SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) archive 1 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) archive 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==July 2011== |
==July 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive4}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juno (film)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juno (film)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/archive2}} |
Revision as of 16:45, 10 July 2011
July 2011
- 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 SandyGeorgia 16:45, 10 July 2011 [1].
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
I am nominating this for featured article because...the article looks complete; this is currently an A-class, but I think it is good enough to be a featured article SCB '92 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sequel section is unsourced.
- There is a [citation needed] in Gameplay section.
- Reception section needs to be expanded, as per previous FAC, it talks about it being great, about voice, music, but lacks fundamental features, such as, gameplay (e.g. combat), story, graphics.
- Isn't Plot section a little too long? Surely all the details there are not essential? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "to create NPCs who could engage in complex activity—such as travelling from town to town every few days or going to church on a certain day—without the chance of execution error." - source?
- "In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by Bethesda along with the newly disclosed content." - source?
- "Bethesda Softworks announced in 2010 that they have been developing and will release the next installment of The Elder Scrolls in 2011." - source? Look for other statements requiring sourcing
- Web citations need retrieval dates
- Ref 58, 60: publisher? Check for others
- Ref 73: formatting
- What is AIAS, and why is it bolded?
- Why include the wiki in External links
- See here for a list of potentially problematic links
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose and Withdraw - I have seen the history of the article and the nominator has only made one edit to the article. GamerPro64 22:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review I resized some stuff, other than that, it's good on images. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 9 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:42, 10 July 2011 [2].
Juno (film)
- Nominator(s): Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article candidacy because it meets all the criteria and has been through a successful peer review.Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal: I see some flags right off the bat: PR has not been archived per the instructions, so is still technically open. Nominator only has 17 edits to the article, most of which were less than an hour prior to this very nomination. There are three broken citations, noticeable by the angry bold, red text; presumably this is because the dead ELs were simply removed rather than replaced, leaving large chunks of uncited text as well as broken sites. I really don't think this article is ready given the circumstances. María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal - give it more time at PR, fix up the obvious issues, follow FAC instructions. Agree with points raised above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This better? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This article doesn't even meet the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else says it's currently a GA, though. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The GA was three years ago and is not really relevant now. The recent PR was superficial. Having glanced through the article I have to say it doesn't look that bad – I've seen worse here – but it is clearly in need of some hard work to match it with the FA criteria, which I wonder if the nominator has actually read. The nominator had done little work on the article; the most active recent editor is User:Wehwalt, and he should certainly have been approached before this nom. I agree withdraw: work on the article, follow procedures, consult widely, and then maybe bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 16:49, 7 July 2011 [3].
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- Nominator(s): Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a complete and thorough overview of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article covers all aspects of the University and includes citations for each. Also, it bothers me that the Duke article is featured status and this article is not. Tnbailey09 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per FAC instructions. The nominator does not appear to be a significant contributor, and I see no indication he/she has consulted major contributors before nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In addition, there are a number of problems. Numerous MOS errors, the lead is a poor representation of the entire article, and there's little in the article to distinguish this top-ranked 216-year-old university from Bob's School of Cosmetology and Auto Repair, apart from athletics and a few dry rankings. This is a school that has had major impacts on the region, the country and the world, almost none of which is reflected in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance, I'm not seeing the article in such bad shape, but there are raw URLs in the citations and the aforementioned numerous MOS errors. Please consult significant contributors and consider a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 03:01, 7 July 2011 [4].
May Revolution
- Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.
All the issues pointed during the first nomination were addressed by then Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing again. I appreciate the work you've done since the previous nomination, but more work is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Liniers armed all the population of Buenos Aires, including criollos and slaves, and defeated a second British invasion attempt in 1807." - source?
- "Not fooled by the Viceroy's communiqué, some criollos met at the houses of Nicolás Rodríguez Peña and Hipólito Vieytes. During these secret meetings they named a representative commission, composed of Juan José Castelli and Martín Rodríguez, to request that Cisneros convene of an open cabildo to decide the future of the Viceroyalty." - source?
- "In the Plaza, the people did not believe Cisneros was going to allow the open cabildo the next day. Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive answer." - source?
- "Leiva requested Belgrano help the Cabildo with the work, as his intervention would be seen by the crowd as a guarantee that their demands would not be ignored." - source? Check for other statements requiring sources
- Check for WP:MOS issues - for example, ellipses should not normally be in square brackets
- Page ranges should use endashes, not hyphens
- Excessive quotes in References section
- Multiple inconsistencies in formatting in References
- All foreign-language sources need to be noted as such, and these notations should use proper grammar (capitalization)
Sources need considerable work to meet FA standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done The details about the books (such as the language, if not English) are detailed at "Bibliography", the footnotes cite the author and page. So, if you read "Galasso, pp. 86—87", it is implicit that the details are below, at Galasso's book; not being repeated each time the book is cited. As for the quotes, they are required by WP:NOENG. Cambalachero (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements made, but additional work is needed. Unsourced statements remain - for example, "The debate tangentially discussed the rivalry between criollos and peninsulars; proponents of keeping the Viceroy felt that the will of peninsulars should prevail over that of criollos." You appear to be using emdashes for page ranges - needs to be endashes. Further inconsistencies in reference formatting remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cambalachero, I'd like to make a few remarks:
- You should remove the detailed info in the all references (the English and Spanish texts) as Nikkimaria suggested. Name of author, date of publication and pages used is more than enough. Detailed info should be placed in "notes" section, but only if they are really important. However, I'd suggest you to simply move the detailed references into the talk page, so that it can be used as source in the future in case someone "doubts" you.
- "The Portuguese royal family left Europe and settled in colonial Brazil in 1808, after escaping the Napoleonic invasion of Portugal" Perhaps this would be better: "An invasion of Portugal in 1808 by Napoleon's forces led to the departure of the Portuguese Royal family to its South American colony, Brazil."
- "Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of a Portuguese prince". You're taking here of King João VI of Portugal, not a minor prince. Perhaps you should change it to "Dona Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of Portuguese King Dom João VI (John VI)."
- "Carlota Joaquina finally declined the project". That's not what happened. She never gave up the project. It was her husband who sabotaged her moves in every single moment. The last thing João VI would want was a stable, huge and powerful Hispanic-American monarchy just next to Brazil. Much better a yet another weak Hispanic-American republic, plagued by coups, dictatorships, rebellions, etc... However, it is true that the Argentine monarchists gave up on her, because they wanted a constitutional monarchy, while she wanted an absolustist monarchy. Perhaps something like "Conflicted goals, as her supporters intended her to head a constitutional monarchy, whereas she wanted to govern an absolute monarchy, undermined the project, leading it to failure."
I'm going to read the rest of the article now. --Lecen (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed, the translations are required by WP:NOENG, which is official policy. Paragraphs should begin introducing an idea and then expanding it, that's why the one about the Portuguese royal family leaving portugal has that info first, as it is about that and not about the napoleonic wars.
- As for John VI, the reference mentions him as "a prince", without even naming him, and the articles here seem to confirm that: as of 1808-1809, Maria I was the Queen regnant (that is, a Queen reigning in her own right, not the mere wife of the king), and John VI is not mentioned as King but until 1816, many time after the events of this article. Unless there is some gross mistake in there, he was a prince regent during the time mentioned, not a king. Even the Anexo:Lista de regentes de Portugal (from portuguese wikipedia) lists him as "Príncipe do Brasil" and "Infante de Portugal" for the 1792-1816 period. So, I changed it from "a prince" to "the prince regent", but not to "king", which would be inaccurate
- I have fixed the sentence about the end of the project, with the proposed sentence. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this particular source does not name him doesn't mean you can't. And you don't have to be so chronologically precise when naming someone. See for example Pedro II of Brazil, a FA which I wrote. You'll see a caption under a picture of him at 10 months old where he is called "Pedro II" ("Pedro II at 10 months old, 1826"). Obviously, he was not Pedro II then, but it's just for the matter of making things more simple and easier to understand. You may call Charlemagne "Charlemagne" even though he was not called as such when he was a young king, for example.
- You should also read WP:NOENG again. Indeed, if you quote a Spanish phrase for example, you have to place it translated to English, or else, how would a casual reader understand it? But you don't have to add the exact information which you took from a book in its original language and also the translated form in every single source. Could you image that in article like Empire of Brazil, where most books used as sources were written in Portuguese? "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". This is why I told you to transfer all those Spanish written citations (as well as their translations) to the article's talk page and leave behind only the author and the pages. --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm not very sure about this, but as two users here request to remove the translations, and there was a consensus a short ago not to make it mandatory, I removed them. I kept a copy of the article with the traslations at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone wants to check. Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cambalachero, I'm really not trying to ruin your day. I imagine all the hard work you must have writing this article. However, it is clearly below FA standards. There is a lot of issues to work on and the idea behind FAC is not to act as a peer review. There are many, many passages without a single source and the grammar and spelling are very weak. Not to count on other problems, such as reference types. You must be new around here, but I would suggest you to first request a peer review and ask for an experienced editor to help you improve the prose. Once the article is clearly ready to FAC (if said so by other editors), then you should nominate. And after that, you shold invite a few (around five) well known FA editors to review the article and give their votes (do not ask for support, just invite them to review it). I'm only trying to help you. --Lecen (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm not very sure about this, but as two users here request to remove the translations, and there was a consensus a short ago not to make it mandatory, I removed them. I kept a copy of the article with the traslations at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone wants to check. Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [5].
Regional cuisine
- Nominator(s): Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being nominated for featured article status because it exceeds all of the criterion for featured articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An initial look at this article shows that it is a rather unusual one. I wonder whether it would perhaps be more suited to featured list candidates? J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Ucucha:
- The text about German cuisine is not supported by the reference to http://www.food-links.com/countries/germany/german-regional-food-specialties.php (which hardly seems like a high-quality reliable source anyway).
- The text about Dutch cuisine is referenced only to "Spierings, T. "Dutch Cuisine.", which is unverifiable and needs at least a publisher and year.
- Some references list Google Books as the publisher, which is clearly incorrect.
- There are citation needed tags.
- I'm unsure whether the whole concept of this article is right—it's more or less a list of the features of regional cuisines around the world (as J Milburn implies), not an exploration of the subject of a "regional cuisine", which would cover (for example) why cuisines tend to differ from place to place.
The reference issues I noted are just a few that I found on a quick check; a thorough one may find many more. I think that thorough check should be carried out outside of FAC. Ucucha 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while this is an interesting article, I agree with many of the concerns raised by J Milburn and Ucucha above. In addition, here are some further concerns:
- Lead is too short for the size of the article, per WP:LEAD
- Sandwiching of text between images
- Use of contractions, wikilinking issues, other WP:MOS problems
- Many more citations are needed. A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one per paragraph
- Copy-editing needed for flow and tone
- Highly inconsistent referencing format
- Use of potentially unreliable sources
Suggest withdrawal to pursue peer review prior to renomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many citation needed templates. TGilmour (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [6].
Eveline Hańska
I have done exhaustive research on Mme. Hańska, best known for her marriage to Honoré de Balzac. The article has been peer reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bejinhan. Thanks in advance for your consideration! Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The lead is rather short
- Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says: "15,000–30,000 characters = Two or three paragraphs [for lead]". This article is 25kB, so three paragraphs seems right. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The style remains rather clunky: "Their family had deep roots in Polish nobility, with generations known for wealth and military prowess" and "He was rewarded with a comfortable position in the ranks of the empire. Moving between assignments in Kiev, St. Petersburg, and elsewhere,..." - where "positions" would be better, i think. "Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion.", "Once a year, the family visited Kiev for a market gathering, ....", "He spent most of the day supervising the grounds, by some accounts with an iron fist.", "She spent her time reading the books her husband imported from faraway lands",
- I changed the first sentence to: "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess." In the second example, I think "position" would be inaccurate; a position strikes me as something more long-lasting, while an assignment is more fitting for the sort of short-term work he did in various places.
