1 withdrawn by nominator |
archive 5 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==September 2011== |
==September 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout 3/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. No (film)/archive1 }} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moonrise (novel)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glenrothes/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A1 (Croatia)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A1 (Croatia)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernie Fletcher/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernie Fletcher/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:07, 6 September 2011
September 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [1].
Fallout 3
I am nominating this for featured article because... I recently helped to make this article become a Good Article, and I think it has potential to become a Featured Article, and a lot of articles get nominated for Featured Article soon after becoming a Good Article. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status.SCB '92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 16: formatting
- Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs or website names or just publishers, and if the first how these are formatted
- Be consistent in what is italicized
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- Web citations must consistently include publishers
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? this? this? this? etc. Sources must be high-quality and reliable for FA-level articles. Also check use of self-published sources per WP:SPS
- Print sources need page numbers, as do multi-page online sources
Oppose unless/until sourcing issues are resolved. Additionally, on a quick scan of the text I see some potentially inaccessible content for non-specialist readers (for example, what is a Perk? A G.O.A.T.?), and weak FURs on File:Fallout3_special.jpg and File:Fallout_3_V.A.T.S._Screen.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take care of the sourcing issues-SCB '92 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the 1a criteria is quite satisfied yet. For a particular example, see the paragraph that begins "Along with the health." Likewise, the long sentence that begins "Dogmeat can be killed". Why is it assuming the reader knows about factions before they have been introduced? Where are they introduced? Several of the suggestions from the last PR haven't been implemented. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources I have a problem with some sources:
- TechTree.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using GamingBlend.com instead, as it has many of the same facts and appears reliable.
- psu.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using smh.com.au instead. Also, the specific date of August 7, 2008, is not found in the source (psu.com). I was able to find the date at classification.gov.au, so consider adding this as a source too. I see you have an archived version as a ref already, so you might want to update it with the current, working site's version.
- GalbadiaX is not a reliable source. Consider using GameSpot's article instead, as it has much the same info.
Done-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You also seem to have ignored sources like The New York Times, USA Today, FOX News, Entertainment Weekly, The Telegraph, and PC World magazine, and focused entirely on game-only media outlets. I think this is perhaps to the detriment of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [2].
Dr. No (film)
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it concerns the first film in series of James Bond films and is therefore an important moment in world cinema. It is also a high quality article that I believe meets the FA criteria. SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Random sentence as I was adjusting section headings for WP:MSH-- I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say:SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Cary Grant was initially chosen for the role, but was not selected due to his commitment of only one feature film.
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should include both authors for shortened citations to Pfeiffer 1998 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Caplen 2009 or 2010? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to Jütting 2007 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you cite websites using base URL, website name or publisher (ex. BBC.co.uk vs BBC News vs BBC News) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in what is italicized when Done (I think!) If there are any that have been overlooked, please let me know if there are any specific examples, thanks. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source that require subscription/registration should be notated as such Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent date formatting Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 13: retrieval date?
- It's part of template, can't add accessdate.
- Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Screenonline or ScreenOnline? Check for internal consistency Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for magazines Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 65: page(s)? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Titles for FNs 72 and 74? Done - igordebraga ≠ 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Page(s) for FNs 78-80? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 87: Premiere Magazine should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 88: missing something? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 94, 106: why the duplication? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 95-96: why is BBC News wikilinked here when it wasn't in the preceding citations? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 110: newspaper name should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Date for Ultimate Editions? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on Featured Article Criteria #3. Can you elaborate on how File:Bond, James Bond.ogg
and File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder crop.jpgmeet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? It seems to me thatbothit fails at the first hurdle. These aren't complex scenes or compositions, and are easily replaceable by simple text descriptions of their contents. Unfortunately, the presence of the files does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", nor would their omission "be detrimental to that understanding" (as set out in the criteria). Note: I'm not saying that's ideal—obviously, seeing the files is better than merely reading about them—but given the strict criteria set out at the aforementioned link, you need a lot more justification than what we currently have, which seems rather cursory. If it helps, an example from my own back catalogue is the rationale for File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv, which IMO has a quite solid purpose of use (as opposed to "This is an iconic moment in cinema"). With that file, the key was nailing the emotional intent of the scene, something difficult to convey to the reader using words alone. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Multimedia#Examples for some other approaches. I'm not sure if there's a different clip from Dr. No that you could include along those lines, but that's what you need to look for if you want to include non-free video. All the best, Steve T • C 20:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Edited 20:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC) by Steve T • C[reply]
- The page for the second one shows it isn't fair use, but public domain (taken from the trailer). The other, we'll take a look. igordebraga ≠ 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the video clip, I'm not sure how it breaches WP:NFCC, to be honest. There are ten criteria and the clip passes all ten. In terms of the Contextual significance point, the video is used alongside the text that refers to its importance in world cinema. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the image; I assumed without looking at its summary page that it was a still from the film, not the trailer. As for the video, the question you need to ask is whether it is needed to adequately convey its purpose of use, namely to illustrate "an iconic moment in cinema". That iconic moment is merely the first "Bond, James Bond" introduction, and for that I just dont think the clip is needed to understand what the text is referring to, failing WP:NFCC#8. It's showing something that needs no further illustration, and does not help to visualise what could need better explanation. Though I'm no lawyer, I guess there's probably a fair-use claim under US law for the clip's use. However, the important thing to recognise here is that in its stated aim to not just be a free encyclopedia, but a free content one, Wikipedia's fair-use requirements are far, far stricter than those of US copyright law. Feel free to ask at the relevant talk pages, and if you want a second opinion, Jappalang has an excellent grasp of site policies on non-free content; I'm sure there are others who would be willing to weigh in. However, I'm pretty certain that precedent on the use of these sorts of files is not on your side. Steve T • C 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the video clip, I'm not sure how it breaches WP:NFCC, to be honest. There are ten criteria and the clip passes all ten. In terms of the Contextual significance point, the video is used alongside the text that refers to its importance in world cinema. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question asked on Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bond.2C_James_Bond.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk • contribs)
- Update: discussion has been ongoing at the aforementioned content review page, and further opinions are welcomed. Even if I don't respond, either here or on my talk, assume I'm busy IRL, but I'll keep these pages watchlisted and update my "oppose" as necessary should my mind be changed (it's been known). Steve T • C 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question asked on Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bond.2C_James_Bond.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I have stated my case on the review page that not only should this file be kept, but that is a very, very, very easy keep and that the argument against it essentially ignores the rationale of our NFC policy. I should add that my observations there about an inappropriate—and, yes, anti-policy—bureaucratic approach do not refer to Steve's carefully considered comments (which, nonetheless and fatally, ignore the purpose of our NFC policy) but to an earlier statement by another party in the thread, which invokes a specific policy criterion without any evident regard for the ruling principles it is meant to support.—DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm concerned that the article is not comprehensive and well-researched. Even as a famous film, the existing content is much less than in Featured Articles about other films. The "Bibliography" section is a bit misleading because in most cases a book may be referenced just once. If only one page is being referenced, then it should be listed in only the "References" section. The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times. For example, the Chapman book Licence to Thrill only references page 253. Yet in the book itself, there is a 40-page chapter about Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger. The article does not reference any of these pages, only a later one that is outside the chapter. I'm wondering such references were fully accessed; not all pages can be seen online. What was the research process for this topic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a source I found: Baron, Cynthia (January 1994). "Doctor No: Bonding Britishness to Racial Sovereignty". Spectator. 14 (2): 69–81. ISSN 1051-0230. The article "Uses DR NO to give examples of how the Bond series' represents British identity. With especial regard to sexual and colonial politics." That is the kind of research I feel like the article is missing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik, Thanks for your comments. I think they ostensibly break down into two points:
- 1) Bibliography: "The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times." Could you please point to the section of the MOS where it says that is the case? All I could see was this, which does not seem to support your point, referring as it does to "Contents: A bulleted list, usually ordered chronologically, of the works created by the subject of the article." (My italics)
- 2) Chapman etc: Dr. No is ostensibly dealt with on Pps 57-72 of Chapman, but the book is either thin on anything original that isn’t in the other sources used, or falls into the same category as Baron: the intellectual masturbation to which all academics are prone (and I speak as an academic myself). There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out. Baron does not identify underlying themes within the film and draw them out for all to see: she tries to force her own theories onto the matrix of the film, trying to prove a point when one was not there to be proven. You are right that not all pages of the Chapman can be seen online, but the hard copy I have is well-thumbed and has been closely studied, I can assure you. In terms of the general number of references, more could have been added, no doubt, but simply to add additional sources in place of others to beef up a reading list is little short of intellectual flummery or peacockery. The list that is there is covers all the main aspects of the film and it main themes perfectly adequately. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The layout link is for listing the subject's written publications. Reading WP:CITESHORT, though, I suppose there's nothing explicit about what to do with publications referenced once or multiple times. I guess it seems excessive to require two clicks to get to the reference that is cited once? I can understand two clicks when the reference is cited multiple times, otherwise we would repeat the citation template too many times. I think that listing references that are cited multiple times help show what sources look at the film in depth.
