 through Bayesian Re-analysis of radial velocity signals—Super-Earths Gliese 667 Cd and Gliese 667 Ce.- this sentence has no verb - also can it be appended onto one of the preceding paras?- done. I didn't really do anything to this sentence itself, just deleted it and replaced with a more appropriate mention of the recent discoveries around Gliese 667 C. Wer900 • talk 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a concept was the idea behind Stephen H. Dole's 1964 study.- sentence sorta just sits there and isn't clear it refers to the following sentence. A semicolon between might be a good link between the two.- done. Wer900 • talk 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At present, you have the last para of the History section and then a criticism section covering similar or same material - these would be best combined - in either location. Also title criticism is somewhat generic, as it is more like proposing alternative avenues to explore.- I think it is fine as it is placed, as the history of the criticism and the generalization of the habitable zone. Anyway, the sentence is more of a segue into generalization, and the last paragraph deals with that, not necessarily criticism. Wer900 • talk 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll pay that - I've reread it and am not as fussed and can see a rationale for leaving it be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is fine as it is placed, as the history of the criticism and the generalization of the habitable zone. Anyway, the sentence is more of a segue into generalization, and the last paragraph deals with that, not necessarily criticism. Wer900 • talk 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, little to complain about - will take another look and have a think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose (I was thinking that the alternative theories needed expanding but there are other articles that are more appropriate to do that) - sources not spot-checked and will keep an eye in case other reviewers find issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support, Casliber! Wer900 • talk 04:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say support as well on the grounds that this article has very little scope for improvement and copes well with recent findings. Jamesx12345 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata comments
Oppose for now. Interesting material, but the text needs to be swept for MoS compliance, typos, and more wikilinks would be helpful to the average reader. Please consider the following suggestions, questions, and comments for possible article improvement: (p.s. per the FAC instructions, avoid using templates "(such as {{done}}, {{not done}} ... as they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives" Sasata (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- please audit the article for duplicate wikilinks; there's a handy tool to help
- consider changing various "noun" + ing constructions (search for "being")
- ""Liquid Water Belt" which described" which=>that (audit throughout; which generally follows a comma)
- "first introduced the term" underlined probably unnecessary
- "The theory of habitable zones was further developed in 1964 by Stephen H. Dole in his book Habitable Planets for Man, in which he covered the circumstellar habitable zone itself as well as various other determinants of planetary habitability, eventually estimating the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way to be about 600 million." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two. Why "eventually"? Does this mean he came to the conclusion by the end of the book, or later, after the publication of the book?
- "At the same time …" Really? Or would "Around the same time" be more appropriate?
- "In 1993, astronomer James Kasting" why is the profession of this blue-linked fellow given (his article calls him a geoscientist, BTW), but not that of the (twice!) red-linked Stephen H. Dole?
- pipe link heavier elements?
- "More recently, several planetary scientists have criticized" Should reword "recently" per WP:RELTIME
- link ammonia; link methane on 1st occurrence
- "would not cause a boiling away of liquid water." -> perhaps switch to active voice, like "would not cause liquid water to boil away."
- "A 2013 study by Ravi Kumar Kopparapu put ηe at 0.48" ηe is not explained until later in the article
- "95-180 billion" use endash for number ranges
- "In 2011, Seth Borenstein in 2011 concluded" fix
- "based on observations from the Kepler mission" the link should probably go to Kepler (spacecraft) rather than Johannes Kepler (I see it's linked correctly later in the article)
- "concluding that about "1.4 to 2.7 percent" of all sun-like stars" why does the percentage range have to be in quotes? Later in the same sentence, "expected to have earthlike planets "within the habitable zones of their stars"," why does this have to be quoted? Could it be replaced with simply "within the CHZ"?
- the final sentence of the 1st paragraph of "Solar System estimates" needs a citation
- "and global warming inducing atmospheres" hyphen between warming-inducing? Also, link global warming, glaciation, albedo, cloud albedo (maybe fit a link to Ice-albedo feedback somewhere too?), relative humidity
- "This estimate has often been cited by subsequent publications." source?
