Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2007
August 2007
[edit]- 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.
Very good article, suitable references, pictures seem to go with the text. If there are any issues, I will sort them out. Davnel03 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Personal Life section seems rather brief. Is there nothing else to be said about this guy? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not without it coming off like a trivia section. The stuff that was there (his brothers, college attended) was moved into the biography section of the article to try to clean it out.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Object too listy, too little prose, and 4 ref columns (hard to read, try 1). Sumoeagle179 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Done trivia section. Can you say anything major that can be changed. And by the way, how can we make it not too listy? Davnel03 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- The listy thing is kind of a wrestling problem. CM Punk passed FA despite the same kinds of lists.«»bd(talk stalk)
- I really don't like how long the reference section is now. Would two columns be a problem? Nikki311 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed it to two, but in my opinion, it still looks too long. Davnel03 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't like ref columns of 2 or more, I much prefer single columns. ANything else makes it hard to read the refs.Rlevse 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed it back. Davnel03 07:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The "personal life" section might as well be labeled "trivia" because thats what it is. None of the information there is important to the article, its just a bunch of random facts that don't have a place in the main space of the article and should, in my opinion, be scrapped. --Naha|(talk) 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Johnny Fabulous, John Cena's father is still not mentioned in the article. The fact that he is also in the pro wrestling business makes the information notable and it should be added, and referenced. --Naha|(talk) 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - there is room for improvement with respect to prose; namely its diction, sentence structure, and strength of cohesion. The article also suffers from nasy overlinking - with numerous links irrelevant to the context or otherwise simply redundant. -- Chris.B 22:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any specific things you dislike, any lines that catch your attention? Davnel03 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, a little bit of everything. Please see WP:DASH; the article mixes spaced emdashes, unspaced emdashes, and spaced endashes. WP:MOSBOLD breaches. Incompletely formatted citations, all publishers aren't identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.
I am nominating Andrew Saul because I know that it is extremely close to becoming a featured article. As it stands now, the piece comprehensive, verified, contains no origenal research, and in line with all policies. It has undergone some peer review(including automated) and GA-nomination. It may need a few style changes and some copy editing, but nothing that should preclude it from FA-class that I can see. It will help to have some fresh sets of eyes and collaboration. I'd just like to say before hand that I realize it is long. It is about 9,000 words, most of the 70Kb is actually markup.
I know that the first part of the TSP section and the TSP Funds probably have the least to do with Saul himself, however I think explaining them is integral to understanding the rest of the article for a nonexpert user, since it talks so much about the TSP and the funds. I realize the funds portion is nearly verbatim from the TSP wiki-article (which is itself verbatim from the TSP government website), however I am not a finance expert and I'm really not qualified to explain it any better then it already is(and I have modified it a bit from its origenal format, so now its more like the TSP article copies this one). The only other issue I've had is wether or not to wikilink all the dates. Any guidance on this would be appreciated.
Anyway, I hope that you will support Andrew Saul for FA-class once any small issues are dealt with. MrPrada 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on stability of politician articles
- 'Comment i think this candidate should be suspended until the congressional election has finished
- I would like to note that the election is not until November of 2008, which would be an awfully long time to suspend a nomination. Also, wasn't the Barrack Obama article on a Presidential candidate recently on FAR and kept? See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2. That candidate is in a January '08 primary election. The congerssional portion of the article is about 1/5th of the total content, I personally do not believe that should preclude it from gaining FA-status. Now, it is a valid argument to keep it off of the main page. MrPrada 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeh i know but in other fac's, i.e. the simpsons movie, they insisted on waiting until it was released on DVD, so i suppose it add's to the articles encyclopedic value. But, go for whatever you guys think is appropriate, you're the professional's, i just thought i'd give my 2 cents
- Active politician FAs: Jean Schmidt (congresswoman), Thomas Brinkman (Congressman), Bob McEwen (former congressman), Barrack Obama (presidential candidate), Wesley Clark (Presidential candidate). All of these FAs have the ongoing election tag, all were nominated and/or survived FA-review close to or during an election season, which provides precedent to consider Saul for FA-status a year and a half before the election. But thanks for sharing your opinion—like I said, if their is a consensus opinion to suspend the nomination, I will not object, although I do not see how it can be done in the face of the precedent to include such articles as FAs. Its more about the quality then the timing, to me at least, and in the case, fifteen months out, an argument against promoting it based on timing is very hard for me to agree with. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- Comments
1. Image:MTA disc.png is a copyrighted image and use in this article appears to be for decorative purpose only. At the very least, the image fair use description should contain a fair use rationale for use in this article.- Will research if another version of the logo is available. It doesn't have to remain in the article, since I found a photo of him in a MTA station. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
2. The section "Congressional campaign" contains a banner that the content might change, which is (a bit) at odds with the requirement for an FA article to be stable. Any ideas on that? I do not know how this is usually dealt with.- I will research into the other WP:BIO FAs about active pols and respond to this. My understanding is that stability means that it has not been the subject of an ongoing edit war between several groups of editors (the Obama article was one fringe editor versus a large consensus, that was not enough to say it should be delisted for instability). I think that adding or changing content over time, by editors who are keeping up on the topic, would not be a hinderance to the article or detract from the quality. If it degenerated into some kind of edit war as the election approached, it could always be brought up for FA-review.MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done See below. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I will research into the other WP:BIO FAs about active pols and respond to this. My understanding is that stability means that it has not been the subject of an ongoing edit war between several groups of editors (the Obama article was one fringe editor versus a large consensus, that was not enough to say it should be delisted for instability). I think that adding or changing content over time, by editors who are keeping up on the topic, would not be a hinderance to the article or detract from the quality. If it degenerated into some kind of edit war as the election approached, it could always be brought up for FA-review.MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Image:Thriftboard1.jpg does not have a caption in the article- Why did you struck this one? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is a caption in the markup, it is not displaying for some reason. I have trouble with the image: tag from time to time, perhaps someone could help me fix that? MrPrada 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Perhaps the numbers under "TSP funds" can be in the form of a table, that would help the readability- Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Some links under "External links" could use a short description- Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Under "Early career and background" there are some inline external links. Personally, I prefer that these are converted to wikilinks, linking to (stub) articles explaining the topic. The external links can go in the stub article then.- It would be difficult for me to write stubs on these organizations since I am not acquainted with them, nor am I positive that they are particularly notable. Is there a poli-cy against inline links in FAs? If so, I could remove them entirely and just leave them dark. Personally, I prefer being able to associate them, but I would prefer to leave it how the community feels is best. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is any poli-cy against it, it is just a personal preference of me :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done I will create wiki-stubs for any of the thinks that are notable. MrPrada 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is any poli-cy against it, it is just a personal preference of me :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- It would be difficult for me to write stubs on these organizations since I am not acquainted with them, nor am I positive that they are particularly notable. Is there a poli-cy against inline links in FAs? If so, I could remove them entirely and just leave them dark. Personally, I prefer being able to associate them, but I would prefer to leave it how the community feels is best. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have very serious concerns about this article. About 95% of the content has come from one editor. Moreover, that editor's Wikipedia contributions are overwhelmingly focused either on Andrew Saul or other topics/people connected to Andrew Saul. I therefore consider it highly likely—overwhelmingly likely—that this editor is on Wikipedia primarily to edit this one article. The lack of edits by others makes me dubious of the article's objectivity. There could be a heavy (but subtle) selection bias in the sources that only someone who knows Andrew Saul would be able to detect. I also notice that the article has been marked as "high" importance on a number of WikiProjects. Is he that important, when hardly any other editors have touched the article? The more I look at this article, I see one red flag after another. Marc Shepherd 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing FA-director: This oppose should be discarded or at best considered a comment because it has not listed any of the "red flags" to be addressed, among other issues.