- I have to say that I don't see what's wrong with the other items quoted. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Were the family "magnates", former members of the Diet, or minor nobility? Still an important distinction at this date I think.
- "dinnerware from China" - are you sure? 1819 or so is late for Chinese export porcelain to be in use in a very grand home, with French, German & English porcelain more fashionable. You don't just mean "china" as a general term for porcelain?
More later
Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Current "Reference" section is a mixed of cited and uncited sources - these should be in separate sections
- Do we have a date or author for the Dictionary of Polish Biography entry cited by Pierrot?
-
- There is no such work as "Dictionary of Polish Biography" (according to Google Books). There is, however, a Polish Biographical Dictionary (PSB), and "Ewelina Hanska" is mentioned in it. What does, exactly, Pierrot cite? Could it be a mistranslation? I think it is likely. PS. PSB in the blurb gives her date of birth as 1800. This may merit a note in the lead (I see a discussion in the bio, also, the range should be exteneded to 1800 per PBS). PPS. In either case, PSB is a major reference work that should be consulted. If somebody can get a copy of the PSB article, I could review it and use it to add to the article. I think User:Picus viridis had access to PSB, and was able to make scans... I'd suggest that the author drops him a note and asks for help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So requested. Without consulting the PSB itself (and as someone who does not read Polish), I don't feel comfortable adding a citation to it. Perhaps someone else can do so? (Also I assume "exteneded to 1800 per PBS" should have been "extended to 1800 per PSB"?) Scartol • Tok 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 28: is this Maurois' translation?
- FN 27: "pp.", not "p.", check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd suggest using {{fr icon}} instead of the word "French" following the work. I assume it means French language... the template is nicer. Upon further review, I am disappointed with the poor treatment of Polish/Ukrainian names; the article suffers from the usage of obsolete sources, which (sigh) translate and mangle Slavic names. It should be Wacław Hański, not Wenceslas Hański (the mixture of latinized name and proper Polish surname with a diacritic is particularly jarring; also note that the same name if properly rendered for her grandfather, Wacław Rzewuski, in the article); ditto for Justyna Rzewuska, not Justine Rzewuski. Also, the article needs more ilinks, to start with, the ones noted above, also for pl:Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski and others (example: Rzewuski family is notable (pl:Rzewuscy), Polish nobility is notable, general Ivan Ossipovitch Witt is, her brother Adam is (pl:Adam Rzewuski (generał rosyjski)). The lack of links indicates a possible fear of WP:RED - please work on it :) Red is good. On the subject of family, you may find this genealogy website of interest. Reading on, "Aline and Pauline" are anglicized again - those shoudl be "Alina and Paulina" instead. Lastly, her sister pl:Karolina Sobańska is notable and also deserves a mention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made most of the changes you recommend. I can assure you that the lack of red links is not due to fear, but lack of familiarity with Polish nobility. I simply don't know which names are notable enough for full articles and which are not. Scartol • Tok 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, looks much better. Btw, upon rereadign my comment above, I realize it might have sounded a bit harsh. If I was annoyed, it was at printed sources, not at you :) I certainly understand not everyone is an expert on all esoteric subjects, that's why we do collaborative work :) PS. How about adding a genealogy tree section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it felt a bit harsh. I'm fine with a genealogy tree section, but I have no idea how to begin such a thing. Scartol • Tok 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't done one myself, but check this, it doesn't look too complex. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made most of the changes you recommend. I can assure you that the lack of red links is not due to fear, but lack of familiarity with Polish nobility. I simply don't know which names are notable enough for full articles and which are not. Scartol • Tok 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming comment. Actually, one more comment, and rather important at that. The article's name is weird. Google Books gives 0 hits for "Eveline Hańska", which seems a weird mixture of anglicized/frenchified first name and proper Polish surname (with a diacritic). It seems that GBooks has finally and very recently implemented a diacritic search, so we can look at some numbers. "Eveline Hanska" gives us 114 hits, sans diacritics. If we want to use diacritics, let's go all the way for Évelyne Hańska (GBooks gives 5 hits for that). I'd personally strongly prefer "Ewelina Hańska", the proper Polish name (84 Google Book hits), which is also used on French Wikipedia (fr:Ewelina Hańska), and of course on Polish Wiki (pl:Ewelina Hańska). Some other variants that I'd not recommend, but are nonetheless more popular than the current 0 hits variant, include "Evelina Hanska" (184 hits), "Evalina Hanska" (2 hits). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't we already have this discussion? I vote for "Eveline Hanska". Scartol • Tok 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We might, but now I was rethinking the issue. Perhaps we could have a RM with several proposed names? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I
willhave started the request. Scartol • Tok 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I
- Comments - looking through the article, the sourcing seems a little weak especially on the following passages . . .
- Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess
- Hańska's great-grandfather, Wacław Rzewuski, was a famous writer and Grand Crown Hetman.
- When the Russian Empire gained control of lands owned by the family through the Partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century, Rzewuski swore his allegiance to Catherine II.
- Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion. Her mother was a devout Catholic, but her father also taught the children about Voltairian rationality. The family was secluded in Pohrebyszcze, with only occasional trips away.
- Hańska was closest to her brother Henryk, who later became famous for his work in the genre of Polish folk literature known as gawęda. They shared a passion for philosophical discussions, especially related to love and religion. Hańska's other brothers, Adam and Ernest, both pursued military careers.
- She later married a man 34 years her senior, a landowner from Podolie named Jérôme Sobański. They separated after two years, and she began a series of passionate affairs with some of her many suitors. These included the Russian general Ivan Ossipovitch Witt, the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, and the Russian writer Alexander Pushkin.
- Hańska's younger sisters, Alina and Paulina, married early into comfortable upper-class families. Alina married a wealthy landowner from Smilavichy, whose father had gained his fortune by managing property for the Ogiński family.
- In the first five years of their marriage, Hańska gave birth to five children, all but one of whom died as infants.
- I have added citations to every single one of these sentences as requested. I will state for the record (and then step back from this FAC until its fate is decided by others) that I now consider those paragraphs to be beautiful examples of hideous WP:CITECLUTTER. Scartol • Tok 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ought to think about breaking Family and early life into two sections, it's a bit confusing right now.
- Not much on Jean Gigoux
- Did you go through any prior reviews with this article? It would have benefited from at least a GA-Review first. Is this a WikiCup nomination? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. These two sentences — "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess. One ancestor had imprisoned his own mother in a tower to extract his part of an inheritance." — are sourced to Eveline_Hańska#cite_note-1 ("Cronin, p. 153; Robb, p. 226; Korwin-Piotrowska (1938), p. 21.") The other items you mention are all sourced to footnotes that might not appear after each specific sentence, but to the next note after it. (Otherwise the article would be cluttered with a note after every sentence.)
- As noted at the top of this page, the article was peer reviewed and received a copyedit before I brought it here. I did not put it through a GA review, because I have done the vast majority of the writing on thirteen other articles that are currently Featured. I figured I knew what was required for FA-quality articles, and that the PR and copyedit processes would enlighten me on what I lacked. (But given the intense scrutiny during this FAC on questions of Polish nobility and almost total silence on the other 90% of the article, it would seem that I'm somehow mistaken.)
- "Family and early life" currently consists of four paragraphs (three medium-length and one long). Splitting it into two sections of two paragraphs each strikes me as awkward.
Extended discussion moved to talk page (A). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The heading title Becoming L'Étrangère is not clear? What is the significance? Ajh1492 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo caption Hańska spent her last thirty years in a relationship with the painter Jean Gigoux.[89] is not properly sourced. The reference does not seem relevant, or at minimum very clear. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am this close (pinching index finger and thumb close together) to walking away from this FAC and the process entirely, and never coming back.
- Piotrus, I understand your concern when things get added, but the idea of citing every sentence is — pardon my French — ludicrous. Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE suggests that a citation at the end of a paragraph should indicate which info comes from where, which makes sense to me. But I don't intend to go back and do all the research for this article all over again (which would be required).
- AJH: Did you read the section "Becoming L'Étrangère"? Because that section explains quite clearly (at least to me and the other people who reviewed this article before it came to FAC) what it means. As for the citation for the caption of the Gigoux picture, I don't understand how Footnote #89 ("Robb, pp. 415–416; Maurois, pp. 557–558; Cronin, p. 212.") is ambiguous. The additional note refers to the other place where this same footnote applies, in the text of the article itself. I could make it into two different citations, but that might clutter things a bit.
- I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this has been a very difficult process so far, and I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the headaches. (This is why Wikipedia loses good editors, right?) Scartol • Tok 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia looses good editors due to incivility. Please don't ask me my opinion on editors who leave for other reasons, as it would be offtopic, and irrelevant. I'll help improve the article based on PSB materials, whether it will be good enough for FA, I don't know, and if you unwilling to meet reference standards I prefer, at the very least I will not be able to support this. Perhaps the FA director will see it as meeting FA standards anyway, but for me it does not meet referencing standards we expect to see in WikiProject Poland B/GA class articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you certify it as a B-class article? I went to get the Pierrot book again today, and I will provide individual-sentence citations for the paragraph about her ancestors as requested. Scartol • Tok 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reread this really good article again, I've decided that it meets B-class criteria after all. For B-class, I see referencing all sentences as helpful, bit not required, and majority of other issues have been addressed. So yes, I do believe now the article is at least B-class (and I'll note again my criteria on issues like referencing are much stricter than those of many others). Once the issues from the talk page are addressed, I'll consider casting my vote. I don't expect that I'll oppose, I may just decide not to support due to the references; the article may meet our modern FA standards, it may just not be meeting my own FA standards - but I recognize that this should not result in an oppose vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you certify it as a B-class article? I went to get the Pierrot book again today, and I will provide individual-sentence citations for the paragraph about her ancestors as requested. Scartol • Tok 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia looses good editors due to incivility. Please don't ask me my opinion on editors who leave for other reasons, as it would be offtopic, and irrelevant. I'll help improve the article based on PSB materials, whether it will be good enough for FA, I don't know, and if you unwilling to meet reference standards I prefer, at the very least I will not be able to support this. Perhaps the FA director will see it as meeting FA standards anyway, but for me it does not meet referencing standards we expect to see in WikiProject Poland B/GA class articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this has been a very difficult process so far, and I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the headaches. (This is why Wikipedia loses good editors, right?) Scartol • Tok 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion moved to talk (B). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to thank Scartol on following on my suggestion and obtaining PSB entry materials. I have presented my analysis at Talk:Eveline Hańska#Various issues in need of clarification, suggestions for expansion. Mostly, I suggest small corrections and additions, but one big issue emerged: the article misses a section on Hańska's influence on Balzac in the literary realm. I believe this article cannot progress beyond B-class (comprehensiveness) until such a section is added. It is likely that what I wrote based on PSB can be adopted into such section, or at least start it. PS. Thanks to the materials, I am off to stub an entry on her first husband, Wacław Hański :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. This is a beautiful article. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't think that it was a FA. Scartol has addressed every concern and issue that has been brought up, and has given reasonable explanations for not following all of them. It is comprehensive and is well researched and sourced. The prose is as good, if not better, than most current FAs. I highly recommend that it be passed. Christine (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he hasn't addressed every concern. He did a good job writing the articles, but just check his reply at the section linked above, which boils down to "your issues, so please fix them yourself". I may yet support this article, but first I have to find time to fix various issues that the nominator seems unwilling to (and I don't mean the reference issue, but various clarifications and details for comprehensiveness, or compliance with WP:LEAD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't addressed all the concerns, I still think the article needs more inline citations per my comments above. I also think some the heading titles are way to esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology. I also agree about the article not complying with WP:LEAD. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AJH, I changed the section heading you complained about ("Becoming L'Étrangère" is now "Becoming 'The Stranger'", even though that French word has several meanings which are lost with the simplistic English translation). Which other headings are "way to (sic) esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology"? Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished expanding the article with various details from PSB, but I cannot consider supporting - and will have to oppose - until the issues of comprehensiveness are addressed. To quote from article's talk:
- PSB has a very interesting section at the end on literary immortality of Ewelina in Balzac's works. It mentions that she was the inspiration of La Fosseue, Mme Claes, Modesta Mignon, Ursule Mirouet, Adelina Houlot, and especially Eugenia Grandet and Mme de Mortsauf. At the same time it disagrees that negative characters of Fedora and ladly Dudley are based on her. It mentions numerous characters named Eve or Eveline, and dedications to her. Next, it mentions that her daughter Anna, sister Alina, aunt Rozalia, her first love (Tadeusz Wyleżyński), and others, were incorporated into his works. Since they met, Poland, Polish topics, Polish names, Polis mysticism started to appear much more frequently in his works: Hoene Wroński, Grabianka, gen. Chodkiewicz, for example;
- As noted on the talk page, much of this information is incorporated into the article text itself. I was reluctant to include too much information about Balzac's work, since this is an article on Mme. Hanska herself, not M. Balzac. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Next, PSB mentions that she was a controversial figure. She has been criticized by some biographers and scholars (H. Bordeaux, Mirbeau and Nowaczyński, J. I. Kraszewski, Ch. Leger, P. Descaves), and praised by others (Bertault, Bouteron, Barbey d'Aurevilly, Korwin-Piotrowska, Boy-Żeleński, Tadeusz Grabowski, miss Floyd, Billy (sic!). According to PSB, one of the "greatest experts on Balzac", [[[Spoelberch de Lovenjoul]], called her "one of the best women of the epoch". For many, she had a crucial impact on Balzac's works and the "Great Balzac" emerges after meeting her in early 1830s. PSB ends by saying: "However one could analyze her and their relationship, the impact of love for her on Balzac's was persistent, all-enveloping and decisive".