- For the film's themes, are you saying that you intend to include only themes supported by the filmmakers? I'm trying to discern what you mean by, "There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out." I had something in mind like what is at American Beauty (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm… I see where you are coming from with American Beauty, but Dr. No really isn't the same type of film at all. It was written as a spy-thriller / adventure story, very much in the mould of John Buchan's The Thirty-Nine Steps, or any of the Bulldog Drummond stories. It was filmed in much the same way – keeping to the rather simplistic plot with no extraneous themes, but doing it all rather well. Rather than comparing Dr. No with the rather excellent article on American Beauty, have a look at another FA-rated article that is a little closer to the Dr. No-mark: Casino Royale: no themes, no interpretations, no analysis and all because the film doesn't actually need them. American Beauty needs an explanation to it because it works on so many complex and intriguing layers (which are missed by so many people!) but Dr. No doesn't because it is a simple story, well told and subsequently well made into a film.
- In relation to the Bibliography, I come from an academic background and, as far as I work, everything is listed there as the sole point of reference to the work. If it were up to me entirely I'd also include details of the newspaper articles, DVDs and webpages accessed too! I went over the MOS and could only find scant information about what should and should not be included there. I think this is one of the areas where WP should have a much tighter policy surrounding use – something they could easily adopt from the university world, I'm sure. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik, Thanks for your comments. I think they ostensibly break down into two points:
- Oppose because the article is not comprehensive and not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis. After the conversation above, I have to disagree with the decision to exclude sources like Chapman and Baron. Both of them appear to be authoritative figures in their fields. Baron has this resume and list of publications, and Chapman is James Chapman, a media historian. Yet what they wrote about Dr. No is considered "intellectual masturbation" by the primary contributor. I'm opposing because I am concerned what other analyses were excluded. I disagree that because the film is simple, the article should be too. MOS:FILM – Themes says, "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director." In short, I do not see the reason for dismissing analysis that is not associated with the filmmakers' intent. Lastly, Casino Royale (2006 film) is a poor example of a Featured Article; it was promoted not even a year after the film's release. Today, I can see in WorldCat.org and Google Scholar Search that there is now analysis of that film, so the Wikipedia article may need to undergo review. Dr. No has been out for much longer. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, Erik: you are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you wish to start re-classifying articles to back up your argument, then you are free so to do. To be "not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis" is an interesting point, however, and one I must pick you up on. I have not excluded Chapman: he has already been quoted within the article and I have the highest respect for him, but what he has written about Dr. No is rather thin - more an extended narrative than anything else. (His work improves on the later or 'bigger' films, however). I think you will also find a number of other sources in there which adequately cover the analysis requirement, including Lindner, Black, Lisanti, Caplen and others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the primary writer of the Casino Royale (2006 film) article Erik, the fact that it was promoted less than year after release and is somehow a poor example because of it is wrong. Yes, I agree it needs updating with book sources. But you have such a harsh approach towards articles and images its hardly surprising you have targetted it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't necessarily call out Casino Royale as a poor example of a featured article; what's there is good. What I would say is that less than one year after the film's release may have been a little soon for it to be a featured article, seeing as it was almost certain to attract more scholarly analysis, as Erik has indeed now identified. But this is a grey area when it comes to articles on newer films (relevant literature versus available literature), and so I certainly won't begrudge your taking that article to FAC. However, Dr. No is a much older film that has already attracted analysis from bona fide experts in the field. In that regard, it seems as if the nominator is excluding their viewpoints merely because he either disagrees with them, or because their analyses go against what he believes to be the filmmakers' intent. However, many mainstream schools of thought posit no need for an identified author, or at least devalue the maker's influence when reading meaning into the work of art; "to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text" after all. So, like Erik, I lean on the side of including further analysis; not to introduce intellectual flummery, but to ensure the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". All the best, Steve T • C 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all very interesting. Perhaps you could talk me through The Mummy (1999 film), Alien vs. Predator (film), The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), Richard III (1955 film) and to a lesser extent Battlefield Earth (film) and Casablanca (film) all of which have less analysis than in included in Dr. No and all of which are also FA-rated articles. Dr. No does have analysis in there, as I've mentioned before: and more than a number of other FA articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat, while "other stuff exists", a lot of these articles went through the featured article candidate process around four years ago. Not to mention that they can always undergo review; Jaws (film) and V for Vendetta (film) did, for example. The bar has been raised, so the recency of the FAC process is part of it. For Casablanca, here is the FAC page in 2004. Editors do not go out of their way to pursue the FAR process (I think YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) is the only diligent one for films, or at least was), since it's usually a negative experience. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all very interesting. Perhaps you could talk me through The Mummy (1999 film), Alien vs. Predator (film), The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), Richard III (1955 film) and to a lesser extent Battlefield Earth (film) and Casablanca (film) all of which have less analysis than in included in Dr. No and all of which are also FA-rated articles. Dr. No does have analysis in there, as I've mentioned before: and more than a number of other FA articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blofeld, I think it is too premature to put a Wikipedia article about a film not even a year old through the featured article candidate process. If it succeeds in becoming a Featured Article, then my experience is that it is just not kept up with the sources that can come up. After a few years, certain films (iconic ones, Best Picture winners) will have an abundance of retrospective, analytical coverage should be incorporated into their articles, otherwise the articles cannot continue to claim to be comprehensive. SchroCat brought it up for comparison, and I responded about it. Featured articles are supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Prose is inadequate. While I have and will continue to defend the inclusion of the "Bond, James Bond" clip, this article is evidently not FA-ready as yet on the basis of our first criterion. It was actually brought to FAC with "Ursula Undress" in it...and yes, it's still there. Sorry, but that's very, very bad. In the same section, we find "6 million" and "seven million"...in the very same sentence. And, again in the same section, we have this: "It has been claimed that the use of the bikini in Dr. No led to 'the biggest impact on the history of the bikini'"—major tin-ear territory (of the bikini...of the bikini...of the bikini...). (Hint: How about simply cutting "the use of the bikini in" and attributing the claim.) By no means is the article badly written and its deficiencies are readily rectifiable—with a good top-down copyedit.—DCGeist (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right: it is bad (or was, as it's now changed) but it's been there through writing, GA review, peer review and the first part of FA review and you're the first person to spot it and mention it! The rather clunky bikini section has been partially re-written (although it's difficult to write about "the bikini" without frequent use of the words), but it should read more freely now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:22, 4 September 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [3].