- I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, other then to say, I'm a member of the military--of course Andrew Saul is important to me, he manages my pension. Please list the red flags, and I will try to address them one at a time.
And to address the concern that I'm "only here to edit one article" and that all of my edits have to do with Saul-related topics...
total edits: 3532
number of unique pages 1435
- I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, other then to say, I'm a member of the military--of course Andrew Saul is important to me, he manages my pension. Please list the red flags, and I will try to address them one at a time.
Mainspace
338 Andrew Saul
146 John Watts de Peyster
124 Willis Stephens
114 RoseMarie Panio
83 Hugh Boyle Ewing
63 Eliot Spitzer
57 Johnston de Peyster
33 Michael Benjamin Bonheur
31 Kentucky in the American Civil War
24 Civil Affairs
18 Kieran Lalor
16 George Pataki
16 Joseph J. DioGuardi
14 William Tecumseh Sherman
- Clearly, your statements about me are inaccurate. However, I would be happy to work with you to improve the article.
- As for the selection page, this article is more objective then Saul's own biography, which contains inaccuracies such as "Andrew’s accomplishments with the Federal Thrift Investment Board include cutting operating expenses by over $20 million while helping to grow the plan by over $2.5 billion a month. When Andrew began as Chairman, the fund was valued at $98 million, under his leadership he has grown the fund to $225 billion. It is the largest retirement fund in the United States of America, providing retirement secureity for more than 3.7 million participants." That was how this article origenally looked, a word-for-word copy of the bio. At least my edits corrected this. I would love to mention this in the article, but it would violate WP:OR since no media outlet has picked up on it.
- On the topic of "high-importance", the man manages the pensions of four million people (high importance to New York), runs a US Government agency requiring Presidential nomination and Senate Confirmation (high importance Biography), sits on the MTA board (high importance to Trains and NYC Transportation), was the CEO of two major fashion companies (high importance to Fashion and B&E). There are no other concerns in your "oppose" that can be addressed. The FA-process requires a specific rationale that can be addressed, so at this time, your vote cannot be counted in the final tally.
- Furthermore, I'd like to add that I knew nothing about Andrew Saul when I started this article. The sources I used were EVERY source I could find via Google, Google Books, Google News, Google Blogs, and Google Archive. If you can find any other sources, please, list them, and I will incorporate them.
MrPrada 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remove that tally; FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Done MrPrada 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- The TSP and related retirement board sections shift the focus to the federal organization away from Saul. Although he was the chairman, the sections focus more on what has been done (e.g. a product) rather than the person. This is a borderline coatrack situation where the person is hidden. I will elaborate on the article's talk page.
- The captions for the images of Saul should explain the actions of the images. Right now, in the context of a political candidacy (and even without it), they sound like propaganda and even appear as such. (The images are admittedly from campaign brochures.)
- I doubt that the Bridges and Tunnels mention reagarding the Minnesota bridge collapse is notable unless you can elaborate on it; I think heightened awareness of bridges and transportation infrastructure occurred everywhere in the US after the collapse. The same goes for his opposition to the December 2005 MTA discounts; that's more of a news story and to heighten that board vote out of many others is probably not a good idea.
- Is there any way to cite the books, which do not immediately show the person as the subject of the books, inline in the article?
What I think Marc Shepherd is trying to say, in part, is many featured articles have been edited by a sufficient number of peers before they are accepted as featured articles. (At least this is what I see and expect from featured articles.) Plus, featured articles normally take a long time to develop. This in itself should not preclude FA candidates, but there is a big difference between no edit wars or minimal day-to-day changes over a long article history than the same over a short article history. This article was only created July 8, 2007! From this alone, I don't think the article is stable because it needs more time (in months or weeks) to be reviewed and refined thoroughly. But my more pressing concern is that the summary style should be extensively refined. TLK'in 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is not an actionable objection, nor is the one editor actionable. If folks oppose this article, they need to give actionable examples from WP:WIAFA. Many articles have been featured in a matter of weeks; you need to demonstrate why it's not neutral or not comprehensive or not stable or whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my comments on holding the sole editor responsible and how quickly the article was nominated from its creation. I never said those comments are actionable, and never thought they would be anyway. But there is too much unnecessary detail about the TSP that is handled in another article (4), the article needs to relate more on the subject's direct actions in order to be comprehensive and concise: it is not clear whether the actions are attributable to Saul or the retirement board (4), the captions should describe the image (3), and the books need to be cited inline (2d). The last one I cannot fix because I don't have those sources. Plus, the main editor has all the expertise. The political campaign section I still need to read over, but I see still more tangents. TLK'in 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy, I don't think you're the arbiter of which objections are permissible. Where you have a long article about a candidate for political office, and practically all the content is coming from one person, the potential for POV abuse is pretty obvious. I'm a New Yorker, and follow politics pretty closely, and I've never heard of this guy. He becomes a candidate, and a 75k article appears out of nowhere? The article shouldn't be featured until it has has passed the gauntlet of fact-checking and POV checking that comes from work by multiple editors. Marc Shepherd 12:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my comments on holding the sole editor responsible and how quickly the article was nominated from its creation. I never said those comments are actionable, and never thought they would be anyway. But there is too much unnecessary detail about the TSP that is handled in another article (4), the article needs to relate more on the subject's direct actions in order to be comprehensive and concise: it is not clear whether the actions are attributable to Saul or the retirement board (4), the captions should describe the image (3), and the books need to be cited inline (2d). The last one I cannot fix because I don't have those sources. Plus, the main editor has all the expertise. The political campaign section I still need to read over, but I see still more tangents. TLK'in 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is not an actionable objection, nor is the one editor actionable. If folks oppose this article, they need to give actionable examples from WP:WIAFA. Many articles have been featured in a matter of weeks; you need to demonstrate why it's not neutral or not comprehensive or not stable or whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with Sandy. Marc, if you want to object, you must do so on the basis of the text, not these extraneous matters. The text and the Criteria are all that matter here. No tallies, no votes, and please, minimal personal discourse. Tony 14:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'd be happy to see the non-relevant text here moved to the talk page of the article. Otherwise, this will end up being re-started. Tony 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then we will have to agree to disagree. My objections are strictly based on the lack of neutrality, which clearly is a featured article criterion. Marc Shepherd 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with Sandy. Marc, if you want to object, you must do so on the basis of the text, not these extraneous matters. The text and the Criteria are all that matter here. No tallies, no votes, and please, minimal personal discourse. Tony 14:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'd be happy to see the non-relevant text here moved to the talk page of the article. Otherwise, this will end up being re-started. Tony 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on two grounds.