- I'm not sure what the complaint is here. Do you believe the article requires a section on her legacy, or her treatment in various biographies? Because — again — I've tried to incorporate those things into the text of the article itself. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the article requires a section on her legacy in his works, and on her treatment in various biographies, to be fully comprehensive. That elements of that are mixed in the other sections is good, but I think if PSB (which is an encyclopedia) has dedicated sections (paragraphs) on those issues, so should we. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you want something done right... I've added the missing sections now. It would be nice to see what others think, just the two-three of us talking is not what I expected from this review :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- also, my previous comments on the problem with lead (includes unreferenced claims not made later in the article) still stand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead states: Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from ill health and lifelong depression. The second paragraph in the section Marriage to Hanski states: He was generally dour, and lived with a depressed condition that Hańska referred to as "blue devils". There is a citation immediately following this sentence.
- I believe this is yet another example of — as I mentioned on the talk page — at best a cursory read of the article. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, those are different sentences. In the reference sentence, where is the "ill health" part? Where is the "lifelong" claim for his depression? Also, I asked you to add the "about" the age difference; no matter how I do my math, Hanski's YOB in 1782, Hanska's YOB of 1801-1806 does not lend itself to a precise calculation like that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I clipped the lead sentence to just say "Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from depression."
- As for the age difference: Robb says "more than twenty years her senior" (p. 227); Maurois says "twenty-two years older" (p. 219), and Cronin says "twenty-seven years older than Eve" (p. 155). I believe the wording in the article is an accurate depiction of the English-language sources on the subject, and I worry that we may be veering into the territory of Original Research if we use different wording. Scartol • Tok 11:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the word "about", which should clarify the unclear range. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Picswiss_NE-20-30.jpg - linking to a Google search as a source is not the best plan, is there a more direct link? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [7].
Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA standards and that it as complete as is possible given the meager references for this Brazilian prince. There have been corrections and what we hope are improvements since the article's GA acceptance. Constructive criticism here has helped improve our past articles/efforts here, and I look forward to comments from reviewers with thanks. • Astynax talk 06:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the cause of death convulsions or yellow fever or both or possibly either? The article says both but does not discuss the contradiction. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Restored DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The translations are unsourced original research. DrKiernan (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stay alway from the FAC which I'm part of. Due to our past troubles, I want to avoid any issues. I would be very grateful if don't get near me. You wrote a message in here before, then you erased the entire page to also erase the record that you had written here earlier. I don't know why you did that but I believe it's because you saw my name. Nonetheless you have returned, even though you were requested before to not get near me. --Lecen (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: File:Brazilimperialblason2.svg could do with slightly more information- when was it in use? On what did the Commons user base the drawing? (If known, though I doubt it will be: Who designed it? When did they die?) File:Barandier - Dom Afonso, Príncipe Imperial do Brasil.JPG could do with a more precise source for that particular file. Other than that, sourcing and copyright information looks good. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, J Milburn. The coat of arms was designed by the French Jean-Baptiste Debret (1768-1848) as you can see in the file description. It was used by the Brazilian government from 1822 until 1889. I added a better source to Afonso's painting. --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a read through:
- "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used?
- "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss.
- "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy?
- "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Not sure this kind of note belongs in the article...
- "The birth of an heir brought joy throughout the nation." Not so NPOV. On what is this claim based? Reports from the time?
- "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces." Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia.
- That whole paragraphy is a little POV-y; perhaps attribute the claims to a historian in the text? (I note you do something similar in the next paragraph... What you've done is by no means bad writing, I am just not so sure it's Wikipedia-friendly. I'm torn.)
- "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title.
- "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"?
- "He is presently buried alongside other members of the Brazilian House of Braganza (including his younger brother Pedro, his uncle João and his aunt Paula) in the mausoleum of the Convento de Santo Antônio (Convent of Saint Anthony) in Rio de Janeiro.[14]" Is that where he was originally buried?
- "the deaths of his only sons seemed to harbinger the eventual end of the Imperial system." Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something?
- "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV
- "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here.
Interesting subject, and well written, though I consider the question of style (secondary historical literature versus encyclopedia article) a potential worry. I'm interested to hear other opinions on the issue- I may be being foolish. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Milburn, I'll answer some of your remarks and other I'll leave to Astynax. Hope you don't mind. Here they are:
- Joy of birth: yes. In Imperial Brazil (and even before), birthdays of members of the Imperial Family were national holidays and commemorated in all Brazilian towns. Roderick J. Barman wrote about this: "The one object of identity and loyalty that did command allegiance across Portuguese America was El Rei Nosso Senhor [The King Our Lord], who in this patriarcal society served as the supreme father figure. The pompo and fervor with which local communities celebrated the solemnities marking the life cycle of the monarchy—accession to the throne, and birth, death, and marriage in the royal family—attested to the reality of this common loyalty. Moreover, the visible symbols of royal authority, such as the judges' staves of office, the royal coat of arms hung on public buildings and churches, and even portraits of the monarch, constituted the institutional backbone for the corpus of and of hierarchical privilege upon which the notables' dominance of the local community depended." (in Barman, Roderick J (pp.29-30). (1988). Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1437-1 )
- Place of burial: Yes, he was buried in the Convent of Santo Antonio and is still there, as well as many other Brazilian royals. His grandmother, Leopoldina (Pedro II's mother), was buried somewhere else, in the Convento da Ajuda (Convent of Aid), which was demolished in the early 20th century. Her remains were brought to the Convent of Santo Antonio and later were taken to the Monument of the Ipiranga in 1972.
- Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something? You can check by yourself in the source itself on pages 129-130. This is also better explained at Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil.
- Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia: This is better explained in Pedro II of Brazil and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. The Emperor was a powerful symbol of national unity and was used by both political parties as such. To simplify your life, I'll transcribe a few words by historian Roderick J. Barman in his biography of Pedro II:
- "The declaration of Pedro II's majority aroused a general euphoria. A feeling of release and renewal united Brazilians. For the first time since the middle of the 1820s the national government at Rio de Janeiro commanded a general acceptance. [...] the position of the national government was immensely strengthened by the disappearence of the regency regime. In tis place existed a single authority, endowed with inherited legitimacy, exalted by its ceremonial duties, positioned above partisan and personal interests, and possessed of constitutional powers susfficient to resolve political conflicts. This vision of the monarch and his role was fully shared by the emperor himself. The fourteen-year-old accepted unquestionaningly his ordained mission and threw himself who0leheartedly into his new duties." (Barman, p.74) --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding other comments by J Milburn:
- "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used? Reply: "Alphonse" is used in some older English and French accounts. The "Afonso" spelling is used in the sources cited.
- "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss. Reply: I'm not understanding the comment. The "early death" used in the Lead is part of the summary of the material in the "Legacy" subsection.
- "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy? Reply: I've reworded to clarify.
- "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Reply: The note merely alerts the reader that the reference gives the genealogy of the father (Pedro II) and does not mention Afonso. I'm unaware of any specific genealogy of Afonso, but his genealogy can be drawn from that of his parents. I've reworded slightly to make the point clearer.
- "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title. Reply: I have changed it to "Early death and aftermath"
- "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"? Reply: I have changed "named" to "christened" (she was not born with a name).
- "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV Reply: The references pointedly remark that Pedro and Isabel maintained a loving relationship. The word was inserted here to avoid leaving any impression that Isabel was not considered by Pedro to be a fit heir because of a split with her father or personal problems between them. This is explained more fully in the articles on Pedro II and Isabel.
- "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here. Reply: I've reworded this a bit. "However" or "but" might go too far beyond what the sources say, in implying a direct link or reaction. It might seem a pedantic point, but the relationship between his political views and personal loss were complex, and there seems to have been an ongoing thought process. The death of his male heirs contributed to his view of the Empire's future, but there were other factors.
- Thanks for your comments. • Astynax talk 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide details of the references for the translation please. Here not on the article. I'd like to see them and compare them to the below. You might also consider adding the details of the hereditary epilepsy and baptism to the article (this is a suggestion not a request). DrKiernan (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Books:
- Pedro II of Brazil: son of the Habsburg empress by Gloria Kaiser (2000): "Alfonso Leopoldo" (pp. 211, 403)
- Dom Pedro of Brazil by Mildred Criss (1945) "In June 1847 the little Crown Prince Alfonso was found dead in his crib" (p. 111)
Journal articles:
- Epileptic events in the XIX century as reported by the Brazilian Royal Family doi:10.1590/S0004-282X2010000300029: "Alfonso Pedro"
Newspaper:
- The Times, May 19, 1845: "The infant son of the Emperor was baptized on the 25th of March, and named Alphonzo Pedro &c. The King of France and the ex-Empress of Brazil stood sponsors, the former being represented by the Prime Minister of the country." (p. 5)
Google hits:
- Kidder: "Imperial Prince Dom Affonso"
- Documentary Editing: "Mary commemorated royal events in her diary, including the presentation of Prince Alfonso, heir to the throne, to the legislature in 1845."