Moonrise (novel)
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be scrutinized by reviewers against the FA criteria. Brambleclawx 16:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose for a couple of reasons: first, because of the lack of third-party sources, and second because as a reader unfamiliar with the book or the series I find it very difficult to follow what's going on. For example, you mention that several characters are "apprentices" - what is the meaning of that term in the context of this story? If the term has the same definition as it does in the real world, to what trade are they apprenticed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the lack of third-party sources in the article itself, or just in general? Brambleclawx 20:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whether other sources exist; if they do, they should be added. If they don't, it may simply be that there are not sufficient sources to build an FA-level article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also attempted to clarify the article: I've added an extremely brief explanation about Clan structure. Please tell me if you think there's more you think needs explaning. Brambleclawx 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. Sorry- this actually looks like a the kind of thing I'd enjoy, too. At the moment, two and a half times as much of the main body of the article (synopsis, including the list) is devoted to in-universe information, (approx. 6855 bytes, versus 2960 bytes) when a high quality article would really be the other way around. I'm not convinced the character list is even needed in this article. There's already a chacter list article, so the characters can simply be linked in their first mention in the plot section. If they aren't mentioned in the plot section, then we probably don't need details about them anyway. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed a large portion of the in-universe material. Brambleclawx 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my oppose. The article is currently rather short; I have no problem with short FAs per se, but I worry that there are more reliable sources out there which may contain valuable information which could be brought into this article. Give me some time; I am looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a couple of sources about the book's appearance on a minor Canadian chart. I wonder whether there warrants a mention of Harry Potter in this article? See my comments on the talk page of this FAC; a couple of sources I came across link the two works. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Just curious: where did you manage to find these sources? I've been looking everywhere, and haven't been able to find much. Brambleclawx 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the sources you've found, I can see what you're thinking, but I'm not quite sure how I'd write it per se. The first source seems to indicate that Warriors as a whole is more popular than Harry Potter in some regions, while the second source seems to say that people who like Harry Potter would like Warriors as well, but I'm not sure if this would be seen as original research? Brambleclawx 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I understand- it was just a thought, I'll have a think on it. There are a few other things which need looking into with the article; I'll get to that this evening. I think this FAC will probably fail this time, as it's now a little late in the game; this may have a shot, but I worry that it may be an article which is going to be stuck at good status. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added a couple of sources about the book's appearance on a minor Canadian chart. I wonder whether there warrants a mention of Harry Potter in this article? See my comments on the talk page of this FAC; a couple of sources I came across link the two works. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my oppose. The article is currently rather short; I have no problem with short FAs per se, but I worry that there are more reliable sources out there which may contain valuable information which could be brought into this article. Give me some time; I am looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments from J Milburn-
- "which follows the adventures of four groups of wild cats (called Clans)" Mention that they're anthopormorphic
- "Moonrise introduces a new group of cats, the Tribe of Rushing Water. Series editor Victoria Holmes drew inspiration from locations such as the New Forest and the Scottish Highlands. Moonrise follows six cats, Brambleclaw, Squirrelpaw, Crowpaw, Feathertail, Stormfur, and Tawnypelt, as they return to their forest home from a journey to the ocean. They travel through the mountains, where they meet the Tribe of Rushing Water. The Tribe cats were being attacked by a savage mountain lion called Sharptooth. Although reluctant at first, the Clan cats agree to help the Tribe get rid of Sharptooth." This para seems to be in the wrong order. I'd open with the main characters, and mention that they're returning from the journey they undertook in a previous book (I assume they are?). The fact that the Tribe is a new group can be mentioned after they're introduced. There's also a tense switch- events of the book should be in present tense.
- "Kirkus Reviews criticized" Avoid personifying publications
- "The New York Times Best Seller list for two weeks." It's not THE bestseller list, it's the kid's bestseller list
- I think you need to make clear in the lead that "Erin Hunter" is a pseudonym
- The "Inspirations, influences, and style" section seems very light, and this is indicitive of my main concern for this article- you're piecing together snippets about the series as a whole and isolated comments.
- Who wrote this particular novel? That information seems to be sorely lacking from the article.
- The entire "Setting and characters" section is unreferenced. A basic retelling of the plot can do without references, but that kind of thing needs something to back it up.
- "highway" If it's in England, we don't have highways, we have motorways. Go with the word the book uses, though.
- "Moonrise is followed by Dawn." At the moment, this line feels slightly out of place.
- The prose in the plot section isn't perfect- for example, I had to reread "However, their plan to poison Sharptooth goes awry, and Feathertail jumps up to the roof of the cave onto a stalactite to save Crowpaw from being killed. She plummets to the floor with the spike, falling on Sharptooth." before I understood it. Surely, it's not the jumping onto a stalagtite that saves Crowpaw, but the stalagtite then falling onto Sharptooth?
- "Kirkus Reviews criticized the novel" Again, personification
- Odd that you say that the reviews praised the work, yet jump straight into negative attention
- "saying that "a small plot twist is refreshing and suspense builds steadily towards the final installment"." Final installment? This was more than a trilogy, wasn't it?
- "Booklist praised" Again
- "Horn Book Review gave a"
- "The review stated"
- "BookLoons gave" Same personification- what is Bookloons?
- "reached The New York Times bestseller list," Again, it's the kids' list.
I've got to say that I worry that this is something that will struggle to make featured article status- there just don't seem to be the sources. That said, I enjoyed reading it; I roleplay, and run a lot of Bunnies & Burrows (and I've also played the Mouse Guard roleplaying game) so, genrewise, the book is right up my street. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the inspiration, influence and style section, I afriad there's not much I can add. There used to be a bit about the Tribe's different faith being inspired the 9/11 attacks, but that was a ref to an "author chat" on Wands and Worlds, which seems to draw the attention of every reviewer for being a forum, so I got rid of that. Other than that, unless inserting the stuff from reviewers about the cliffhanger ending counts as style information, I don't see anything I could add to the section.
- As for who wrote the novel, I'm almost certain it was Cherith Baldry, but again, no reliable sources. Only sources are an author chat (which is not reliable due to being on a forum) and the widely-known (but completely unverifiable) fact by Warriors fans that the "Special thanks" page indicates the author of the book (Moonrise says "Special thanks to Cherith Baldry"). I suppose I could use the source where Baldry talks about how it was hard to write Feathertail's death as implicit proof that she was the one who wrote it, but I get the feeling people would object to that.