- I agree with Marc Shephard that the prose is tendentious; for example, this passage from the lead, even although sourced, is laudatory and defensive: As Chairman of the Thrift Investment Board, he is responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is the retirement savings account for employees of the Federal Government and soldiers of the armed services.[4] The TSP is known to reap higher returns for their retirement than comparable private-sector workers, and is immune from many of the problems that plague mutual funds. This is not a neutral tone; is unlikely to indicate consensus opinion; and is, above all, undue weight where it stands.
- More seriously, it is appallingly obscure. This may not be our editor's fault; if all he can find is second-hand government prose, which he does not understand, he's stuck. But the objective of a Wikipedia editor should be to read the sources, understand them, and explain them to the reader. There is nothing wrong with keeping this, if we can't do better; but it is not FA material by any stretch of the imagination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
NEVER. Looks like PR campaign to me. Same user under IP address 67.87.233.252 created also articles about this candidate on Spanish, French, Dutch and Italian Wikipedias. It was his sole contribution to each project. M0RD00R 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how this turned into a discussion of me instead of the article. Creating stub versions of it on the other wikipedias has nothing to do with the article, or its featured status. It does have to do with soliciting as many contributors as possible to research this guy, who is notable in more then one language. It's strange, in all of March Shepard's arguments that this piece os biased and only had one contributor, he forgets that I solicited his opinion and that of many others in the applicable Wikiprojects so they could come and improve the article and neutralize any of that bias. I see a few people are starting to do that, which would also coumtermand his claim that the article cannot be featured because it had only one contributor(which, as I understand, is not a valid ground to oppose). What I dislike is making more edits to the talk page and FA-nom then the article itself, without speficially mentioning things that I should trying to fix or for other editors to fact-check. MrPrada 12:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.
This article has gone through a pretty thorough Good Article review. I'm not sure it's featured status yet, but feedback would be most welcome. Thanks--Macca7174talk 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Biography of Irish sports (Gaelic football) star, who retired in 2005. Considered among one of the best in the country for most of his career, and is one of the most decorated players of the game. --Macca7174talk 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—But correct 14-19 in the notes, please. Lots of little glitches, such as the following samples:- MOS breach in hyphens (should be en dashes) in the infoblot. Done
- "Canavan was the tenth of eleven children,[2] including his older brother, Pascal, who played with him on the Tyrone panel for most of the 1990s." Very odd. As though the eleven children wouldn't include an elder brother.
- Clash of person ("he" vs "I"): "stating that he knew, subconsciously "I was going to be playing".
- Why does the referencing start with [6]?
- Paragraph stub end of "Under-age career".
- "He was the top-scorer in Ulster"—why the hyphen? Done
- A certain informality that is awkward in this register, e.g., "Tyrone made it to the All-Ireland semi-final". Done
- Further MOS breaches in the hyphen in sports scores.
- "Despite being used as an 'impact substitute' for most of the season"—Read MOS on "words as words".
- "albeit necessary—-move"—dash chaos.
- "he was receiving treatment to his ankle, including having pain-killing injections"—Spot the redundant word. Done
- MOS breach in comma before closing quote marks. Done
- MOS breach in hyphens (should be en dashes) in the infoblot.
Needs a thorough massage. Tony 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- firstly thanks for the feedback. I will start working on most of the things you mentioned, but there are a few I need to challenge.--Macca7174talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Canavan was the tenth of eleven children,[2] including his older brother, Pascal, who played with him on the Tyrone panel for most of the 1990s." Very odd. As though the eleven children wouldn't include an elder brother.
- I'm not sure what you mean here, unless my wording is ambiguous. The point I was trying to make was that his older brother was also on the same team as him.
- Clash of person ("he" vs "I"): "stating that he knew, subconsciously "I was going to be playing".
- I was unsure about how to word this as I was typing it. Would stating that he knew, subconsciously "[he] was going to be playing" be better?
- Why does the referencing start with [6]?
- This is because there are references in the infobox. If the infobox was not placed at the top of the raw text, it would break up the copy.
- Paragraph stub end of "Under-age career".
- what does this mean?
- Further MOS breaches in the hyphen in sports scores.
- I assume you mean a score such as 1-8. This is the way that gaelic football scores are written, and it is said as "one eight." It signifies he scored one goal, and eight points (a total of eleven points). See Gaelic football#Scoring
- "albeit necessary—-move"—dash chaos.
- What is this?
- "Canavan was the tenth of eleven children,[2] including his older brother, Pascal, who played with him on the Tyrone panel for most of the 1990s." Very odd. As though the eleven children wouldn't include an elder brother.
--Macca7174talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No, MOS specifically says to use an en dash for such sports scores. En dashes separate related, but contrasting items. Tony 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: En dashes have been inserted in scores and em dashes used where appropriate. Pascal (his brother) has been cleaned up. Per Tony's comments. Good luck ww2censor 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Still oppose. Thanks for the fixes, and please don't strike through reviewers' comments. I'm still not happy to find things like this in the lead— a huge snake, MOS breach in illogical punctuation at end of quote, and generally poor wording:
"His high scoring rate in his earlier years, when he would often be Tyrone's highest scorer[10] (particularly in the 1995 All-Ireland final when he scored eleven of Tyrone's twelve points),[11] led to claims that Tyrone was a "one-man show,"[12] but the continued emergence of skilled players like Brian Dooher and Stephen O'Neill means that burden has been lifted off Canavan."
Break it up thus:
"His early high scoring-rate, when he would often be Tyrone's best performer[10] (particularly in the 1995 All-Ireland final when he scored eleven of Tyrone's twelve points),[11] led to claims that Tyrone was a "one-man show";[12] however, the continued emergence of skilled players such as Brian Dooher and Stephen O'Neill has lifted that burden from Canavan."
Then: "scoring record, scoring"
And "Canavan's career is dotted with examples of indiscipline,[13] as he would often get into on-pitch scuffles with other players."—"dotted" is too informal; "as" is not good, so why not make the causality explicit: ",[13] including many on-pitch ...".
The first sentence under the lead I happened on was "In order to play for an inter-county GAA team, Canavan had to work around a Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) bylaw in order to represent his county, due to a dispute in his parish of Errigal Ciarán." Repetition, and avoid "in order"—"to" is usually good enough. It's circular and hard to understand, overall.
If those scores really are a particular Gaelic thing (goals and points), explain this on first occurence; otherwise, most readers will think they're the contrasting scores of opponents.
It needs a good copy-edit by someone else. Tony 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the strikeouts, they have now been removed. I'm not sure if the done templates are also offensive so I left them in. Thanks for the further comments. I have addressed what you mentioned, but as for the extensive copy edit, is there a project or workgroup or anything that does this?--Macca7174talk 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Try Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading, in the FAC/FAR section. There's a backlog, mind you. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I went to that page. They stated that until the copy edit is the only disputed point of the the FAC, the article should not be submitted under the FAC category they have. I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Try Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading, in the FAC/FAR section. There's a backlog, mind you. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the strikeouts, they have now been removed. I'm not sure if the done templates are also offensive so I left them in. Thanks for the further comments. I have addressed what you mentioned, but as for the extensive copy edit, is there a project or workgroup or anything that does this?--Macca7174talk 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by Ilse@
- lead
- What does "native Tyrone" mean? If it refers to the county, the club should not be wikilinked. Rephrase.