Source review - spotchecks not done, deliberately avoiding the issue of citing translations. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't use square brackets for ellipses
- Why not include both authors for Diener refs?
- Where is Wilmington?
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Thanks.
The square brackets (per WP:ELLIPSES) differentiate between inserted ellipses and ellipses in the source.(I checked again and removed the brackets, as the final ellipses don't appear to used in this place in the 1824 Constitution. If they are in the Rodrigues version, then feel free to put back the brackets.) I have added Costa to the footnote for the Diener reference. Lecen has changed "Wilmington" to "Wilmington, Delaware". The doubled periods are an artifact from the citation template and has been fixed. • Astynax talk 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Most of my comments have been already addressed above so I will not repeat them. "monarchial institution" should be I believe: "monarchical institution". Please someone else check on this as I'm not 100% sure. -- Alexf(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - some of the translations are doubtful and incorrect. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)I was too hasty with my conclusion. For example, I thought that "Major Commander" (of the Order of Christ) was incorrect (due to a translation error), but it seems that this peculiar rank indeed existed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've done some spotchecks on the two Barman volumes cited, using on-line sources; the references check out, and no evidence I could see of close-paraphrasing. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is "Comendador-mor", which means "Major Commander". The source can be found online (in fact, all Almanaks Laemmert can be found there) in this website. I used two almanaks as sources: the one published in 1847 (for Afonso's full name on page 35) and another one from 1849 (to know which chivalry orders did Brazilian Princes had which can be seen on page 24 and page 26) I reverted your edits because they are unnecessary. The sources used already tell the Prince Imperial's grade. See the last phrase on page 26, for example: "O Imperador será sempre o Grão-Mestre, e o Príncipe Imperial Commendador-Mor de todas elas" (The Emperor will be always the Grand Master, and the Prince Imperial the Major-Commander of all of them). --Lecen (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lecen is correct, in this case "Major Commander" is the correct term. Any time you see “–mór” in a portuguese title it can be translated as major, general or superior, a high ranking title, even though the meaning changed from the 15th to 19th century. However, we have to be careful how we translate, for example a "sargento-mór" was a high ranking officer of the portuguese colonial army, higher than a regular captain, they were normally commanding officers and members of the nobility. In the British ranking the term if translated from Portuguese as "Sergeant major" means a very different thing, a much lower rank, the Portuguese colonial title ranked in the same level as major or lieutenant colonel of the British system. Examples of high ranking titles that used “–mór”: Sargento-mór, Capitão-mór and Alcaide-mór. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A well-written and well-sourced article. I can also attest to the quality of the Portuguese translations, they are correct. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the translation of the ranks that is in dispute; it is the translation of the name. He is never called Alphonse. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DrKiernan, I would appreciate if you could be a little more polite. 2- I don’t want to get involved in the little “feud” that you have going on. I read what the administrator told you after the block, he said: stay away from Lecen and vice versa. It seems Lecen was the better man and took the whole thing out, what is your point now? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on collaboration. We can all go back and read what you wrote, you went after Lecen deliberately. 3 - Yes, Afonso is the same as Alphonse or Alphonso, I don’t care if it is in the article or not. As I understand it, Lecen was only trying to maintain a common standard, you made a big deal out of it. I believe it is even unjust to oppose the article based on it, you should have discussed it first, or should have asked for a vote. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not been impolite. The blocking administrator did not tell me to stay away from Lecen, in fact he said the opposite: "you will both make a concious [sic] effort to engage in discussion". Lecen took it out after my oppose and after my reply to you. I have never gone after Lecen deliberately. There is a common standard: they are called the featured article criteria. This article did not meet those criteria. If you don't want to get involved in a "feud", as you call it, then don't start by making an untruthful statement about my intentions and actions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Kiernan, I'm requesting you once more to stay away from me. Please leave this FAC. I will not allow you to turn this FAC into a mess by arguing with other editors. You are not helpful, never was and has no intention of ever being. You never had interest in Brazilian history and never volunteered at all to help me work one of these articles. I don't like you and I don't care if you support or oppose my articles. All I want is that you stay far away from me. If you insist on placing comments in this FAC I will request help from an administrator. --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't find the report of the baptism and diagnosis of hereditary epilepsy useful then? DrKiernan (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (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 Nikkimaria (03:33, July 4, 2011) [8].
2010 Nobel Peace Prize
- Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because this is a historic record of an important event that I believe has been treated in a respectful and objective manner and to the highest standards of this encyclopaedia. I hope to have this ready for TFA on either the first anniversary of the award in October, or the second anniversary of the recipient's incarceration in December. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check - There are no dab links but there is a dead link in the article. GamerPro64 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: There are numerous referencing issues to be tackled; the following points are examples. I have not gone through the full list of references, so there are likely to be other problems. Please check each entry carefully.
- Inconsistent use of retrieval dates for print sources. See, for example, refs 3 and 8 compared with 5 and 100. There are many other cases where retrieval dates are missing.
- Inconsistent use of commas and/or full stops after links in references. For example: ref 1, comma; ref 3, full stop; ref 4, neither. And so on.
- Inconsistent italicisation of print sources - see refs 29, 37, check for others
- There is italicisation of non-print sources, e.g. ref 83.
- Non-standard formatting, refs 40, 41, perhaps others. These two lack publishers and retrieval dates
- Inaccuracies in ref details. For example the publisher for ref 1 is "Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong". Also ref 34, maybe others
- Publisher missing ref 4.
- Consistency required in notifying foreign sources (sometimes "in Chinese", sometimes "Chinese", some bolded, others not, etc
- Can you explain why Phayul.com is a reliable source?
- Ref 88: link is dead
Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed all the issues (and some other similar ones) that you mentioned, except the last two, which I'll leave to Ohconfucius to explain/fix. Jenks24 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Jenks for dealing with the above. I have further done work on the refs. #88 wasn't dead last night when I checked; I have now replaced it. Didn't realise what allegiance Phayul was until it was queried above and after I saw the Dalai Lama's image at the top banner. That ref has been replaced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article says "Liu is the third person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935) and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." However, the article Liu Xiaobo says: "He is the fourth person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935), the Soviet Union's Andrei Sakharov (1975), and Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." Which is correct? Iusethis (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the third, and it's confirmed by this source. It seems that the reconciling laureate is Andrei Sakharov. Whilst it's true Sakharov didn't collect his prize, he was merely prevented from leaving Russia; he was not imprisoned or detained at the time of his award. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just read through the entire article, making some tweaks as I went and I think the article is FA quality. Only two quibbles that I couldn't fix myself: in the Human rights groups and academics section, I'm unsure what's intended by "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years"; the other issue is that in the Award ceremony section, the two images and two quotations squash the actual text (at least on my monitor). I made an attempt to 'un-squish' it, but perhaps something more could be done. In all though, very comprehensive article and I found it an interesting read. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A standard riposte to criticism of China's human rights record is that "human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years", i.e. don't look at where we are today in absolute terms, but judge us by the progress we've been making (cup half-full argument). The Nobel Committee's statement to the effect is a rejoinder which acknowledges the progress but also the work to be done (cup half-empty argument). I don't know quite how to bring that out in the article, though. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I understand what is intended by that sentence now. I'm more concerned with the grammar, though. Shouldn't it be something like "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved in the last 10 years", perhaps even "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China have improved in the past decade". The current wording sounds ungrammatical to my ears, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. Jenks24 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for spotting that mistake. Now corrected. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I understand what is intended by that sentence now. I'm more concerned with the grammar, though. Shouldn't it be something like "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved in the last 10 years", perhaps even "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China have improved in the past decade". The current wording sounds ungrammatical to my ears, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. Jenks24 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A standard riposte to criticism of China's human rights record is that "human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years", i.e. don't look at where we are today in absolute terms, but judge us by the progress we've been making (cup half-full argument). The Nobel Committee's statement to the effect is a rejoinder which acknowledges the progress but also the work to be done (cup half-empty argument). I don't know quite how to bring that out in the article, though. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I am impressed by the general quality of the prose – it even shines in places. This is a professionally written contribution that deserves a slot on the Main Page.Graham Colm (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn my support because of problems with close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - issues found. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "had abandoned the Falun Gong spiritual movement and was "soft" on China's leaders" vs "abandoning persecuted members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and going soft on China’s leaders"
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- "the Nobel Committee secretary stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing's opposition" vs "a secretary of the Nobel Committee, who stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing’s opposition"
- "negative reactions" - can't find this quote in the cited source
- Print sources without web links need page numbers for verifiability purposes - for example, ref 22
- "had instructed media not to re-run even the government's own condemnatory official news release" vs "has ordered media not to re-run even the government’s official news release"
I only checked a few sources, and to find this many issues on a minimal check is quite frankly rather concerning. This needs to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are other examples: Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The BBC cited the UN as saying it had information that China had detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony, and reported sources saying there were a further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation, and other acts of intimidation of dissident.." vs. " The UN says it had information that China detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony. A further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation and other acts of intimidation have been reported." [9]
- "in which 58.6 percent of respondents said the Committee should take back the prize and apologise to the Chinese people, and more than half said Liu should be detained until his parole date." vs. "In all, 58.6 percent of the interviewees said the committee should take back the prize and apologize to the Chinese people. More than half of them said China should keep Liu detained until his parole date."[10] Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn I would like to withdraw this FAC nomination pending reworking. As it is unlikely to be the same article after that work is done, it will need assessment again from the ground up. I apologise for wasting everybody's time, and will resubmit once the rewrite is complete. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [11].
Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)
- Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because... I have addressed the issues raised after the last FAC nomination. The article has also completed a copyedit from User:Chaosdruid. So, I believe it is ready. Let's rock n roll. Red marquis (talk) 04:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The sources need some work. You need publisher for a number of newspaper references, internet and television sources: Rolling Stone, MTV, Los Angeles Times etc are all incomplete refs without publisher info. I notice that for a number of references, you omitted the "work" parameter in the template, and placed the relevant info under "publisher" and manually italicized it (eg, you did: "Title=FAC| work=|publisher=New York Times". This is wrong. "New York Times" is supposed to be under "work" (which is automatically italicized in the template), and under publisher, you'd put "New York Times Company" (the newspaper's publisher), which is not italicized). There is also general inconsistencies: for ref 24, a publisher is listed, but in subsequent citations from the same work, the publisher is missing; for refs 65 and 66, it's "Time" and not "Time magazine". Also need clean up regarding wikilinking etc. Orane (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referfing to the Cite webs or the Cite journals? -Red marquis (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applies to {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} only. What usually distinguishes the two templates is that the latter usually has the publisher in brackets. As they stand in the article, they're indistinguishable. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you making the changes. That's great. However, for some sources in which a singular person is listed as publisher, try substituting that with the publication's owner instead. For example, for ref 14, LA Weekly, put the publisher as Village Voice Media (its owner) instead of Beth Sestanovich. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Do I need to do the same for VH1 and MTV News? I couldn't find the publisher for either one. Would "MTV Networks (Viacom)" be acceptable? also, what about amazon.com and CNN? -Red marquis (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, MTV Network (Vicom) is the owner/publisher. I did a couple publisher corrections just as an example. Another thing you have to look out for is consistency. If you use citeweb for NME, make sure all citations from NME use citeweb; you can't use cite news and cite web for the same magazine/work. Usually, if it's a website or (online) music magazine, then it's not a news source per se (although it gives music news). It's just a web source. If the source is an actual newspaper, then use citenews (which generates the brackets around the publisher). This means that LA Times, Washington Post ect all need to be changed to citenews and not citeweb. I know it comes across as being picky, but it's important that all aspects of the article is professional. Orane (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For CNN, its "Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (Time Warner)" Amazon likely doesn't have one. It's fine to leave it without. Orane (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, MTV Network (Vicom) is the owner/publisher. I did a couple publisher corrections just as an example. Another thing you have to look out for is consistency. If you use citeweb for NME, make sure all citations from NME use citeweb; you can't use cite news and cite web for the same magazine/work. Usually, if it's a website or (online) music magazine, then it's not a news source per se (although it gives music news). It's just a web source. If the source is an actual newspaper, then use citenews (which generates the brackets around the publisher). This means that LA Times, Washington Post ect all need to be changed to citenews and not citeweb. I know it comes across as being picky, but it's important that all aspects of the article is professional. Orane (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Do I need to do the same for VH1 and MTV News? I couldn't find the publisher for either one. Would "MTV Networks (Viacom)" be acceptable? also, what about amazon.com and CNN? -Red marquis (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you making the changes. That's great. However, for some sources in which a singular person is listed as publisher, try substituting that with the publication's owner instead. For example, for ref 14, LA Weekly, put the publisher as Village Voice Media (its owner) instead of Beth Sestanovich. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applies to {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} only. What usually distinguishes the two templates is that the latter usually has the publisher in brackets. As they stand in the article, they're indistinguishable. Orane (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referfing to the Cite webs or the Cite journals? -Red marquis (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please check to see if I got it all right. Regarding the inconsistency issue, it is difficult to impossible to find the newspapers where the story was first published (remember this album came out 10 years ago) so, as unprofessional as it may look, I have to use citewebs to find the story (archived in the publication's website). Better to have a verifiable source than none at all. -Red marquis (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not suggesting that you go out and find the newspapers. I'm saying that if its a news source (LA Times, NY Times etc), then you need to use citenews, even if it's online. For regular websites and magazines (with an online counterpart), use citeweb. If it's a news paper, with an online counterpart, use citenews. Also, ref 117 needs publisher. Refs 24 and 123 are perfect examples of what I mean. One uses cite news, one has citeweb. To be consistent, both need to be citeweb; same for NME sources. Orane (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please check to see if I got it all right. Regarding the inconsistency issue, it is difficult to impossible to find the newspapers where the story was first published (remember this album came out 10 years ago) so, as unprofessional as it may look, I have to use citewebs to find the story (archived in the publication's website). Better to have a verifiable source than none at all. -Red marquis (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Will do. With the NME sources am I supposed to choose between cite journal and cite web? Also, should CNN, BBC and ABC News use Cite news? What about Salon, Time and the O'Reilly Factor? ps. regarding ref 24 and 123, the one doesn't use cite news it uses cite journal. -Red marquis (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've modified all of the newpapers to the cite news template. Please advise on the issues listed above. Also, I'm curious if there are any other issues with the article besides the refs. There hasn't been much input from other reviewers and I am anxious to pass this on FAC with flying colors so I could start focusing on another article. -Red marquis (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the NME sources, if you find the journal version, use cite Journal. If not, then cite web. CNN, BBC ABC News should use citenews, because the are news sources, despite having in online counterpart (usually the web is just a reiteration or expansion of what's printed in the paper version). Time and salon are magazines, not newspapers :) and the O'Riley Factor is a talk show, so use cite video or one of those templates for TV program.
- Regarding other issues with the article: The prose is pretty good. There is a minor issue that I saw in the critical reception section. The prose is good, but the formatting is off. It's Billboard, formatted ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' magazine and not "Billboard Magazine"; Q magazine, and not Q Magazine. Also, Drowned in Sounds and Pop Matters are websites/webzines, and should not be italicized. Orane (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. All of them. Are there any more obstructions to FAC that need to be cleared? -Red marquis (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also fixed the numbering of the refs. They are now in proper sequential order. -Red marquis (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hey, there's a lot of statements that are well sourced, but maybe too well sourced? As in you have a statement, then three or four sources to cite the point when really all you need is one. To my eye this looks a bit messy, and I don't think it's especially necessary. For example, towards the beginning of the article it says "In the aftermath (of Columbine) Marilyn Manson and his eponymous band became a "scapegoat"" with four sources cited. All four appear to me (admittedly without having looked into them in too much depth) to be perfectly reliable, so surely one will do? There's certainly no notability concerns about this article, and the statement isn't too contentious, so I think you should stick with the one source that you feel is the best, and scrap the rest. This would then tidy things up a bit. Coolug (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha. I know what you mean but as much as possible I would like to keep all of them. Some of the statements on this article are contentious and having them backed up by multiple sources helps bolster or defend it. -Red marquis (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm wondering if it would be helpful if I included a complete transcript of Senator Shugars' comments, Senator Hatch and Lieberman's assertions on 1999 hearing as well as Manson' op-ed essays as notes. The essays are quite long. -Red marquis (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media: Firstly, File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg. What is added by using this image? Surely, a free image of Manson in concert would actually serve the purpose better: the image is currently used to illustrate text talking about costumes used on stage, rather than the style of promotional material. File:Holy Wood logo.jpg is claimed public domain- I'm really not sure I agree with that. Further, the music samples use useless, copy-pasted rationales. The rationales should explain explicitly what the samples show and why that needs to be shown, preferably with reference to the article text, as opposed to vague statements. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful there. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, there is no free image of Manson in concert during this tour here or on Commons. I checked. Second, I did not put the image in public domain. Someone from the Italian version of Wikipedia did. I specifically uploaded it under the logo template. Third, scroll down the pages of the music samples. Under the "Licensing" section, I added explicit rationales, using Template:Non-free use rationale, for why they are vital to the article with reference to the article text. Did I need to add citations as well? Other FAC article images don't. -Red marquis (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What effort have you made to acquire a free image? Do we have free images of him in his "trademark" costume mentioned in the article, whether at one of these concerts or another one? As for the logo, whether or not you uploaded it, it is in use in the article, and that's what I'm assessing here. I will nominate it for deletion on Commons. (As for the music files, sorry, I didn't see that, and the rationales seem fairly sound). J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked wherever I can. The ones I have found are copyrighted by their respective photographers. If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so. If there were a free image I would never have uploaded the photo in question in the first place. Unfortunately, this will have to suffice. Regarding the logo, I can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload. You can't expect me to conduct a daily patrol of every single media file I upload to Wikipedia. Would it ameliorate the problem if I reupload it under the logo template? -Red marquis (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What effort have you made to acquire a free image? Do we have free images of him in his "trademark" costume mentioned in the article, whether at one of these concerts or another one? As for the logo, whether or not you uploaded it, it is in use in the article, and that's what I'm assessing here. I will nominate it for deletion on Commons. (As for the music files, sorry, I didn't see that, and the rationales seem fairly sound). J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "trademark" costume, there's no image of that either on Wikipedia or Mediawiki Commons. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much live images of Manson on either site before 2007, by which time he had retired said costume. Even if such an image exist I have no intention of using it on Holy Wood. It is better suited for use in another article where the use of that costume became synonymous with the tour's iconography. Here, the bishop attire is it. -Red marquis (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We appear to be speaking different languages here. Concerning the publicity photo; "If they wanted to share them they would have uploaded them here already. They've had 10-11 years to do so"- That's simply not the case, and I can tell from the way you're speaking you've made no effort beyond a quick look around to acquire a free image. You claim that a photo of a different costume would not be appropriate, but why, I simply cannot see. Why's it so important that we have a picture showing this costume, as opposed to any other? I'm really, really not seeing it. You claim the costume became synonymous with the tour- if that was the case, you may well have a good reason for using it, but where are the sources? Where's the discussion of the importance of the costume? Right now, it's just one entry in a list among many. Concerning the the logo, you claim that you "can't very well be held accountable for what other people do to the image I upload"- no, perhaps not, but you have sent this article to FAC, and so I'm going to review what is there. If you didn't upload that image, great, but it's still in the article. No, uploading the image as NFC would just create new problems, as it's not clear that the image meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "trademark" costume, there's no image of that either on Wikipedia or Mediawiki Commons. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be much live images of Manson on either site before 2007, by which time he had retired said costume. Even if such an image exist I have no intention of using it on Holy Wood. It is better suited for use in another article where the use of that costume became synonymous with the tour's iconography. Here, the bishop attire is it. -Red marquis (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why is that Marilyn Manson has always been very particular about the imagery he uses for a particular album/supporting tour. As with any artist, to him they are loaded with specific symbolism. If I used imagery from another tour I would be doing the article a disservice. -Red marquis (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the logo, I have uploaded it as a non-free. Please check to see if my rationale is satisfactory. File:Holy Wood mercury logo.jpg. I used File:RHbear.svg from FAC article Radiohead as a guide. -Red marquis (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To further elaborate on the publicity photo, I did make an effort but, simply put, there is no free image out there of this tour. If I asked permission from a photographer, how am I going to solidly prove to Wikipedia that permission was given? With a legal contract? And what of the photographer decides to change his mind? That's liability I have no interest in being embroiled in. A publicity photo, on the other hand, is designed specifically to be distributed and used for educational/promotional purposes. It's use here is a grey area between the two. If it is really unacceptable then I will remove it. It's better to have no image than the wrong one. This FAC nom is already taking too much of my time. -Red marquis (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to reply to most of what you have said, but please note that we have a whole procedure for asking permission and proving it, and the majority of licenses we use are non-revocable. Take a look at this page. You're showing again and again that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and the combination of an argumentative person and someone who hasn't the first clue is not something I can be bothered dealing with. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To further elaborate on the publicity photo, I did make an effort but, simply put, there is no free image out there of this tour. If I asked permission from a photographer, how am I going to solidly prove to Wikipedia that permission was given? With a legal contract? And what of the photographer decides to change his mind? That's liability I have no interest in being embroiled in. A publicity photo, on the other hand, is designed specifically to be distributed and used for educational/promotional purposes. It's use here is a grey area between the two. If it is really unacceptable then I will remove it. It's better to have no image than the wrong one. This FAC nom is already taking too much of my time. -Red marquis (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the picture to put an end to that argument. Are there any other issues on this article that I need to address? I am anxious to move on. -Red marquis (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there Red marquis, I have an idea... well, what if you put the picture in the promotion section and write something about it? I believe that it is relevant to article, because Marilyn's image is part of the promotion... We all know that he re-creates his personal image every time a "new era" begins, his image makes part of the concept of the album, so i believe the picture is really relevant in that section. Thank you, Salgado96 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestion but, at this point, I'd rather just cede that picture. This article has already taken too much of my time and I am interested in moving on to another one. If that's what it takes to get this passed on FAC then so be it. -Red marquis (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any more issues with the article? Has it passed or failed? -Red marquis (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously need to stop rushing like this. Your impatience is doing a disservice to the process. This is where the best articles are promoted, so you should be more concerned with ensuring that your article is up to standard, however long that takes. It's not a numbers game. Yes, you're eager to move on to another article, but be patient. There needs to be consensus to promote an article, and with zero "supports", the article will likely not be promoted (of course, that's not up to me at all). But, the most that will probably happen is that the article will stay here until more editors lend their opinions. Orane (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I'm being pushy. I was just getting anxious that there hasn't been a comment/criticism for days. I thought it had been allowed to go into limbo. As far as what I said to J Milburn, that was just a general comment and not intended in any way to be a disparagement of the FAC process or the reviewers. -Red marquis (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously need to stop rushing like this. Your impatience is doing a disservice to the process. This is where the best articles are promoted, so you should be more concerned with ensuring that your article is up to standard, however long that takes. It's not a numbers game. Yes, you're eager to move on to another article, but be patient. There needs to be consensus to promote an article, and with zero "supports", the article will likely not be promoted (of course, that's not up to me at all). But, the most that will probably happen is that the article will stay here until more editors lend their opinions. Orane (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any more issues with the article? Has it passed or failed? -Red marquis (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very great quality, intresting tone and style, the most complete information for an album. 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 04:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked, compromised account, disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. For a while I thought this FAC had been allowed to go into limbo. -Red marquis (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree! Very good quality! By the way, the article of M.I.A's album Maya is a FAC and it hasn't got a lot of good information like this article does. Come one! It should be passed! Salgado96 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [12].