- "combining high obliquity and orbital eccentricity" link to axial tilt and orbital eccentricity (I see the latter is linked twice later, but should be linked at 1st occurrence)
- "Applies to planet with" -> planets
- consider linking luminosity at the 2nd occurrence (would be far away from the 1st link in the lead)
- 'Various complicating factors, though, including the individual characteristics of stars themselves, mean that extrasolar extrapolation of the CHZ concept is more complex." source?
- "Some scientists argue that the concept of a circumstellar habitable zone is
actuallylimited to stars" - link binary system; does the existence of a binary systems always extend the CHZ when compared to a single-star planetary system?
- "Michael Hart proposed that only main-sequence stars of spectral class K0 or brighter could possess habitable zones, an idea which has been extended in modern times" that last clause makes me wonder when Hart proposed his theory
- link red-dwarf habitable zone, tidal heating, climate model, space weather, magnetosphere, stellar evolution, helium, metabolism
- "Given that this new equilibrium lasts for about 1 Gyr," rather than have the unknowing reader sent to Byr, how about including parenthetically (1 billion years)
- "The origin of water on Earth is still unknown, possible sources include" think a semicolon works better than a comma here
- "put a habitable moon so close to astar that" -> a star?
- "Later study revealed temperatures analogous to Venus ruling out any potential for liquid water." comma after Venus?
- consider putting a {{nowrap}} template around 70 Virginis b, 16 Cygni Bb and other similar names to avoid unsightly line breaks
- "Gliese 876 b, discovered in 1998, and Gliese 876 c, discovered in 2001, are both gas giants discovered in the habitable zone" too many "discovered"
- "around Gliese 876. although" fix punctuation
- link gas giant
- check ending punctuation in figure captions per WP:Caption
- "existence has recently been put into doubt" when is recently? "The planet is currently listed as unconfirmed" as of when?
- "and colleagues" is a friendlier version of "et al." that is probably more appropriate in the article text for a general encyclopaedic audience
- "the Earth Similarity Index (ESI)" don't need to define acronyms that aren't used later in the text
- "located 49 ly from Earth" here the abbreviated form of light years is used (and linked again), but it's spelled out in previous and later instances
- "The discovery of two planets orbiting in the habitable zone of Kepler-62, by the Kepler team was announced on April 19, 2013." something's wrong with the grammar/flow here
- "Many argue that an orbit" sounds weaselly
- the Drake equation is linked, but perhaps Drake should be linked as well; link search for extraterrestrial intelligence
- this article refers to "Wow! reply", but our article on the subject calls it Wow! signal
- "The concept of a habitable zone is criticized by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen in their book Evolving the Alien" please give year of publication of this book for context
- per WP:SEEALSO, several of the "See also" links should be removed, as they are already linked in the article
- please consider use a flexible, browser-dependent column width setting for the references (like colwidth=30em); it's currently hard-coded to be 4 columns, which looks rather thin on my monitor setting (and for many others, I suspect)
- the references need to be tweaked for consistent presentation; please audit the following:
- display of author names (see "James Kasting" vs. "Strughold, Hubertus" vs. "Hart, M. H."); note that sometimes author names are abbreviated, even though their full names are available from the cited source
- journal article titles should be consistently either title case or sentence case; be careful to ensure that if sentence case is used, to capitalize terms that require it (like "Kepler M-dwarfs")
- page range format: compare "1602–6" vs. "1279–1297"
- why two "et al."s in ref #82?
- need to be consistent in how many author names are given before et al.; compare ref #85 vs. ref#112 vs. ref#126
- ref #123 consists of only a Russian-language title … how about an author, indication of language, accessdate, publisher, etc.?
- page numbers for ref#128?