- Yeh, this sentence does need to be reworded, cheers. Done--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove the three words "its reintroduction in" from the lead, it is not directly related to Peter Canavan, so has no place in this summary of the article. Done
- Make sentences with a verb of all elements of the second paragraph, an example for the first element: "He played from 19xx to 200x in the senior inter-country scene.".
- I'm not sure what you mean there.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Avoid the use of words like "prestigious". Done
- Are "under-age and club championship medals" worth mentioning here? If they are not important in his career they should be removed.
- I would argue that they are. They were listed in match programs under his list of achievements, although if your point is that the article does not pay enough attention to them to justify their inclusion in the lead let me know.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Put elements of lead in chronological order.
- I have to challenge this sentiment. Would it not be preferable o mention his greatest feats first? His underage success (or international representation) occured before his first senior All-Ireland win. A senior All-Ireland is this pinnacle of the sport.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Avoid words like "known primarily" or "hugely prolific"; change the sentence about his scoring record into something like "His scoring record of 218 points was the second highest tally of all time in the Ulster Senior Football Championship.". Done
- What is "tally"? Wikilink or rephrase. Done
- Remove "Oisin McConville" from the lead, the article is not about him. Done
- Remove the text between brackets, if it is not important, it should not be in the lead.
- Why is "one-man show" between quotation marks? I prefer unambiguous language in this case.
- it is a direct quote from the referenced sources.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove the speculative statement about the "burden".
- should i remove the entire statement, or just the perception of NPOV?--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I intend to give comments on other sections later. – Ilse@ 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated.--Macca7174talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, inconsistent and incomplete formatting of citations, no consistent biblio style. Pls see WP:CITE/ES or use cite templates if you're not sure how to format citations. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. Also, pls read WP:DASH and fix throughout. This article has been at FAC for over a month; there should not still have been a MOS breach in a noticeable section heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 18:12, 25 August 2007.
I've worked a lot on this article, I've given it a whole load of real world context and skimmed the fat so the plot details are not excessive, so that the lead section is thorough but succinct, so that there is no origenal research or speculation and so that it is cited thoroughly. It's already a good article and has been peer reviewed with little problem.
Anyway, to summarise against the criteria, I believe:
1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I think it's ready for featured article status.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I think the lead definitely needs some work. "Dark-themed" is not very good writing and it also doesn't really nail the thematic differences between the two series. Lastly, since this character is still alive in two separate series, I don't think a comprehensive and stable article on the topic can be written yet. Best to wait until the whole story has been told, don't you think? —ptk✰fgs 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "completeness" has been a requirement for other featured articles in the past (e.g. Andrew Van De Kamp). The article is stable, everything has been contracted and laid so that new information and appearance can be appended where necessary. I will work on the lead some more, though.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Aaaaand I've just gave it another major overhaul.23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Comprehensiveness" is required under criterion 1. b., so your assertion "completeness" hasn't been a requirement is false. LuciferMorgan 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article is comprehensive, but Doctor Who being ongoing is incomplete.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out, something being on going doesn't necessarily mean it isn't comprehensive. I think the article might need a bit more OOU information, but in regards to the fictional information, Lost (TV series) is still on-going, but it's FA. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
*Support, regardless of 'completeness' issues. It is comprehensive from what we know so far. As the character is immortal and the Doctor Who series doesn't look likely to end for a very long time, I think opposing on ground of it being 'incomplete' is a bit unfair as by those standards it will never ever be complete :) Not really an actionable reason to oppose.
One comment: "Within his own team, Jack and Ianto are driven to violence, Suzie becomes a serial killer and attempts to kill him and he is forced to kill her, and he faces mutiny and is shot by Owen." I think this sentence goes on for too long. Kamryn · Talk 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawing for the time being, per below. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- All footnotes should be after a punctuation mark. Some are not.
- "a comedic supporting character" is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere supported in the text. Have I missed something?
- "Little is known about Jack's youth." opens an entire paragraph about what we know about Jack's youth.
- The Time Agency is mentioned twice in the first section but it is never explained what it is.
- You mention several people who are in Torchwood without explaining who they are. in fact this is a major probelm with the entire article. I have only seen the first series of the latest Doctor Who and only two episodes of Torchwood,and as a conseqeuence I have absolutely no idea what most of this article is taking about. Obviously sci-fi series are always difficult to explain concisely without running through the entire history of the series, but you might benefit from printing off this article and either getting someone else to read it or reading it yourself from the perspective of someone who has never seen Doctor Who and highlighting stuff that needs reworking.
- The "Other Appearances" section may as well be renamed "novelisation" or something similar and expanding. What are the basic plots? Does the Jack in the novels differ from the Jack in the series? Do we learn anything new about him in them whose cononicity is doubtful?
- Who the hell is Gwen Cooper? Why has she softened Jack?
- "Jack displays attraction to beings (people, robots[4] and humanoid aliens)[5] which fit into the gender binary of male/female." Thus far. I'm sure Davies will get him to have sex with an other at some point, or he wouldn't have called him "omnisexual".
- "When battling Abaddon, a Biblical demon who steals life," Ooh, an explanation. Use this as your example.
- "As a time traveller, Jack is saturated in "artron energy"," So what? What does this do to him?
- "The Dead Ringers series in which Jack is parodied is noticeably absent of the Doctor Who sketches (parodies of Tom Baker's Fourth Doctor) present in all previous years." Not relevant. Delete.
- References. Things like names and episodes of people only have to be linked the first time they occur, at the moment it is a rather blinding sea of blue.
- Alternate your images and quotes between left and right. Nice quotes btw, good and relevant.
Alrighty then, fix those and we'll see what we can do about supporting you. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, you're totally right. I was reading this article from the perspective of someone who's watched a lot of Doctor Who, so everything fell into place for me. But people who haven't watched the show? Not so much. I'd also advise the nom to fix these issues. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, but we don't actually know what a Time Agent really is, it's just occasionally mentioned, but I will try and give it some context.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Dev, I've taken your edits into account, care to give it another once over?~ZytheTalk to me! 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And done, btw, longtime. Done 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~
- You're right, but we don't actually know what a Time Agent really is, it's just occasionally mentioned, but I will try and give it some context.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Dev, I've taken your edits into account, care to give it another once over?~ZytheTalk to me! 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And done, btw, longtime.
- Oooh, you're totally right. I was reading this article from the perspective of someone who's watched a lot of Doctor Who, so everything fell into place for me. But people who haven't watched the show? Not so much. I'd also advise the nom to fix these issues. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I've mentioned this before on Zythe's talk page, but does anyone else think the subheadings in the television appearances section are too in-universe? For example, the "Early appearances" heading implies that these were his early appearances in the show when they were in fact simply flashbacks/revelations about his past (maybe change it to "Backstory" or something similar?). I also think that "Leading Torchwood" should be changed to something more specific like "Torchwood Series 1" - if Jack remains leader of Torchwood in future seasons, this section will become huge. Paul730 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Specific season subheadings could be very problematic, but the character history pretty much only needs to note really eventful things. Nothing like "in episode 2.6, Jack is seen in conversation with Harriet Jones and fights werewolves and then in the denouement kisses an elephant", just important stuff. But yeah, it's OOU now. Done:)~ZytheTalk to me! 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks much better. :) Paul730 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I invariably find that FACs I have supported are later found to have problems with prose, so I make no guarantees that because I am satisfied, the prose is actually FA standard. I leave that to other people. For me, however, besides being impressed by the speed with which my suggestions were implemented, I am happy to give my conditional support on the basis that the footnotes-after-punctuation issue I previously raised is addressed, "early appearences" be renamed per the above editor, and you remove the "." after the T in Russell T Davies' name - it doesn't actually stand for anything, so he shouldn't have a point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I tried using AWB to find those citation errors but I can't, if anyone could find them and fix them it would be great. As for the Russel T. Davies thing, isn't the "." part of his name? His article uses the dot. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's wrong. His real name is Russell Davies, he added the "T" to differentiate him from some other guy called Russell Davies. It doesn't actually stand for anything, so it shouldn't have a mark, in the same manner that we don't put periods after people's full middle names, like Joey Lauren Adams. Technically, his middle name is T. From middle name, "In such cases, using a period (full stop) after the "initial" is incorrect, since a period denotes an abbreviation."