The Human Centipede (First Sequence)
I am nominating this for featured article because after reaching GA and having a thorough peer review I believe this article may now meet the featured standard. This article was previously nominated as a FAC about a month ago, however, the nomination was closed because there weren't enough comments from editors as to make a decision, however, those constructive criticisms that were made were very useful and acted upon to further improve the article. The first FA review can be viewed here. If there is anything else the article needs doing to it to improve I would very much appreciate any comments. The article is currently receiving a great deal of page views (over 60k on each of the last two days!) due to its rather infamous sequel. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links
- Don't notate titles in all-caps
- Ref 29: why the different formatting here?
- Make sure you avoid notating publishers as works or vice-versa
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for doing this source review. I've removed the all-caps writing from the BBFC sources and fixed the different formatting with ref 29. I've also removed the Rotten Tomatoes and other cited sources from the external links. With regard to the two sources where the reliability is questioned; I've removed the first one (this) and the fact it stated entirely because I don't think it was expecially important anyway, with the second source (this), which quotes the review consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, I have amended the text so that it no longer quotes the opinion of the un-named RT writer, but instead only gives the facts - that is the aggregate score and the number of reviews.
- I'm pretty sure I have all the sources listed correctly as works, however, I'll have a look through and make sure that wherever possible I can stick a publisher in too. This won't be possible for all the sources, but it should be for quite a few.
- Thanks! Coolug (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Erik
- Could the "Sequel" section be shortened, perhaps to be similar to the lead section of the sequel article? I would recommend writing a solid lead section for the sequel article then copying it to the first film's article with some tweaks as a kind of summary section.
- Can it be more upfront what the critics' consensus of the film is? The "Critical" section starts with the Empire review, and I think we should cite retrospective coverage that reports what critics thought of the film. This way, we can set the tone of the section. For example, if a film is universally acclaimed, we would explain that in the beginning, and the reader will acknowledge the sampled positive reviews as illustrative of that consensus.
- It may also help to be more upfront about the theatrical detail. Try to treat the section as stand-alone as if readers did not look at the lead section or the infobox. For example, when was the film first screened? And it may help to mention the April 2010 dates closer to the beginning.
- I notice that most of the references are online. Is it fair to assume that was the extent of your research? There may be some articles printed in periodicals that will not be available online, and a featured article needs to be well-researched.
- While not a big thing, I also recommend converting the dates to something more readable. For example, instead of 2010-05-05, you could write 5 May 2010. I also recommend using the {{nowrap}} template to ensure that the day and month are always together.
Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for these comments, I shall get to work on them in the next 24 hours and if I have any questions I will let you know. cya Coolug (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be able to use Wikipedia:Datescript (if you can figure out) so you don't have to convert dates manually. Or ask someone to convert them for you. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for arranging for the dates on the references to be sorted out (and as a Brit I much prefer this format myself too). I have made changes to the sequel and theatrical details in line with your suggestions. I've also stuck the Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores at the beginning of the critics section in order to set the tone. Finding more retrospective reviews is a bit of a tough one though, as let's face it, this film is the human centipede, not star wars, and I haven't yet found much in the way of reviews beyond ones published at the time. I think the same applies to finding good quality sources outside of the internet, however, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for all your help. Coolug (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely all the discussion about the sequel will bring up the first film and possibly mention how critics responded to that one? It doesn't have to be an actual review, it could be a news article that talks about the sequel and mention that its predecessor was not well-received by critics. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea. Thanks. I've therefore just spent far too long googling around and found a source about the second film that retrospectively refers to the reviews the first film had. It's quite difficult to find a source that isn't just ripping off this very wikipedia article, but I think what I have should be okay. Coolug (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely all the discussion about the sequel will bring up the first film and possibly mention how critics responded to that one? It doesn't have to be an actual review, it could be a news article that talks about the sequel and mention that its predecessor was not well-received by critics. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for arranging for the dates on the references to be sorted out (and as a Brit I much prefer this format myself too). I have made changes to the sequel and theatrical details in line with your suggestions. I've also stuck the Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores at the beginning of the critics section in order to set the tone. Finding more retrospective reviews is a bit of a tough one though, as let's face it, this film is the human centipede, not star wars, and I haven't yet found much in the way of reviews beyond ones published at the time. I think the same applies to finding good quality sources outside of the internet, however, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for all your help. Coolug (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Kaguya-chan
- Why is truck driver capitalized in the cast section?
- Run-on sentence: "Laser also accidentally kicked Kitamuro (Katsuro) during filming, this led to a fight on set between the actors, however contributed to the tension and anger throughout the scene where Heiter sits at his dining table eating whilst the centipede eats dog food from the floor alongside him"
- "Whilst promoting The Human centipede Six stated..." -->"Whilst promoting The Human Centipede, Six stated..."
Hope the comments help! Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for these helpful comments, I've made corrections for all three of the points you address. If there's anything else you have noticed on the article please let me know. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments by Hunter Kahn (Struck oppose for now, see below) Very sorry to have to vote oppose, and obviously if the article improves enough I'd strike it, but after a read-through I honestly think there are enough problems that you'd be better off bringing this article back to FAC at a later date than trying to address everything in this review. Below are some of my comments... — Hunter Kahn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few grammatical/presentational problems I noticed, some of which I fixed myself; some are as simple as the film not being italicized. There are also at least one run-on sentence, ("However, other effects were relatively simple to create, for example, Heiter's three-dog was created by photoshopping an image...") and some sentences that really don't say anything at all ("Among horror blogs the film also received attention.") The names of the actors are wikilinked several times. And there are parts of the article written in an unencyclopedic way, like "... contain the blood and shit...".
The "Critical" subsection of the "Reception" section should identify the names of the critics you cite. In other words, it should be "Variety Magazine writer Peter DeBurge criticised the film..." instead of just "Variety Magazine criticised the film...". These magazines/newspapers didn't "say" anything, the people who wrote for them did. Also, there is at least one item here that is factually incorrect as stated: Entertainment Weekly did not declare, "This is the most disgusting horror film of all time." The headline asks, "Is this the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" and the writer wrote "It is without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made." The latter is a bold enough statement in itself, but the way you've written isn't correct and is a misquote.- This is mostly better, but you have newly written, "However, Collis asked "Is the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" I know this sounds like nitpicking, but this isn't really correct either. This quote is from the headline, and the writers hardly ever write their own headlines. You should simply say that Collins said it was "without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made". — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the References, including a few references that have glaring red cite errors right in the article. I assume this is the result of you having made changes due to other reviewers' comments, but this is an FAC, and easy stuff like this should have been addressed by now.- The biggest problem I have (the above stuff I think could be addressed fairly easily) is it seems to me that there is information about this film in the very sources you are already using that has not been worked into the article. An FA should be as comprehensive as possible, and I think you really need to go through your sources and mine them for new info as much as possible. For example, you use this source only to cite that one of the star's auditions took place in NYC, and that she was given a storyboard rather than a script. However, that interview also shows that the special effects were created by a father-son team of effects artists, Erik and Rob Hillenbrink, who used prosthetics to create the centipede. It also has other interesting info, like stuff on the difficulties of filming the centipede scenes, and how they tried to pair her with other girls to find the right chemistry in her audition. Likewise, you use this article only to cite that it was Ashlynn Yennie's first role. There's a lot more stuff here, like how the film was shot almost entirely in sequence, or how the crew (even the costume lady!) wasn't allowed to know what the "centipede" looked like and didn't see it until the first day those shots were filmed. There's also stuff about how Yennie auditioned via tape and didn't meet the director until she took the part. I also think you could take from this interview more details about why the centipede concept would medically not work, which is something I'd be interested to read more about. And these are only three of the sources, so I feel you really need to take a thorough look through all of them.
— Hunter Kahn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks for this review. Obviously I don't like the oppose, but I do like the suggestions which are incredibly helpful. Couple of things first, the red links appear to have turned up after this edit, made earlier this morning. I have no idea why this is because the editor doesn't appear to have been messing around with the references, but anyway that's something fixable. Also, the unencyclopedic content such as "blood and shit" is direct quotes from sources, but I understand they are not suitable so I'll improve the wording. Finally, I'm not too sure about going into how unrealistic the human centipede actually is in too much depth, I think it adds undue weight to the 'controversy' when really it's only a silly horror film and the article only says Tom Six 'claims' accuracy, which he certainly does a lot.
- Anyway, that's my desperate plea bit. However, you make some excellent points about using the sources better. To be honest these are sources that were put in years ago when the article was but a stub, and I suppose I more or less forgot about looking further into them as the article was being developed, but that's not really much of an excuse, so I'll be having a proper read of them all when I get the chance and sticking that stuff in. I don't know if I can do all this before this FAC gets closed, but I'll have a go anyway. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. I think I've made the changes you suggest to the appropriate standard, but I'd certainly appreciate any feedback on the improvements (I hope they're improvements!) I've made. I've also mined more information from the sources you mention, plus some more. I'll continue to look through more of the sources to see what I can get from them. cya Coolug (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There definitely seems to have been improvement, and I'm happy to see that you've added some content from these sources beyond my specific suggestions. I've struck the "Oppose" for now and will take a closer look hopefully tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of my earlier concerns was that there was information in existing sources that had not been incorporated into the article. But I've now also conducted a search for sources that are not presently included in this article, and I've found quite a few with just a minimum amount of looking: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Have your reviewed these sources? This makes me wonder if perhaps there are others out there? Also, I notice most of your sources (besides the DVD ones) are online sources. Have you tried using any database services to look for offline news articles, magazine articles or journals about this film? Something like NewsBank or Lexis Nexis? If you check your local library, most of them allow access to a service like that, and I think you might be surprised how much more is out there. I'm not reinstating my oppose yet because I want to hear what you have to say, but between this and my earlier comments, I still think you'd be better off working on the article a bit more outside of the FAC and then bringing it back later... — Hunter Kahn 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There definitely seems to have been improvement, and I'm happy to see that you've added some content from these sources beyond my specific suggestions. I've struck the "Oppose" for now and will take a closer look hopefully tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. I think I've made the changes you suggest to the appropriate standard, but I'd certainly appreciate any feedback on the improvements (I hope they're improvements!) I've made. I've also mined more information from the sources you mention, plus some more. I'll continue to look through more of the sources to see what I can get from them. cya Coolug (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey. Thanks for suggesting these sources. I shall read through them shortly and see if they have anything that can be added to the article. I'm concious however that I don't want to put new sources in for the sake of it, but only if they say something new that isn't already there. Googling "human Centipede" and looking through the news items gives hundreds and hundreds of sources; many of them just rip off this very Wikipedia article, a lot more of them just say the same thing over and over.