- that's a long set of External links … please trim the list per WP:External links
- In this edit I removed quite a few - I would be reluctant to trim too may more. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the thing to consider s whether they add information significantly over and above what is in the article, and whether they have been used as references at all - the answer for each should be "yes" and "no" respectively. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In this edit I removed quite a few - I would be reluctant to trim too may more. Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response
I apologize for the mistakes I made wholeheartedly. Some of the mistakes were inserted subsequent to the rewrite by well-meaning authors who did not clean up after themselves, and as the FAC nominator it is my job to clean up after those changes. However, I stand by statements that appear to be weaselly. The ambiguity is deliberate; unlike in the case of anthropogenic global warming, it is not possible to cite any study that qualifies these terms further. The only thing that is evident immediately is that many scientists believe life as we know it can emerge on worlds with Europa with the ingredients for life coming from elsewhere, with a few scientists believing in the existence of radically different biochemistry with different life requirements. I will fix the other mistakes that you identified with regards to the MOS. Wer900 • talk 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed many of the errors in the article with AWB, including doubled wikilinks. However, I think that it is important to retain links to important subjects at the end, just to centralize them after a reading of the article. Wer900 • talk 03:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nergaal
"an support liquid water at the surface" I would also add: and therefore is the location with the highest probability of encountering habitats where life is sustainable (in essence that is the main point of the CMZ term)"To many" what? Scientists? Astronomers? Average folks?"has been estimated to be anywhere from 500 million[4] to over 150 billion." in the Milky Way? Observable Universe?
- "numerous planets have now been discovered in the CHZ" this is a bit skewed. when was the first planet discovered in this zone? (first confirmed planet was only about 15 years ago)
- "to greatly outnumber planets": terrestrial planets or also super-Jupiters?
- "In subsequent decades" does this refer to the first reference in the 50s?
- the intro image is terrible. if you try to click and zoom on it you cannot read anything
- the intro doesn't address clearly the location of the zone for a single star or a binary, or ternary one
- I think the "Goldilocks zone" term can be mentioned in the intro since it might be more common to some non-experts
- for some reason I think that the third paragraph is a bit overly represented (it discusses the stuff in a small section at the end and the last paragraph in the first section). I want to say that this could be trimmed slightly and moved to the correct sections (for example the radioactive decay is not discussed in the actual article)
- I think the determination section could receive a better representation in the intro; for example to a casual reader it would be useful to explain that the CMZ in the SS has earth close to the center, and extends until close to Venus, and may extend past Mars and Ceres.
- "While the entire orbits of the Moon" isn't the Moon completely within the chz?
- submitted papers???? wtf? this is a FAC, so a peer-approved paper is a minimum requirement; these guys might be right but until reviewers give ok they can't even be mentioned in a note of a FA.
- intro could also say that a star 4 times of luminous as the Sun would have the CMZ located at twice the distance (or 4 times less luminous, half the distance)
- stellar evolution: how soon will the Earth fall out of the habitable zone?
- "15 millibars" what is the pressure on Mars? what planet in the SS has such a low ground pressure?
- "could render water unable to form a liquid" huh? this sounds like BS or an over-simplification. liquid water can exist at any pressure given a certain temperature. what constrains does the statement include?
- "the Hill radius of the planet so that they are not pulled out of orbit of their host planet" not sure how this works. you mean a satellite of the moon would not be habitable?
- "cannot have habitable moons" i would stay away from such clear-cut statements, and replace them with "are highly unlikely to have habitable moons"
- " to astar" space
- "the fraction of stars with planets in the CHZ" does this refer to main-sequence stars only? or all stars? including binary systems?
- "about "1.4 to 2.7 percent" of" is this the latest number? and how many planets does this mean for the MW?
- " planets were discovered. " add year; "ne of the first discoveries was 70 Virginis b," add year again
- " to themselves possess " rephrase
- I implemented most of these recommendations and those of Sasata, but I think the submitted articles are okay, especially considering that they are written by reputable scientists with long histories of publication in planetary astrophysics, and that the criteria they specify are not used in any other place by the article. Wer900 • talk 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- fix the "Gas giant planets in the habitable zone" link
- "KOI-1686.01" should also be discussed
- " the first super-Earth" put in the parenthesis how much bigger than earth is this
- mention the Gliese 667 C system, and finish the super-earth section with a statement along the lines that the number of reports of such planets is rabidly growing in the last several years (i.e. so to leave the reader the impression that the section may look very different in a couple of months)
- please put a mini-definition of a waterhole in parenthesis (region region in the radio spectrum not absorbed by atmospheric water)
I really like the article otherwise. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly done, although I had added another image which was later removed. Wer900 • talk 21:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! Umh yeah, after a month I come back to see that most of my comments I gave after spending a few hours reviewing the article have not been fixed. Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cryptic C62
- "planetary-mass objects with sufficient atmospheric pressure can support liquid water at the surface." Shouldn't this say "at their surfaces"?