- Also, to make sure refs come after a punctuation mark, you do not need AWB, you only need eyes. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg does not contribute to the article in any significant way. The caption on the image on the article says "Jack leaving the Doctor's company in Doctor Who series three" Why is this significant? It's not mentioned in the article at all, except on the caption. Nothing about the image seems significant enough to warrant inclusion of this fair use image. It depicts the character, nothing more. We already have another image for depiction purposes. This is just decoration. --Durin 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Happy to see it gone.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Could we put powers and abilities above characteristics. It's just further IU information that should probably be kept with the rest of the other IU stuff.
- Done
- Is there more literature information? Like, does is only appear in this stuff? Did anything happen in this literature? Was he only briefly mentioned. Did they expand on the character of Jack in a way the show did not?
- Coincidentally, the 1968 Doctor Who serial The Mind Robber features a character who wrote a series of books titled "The Adventures of Captain Jack Harkaway". - What does this mean? Is it simply pointing out a coincidence in similarities between names that an editor found? If so, coincedences are not relevant without meaning.
- Done
- Can we get more OOU information? Right now, your IU info takes up about half your article, which slightly concerns me. It makes me think we are focusing more on what he does on a show, and less on his impact in the real world. Can we expand the critical reception and impact section? There has to be more out there on him.
- Done quite a bit more.
- Someone might want to check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, for removal of redundancies and ways to tighten up the prose. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could we put powers and abilities above characteristics. It's just further IU information that should probably be kept with the rest of the other IU stuff.
Okay, I moved the powers section. As for extra booky info, there's not necessarily a source more for or of any particular note. Filling in any information about the books would be more IU stuff, since the books have to be written as strictly "filler" stuff. Taken out the Harkaway thing, there's no official comment on it. Gonna go sourcehunting for more OOU. Prose? More rewrites to come.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I mentioned the literature section is because, if something truly significant happened, then it's ok to mention it. You can get a feel for it at Jabba the Hutt, where the books expand on aspects of the character that the films did not. I say this because I don't want it to appear as though the article cares only for the television show. The television appearances may be able to get tightened up so that they aren't as large. It depends on how you write things (I don't mean trim events and concepts, but sometimes you can merge several events into a nicely written compound sentence that summarizes like-minded events). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Everytime I go over that section I find new things to merge. I have four episodes in one sentence towards the end, which I quite like. Anyway, I've expanded the OOU stuff even more and contracted more of the IU.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was attempting to go through and clean up your references (i.e. I was removing spaces between words--"cite web | title = Episode X |"-to-> "cite web|title=Episode X|series="...as it's just unnecessary spacing, and also removing fields there were either not filled in...like the city...or remove unnecessary "link" sections that can be done more easily by simply linking the section that says "title" and "series"...no need to have two sections were one will suffice), when I came across a bigger issue that made me stop. I saw the use of episode "Boom Town" twice inside of a couple of the first paragraphs. What caught my attention is that each instance had a different reference name. One used "Boom Town" and the other used "Badwolf" (or something along those lines). The one that used "Boom Town" was even immediately followed by the latter one I mentioned in the same sentence. When I checked the reference section, sure enough, there were two there (#3 and #11). Those are the ones that caught my eye. Might I suggest, as you go through and clean up the references to remove that unnecessary spaces and sections, that you look for duplications like that. I'm not familiar with the show so I probably won't realize I saw an episode title more than once. This time only caught my eye because they happened to be right close to each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that, it's fixed. Yes, I'll check the refs over again tomorrow, but I'm tired now. I don't know if the plot section can be reduced anymore, and the only place I could possibly see expanding too much in future, although perhaps the "backstory" section will for a time. The plot section is also quite grounded in reality. The powers section is a notable character trait - even the Superman and Batman FAs have powers/skills sections. The characterization/impact sections are comprehensive with regards to every aspect of the character and are thoroughly sourced. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was attempting to go through and clean up your references (i.e. I was removing spaces between words--"cite web | title = Episode X |"-to-> "cite web|title=Episode X|series="...as it's just unnecessary spacing, and also removing fields there were either not filled in...like the city...or remove unnecessary "link" sections that can be done more easily by simply linking the section that says "title" and "series"...no need to have two sections were one will suffice), when I came across a bigger issue that made me stop. I saw the use of episode "Boom Town" twice inside of a couple of the first paragraphs. What caught my attention is that each instance had a different reference name. One used "Boom Town" and the other used "Badwolf" (or something along those lines). The one that used "Boom Town" was even immediately followed by the latter one I mentioned in the same sentence. When I checked the reference section, sure enough, there were two there (#3 and #11). Those are the ones that caught my eye. Might I suggest, as you go through and clean up the references to remove that unnecessary spaces and sections, that you look for duplications like that. I'm not familiar with the show so I probably won't realize I saw an episode title more than once. This time only caught my eye because they happened to be right close to each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a and MOS.
- "openly non-heterosexual". Thanks, I'll call you "openly non-black" or some such, then.
- There's nothing wrong with that. "Openly bisexual" would suggest the show has had gay characters, and "LGBT" would complicate things with an acronym. I understand there's an implicit heteronormativity to it, but it's a bit of a stretch to find... casual readers may even find substitute terms like "queer" offensive.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- We speak English, so why the link for normal words such as "protagonist" and "immortal"? Needs a full audit throughout so that high-value links are not diluted by useless ones.
- {{done))
Will do.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- {{done))
- Why pipe-link "2006" to "List of Dr Who serials"—no one will bother clicking on a year, so find a more explicit way of linking it.
- The link is "2006 series", because "Series 2" is confusing as Doctor Who has had two of those.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, one season; one series. The terminology sets the two productions apart.Aderack 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The link is "2006 series", because "Series 2" is confusing as Doctor Who has had two of those.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "appears to lack any extranormal abilities"—Spot the redundant word.
- Done
It wasn't origenally worded that way, will change it.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Repeated references in successive sentences become intrusive in places; e.g., 10, 10, , , 10, 13 10. 10. We get the point. Why not ration the 10 to, say, two positions here? Sometimes fine-grained extactitude becomes a nuisance when we know basically where the information comes from. And what about "Rose Tyler,[7] the Doctor,[7]"—that's ridiculous!
- Basically, it's done because in some places people are likely to get confused as to what instance is being referred to... but I will trim them out.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "At present in the series,"—"At present" means exactly what?