- With regard to finding off-line sources, I have two concerns; the first, with regard to finding the kind of journal articles or research papers that might be somewhere like Lexis Nexis is that I haven't found any and very much doubt there are any. The article is about The Human Centipede and to there best of my knowledge there hasn't been a great deal of serious academic research or analysis into the subject that I can draw ideas from. I also don't know of any books that have been published that talk about The Human Centipede in any great length. (this appears to mention the film but I have no idea what it will say, it seems to simply be a list of dutch films)
- Secondly, regarding news items from printed sources, well I'm a little unsure how why it is that Wikipedia seems to think if a major newspaper prints something and we source it with the page number and date etc then that is a high quality source, but if a major newspaper like The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph or the Chicago Sun-Times prints something and also makes the piece available online, the online piece is of lower quality that the very same article in it's physical form. At the moment the article has sources from all of these newspapers but links to their online copies. Would finding out their physical publication dates and page numbers make the sources any better? If so then I can try and find these details out. However, it won't actually make any difference to what the source says or the overall reliability of the source because it will still be exactly the same, with presumably a link to the existing online version so readers can still check it out. cya Coolug (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey look, I've found the films production notes here, I'm going to stick some stuff in from this in since it appears to have a few interesting bits. Coolug (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not suggesting you just added sources for the sake of it, and I'm not suggesting The Human Centipede has attracted much attention from scholars and that there are tons of journals and books written about it. My concern is whether the full scope of sources about this film have been reviewed and whether this article can truly be considered comprehensive. I think this article has great potential, and you are obviously an editor dedicated to improving it, so I have no doubt it'll make FA one day. But at this point I'm not convinced it's reached that point of comprehensiveness yet. Already in this FAC review we've identified items in the existing sources that should have been part of the article in the first place, and you're now finding new sources altogether (the production notes). Nearly three weeks into an FAC nomination is way too late for this to be happening. And I'm not suggesting off-line sources are better than online, but they need to be reviewed; how would we otherwise know whether they have something worth adding to the article? I'm not trying to be difficult here by any means, but your comments above do sort of indicate to me that that is another area that may not have been fully explored yet. — Hunter Kahn 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey. I appreciate an FAC isn't really the best place for new sources or content to be added, however, it seems an FAC is one of the few times when I've ever had much in the way of any constructive comments with regard to the article, so it is unfortunately going to be a time when changes may well take place. Which ultimately is good (for me at least) because I want to improve this article. I would content however that the addition of the production notes hasn't actually led to the addition of any new content, instead I've used them as a different kind of source to cite some stuff that was previously cited with a load of different web only sources. cya Coolug (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey look, I've found the films production notes here, I'm going to stick some stuff in from this in since it appears to have a few interesting bits. Coolug (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← I'd be inclined to agree with Hunter Kahn's comments above. Coolug, as we have discussed in person, I know you're keen to finish writing about this horrible film, so that Mrs. Coolug will talk to you again ;-) I know there has been a chronic lack of feedback for the article, so it's great that we've finally received some very constructive criticism. However, mid-FAC isn't really the time to make major changes to the article contents... unintentional style/spelling/grammatical errors are inevitably introduced whenever this happens. I think it might be a good idea to step back from the FAC again for a little while, just so that we have the time and space to ensure that the improved article contents are well-written. Papa November (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah! Right, ok, before this FAC dies, are there any last comments from any other editors? Coolug (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other editors might disagree with me about this, but I wouldn't mind seeing a more fully-formed "Parodies" section. Not huge sprawling paragraphs, mind you, but maybe just two sentences or so about what exactly the South Park parody was, and another two sentences about what the SNL parody was. Stuff like that. — Hunter Kahn 21:04, 28 June 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [18].
Rwanda
- Why is this topic already archived? The path to this discussion estranges me a bit. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the "archive1" in the page title? FAC/FAR discussions are automatically created with those titles; that doesn't mean the discussion is closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this on and off for the past two years, and feel it is time to try a nomination for featured article status and to get the community's feedback on it. The article was loosely modelled on Cameroon, another African country featured article, and also followed guidelines at WP:COUNTRIES. It has undergone two peer reviews in the past year, here and here, the second being a lengthy review by User:Cryptic C62. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing the feedback on this. — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the layout (templates go at the bottom, not in See also), why do we have a gynormous template at the bottom only to house the coordinates, and the first ref goes nowhere when clicking on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - not great if the very first link doesn't work.... it seems it was due to an error with - vs – symbols in the CITEREF coding. I have fixed that now. I have also got rid of the giant coordinates from the geographic locale box. They are not there in Japan and don't seem to add much. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic information for DFID 2009, MINEDUC
- FN 98, 158: why no date?
- Why spell out WCS in FN 117 but not FN 114
- Fixed the originally initialised one was actually a missing link and I've replaced it with two new refs to IUCN and RDB sources. I've also constricted the citation for the remaining one to just "WCS" as initialising seems a bit more consistent with the general convention in the article. — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your rationale, when a source has no named author, to sometimes place the title first and use that for shortened citations, and other times to do the same with publisher?
- Fixed - the rationale was that when copied and edited from another article, or it seemed convenient, the title was used; however for consistency I have now moved all of them to a consistent publisher=author format. (with the exception of nationsencyclopedia which will shortly be removed per comment on reliability below). — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is WCS between Al Jazeera and Amnesty International in the reference list? Check alphabetization
- No footnotes to BBC News IV, Geohive, GlobalSecurity.org, Mbabazi 2011, Merriam-Webster, Munyakazi & Ntagaramba 2005, WFP
- It's not clear which of the HRW sources are being cited in FN 74 and 75
- Don't include cited sources in External links
- Query - the only entry which seems to break this rule is the CIA world factbook, but I personally think that's a useful external link, for users who wish to do some further reading, and might easily be missed by readers who skim over the full bibliography. I'm happy to remove it if necessary, however. — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for WP:MOS issues in references: italicization, capitalization, etc
- Fixed - I have done some work to make sure each cite ... template is used with the correct parameters, which should take care of italicisation. For capitalisation of titles I have generally gone with the exact text used in the source, for reference integrity reasons. If you'd prefer some other consistent format for that, for example not to use caps at all except for the opening letter and proper nouns, let me know and I can change it. — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
- Be consistent in how locations are formatted
- Resolved - I have now used "traditional" form of City, State (abbreviated) for all US locations, and just the city for others (London, Paris, Geneva). The exception to this is "Cambridge, England" as this could reasonably need disambiguating from "Cambridge, Mass." Hope that's OK. — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
- Use a consistent date format
- Retrieval dates not required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
- Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Subseections are missing, especially for History, but also elsewhere. I will try to work on this. Tomeasy T C 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK subsections are not a must. --Victor12 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be marginally inclined not to have subsections in History, but happy to defer to others' judgement on this one. Subsectioning seems useful where there is a distinct mini topic that falls within the realm of the wider section, rather than merely as a means of splitting up a six or seven paragraph section into one to two paragraph chunks. i.e. is the newly added subsection title useful as an entity within the table of contents? If the History section were much longer (which it shouldn't be in this instance, as the detail is to be found in History of Rwanda) then it would need subsections; as it is it is probably borderline. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The History section is huge, perhaps too large. One way to deal with it, and allow the reader to find the content they are looking for, seemed to me to the introduction of subsections. I just went ahead with it. Now, i see there are some objections here. If most people here agree not to have them, feel free to revert me. Tomeasy T C 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it makes no sense to create so many subsections on an article which is supposed to be only a summary of more specialized entries. We now have very small subsections even of just one paragraph. I'd prefer to revert back to the former arrangement. --Victor12 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Victor12. If there's only a paragraph on a piece of information it shouldn't have a subsection. It's noted in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) that short subsections break the flow of prose, so the tiny history and demographic subsections are probably not needed. Climate also looks a bit weird. The better solution mentioned before would be to shorten the history section slightly. The articles already at WP:Article size maximum. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The History section is huge, perhaps too large. One way to deal with it, and allow the reader to find the content they are looking for, seemed to me to the introduction of subsections. I just went ahead with it. Now, i see there are some objections here. If most people here agree not to have them, feel free to revert me. Tomeasy T C 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be marginally inclined not to have subsections in History, but happy to defer to others' judgement on this one. Subsectioning seems useful where there is a distinct mini topic that falls within the realm of the wider section, rather than merely as a means of splitting up a six or seven paragraph section into one to two paragraph chunks. i.e. is the newly added subsection title useful as an entity within the table of contents? If the History section were much longer (which it shouldn't be in this instance, as the detail is to be found in History of Rwanda) then it would need subsections; as it is it is probably borderline. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment - After an exhaustive and exhausting peer review, I am supremely satisfied with the quality of the prose in this article. Of course, every article can benefit from one more pair of eyes. If anyone else does a prose review or has questions about particular statements, I will try to help out as best I can. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: Somehow I doubt File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg is GFDL- stronger sourcing/licensing information is required. File:Rwandan refugee camp in east Zaire.jpg needs its source updating. Rather odd licensing on File:RwandaGeoProvinces.png. File:MarabaPacket2.jpg is a photograph of (presumably non-free) artwork on packaging, and so I am not confident about the licensing there. Obviously, the use would not meet the NFCC. Other images look good, copyright-wise. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed - I have removed the seal from the article, and replaced the Maraba packet and the refugee camp with equivalent images with undoubted licences. Regarding the RwandaGeoProvinces, this is a derivative work by me, in which I added more content to a public domain map issued by the CIA. As far as I know this is legitimate, so please advise as to how it should be licensed (or let me know if I'm mistaken). Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality of prose is excellent, very clear which is no small thing given the complicated history. Still reading through. Ceoil 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you enjoyed it :) — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- enjoying. Its a long article, 3/4's way through now, no issues on wording so far (well done Cryptic), the page is engaging and the summary style well judged. I'm thinking this is a huge achievement, by far the best article on a country I've read (outside of Geist's work on the US), leaning support with nitpicks -not on prose- to follow. Its great to see this core article here at FAC. Ceoil 09:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO comments
- MAJOR props for working on something this broad and important. Go core!
- Lead seems long. Advise cutting.
- Agree. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've had a stab at this but I'm reluctant to commit it to the main article without first doing some consultation, as it is always tricky to know what to cut and what to leave (and also the original lead was quite carefully worked out in conjunction with Cryptic C62, meaning some of his issues may now need re-resolving). The proposed new lead is at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Proposed lead, and I've also put up a copy of the "original" lead at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Original lead, since the current version is already altered from how it was when I first nominated the FAC. Please could all interested parties review the proposal and pass comments. Also feel free to edit the proposal in place if you have good ideas. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1#Lead discussion and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Proposed lead is that the proposed form was acceptable so I have now copied it across (with suggested amendments) to the main article. Please advise if it is now passes the test for FAC or if more action is required. — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've had a stab at this but I'm reluctant to commit it to the main article without first doing some consultation, as it is always tricky to know what to cut and what to leave (and also the original lead was quite carefully worked out in conjunction with Cryptic C62, meaning some of his issues may now need re-resolving). The proposed new lead is at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Proposed lead, and I've also put up a copy of the "original" lead at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1/Original lead, since the current version is already altered from how it was when I first nominated the FAC. Please could all interested parties review the proposal and pass comments. Also feel free to edit the proposal in place if you have good ideas. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First sentence: I don't think the form of government has first sentence priority...and especially sending us to the link for unitary republic seems pedantic. Why not just define it as a country locationally. (the government form fits better in last para of lead anyway).
- First para too long especially reads like two paras mashed together. Also the sentence order is not well organizing the content (e.g. why talk about capital city, then skip a sentence, then the other cities).