- As for the thing about the final instalment, yes, it's a six-book arc. But that doesn't mean the suspense toward the final book can't start building in the second.
- And to be honest, as far as I know, BookLoons is some sort of book website. The review given doesn't seem to be user-created content (which would definitely be unreliable), but I'm not quite sure of how reliable BookLoons actually is. Brambleclawx 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. The Booklist review notes that the story is "Told in alternating narratives". What does this mean? maclean (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The novel is written from a third-person limited narrative, that alternates between characters. In terms of this specific book (excluding the prologue which is in objective third-person), chapter one is a third-person limited narrative following Stormfur (i.e., the story is told in the third person from Stormfur's perspective: we know his thoughts, but not the other characters'), chapter two is a third-person limited narrative following Leafpaw, and chapter three switches back to Stormfur. In general they switch every chapter, though I believe on occasion, they have two consecutive chapters that don't switch perspectives. Brambleclawx 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator, can you please ping the reviewers and ask them to revisit? Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning to Oppose - I have not reviewed the prose, but judging from the references alone, I'd have trouble supporting this nomination. You do not cite any really reputable written or published sources, and the few that are are missing publishers and/or works. What makes a load of these sources FA worthy? I as a reviewer and reader have never heard of them, and can't read up on them here. So please, enlighten me as to why they belong on Wikipedia's best?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [4].
Glenrothes
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been worked on thoroughly since gaining GA status. I now believe it meets the criteria for FA status and submit it for the determination of peers. Yoostar (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for consistency between Notes and Bibliography - some shortened citation titles don't match bibliography. Also check internal consistency of shortened citations (rechecked 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC), not done)
- How are you ordering the bibliography?
Done alphabetically by author. In case of GDC documents listed by year.
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
Done
- Missing bibliographic info for Glenrothes Development Corporation Glenrothes - A Guide to Scotland's New Town in Fife, Glenrothes Development Corporation Glenrothes Development Profile 1983
Missing documents now added to bibliography
- Don't duplicate bibliographic info in Notes where it is included in Bibliography, and don't include cited sources in External links
Done
- Don't italicize publisher names, do italicize newspaper names. In general, be consistent in what is italicized and what isn't
Done, references amended
- Citations to multi-page sources should include page numbers
- Use p. for single pages, pp. for multiple
- Be consistent in whether websites are cited using website name as work or with a publisher
Done
- All web sources need publishers
Done
- Not quite done - for example, FN 99. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you source websites by publisher, website name, or base URL, and if the latter how these are formatted. 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - while sources are generally reliable, there are too many errors in formatting and citations. Also, on a quick look at the text I see problems with tone, MOS and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I am disappointed that the points you have raised have at no point been specifically raised during any of the assessments or peer reviews undertaken on the article to date. Particularly the issue around the bibliography. I am confident that the issues you have raised can be addressed within a short timescale and I will address each one. Yoostar (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I believe I have now managed to address all of the bullet points you have raised. There should no longer be any errors in format or citations. I have also rechecked the text line by line for tone and prose problems.Yoostar (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my oppose. While some issues remain, I feel this article will benefit from the input of other reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting article with lots of information. However i feel, that the article - like many town or country articles - looses it's focus at times and provides too many details, where a broader, more general description would be enough for the average reader (see FA criterion 4, some examples below). The article would also benefit from a copy-edit by an experienced English copy-editor, as some of a phrases are a bit repetitive or don't really "flow" together. Some specific points follow:
Lead - "It is located approximately 30 miles (48 km) from both Edinburgh and Dundee." ==> include directions for the casual reader's convenience "... Edinburgh to the south and Dundee to the north.".- "The town had a[n estimated] population of 38,750 in 2008, making ..." ==> no formal census, need specific "estimated".
- "newly established coal mine, ..." ==> "establish" is used 4 times in this paragraph. Need more variety.
"The GDC supported by Fife County Council ... Fife Council" ==> "Fife County Council" or "Fife Council"? Use complete formal name and "[the] Fife..." consistantly. Also link Fife Council at first mention in second lead paragraph.
- Changed Fife County Council to local authority to avoid confusion
"Beautiful Scotland" and "town artists" ==> both statements don't need cite in lead (general, uncontroversial information), source in main text is sufficient.- "Glenrothes is not located on the rail network ..." ==> Consider replacing with existing bus transportation. Lead should only include most notable, summary facts.
- History - "New Towns (Scotland) Act 1946" ==> As this has no link, could you add a brief additional sentence, what was the main intent of this Act? (reader can guess from context, but shouldn't have to).
- "The issue of the town's name .." ==> Remove the whole statement. Unnecessary detail.
- "Leslie and Thornton were also considered but as a consequence an area of 5,320 acres (2,153 ha) that sits between all of these villages was chosen." ==> "... but as a consequence" doesn't follow. I assume, the spot was chosen to have the new area as close as possible to all three old areas, but this should be stated more clearly.
- "The land taken was previously an area of great natural beauty." ==> a bit out of context as a stand-alone sentence. Should be dropped or expanded slightly (what was especially beautiful?, any note-worthy remains today?).
- ""The primary reason for the designation of Glenrothes was to house miners who w[h]ere" ==> typo.
"The new mine was to be the most modern of the day .." ==> World-wide? Very strong statement, needs an immediate reliable source.
- Changed to "most technologically advanced mine in Scotland"
"...officially opened by the Queen in 1957" ==> Queen's full name at first mention (for the 0.001 percent, who don't know her).- "The Silicon Glen legacy peaked ..." ==> Legacy with "inheritance" as primary meaning seems strange here, suggest "Silicon Glen era".
- Governance - "Currently, Scotland returns two Labour MEPs, ... to the European Parliament." ==> Remove, unnecessary detail for the local town level.
- Geography - "The central parts of the town lie on land between " ==> 3 times "lie on land", maybe "extend between, stretch between" or similar.
- "The Mid Fife Local Plan is guiding ... 1,800 new houses. There are also ... and business parks." ==> Remove, unnecessary details for possible future events.
- Demographics - "Compared with the average demography of Scotland, Glenrothes has low proportions of people born outside the United Kingdom [but] has fewer proportions for people over 75 years old. ==> replace "but" with "and", phrases don't oppose.
Economy - "A large supermarket development is proposed ... over a 20 year period." ==> Remove completely. Unnecessary details for possible future events.
- removed
"The current facility is made up by an a[n]glomeration of two former mills" ==> typo, "the current facility is a merger of two former mills, ..."Education - "Higher" ==> this is quoted three times, but never really clarified. Quote only at first mention, with a brief explanation, why "Higher" is used in a special context here or has a special meaning (which?). Why is "High School" in quotes aswell? If the whole topic goes beyond the article focus and cannot be summarized, maybe it's best to drop the distinction between old "Higher" schools and actual "High School" altogether - unnecessary detail for the average reader (better suited in a UK education history article).
- Added link to Scottish Qualifications and altered paragraph to make it more understandable to an international audience.