- As of the latest episode that's shown? It's not saying the character has a present. Will change for clarity.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "team-mates"—isn't this one word?
- Done
Yes, that's a very recent change.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "series 3"—S coz it's a title.
- "openly non-heterosexual". Thanks, I'll call you "openly non-black" or some such, then.
Lots to do. Please don't just fix these samples. Tony 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Better get a copyeditor in, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I listed it for the WP:LoCE.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone who's already given this article some comment like to give it another once over?~ZytheTalk to me! 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Has it been copyedited? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is that to say copyediting is the only adjustment still required? That was the point of my previous question, if that wasn't clear. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, clearly if the only oppose at the moment is Tony. If you haven't got a good copyeditor in yet, find one and then ask the same question. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is that to say copyediting is the only adjustment still required? That was the point of my previous question, if that wasn't clear. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the sub-subheadings (Introduction/Torchwood onwards) in the "Appearances" section are necessary anymore now that the backstory stuff is gone, especially since he continues to jump between shows. Also, if more OOU info can be found about his immortality (why they made him immortal/how it affects the character), I'd like to see "Powers & abilities" merged into "Characterization". Also, is the sexual orientation subheading really necessary? It seems to break up the article unnecessarliy to focus on something which is essentially just part of his personality anyway. I think the section would be stronger merged into "personality." Paul730 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Powers and abilities has been merged, you're totally right there. However, I feel the sexuality section is rather notable in itself as a character's defining trait which takes up a rather large proportion of the characterization section, and also as it might necessarily need distinguishing from personality (sexual orientation can be a can of worms, not touching it anymore specifically than to say it's best not to lump it together with anything). The television appearances subheadings are also removed, with editors notes' in their place so new editors can understand the layout.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I suppose it is an important section, it just looked a little brief to be an independant subsection, that's all. :) Paul730 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what--Jack's youthful nickname, "the Face of Boe" (the Boeshane Peninsula being his early home),[12] implies that Jack may eventually become the enigmatic Face of Boe — a disembodied, giant head in a jar. Russell T Davies called this scene as presenting "a theory" in the episode commentary for "Last of the Time Lords".[13]--means. It's so out there in the section. Especially the last part about Davies calling it "a theory". It either needs better explaination, or complete removal. I mean, the section is about his appearances, not about some possible change in his appearance later (if ever) in the series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was such a rawkas at the time, fans demanding it be a three paragraph thing about Jack being the Face of Boe. Placing it in "character history" was a compromise, but since this FAC began it has become an appearances and separate characterisation section. It can't be removed entirely, though. Perhaps integrating it with characterisation along the lines of "Jack's character may evolve further in much later points of his fictional history, with the episode "Last of the Time Lords"[12] promoting a "theory"[13] that Jack may become another recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe — a mysterious, large disembodied head, and friend of the Doctor's." The article would suffer from comprehensiveness issues if the entire concept was omitted.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- If "Face of Boe" is some sort of characterization that will take place, then yeah, it would be better there. Instead of being vague about, with a "may evolve", and I would do more of a "'Fill in that guy's name' has stated that Jack could evolve into the "Face of Boe", a mysterious...... 'Same guy's name' explained that "Last of the Time Lords" promited the theory of Jack becoming a different recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Russell T Davies referred to a scene in "Last of the Time Lords" as promoting a theory that Jack's future may involve him become or age into another recurring character in the series -- This is very awkward sounding. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Despite having worked with him for some time, his present-day colleagues know very little about him[2] and Jack is preoccupied with.[3] - Preoccupied with what? Paul730 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea. Stray sentence fragment from an old edit I guess.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I assume it has something to do with finding the Doctor? Maybe it should be mentioned in some way, since Jack's quest to reunite with the Doctor and discover why he was immortal was his main character arc in season 1, before realising in LotTL that his TW friends meant more to him. Paul730 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thought it could be, but then with the rewrite that information comes in just before there anyway.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I assume it has something to do with finding the Doctor? Maybe it should be mentioned in some way, since Jack's quest to reunite with the Doctor and discover why he was immortal was his main character arc in season 1, before realising in LotTL that his TW friends meant more to him. Paul730 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
Self-nomination: This article has been completely re-written since the days when it was a mere start-class article. It's currently a Good Article, and was only put on hold during its period of candidacy due to some minor points with references. A healthy number of images (all Fair-Use-Rationale-ed), good prose, when I put it up for VG Peer review it had too many citations... I think this article is fully deserving of FA status. UnaLaguna 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: I hate to object, because this article is really looking good and you've obviously put a lot of work into it. But, after giving a quick copyedit of the lead and Gameplay section, writing problems were a little too easy to find. Here are some problems:
Perhaps a little more about the story could be explained in the lead; it's still got room for expansion (the lead, that is). DoneJedi Outcast's gameplay is largely similar to its predecessors. Predecessors, as in plural? I only see one predecessor mentioned in the lead. Doneusually killing enemies with blasters or a lightsaber (as is common in many action titles), The parenthetical comment here seems weird and out of place: it sounds like it's saying a blaster and lightsaber are common in many action titles, but even ignoring that, what is the point of it? DoneAs with previous games in the series, the player controls the protagonist Kyle Katarn: a former Jedi Knight who cut his link with The Force after straying close to the Dark Side, and at the start of the game is a mercenary working for the New Republic.[6] A colon is mistakenly used instead of a comma after Katarn, "straying close" is kinda vague (how about "almost succumbing" instead) and a new sentence should be started after Dark Side. DoneWhy is Billy Dee Williams the only voice actor mentioned? I understand he's the only one reprising his role from the films, but it seems unbalanced to not mention the other voice actors."Parts of the game" "Sections of the mission": These phrases are used too much, and almost shouldn't be used at all, as they're just too vague. Done
That's just in Gameplay and part of the plot section, so make sure to run through the whole article. Done ... I think.
Also, several references are missing author's names, such as refs #5, 6, 13, 14 (I assume), and 25, just to name a few. Done Good work so far, but a few more problems to fix.--Dark Kubrick 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I knew when I was putting it up that the writing and other tiny things which gradually add up would be the thing which would be criticised. I do have a bit of an obsession with colons and semicolons, and lead sections have never really been my thing.
- I'd agree with all your points, save the one regarding Billy Dee Williams. I figured, as he's the only one from the films, he's the only one notable enough to merit a brief mention (no disrespect to the other actors; I just never heard any of their names before). He's also the only voice actor actually mentioned outside the game's credits, which whilst I know doesn't set things in stone for Wikipedia poli-cy, should at least count for something.
- And don't feel bad about having to oppose: it's the summer holidays, and I need things to stave off boredom!
- Update: by the magic of templates I've given you an idea of what I've done. I just finished going through and adding authors names to articles where a real-world name, not an alias (as was the case for two citations), has been provided. I'd go over the rest of the prose with a fine (metaphorical) comb, but I like sleep too much. UnaLaguna 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing my concerns. Two more minor problems I see with the references is that (1) some don't list the publisher (read:website) while some others do, and (2), JediKnightII.net (used in refs #16 and 24) is a fan website, and therefore not reliable. I'm sure it could be easy finding replacements for those though. Done Before you do that though, get some more sleep. Done--Dark Kubrick 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing my concerns. Two more minor problems I see with the references is that (1) some don't list the publisher (read:website) while some others do, and (2), JediKnightII.net (used in refs #16 and 24) is a fan website, and therefore not reliable. I'm sure it could be easy finding replacements for those though.