- I agree with keeping history without section breaks if you want. There is a strong narrative structure. (In other cases where it is more grouping topics or content is very technical, then section headers help...but history is a story.
- Not a fan of using redlinks for "concept" type articles you plan to write (e.g. dance of Rwanda). For a more discrete thing (like a person) seems OK because the rationale is the links will pop in when someone does an article and may come from multiple places. But not so with dance of Rwanda.
- Not a fan of using disguised links (word music wikilinked, but goes to music of Rwanda or Tourism...but goes to tourism of Rwanda). Is confusing, espeically when sometimes we are really just linking to the concept (like subsistence agriculture...not subsistence agrictulture of Rwanda).
- Disagree. There are few things as useless as linking music to music. What the readers really want to explore would probably be the music of Rwanda. I see the problem of disguising such a link, however. What I would propose here would be the use of a see also head template for music of Rwanda, and not link the word music at all in the prose. However, I have seen that this article does not use the see also template at all, so I was reluctant to introduce it. Are there objections to this kind of template? Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also would work well if we can't link a true phrase that contains the overall concept. Also, when we have these piped links interacting with redlinking, we get peculiar appearance. Like on the lead "healthcare" is redlinked. Like huh, Wiki does not have an article on healthcare? Well, yeah we DO. We don't have one on "healthcare of Rwanda". But since the link is piped...it looks like we lack an article on healthcare at all. (Just a distractor from reading.)
- The different tribes are not well explained. I got the picture..."not supposed to call them tribes", but it seemed cart before horse to emphasize their sameness in describing them and not to explain how they differ (ethnicity, appearance?) This is a major gap and an important thing people need to learn from coming here. They want to understand what these people with funny names really are.
- Agree. I also found that the quoted phrase came a long as a rule to make a point, but then fell short of evidence. There is evidence, however. Same language and territory, for instance. so the point may be made with explanation. Nevertheless, we need to agree on how to introduce and characterize the terms Hutu, Tutsi, Twa. Is this what you meant by funny names??? Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have ideas on how we might present this? There are three areas that need a decision: the lead, the history section and the demographics. Every time I look at it I can't quite decide how best to arrange things. Since practically every point is in dispute, it's hard to know where to start. In particular:
- Plenty of sources say the Tutsi arrived separately from the Hutus. But the government and some other sources say the whole dichotomy was constructed much later on.
- Some sources say there are differences between the two groups in the present day (e.g. skin colour, height, lactose intolerance) while others say there is no difference.
- There's not even consistency on what to call the categories, other than that they are "not tribes".
- If anyone has any ideas then happy to try and move on with this. — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have ideas on how we might present this? There are three areas that need a decision: the lead, the history section and the demographics. Every time I look at it I can't quite decide how best to arrange things. Since practically every point is in dispute, it's hard to know where to start. In particular:
- Seems like a lot of over-blueing. Mountain gorilla is linked at least 4 times in article. Would like that to be once. TCO (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, of course. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed - I have unblued a lot of repeated links. I have, however, per WP:MOSLINK, retained repeated links in (a) infoboxes and picture captions, (b) occurrences far apart where the link is genuinely useful in both cases and (c) links occurring in both the lead and the body. I was a bit unsure about this last one, and MOSLINK is annoyingly vague about the matter, but given that the lead is supposed to stand alone, as is the body, I thought this seemed reasonable. — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, of course. Tomeasy T C 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victor12 comment: I think the History section is somewhat unbalanced with three paragraphs dedicated to the 1990s out of nine. I do realize the importance of the 1994 genocide for Rwandan history but I think most of its details should be left to the relevant article, Rwandan Genocide in this case. --Victor12 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure on this. Realistically people are going to come to this article to learn about the genocide [and to try to understand what all these people with funny names (hutus and tutsis, etc.) really are]. We should satisfy this interest. Perhaps doing a subsection would make this feel better? TCO (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me this personal comment, TOC: Calling these groups repeatedly people with funny names, sounds rather ignorant to me than funny. Tomeasy T C 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tomeasy, "people with funny names" is quite an unfortunate expression. Also, the reasoning that "people come to this article to learn about the genocide" is not correct IMHO, this article is about Rwanda as a country; devoting so many paragraphs to the genocide goes against WP:UNDUE. --Victor12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one paragraph on the genocide!
- I think the entire history section is too long, but that applies to all of its parts. With a carefully conducted, general shortening of the section, the genocide paragraph could be shortened as well. However, within the current size of the history section, the length of the genocide paragraph is not undue. Tomeasy T C 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I´m sorry, I meant three paragraphs dealing with the 1990s (in which the main event is the genocide) out of nine paragraphs for the whole history section. I think this distribution is unbalanced. --Victor12 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, even as stepping toe over the line humor, it loses its impact, if I say it twice. Moving on...big picture, I feel very warmly to this article in that it is covering a country. I would be realistic that people coming here need/want strong coverage to explain the noteworthy genocide as well as the ethnic groups. And IN ARTICLE. They will also be getting a little better perspective on the countries geography, history, etc. so it is find that they are coming here for one reason and then leave with a deeper perspective. Please keep after it...get the STAR. We need vital articles that are FA. I understand that others feel differently, which is fine, just sharing. I like the length, content, and org of the current genocide treatment. Very well done, please don't skinny it. (I had extremely tangential experience related to the possible intervention that EUCOM argued Clinton out of...and your article was the first that I really understood what the heck was going on in there.) I really still don't think we nail it in terms of explaining the ethnic (or whatever) groups. At a minimum, we should present the different points of view and communicate the lack of understanding...not pick a dog in the fight. As of now, it is confusing, to have the doctrainaire "social, not genetic" coming after a discussion of how different population migrations were the genesis...or for that matter how the heck did the Hutus know who to murder?TCO (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a Rwandan Genocide article to explain in detail all the things you just mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...I'm very aware of that. I just think a lot should get covered here as well. Think it serves our readers well in the end instead of depending on the click through. We probably disagree. That is fine...article does not need to match what I say...just throwing my thinking out. Peace. TCO (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TOC. The ethic groups and the genocide are probably major attractors for our readers to come to this article. The description of the ethnic groups is insufficient at present, and should be improved. I think we all agree here. I will give it a try when I have some relaxed time.
- The history section: Does anybody think its total length is OK, or do we agree that it should be shortened? I feel that the only disagreement here is about the relative proportions of this section. I believe that, given 9 paragraphs, it is perfectly balanced to dedicate one to the civil war, one to the genocide, and one to modern Rwanda. If however, we condense the section and, as a result of shortening, we also merge some paragraphs, I could imagine to merge the civil war and the genocide sections. However, before I touch this difficult task in the article, I would want to see where consensus is. Tomeasy T C 07:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the history section is on the long side and in principle I can see a case for shortening it, I don't personally think it is a show stopper, and the risk is that the balance of the text would be upset - it's not simply a case of removing sentences. For what it's worth it already took some considerable work to condense it down to this length, while making sure that important events and eras are not omitted (the section was way longer than this when I first started working on this article). When considering featured or good country articles in general, the current length of the History section is probably about average - it is still considerably shorter than, for example, Canada (a Featured Article) United States (currently a Good Article). It is also on a par lengthwise with Japan, another FA. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not length but undue weight as I mentioned above. --Victor12 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, Victor: 1 paragraph out of 9 is not too much weight for the genocide.
- I see it will be difficult to get a common agreement on the history section. However, do all agree that the ethnic groups need a better description? Tomeasy T C 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the History section currently has nine paragraphs, three of them deal with the 1990s; I think this is undue weight. --Victor12 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is well balanced that the civil war is dedicated one out of nine paragraphs. The same holds for modern Rwanda. Tomeasy T C 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two paragraphs for precolonial history, two paragraph for colonial history, one paragraph for independence, one paragraph for post colonial history and three (3) paragraphs devoted to the 1990s (including two sentences devoted to the 2000s); doesn't seem balanced to me. --Victor12 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is well balanced that the civil war is dedicated one out of nine paragraphs. The same holds for modern Rwanda. Tomeasy T C 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the History section currently has nine paragraphs, three of them deal with the 1990s; I think this is undue weight. --Victor12 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not length but undue weight as I mentioned above. --Victor12 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the history section is on the long side and in principle I can see a case for shortening it, I don't personally think it is a show stopper, and the risk is that the balance of the text would be upset - it's not simply a case of removing sentences. For what it's worth it already took some considerable work to condense it down to this length, while making sure that important events and eras are not omitted (the section was way longer than this when I first started working on this article). When considering featured or good country articles in general, the current length of the History section is probably about average - it is still considerably shorter than, for example, Canada (a Featured Article) United States (currently a Good Article). It is also on a par lengthwise with Japan, another FA. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...I'm very aware of that. I just think a lot should get covered here as well. Think it serves our readers well in the end instead of depending on the click through. We probably disagree. That is fine...article does not need to match what I say...just throwing my thinking out. Peace. TCO (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a Rwandan Genocide article to explain in detail all the things you just mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, even as stepping toe over the line humor, it loses its impact, if I say it twice. Moving on...big picture, I feel very warmly to this article in that it is covering a country. I would be realistic that people coming here need/want strong coverage to explain the noteworthy genocide as well as the ethnic groups. And IN ARTICLE. They will also be getting a little better perspective on the countries geography, history, etc. so it is find that they are coming here for one reason and then leave with a deeper perspective. Please keep after it...get the STAR. We need vital articles that are FA. I understand that others feel differently, which is fine, just sharing. I like the length, content, and org of the current genocide treatment. Very well done, please don't skinny it. (I had extremely tangential experience related to the possible intervention that EUCOM argued Clinton out of...and your article was the first that I really understood what the heck was going on in there.) I really still don't think we nail it in terms of explaining the ethnic (or whatever) groups. At a minimum, we should present the different points of view and communicate the lack of understanding...not pick a dog in the fight. As of now, it is confusing, to have the doctrainaire "social, not genetic" coming after a discussion of how different population migrations were the genesis...or for that matter how the heck did the Hutus know who to murder?TCO (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I´m sorry, I meant three paragraphs dealing with the 1990s (in which the main event is the genocide) out of nine paragraphs for the whole history section. I think this distribution is unbalanced. --Victor12 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tomeasy, "people with funny names" is quite an unfortunate expression. Also, the reasoning that "people come to this article to learn about the genocide" is not correct IMHO, this article is about Rwanda as a country; devoting so many paragraphs to the genocide goes against WP:UNDUE. --Victor12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me this personal comment, TOC: Calling these groups repeatedly people with funny names, sounds rather ignorant to me than funny. Tomeasy T C 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating yourself. Let's get more people to take a look. Maybe start a thread on FAC talk page and ask a few disinterested parties to look at it and make their call. (And I don't know if this would scratch your itch, but we could go back to section breaks, so at least the reader can decide which part of history interests him more.) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually in general agreement with Victor12 here, although I understand the genocide was a very important event in Rwandan history. Perhaps as a compromise there could be an aim to generally reduce the length of the history section, and in the meantime have two subsections, perhaps pre and post independence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the debate it's a difficult one. You clearly can't give identical weighting to every decade because (a) the time periods discussed get longer the further back one goes, and (b) there are some decades (e.g. 1980s) when nothing happens that's really worth mentioning while others (1990s) are full of separate events, each of which shapes the whole history in its own right. However I concur with Victor and Chipmunk that 2.5 paragraphs out of 9 is on the overweight side even for one action packed decade.
- So if we can reach a decision on our best course of action to resolve this issue for FAC then that'd be good. I'm happy enough with Chipmunk's suggested compromise if others are. — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.