- "To many scientists, studying objects in the CHZ appears to be the best way to estimate the scope of life in the universe and locate extraterrestrial life." Let's try to rewrite this without weaselling, eh? "Studying objects in the CHZ may be the best way to estimate the scope of life in the universe and locate extraterrestrial life."
- Ref 20 "Rare earth" needs page numbers, either in the citation or using {{rp}}
- Ref 130 "Evolving the Alien": see above
- Why are there so many external links? Some of these look like they should be citations, which violates WP:EL: "Most external links should present different details from citations." I strongly suggest cutting this list down. The larger it is, the less useful it becomes.
Meep. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, except for page numbers and external links. I am still waiting for page numbers (I do not have those particular books), and as for external links the link list has already been reduced dramatically, and we have a particularly long article here. Another reviewer has stated his reluctance to trim more links. Wer900 • talk 23:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Hamiltonstone
- The main section "Determination of the circumstellar habitable zone" begins with this: "Whether a body is in the circumstellar habitable zone of its host star is dependent on both the radius of the planet's orbit (for natural satellites, the host planet's orbit) and the mass of the body itself." Shouldn't this general introductory sentence specify three key variables rather than just these two? Isn't the third key variable the energy output of the star? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a whole table of at times quite variable estimates regarding the solar habital zone, but there should be some discussion of these in the text. The table needs to be referred to by the text.
- Having just explained that there is a range of estimate regarding the zone, and tabulated those, there's something wrong with the next sectin having this: "For example, while the Solar System has a circumstellar habitable zone centered at 1.34 AU from the Sun..." We don't really know this with such precision - it is one (perhaps leading) estimate. Suggest it be rewritten as "For example, if the Solar System..." etc hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article suddenly moves up a level in its ideas at this point: "On the other end of the spectral scale, Michael Hart proposed that only main-sequence stars of spectral class K0 or brighter could possess habitable zones, an idea which has been extended in modern times with the concept of a tidal locking radius for red dwarfs. Within this radius, which is coincidental with the red-dwarf habitable zone, it has been suggested that the volcanism caused by tidal heating could cause a "tidal Venus" planet with high temperatures and no ability to support life". I'm afraid a lay person isn't going to follow the rapid evolution of the argument here. Needs an extra sentence or two and the logic needs explaining. First of all, it seemed to me that Hart's general idea expressed in the sentence (that the range of stars that can have CHZs can be narrowed) is superficially contradicted by the idea that a star so different from the sun as a red dwarf could have a hab zone. The two sentences at least should be disconnected. Then you need to explain why a tidal locking radius is relevant (or even what a tidal locking radius is. I don't immediately associate tidal locking with tidal heating, so i thought I had encountered a second non-sequitur in the para. Then, why is this radius concidental with the hab zone?? And why would it be a "tidal Venus"? Why not a "tidal Earth"? And if it cannot support life, as the sentence concludes, why is this even in an article about CHZs? As you can see, this para lost me! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the explanatino appears to lie in a later section, so some of the issues could be addressed with a reordering.
- "Moving a moon closer to a host planet to maintain its orbit would create tidal heating so intense as to eliminate any prospects of habitability". This makes it sound as though one is planning a massive engineering project. Try "A moon close enough to a host planet to avoid this problem, however, would experience tidal heating so intense as to eliminate any prospects of habitability".
Delegate comments -- after remaining open almost six weeks there appear to be too many unaddressed comments for consensus to be achieved any time soon, so I'll be archiving this shortly; pls review and/or action all comments before considering another nomination here, which in any case cannot take place before the usual two-week break per FAC instructions Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.