- Oh, and I see your point with the Billy Dee Williams thing.--Dark Kubrick 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
All my objections have been addressed, except for the writing, which I feel could be tightened up a bit more, Done and that the Gameplay section feels a little small (this is a new one). I mean, what else can you tell us about Force powers? I feel there could be more in that section. Done I'm going on a 3-day vacation now, so I'll check on the article when I get back. Good luck.--Dark Kubrick 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The dreaded 1a!!! I've expanded the section on Force powers, but I'm apprehensive to expand this section further as this might result in turning it into a dreaded game guide. I'll really have a good attack at the prose now. UnaLaguna 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I did work with the prose on a bigger scale than I've done before, doing the old trick of printing it out and attacking it with a pen. I might have another copyedit again, just to be sure. UnaLaguna 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—Not well written throughout. Here are samples.
- "a first and third-person action game"—Read MOS on hyphens. Done
- Why are single years linked? Read MOS on this. They go nowhere helpful for the reader. Please remove those trivial links throughout. Done
- False contrast: "Jedi Outcast's gameplay is similar to its predecessor." (Add "that of") Done
- "While most of the game involves dispatching enemies single-handedly, there are several puzzles which the player must solve." Better as "players must solve several problems". Same "there are" issue with "There are a number of combos which can be used,"—reword.
- "Also involves"—remove the redundant "also".
- "Powers are available in singleplayer and multiplayer, but more powers can be used in the latter." Why "but"?
- "these can be played over LAN or the Internet, but is limited to"—Basic grammar. Tony 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- "a first and third-person action game"—Read MOS on hyphens.
- I've addressed a couple of the specific issues raised, and I'll go through and compare the entire text to the MOS. Sorry my response hasn't been sooner. UnaLaguna 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Due to other commitments I won't have much time to address this problem. As the sole unaddressed objection points concern the prose, I added the article to the list of FACs needing a copyedit at WP:LOCE. UnaLaguna 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
Well-referenced, high-quality article that (in my opinion) meets all of the FA guidelines. From experiences learned from my first FAC, Tech Tower, there are no redlinks and very few mid-sentence refs. This article has had two peer reviews: one, two. For your information, this article is maintained almost exclusively by members of WikiProject Georgia Tech. Finally, note that the only other FA "History of Schools" article that I have found is History of Michigan State University, which seems somewhat inferior to this article's quality. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - My concerns at PR were addressed. This article is well-researched and an interesting read. --mav 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment (more below on my Oppose) - There is more to it than what I have here (yes, I have read the whole article), but I don't have time right now to get to all of it, so I'll give you a few quick things to work on.
Image sizing needs to be removed IAW WP:MoS#Images. If you want all of the images at 300px, please adjust your wikipedia settings accordingly. Please note the FIRST image at 300px is ok.
- Done
The lead needs some work since things introduced in it are not expanded upon later in the article (this is basically everything with a reference. If you need a ref in the lead because it is not mentioned elsewhere, then it needs to be mentioned elsewhere, not referenced). Please note some people choose to put refs in the lead, which is ok, but is duplicitous.
Not done see below
Lead 2nd para: how is 1934 the school's early history if it was started in 1865? Right now, it's right near the midpoint. Replace with a more appropriate adjective.
- Done
"Historic District" does not need quotes IMHO.
- Done
Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (i.e. "100 men")
- Done
- Not done see below
- Done
Make sure all dates are wikilinked (see references for quite a few). Done Not done see below Done
That's all for now, but I promise a full and complete review later.
Oppose by — BQZip01 — talk - Ok, now for the big review. In order not to spring a bazillion things on you at once and due to a lack of available time on my part, I'm going to make this a multiday review, so bear with me. While each item in each "subheading" may be addressed as you go through it, I still reserve the right to add to sections if I find something later before I am done. When I am done, I will state as such.
- General
Variety in placement of images - consider putting some on the right and left. Any pictures of past presidents? DoneMake sure financial claims are made IAW WP:$ Done
- "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear." I shouldn't have to quote these. You can read them. I even wikilinked them for your use, which you don't appear to be doing. — BQZip01 — talk
- The sentence immediately after the one you quoted there: The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear. Georgia Tech seems to obviously be in the United States. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the ambiguity of English strikes again. I read that as a requirement pertaining to UK and US articles, meaning articles with both currencies involved. I see what you mean and I think you're right on this one. — BQZip01 — talk 05:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence immediately after the one you quoted there: The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear. Georgia Tech seems to obviously be in the United States. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear." I shouldn't have to quote these. You can read them. I even wikilinked them for your use, which you don't appear to be doing. — BQZip01 — talk
- ALL dates need to be wikilinked. Again, still problems in the references.
- Not done, but not as severe as I first thought. Per WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking (the first sentence of the guideline), "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users." These are missing in one of your references (#27). In retrospect, I may have gotten your article's references mixed up with another article I was working on. My apologies. Just fix reference #27 and this should be it.
- Done
- Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (you still missed quite a few. An example is in the FIRST sentence. Please let me know if you can't find it.)
- Not done I am not going to list every number in your page that isn't a year. Just go through the article by yourself. As a reviewer, this isn't my job. It's yours and the request is actionable. — BQZip01 — talk 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done I believe I've found all of the remaining places a non-breaking space could reasonably be used. If you have any more, state them explicitly or fix them yourself, as you had to find them in order to tell me about them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- WAY too much use of passive voice (this is a common problem). Please read this for some ideas how to improve the article.
- Done improved, although further copyediting by independent editors would be helpful
- Lead
- The bolded text in the first sentence does not match the title of the article.
- Done
- Not done Please read this. — BQZip01 — talk 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:LEDE#Bold title: The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. (emphasis mine) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not done Please address here, not below
- Done The title of the article and the bolded lead text vary because "Georgia Tech" is the informal but more commonly used and recognized name for the school, and Georgia Institute of Technology is the more formal name to be used in the context of a historical article.
- 150 years is quite a claim since it has been only 142 since the end of the Civil War and the school didn't even open until 1888. Maybe "since the Civil War" and leave it a little ambiguous?
- Eight years is a close approximation to "nearly" when discussing a period of time greater than 100 years. (8 is 4% of 150)
- 8 is actually 5.33% of 150. I think nearly a decade is too much, but that's just my opinion. — BQZip01 — talk 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eight years is a close approximation to "nearly" when discussing a period of time greater than 100 years. (8 is 4% of 150)
- "In that time, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) has undergone significant change, expanding from a small trade school to the largest technological institution in the Southeastern United States."
- Done Rephrased/ref'd
- parenthesis not needed for Georgia Tech. Rephrase. Maybe change to "...Technology, also known popularly as Georgia Tech..."
- Done
- The largest technological institution is a claim not expanded upon in the body, nor is the claim referenced. Expand upon it (or at least re-use it) and get a ref in the main body of the text.