"The Adam Smith College was formed on the 1 August 2005 from the merger between the former Glenrothes College and Fife College," ==> Glenrothes College is the same as Glenrothes Technical College? Continue with full name to avoid confusion (there's a lot of mergers going on).Transport - "Bus", "Railway" and "Air" ==> should be trimmed and could easily fit into one paragraph. The detailed description of Thornton and Markich belongs to their respective articles, not to Glenrothes. Same goes for overly detailed non-Glenrothes airports. Suggested rewrite: "The town has a major bus station in the town centre, providing frequent links to the cities of Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as to surrounding towns and villages. Two railway stations outside of the main town serve the Glenrothes area - Glenrothes with Thornton railway station and Markinch railway station. Glenrothes is home to an airfield, Fife Airport (ICAO code EGPJ), which is used for general aviation with private light aircraft. Edinburgh Airport is the nearest international airport to Glenrothes, Dundee Airport operates daily flights to London, Birmingham and Belfast."
- Suggested alteration made.
Please note, that the mentioned sections (only meant as examples) are most likely accurate, but they are far too detailed (see WP:Summary) and/or provide information outside of the main article focus. Some of those facts are certainly interesting on a local level, but not for a general readership. As a procedural note, please only respond to points, when you have specific comments or questions. I will assume, that other points are done, when not stated otherwise. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Status Update (GermanJoe) - i hope you don't mind, that i cleaned up and compressed the list a bit, otherwise it would be nearly impossible for other reviewers to follow the progress. I stroke all points, considered as done. Of course i haven't changed your additional comments (please make sure to sign comments between other text blocks to avoid confusion).
Remaining points were:
*List of "major" employers ==> which criterion was used for this list, are those the top 6? Is an employment statistic per company as source available?
Query- - In relation to the major employers- List of "major" employers ==> which criterion was used for this list, are those the top 6? Is an employment statistic per company as source available?. These employers are listed on page 5 of reference 77/78. It would be accurate in saying that these represent the areas largest employers. unfortunately, there is no actual workforce figures provided in the source. How would I be best to address this?I'd suggest to cite this source page in the lead for once, as the companies are described separately later. While looking through the PDF, i couldn't find the company Velux in the source at all - could you please double-check this one?
This has now been removed by another editor. It is slightly frustrating because Velux has their UK headquarters in the town (http://www.velux.co.uk/aboutvelux/velux_gb/). They manufacture all their roof windows in the UK from their Glenrothes plant. They and their sister company, Fife Joinery Ltd, employ almost 500 people between them. Unfortunately I have not been able to find an up to date source to prove this. Im happy therefore for it to remain out of the article.Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should ask an experienced copy-editor to help fine-tune the prose, a native English speaker will have better input for that. You can add a request at the copy-editors guild here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GOCE/REQ.
I have asked a former High School English teacher to assist with this. I hope to update this element gradually over the next few weeks.Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to reread the article and check some more criteria later. GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on some minor issues. Just to give an example of "article focus" - the article offers 19 different objects as landmarks.
- Could the level of detail for the buildings be reduced?
- Does the reader need to know 5-6 statues by name (are they all notable to a wider public)?
- What is notable about the 2 last viaduct landmarks (besides their relative low classification)?
- As a sidenote, WP:UKCITIES suggests to include only "notable" landmarks. As a personal guideline i would suggest to add landmarks, only when they are of broader regional (or better country-wide) importance. GermanJoe (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will look again at the landmarks. Some of the town artworks have recently received listed status by Historic Scotland and I am wondering if it would be better to add these rather than some that are named in the article...? The Markinch railway viaduct is regionally important. The Cabbagehall viaduct is more locally important. Although the latter was designed by the same architect who designed the first Tay Rail Bridge. Mcwesty (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never been there, so no idea :). I appreciate you want to add as much detail and information as possible, however you need to draw a line somewhere (see WP:Summary). Check the text from the view of an outside reader, unfamiliar with the topic - which landmarks are most notable for him and what exactly makes them interesting? You don't have to add all possible landmarks, when they don't have specific, note-worthy features. From the actual information given, it looks like the viaducts could be skipped for example (or they could be put in a more detailed sub-article). GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been given a suggestion by another wikipedia editor. He is suggesting that in the Culture section the parks should be given geographical context within the town rather than just be listed. ie. Balbirnie park is located in the northeast of the town, Lochty Park is located on the southern edge of the town. Any thoughts on whether this would enhance the article? Im not sure if its required or would indeed do much to enhance the article...?Yoostar (talk) 14:28, 4 September 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [5].
Chinese Indonesians
Chinese Indonesians are one of the most studied and most important Chinese diaspora communities in the world. Their tragic yet empowering story documents centuries of discrimination by the indigenous population of Indonesia and European colonial settlers. Even while faced with this challenge, they sought to create a new home in Southeast Asia and helped shape the history and culture of the nation which celebrates its 66th birthday today. This article is a high priority topic across multiple WikiProjects and would not be where it is today without the tremendous collection donated to the Commons by the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam.
When I first took up the task of re-writing this article in January 2010, I knew it would be a lengthy and enormous task. There were months where I was conflicted on how to write certain parts of the article because of their topics were quite complex. If I had not restrained myself, the article could potentially be twice as long if it went into more detail. But here I am, 19 months later with the finished product which has received a diligent copyedit from Chaosdruid and the input of countless other editors. This is my first featured article nomination, and I look forward to your constructive review.
—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although I'd prefer stating that they do not allow polygamy if an RS is found. Dare I say this article provides a better overview on the subject then some written by sinologues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 98: missing date
- Missing bibliographic info for Dawis 1963
- No citations to Skinner 2001
- See also should appear before Notes
- Foreign-language sources should consistently be identified as such
- Compare formatting on FNs 63 and 103
- "Ananta, Aris; Arifin, Evi Nurvidya & Bakhtiar" - is Bakhtiar one-named or are you missing one?
- Why include states for US locations and not provinces for Canadian?
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
- Retrieval dates are not required for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
- Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors/editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spotting all of these. I can't believe I never spotted them. When you've looked at them for so long like I have, you tend to miss things.
>.<
I've fixed the majority of things with the exception of these:- FN63 comes from Tempo's web only content. FN103 was in the print issue of Tempo but also has a web archive. You can see this by looking at the URL subdomain, where one starts with "www" and the other "majalah".
- Bakhtiar is indeed only one name. This is common among Indonesians.
I can't seem to spot the inconsistency in multiple author formatting. Could you point it out for me?
- Do let me know if you find other issues. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind the third point. I found it. 06:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Media Review + Oppose - Images are a mess here.
- The use of images in this article is really poor. Images are supposed to augment the articles they are in by appearing in small numbers, one maybe two per section, nested with associated prose. Now I've done media reviews for warships and warplanes, which often cram in way more images than they should, but this is just absurd. It looks very much like you had a pile of pictures sitting around and said 'where can I stuff these?'. As a result you have far more images than the article can really hold (it looks very cluttered), and many of the images just don't tie into the prose they're near very well. My advice is that you go though and remove about half of the images. Don't just cut randomly, look though the article and keep the ones that best fit, add the most, ect. and cut the ones that don't. File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Kali langs de achterzijde van huizen in de Chinese wijk van Semarang TMnr 60051223.jpg fits well where it is, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Chinese vrouw met kind in draagdoek TMnr 20017932.jpg adds very little. Keep the first, cut the second, that kind of thing.
- I'm not sure if you can justify the use of the non-free image File:Great Tycoon, by Oscar Motuloh.jpg, although after you preform the cuts (above), it'll be easier to judge.
- A large number of the files used do not have English descriptions on their file description pages. Please add them, (using the {{en|1= comment here }} template). Note that you should not remove the Dutch descriptions when you do this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will hold on the file metadata until we've finalized the images. Contrary to your impression, my initial image usage was not arbitrary. The images were carefully selected from the hundreds available in order to fill in gaps of coverage in the article. I am well aware that this article does not cover certain parts very well because they are difficult to convey in words and can only be observed through experience, which many Indonesians will find when they read this article. However, I see your point as well. My changes are available in this edit. I will refrain from cluttering the nomination with my specific reasons for each image. We can also further discuss images in the article talk page if you wish. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on images:
- File:IndonesiaRaya-SinPo1928.jpg: (minor) Is this scanned by you or was it obtained from a website?
- Scanned by request from the Cornell University Library Annex. I still have the original PDF of that specific magazine issue if needed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TMII Kong Miao Confucian Temple.jpg, File:Cheng Hoo1.jpg: Note that Indonesia grants copyrights to architecture and does not have freedom of panorama (ref: commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Indonesia). Who is the architect/sculptor? Did he die earlier than 1945?
- File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Grote reclameaffiche voor het Ierse bier Burkes Guiness Stout TMnr 4884-36.jpg, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Reclame voor de film The magnificent chivalry TMnr 20018014.jpg: The copyrights of the subjects (underlying copyright) do not belong to Tropenmuseum. The permission of the subjects' copyright holders are required to make these images truly "free". Ref: commons:Commons:Derivative works). The problem with image donations from organizations is that they were mostly uploaded without considerations for freedom of panorama or underlying copyrights (museums are not experts on such issues and might view their photographs as totally their own creations).
- File:Mega-Hasyim-CH.jpg: Similarly, what is the copyright status of the photographs used in the poster that is the subject here?
- File:Chinese Indonesian origin distribution.png: From what source or data was File:Peta distribusi asal leluhur.jpg (geographical depiction and the distribution data) created from?
- File:Great Tycoon, by Oscar Motuloh.jpg: This photograph does not really add to the content described (presumably native resentment towards the Chinese): "Property and businesses owned by Chinese Indonesians were targeted by mobs and over 100 women were sexually assaulted. In the absence of security forces, large groups of men, women, and children looted and burned the numerous shopping malls in major cities." It does seem to satisfy NFCC #8 to me; furthermore, Oscar Motuloh is a commercial photographer and use of his work could be construed as a violation of NFCC #2. Is there no amateur photographs published in the papers of the riots (specifically targeting Chinese businesses and show the vehemance exhibited) that can be used? Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IndonesiaRaya-SinPo1928.jpg: (minor) Is this scanned by you or was it obtained from a website?
- Is Article 23 of the 2002 copyright law not a freedom of panorama, assuming Wikipedia is a public exhibition?
Unless agreed otherwise between the Copyright Holder and the Owner of a creative work in the form of a photograph, painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture and/or other artworks, the owner shall be entitled to without the consent of the Copyright Holder to display the work in a public exhibition or to reproduce it in a catalogue, without detracting from the provisions of Article 19 and Article 20 if said work of art is in the form of a portrait.
- The copyright holder would be the work's original creator. The owner is the person reproducing the work. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say no. "Publication" is only legal if done by the copyright holder (or authorized parties). Furthermore, the quoted law grants the "owner" permission to display the work only; it does not allow other parties to reuse the work in any other way (further derivatives and modifications). Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the beer poster: Seeing as it was published prior to 1950, it would be public domain in Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic demand of images uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons is that they be public domain in the US (PD in the country of origin is another requirement on Commons). Ref: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and commons:Commons:Licensing. The beer poster would have to be published before 1946 to be undoubtedly considered in the US public domain (
{{PD-US-1996}}
), due to the restoration of copyrights accorded by the URAA. The poster does not qualify if it was published in 1946–1950, which is part of "pre-1950". Jappalang (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic demand of images uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons is that they be public domain in the US (PD in the country of origin is another requirement on Commons). Ref: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and commons:Commons:Licensing. The beer poster would have to be published before 1946 to be undoubtedly considered in the US public domain (
- Regarding the beer poster: Seeing as it was published prior to 1950, it would be public domain in Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say no. "Publication" is only legal if done by the copyright holder (or authorized parties). Furthermore, the quoted law grants the "owner" permission to display the work only; it does not allow other parties to reuse the work in any other way (further derivatives and modifications). Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright holder would be the work's original creator. The owner is the person reproducing the work. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have the image concerns been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think to be safe the questioned ones should be removed. I am not sure how Arsonal feels about the issue. It seems they are the only thing holding this nomination back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 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 Karanacs 16:49, 6 September 2011 [6].
A1 (Croatia)
I believe this article satisfies all FA criteria, provides concise and comprehensive information on the topic, and by now its history includes a DYK, a PR, a WP:HWY PR and a successful GAN, therefore I am nominating it for featured article. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A cursory look doesn't result in any obvious issues; hope to do a full review soon. --Rschen7754 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article still needs some significant work on its prose. A few examples from the lead:
- "Apart from Zagreb and Split, the A1 motorway runs near a number of major Croatian cities ...". What is "apart from" intended to mean here? "As well as"?
- "National significance of the motorway is reflected through its positive economic impact on the cities and towns it connects ...". Unidiomatic. Better would be something like "The motorway's national significance is reflected through ...", except for the fact that reflections aren't seen through anything. "Reflected in"?
- "... however its genuine importance as a transit route shall be achieved upon completion of the Adriatic–Ionian motorway ...". Why have you opted for "shall" here?
- "The motorway consists of two traffic lanes and an emergency lane in each driving direction ...". More idiomatic than driving direction would be "carriageway".
- "... two bridges comprising spans of 200 meters (660 ft) or more." So both bridges are made up of 200-meter spans?
- "... a public loan was started in order to collect sufficient funds for its construction." How do you "start a loan"? And why "in order to" rather than just "to"?
- "Zagreb–Split section of the route was completed by 2005 ...". Missing "the", as in "The Zagreb–Split section".
- "... while the first sections between Split and Dubrovnik opened in 2007 and 2008". So these were completed at the same time as the Zagreb–Split section two years earlier?
- "Construction costs incurred so far amount to 3 billion euro." When is "so far"? As of 2011?
- "... provides either access to several national parks or nature parks and world heritage sites and numerous resorts". "Either" distinguishes between two alternatives, not three.
In addition there are numerous breaches of the MoS in terms of the use of dashes, which are not even used consistently throughout the article. One example is "Autocesta Rijeka – Zagreb" vs. "Autocesta Rijeka–Zagreb". If you can manage to recruit a good copyeditor then I'm confident the work needed could be done within the span of an FAC, but right now I don't even think the article meets the GA prose requirement, much less FA's. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for FA:
- The lead seems a little long, some information may need to be cut as to make it a summary of the article.
- The picture in the lead should be removed as it looks tacky.
- Are references needed in the lead? Is the information being referenced unique to that point in the article?
- "scenic" is a peacock term and should not be used in the article.
- Citation needed for "The other major tunnels on the A1 motorway are the 2,300-meter (7,500 ft) long Plasina Tunnel situated between Otočac and Perušić interchanges and the Grič, Brinje and Konjsko tunnels. Lengths of the latter three range between 1,122 meters (3,681 ft) and 1,542 meters (5,059 ft)."
- "At some point after 2012, the A7 motorway is planned to be completed between Rijeka and Žuta Lokva (near Brinje), and a directional T interchange shall replace the trumpet interchange built at Žuta Lokva. The new interchange shall not feature any weaving, similar to the Bosiljevo 2 interchange of the A1 and A6 motorways", the use of shall sounds awkward here, try another word. Dough4872 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
- Despite describing many locatable places (service areas, tunnels, junctions, bridges, viaducts, end-points), the article contains only one set of coordinates; and they're approximate, for a section that hasn't yet been built. The omission of coordinates is contrary to criterion 1(b) "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".
- A number of non-English place- and company-names should be marked up with {{Lang}}
- Repeated instances of "Facilities found at X rest area comprise" are redundant in a table, and should be removed, using a column header of "facilities" instead of "notes".
- The presence of ATMs and rest rooms are trivia and should be removed per WP:NOT.
- the phrase "the motorway is tolled using [...] vehicle classification in Croatia" is nonsensical.
- The two tables should be merged, or the duplicate rest area entries removed from the exit list table.
- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first objection is not actionable - the use of coordinates on highway articles is highly controversial. See WT:RJL and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. --Rschen7754 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion where Karanacs said "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond", you mean? That small number of editors a vocally opposed to including coordinates is not disputed; that doesn't mean that FAs should be passed without them; per 1(b) cited above. After all, WP:RJL permits them. Or were you referring to the former venue, where, on 21 August, you said ""Yeah, I agree that coordinates [...] should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA" " (If you're going to claim that's "out of context", please explain it in context). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is moot, because Karanacs quite clearly said "As a delegate, I am not going to fail any article that does not include it." That being said, I don't think this is going to pass FAC for other (legitimate) reasons, so this discussion is moot in that regard too. --Rschen7754 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion where Karanacs said "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond", you mean? That small number of editors a vocally opposed to including coordinates is not disputed; that doesn't mean that FAs should be passed without them; per 1(b) cited above. After all, WP:RJL permits them. Or were you referring to the former venue, where, on 21 August, you said ""Yeah, I agree that coordinates [...] should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA" " (If you're going to claim that's "out of context", please explain it in context). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first objection is not actionable - the use of coordinates on highway articles is highly controversial. See WT:RJL and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. --Rschen7754 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Find a good copy-editor, per Malleus
- Check the article carefully against the Manual of Style. I see issues with WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:OVERLINK and others
- Work with the article's layout to prevent issues like sandwiching of text
- Review the tables to ensure that all material needs to be included - some of it does seem like trivia, particularly in the exit lists
- Provide page numbers in citations to multi-page sources
- check citation formatting for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article could benefit from a thorough A-class review. I've looked at a few of Malleus' points, and quite frankly, the few I looked at were valid concerns. The problem is... WP:HWY currently has no A-class review. We've been brainstorming about how to fix this in the roads IRC channel and hopefully we'll start getting proposals up soon. --Rschen7754 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that this is an interesting and informative article, nothing to be ashamed of: I certainly couldn't have written it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal for now. An A-Class review forum or proposal should be offered up soon. This article could use the polishing and scrutiny of a good PR/ACR session before renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [7].
Ernie Fletcher
This article as currently a good article and has recently undergone a peer review. Although I generally find it difficult to write about relatively current people, I think this article is at or near the featured article standard. I hope to respond to comments quickly, but be advised that I am often off-wiki on weekends. Your patience is appreciated. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Biographical Directory should be italicized in footnotes
- Done.
- FN 10 has an author listed in Bibliography
- Added.
- Some of the newspaper articles need page numbers
- Added all but one, which was taken from The Henderson Gleaner. The page number was not available through Newsbank or the Gleaner's web site.
- be consistent in whether you include subtitles in shortened citations
- Fixed.
- FN 19: which Brammer and Alessi? In general, disambiguation is needed for multiple citations
- All footnotes should now include titles.
- Make sure that you close all quotation marks that you open
- Only found one, but I fixed it.
- check for consistency in article titles and capitalization, for example FN 40
- Fixed FN 40. Capitalization is meant to reflect what appears in Newsbank for different sources. If you are talking about inconsistencies between the footnote and the corresponding entry in the Bibliography, let me know, and I'll take another look.
- It's footnote-biblio - I specifically noticed FN 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found and fixed two instances.
- It's footnote-biblio - I specifically noticed FN 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources in Bibliography aren't included in citations - don't mix cited and uncited sources
- I didn't find any sources in the Bibliography that weren't cited. Could you please be more specific?
- I can't find any now either. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you ordering Bibliography entries?
- First by the last name of the primary author, then by the title of the article.
- check for hyphen/dash use
- In the Bibliography, the footnotes, or the article text?
- Mostly in Bibliography (for example: Grunwald), but I didn't check article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found and fixed two.
- Mostly in Bibliography (for example: Grunwald), but I didn't check article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include cited sources in External links
- Removed.
Sources in general are reliable, but formatting and organization needs work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what happens when you start working on an article, leave it for a while, then come back and try to pick up where you left off. Sorry about the inconsistency; I usually do better than that! Let me know if there are still issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Image licenses check out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and thought it was ready for FAC then. I have re-read it just now and except for some nitpicks (below) find that it meets the FA criteria. The nitpicks do not detract from my support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Word choice - enrolled in or enrolled at After graduating in 1970, he enrolled to the University of Kentucky.[1]- Either I'm an inarticulate doofus, or this originally read "matriculated to" and I (or someone else) changed it to "enrolled" without changing the preposition. I hope it was the latter! :)
Needs a ref On September 17, GOP leaders voted to retain Brock as state party leader.- Cited.
I would briefly identify Rudolph here Fletcher named Robbie Rudolph as his new running mate.[60] (business man, perhaps his role in the cabinet)- Done.
70 miles per hour needs to converted to kph too {{convert}} does this nicely.- Done.
- Thanks for your review and support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:22, 5 August 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 Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [8].
1st Provisional Marine Brigade
I am nominating this for featured article. It is a GA and has passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. Everything in the toolbox looks clean. —Ed!(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Alexander 2001
- FN 123: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to confirm links to, or deconflict this from, the 1st Marine Brigade that served in Haiti between 1915 and 1934. The existing 1st Marine Brigade mentions no links to that organization, and I've seen sources that referred to it as the provisional brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After some looking I'm rather confused about this myself. There is only a source or two that mentions the provisional brigade in Haiti, but the other info I have found seems to indicate it is referring to what is now the 3rd Marine Brigade. —Ed!(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the issue I found as well. "Mars Learning" makes clear reference to a 1st Provisional Brigade in Haiti, with a 2nd Brigade later appearing in the Dominican Republic. You'll want to deconflict that somehow, I think, in this article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find that source...could you point me in the right direction? —Ed!(talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mars Learning is a study of the development of the Marine Corps' small wars doctrine. The chapter on Haiti mentions the 1st Provisional Brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I figured it out, and it's still very confusing. According to The United States Marine Corps: A Chronology, 1775 to the Present, the latest book on USMC history, the "1st Marine Brigade" and the "1st Provisional Marine Brigade" were different units. The 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades on Haiti and the Dominican Republic were permanent establishments, and in 1941 the 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades became the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions (the lineage carried through, so they are considered the same unit) and in 1960 the 2nd Provisional Marine Brigade became the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was never activated again after 1950. —Ed!(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Haiti and Dominican Republic units were referred to as the 1st and 2nd "Brigade of Marines" and while they may have "(Provisional)" attached at the end, this is a modifier, not an identifier. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was always referred to as such. —Ed!(talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mars Learning" has it cited as 1st Provisional Brigade, which was why I was thinking a deconflict of some sort might be in order. Just my take, though.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Haiti and Dominican Republic units were referred to as the 1st and 2nd "Brigade of Marines" and while they may have "(Provisional)" attached at the end, this is a modifier, not an identifier. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was always referred to as such. —Ed!(talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I figured it out, and it's still very confusing. According to The United States Marine Corps: A Chronology, 1775 to the Present, the latest book on USMC history, the "1st Marine Brigade" and the "1st Provisional Marine Brigade" were different units. The 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades on Haiti and the Dominican Republic were permanent establishments, and in 1941 the 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades became the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions (the lineage carried through, so they are considered the same unit) and in 1960 the 2nd Provisional Marine Brigade became the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was never activated again after 1950. —Ed!(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mars Learning is a study of the development of the Marine Corps' small wars doctrine. The chapter on Haiti mentions the 1st Provisional Brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find that source...could you point me in the right direction? —Ed!(talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the issue I found as well. "Mars Learning" makes clear reference to a 1st Provisional Brigade in Haiti, with a 2nd Brigade later appearing in the Dominican Republic. You'll want to deconflict that somehow, I think, in this article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After some looking I'm rather confused about this myself. There is only a source or two that mentions the provisional brigade in Haiti, but the other info I have found seems to indicate it is referring to what is now the 3rd Marine Brigade. —Ed!(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:49th_Inf_Brigade_(Logo_Polar_Bears).jpg: on what source was this image based?
- File:1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade_in_Iceland.jpg - source link returns 404 error
- File:NDS_3B.PNG: is a more specific source available?
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments [from Sturmvogel 66]
- As an article about an American military unit, all dates should be dmy.
- What does this mean? using them to pile up 20 amphibious vehicles of the 22nd Marines
- Considering that the 305th RCT was an organic part of 77th ID, shouldn't this be rephrased? The 305th Regimental Combat Team supported the Marines for several days before moving under the command of the 77th Infantry Division
- The 2nd and 3rd paras in the Guam section seem to have a lot of overlapping material.
- Weren't the 1st Brigade's troops transferred to the 6th Marine Division, rather than redesignated?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of the sources I have seen indicates they were redesignated. —Ed!(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since they probably took the number of their higher HQ, it was probably both and that's how I'd phrase it because redesignated says nothing about coming under another unit's command.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of the sources I have seen indicates they were redesignated. —Ed!(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a particular H&S should be treated as a proper noun ("Headquarters and Service Company, 248th Engineering Combat Battalion"), but whenever you can say "a" such-and-such, that's usually not a proper noun, so I'll lowercase; it's lowercased in a lot of ghits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. Your copy edits look great. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much. After some reflection, I'm rewriting that as a proper noun. The issue here is that the military loves capital letters, and they can be useful for making otherwise unreadable strings of nouns readable ... so when possible, I'll try to compromise between Chicago and common military usage. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. Your copy edits look great. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent with dates: 27 June, 7 December. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "substantially changed morale": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Guam. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- It's rather odd to think that a provisional brigade has a lineage.
- I find the references to "5th Marine Regiment" rather disconcerting. The more normal form is "5th Marines", "305th Infantry" and so on.
- The 1st Marine Brigade, however, was considered a separate unit lineage delete "however"
- Sometimes it's "United States" and sometimes "U.S." I would get rid of the latter
- by the end of the year had been moved to the Guadalcanal Campaign This reads awkwardly, because Guadalcanal campaign is not a place. Consider "sent to the South Pacific to participate in the Guadalcanal campaign"
- The Iceland section is very good, but the following section on the Battle of Guam is not so good. Considering that it lasted as long as Naktong, and was more costly, I would expect this section to be larger, or the Korean one to be smaller (larger would be much preferred though) to keep the article balanced. The brigade did after all earn a Navy Unit Commendation.
- Most of the Provisional Marine Brigade units were redesignated and transferred to the command of the 6th Marine Division. Actually, the major units, the 4th and 22nd Marines, were not redesignated. Consider rewording.
- The United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered the Marine Corps to ready a 15,000-man division into Korea as a part of the United Nations Command being created there. Delete "United States military" and change "into" to "for duty in"
- On first reading I thought that Craig assumed command in Korea. Actually, he assumed command in the US and flew to Japan while the brigade crossed the Pacific by ship, so he met his command when it arrived.
- MacArthur responded by assigning the 17th Infantry Regiment, and later the 65th Infantry Regiment, would be added to Walker's reserves, Something wrong here.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 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 Ucucha 01:24, 2 September 2011 [9].
WindSeeker
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article has extremely reliable references, points out all the important points of the ride and has great sentence structure. If for any reason the article needs improvements before achieving FA status, please feel free to tell me what needs to be changed. I will try to make the changes ASAP. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note to reviewers, I am somewhat active on the article as well, so some issues may be handled by me. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, as I feel the article does not currently meet the FA criteria. Specifically:
- Given the length of the article, the lead section should be longer per WP:LEAD
- Don't use contractions
- See here for a list of problematic links
- Some duplication of info between "Differences" and earlier sections
- Heavy use of primary, self-published and questionable sources
- Problems with reference formatting: some web citations exclude publisher info, italicization issues, etc
- Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text, and don't duplicate cited sources in External links
- Captions should meet standards for prose, MOS and verifiability as article text. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- File:WindSeeker_incident_at_Canada's_Wonderland.jpg: FUR needs to be expanded, as it currently doesn't credibly support the need for this image
- Are the dollar values in the lead using US or Canadian currency? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with Nikkimaria, and the prose is far below FA standard. The article is not professionally written and needs a thorough copy-edit from top to bottom. I am reluctant to give examples because nominators often only pay attention to them and are reluctant seek fresh editors who can radically improve the prose. Having said this, spot the problem here: "Additional problems have also been discovered with the ride after their opening to the public." And here, "All four WindSeekers consist of the same parts which form an identical structure" (comma needed). And here, "For this reason, hydraulic dampers (that were not a part of the original design of the ride) were added to all four WindSeekers being built in order to reduce the amount of the movement of the swings while in operation" (redundancy). More redundancy here, "The WindSeeker at Knott's Berry Farm has a number of differences from the other five versions of the ride described above. Unlike the other five installations, rather than the white, blue, and green colors of the towers, Knott's tower has a orange, purple, and yellow color scheme that is reflective of Spanish California, to coincide with the attraction's placement in the Fiesta Village themed section of the park." And here, "uses a different method that uses". Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I noted that to have any shot at FA, a major copyedit and peer review had to be done beforehand. Instead, it's still waiting at GOCE for an uninvolved copyeditor, and a PR was closed before any commentors. Lots of major problems already noted above, and I'm sure there's more yet. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 1 September 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.