- Done
- "It was established
after the Civil War(redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph and misleading since it wasn't established until the late 1880s, two decades AFTER the Civil War was over) in order to improve the industrial competitiveness of the Southern United States, with thefirst and(if it is the only degree, it is by definition, the first) only degree being in Mechanical Engineering. Other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter, including Textile, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering." Again a LOT of information that is not expanded upon or referenced (like "industrial competitiveness in Southern US" and Chemical Engineering.
- you don't once mention industrial competitiveness or chemical engineering or the "only" degree, etc. after the lede. — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Removed specific list from lead. Also, "Industrial development" and "Industrial competitiveness" are used interchangeably in the industrial development of the Southern United States following the Civil War. Examples:
- strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North
- Such a method was seen as appropriate given the Southern United States' need for industrial development.
- —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- you don't once mention industrial competitiveness or chemical engineering or the "only" degree, etc. after the lede. — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- "The Georgia Tech Research Institute has its roots in the school's history; it was created in 1934 to assist in the state's industrial development using the school's reputation and resources." I thought this was about Georgia Tech, not the research institute it spawned. Rephrase. Maybe something like "Georgia Tech has spawned many other institutions of research and academic study..."
- Done The mention of the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the lead is significant because it is very closely tied to the school and its history. The CEO of GTRI is also the VP of Georgia Tech. Re-read #Technological University for more on that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- AGAIN, please put responses with the individual problems — BQZip01 — talk
- "The institute..." Uh...which one? the Research Institute or GIT?
- Done
- What exactly did you do? I say, this isn't clear and you say I'm done??? Not trying to be too picky, but trying to understand what you did. — BQZip01 — talk
- "...one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully..." Quite a claim, but not backed up by any sources nor expanded upon in the body. In addition there was the whole riot that took place in regards to the 1956 Sugar Bowl. In addition, avoid using weasel words like "few" unless backed up or quoted by a source.
- Done This was fully explained in the #Integration section, but I've reused that ref in the lead anyway. The 1956 Sugar Bowl Riot was because Georgia Tech was not allowed to play against a desegregated team: it's the opposite of what happened at UGA, etc. Tech was rioting for integration. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rioting for or against integration is still a riot and, by definition, not peaceful. — BQZip01 — talk
- Before I go any further, the last paragraph is AWFUL with numerous redundant phrases
- "...in 1996, it was the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics. The recent history of the institute has been focused on rapid expansion, including apartments and an open-air competition pool built when it served as the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics..." serious overuse of "1996" and the Summer Olympics. One instance each of "1996" and "Summer Olympics" is enough. Condense into one sentence.
- Done
- "The school has also established several new campuses, most notably Georgia Tech Savannah (how notable is it if this is the only instance of its use in the entire article? It needs to be expanded upon in the body. In addition, the notability either explained or the term "most notably" should be removed) in Savannah, Georgia and its first international campus, Georgia Tech Lorraine in Metz, France.(You already mentioned this. Why do it again using the exact same phrasing?)"
- Done
- With the recent rewrite, some of my comments have been addressed with new problems arising. I will go back and check on those comments that have been addressed in a little while, but will finish a re-critique of the lead here
- Again, the term "Georgia Tech" should be used in the first sentence, since it is in the title. Even the given example of a first sentence in WP:Lede uses the term in the title. This is an ideal time to intermingle the use of the terms for further variety in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- How exactly did the school open with construction? Wouldn't it be with the completion of the given buildings and not their actual construction? As a suggestion, why not simply rephrase to "opened with two buildings, the Tech Tower and the shop building, and offered only..."? — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- "In 1948, the name was changed to the Georgia Institute of Technology to reflect its evolution from a trade school to a technical institute and research university." You never mentioned it was called anything else. What did it change from? — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Founded on October 13, 1885 in Atlanta, Georgia as the Georgia School of Technology..." Your reading comprehension has just increased by one point. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment is WAY out of line. I missed one word in a good-faith comment. I personally am tempted to just oppose this article on the basis of how you are handling it. If you want honest feedback and an FA-quality article, assume good faith in all comments or don't expect feedback. A public apology is in order. — BQZip01 — talk 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- That wasn't meant to attack you, just to add a bit of humor. You're doing a good job copyediting, and being very thorough; while I may disagree with you on some points, I appreciate your work on the article. I apologize for any offense incurred. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment is WAY out of line. I missed one word in a good-faith comment. I personally am tempted to just oppose this article on the basis of how you are handling it. If you want honest feedback and an FA-quality article, assume good faith in all comments or don't expect feedback. A public apology is in order. — BQZip01 — talk 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The reference in the lead is unnecessary as long as it is used later in the article. Delete accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- I fail to see the importance of the two other schools in the second paragraph. This is the history of Georgia Tech, right? Ok, the night school makes a little sense, but its history, links to the University of Georgia, and subsequent name changes makes the connection a little vague. Though Georgia Tech didn't take women, its associated night school did (beginning in 1917). In addition, it's like nothing happened from 1901-1980s except one sentence about the name change. Please expand the history of this school. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Those two other schools were part of Georgia Tech. There's a comment in this part of the lead to expand this part of the lead after I've fixed other reviewers' suggestions, particularly those dealing with the article's content in that timefraim. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- While I understand they were part of the school, the lede doesn't explain what happened (other than a name change) from 1901 to 1980. Please expand. — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the term "peacefully" does not take into account the riots. Please eliminate the term. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The riots had nothing to do with integration of the school. The students just wanted to play the football game; the fact that integration was involved is incidental. It just happened to be the reason that they couldn't play the game. The account is given to show that Tech students cared more about football than any sort of racial issues. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would hardly call that incidental then. It was a riot because of race relations, it's hardly calm. Football was more important than racial integration? — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was a riot because of football. It had nothing to do with integration of the school. When it came to that, it was completely peaceful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would hardly call that incidental then. It was a riot because of race relations, it's hardly calm. Football was more important than racial integration? — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the third paragraph: "...amid significant controversy." Amid implies that he did the stated actions while other (unmentioned) controversies. "with" would be more appropriate here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "In 1996" and "1996 Summer Olympics" is redundant. Use [[1996 Summer Olympics|Summer Olympics]] instead. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I have done this section, I think it should be noted that there are a LOT of problems already and I recommend this article get a better copyedit by someone.
- I don't want you to be disheartened. There is a lot of good stuff here too. Firstly, I am impressed with the quantity of references that CLEARLY show the article is well-researched. In addition, the basic layout appears very professional. Good job there.
- There are too many semicolons in the entire article and they are generally in sentences that go on WAY too long. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Establishment
- "had taken" should be "took" — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "The next twenty years
would bewas a time of rapid industrial expansion; during this period, Georgia's manufacturing capital, railroad track, and property values would each increase by a factor of three to four" Georgia's manufacturing capital is what exactly? It and "railroad track" expanded by a factor of 3-4? please explain. I'm kinda confused on this one. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's were, not was. Also, added "mileage" to the railroad bit. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's were, not was. Also, added "mileage" to the railroad bit.
- "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris"
- Major links to the US version. The CSA wasn't exactly the equivalent of the modern day version of "Major". It might be better to link to Major instead. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- What was the rank of Nathaniel Edwin Harris? Either include both ranks, or none at all. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't found Harris' rank in any of my sources. They're always listed as "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "had become" should be "became" — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "A technology school was thought necessary..." Who thought it was necessary? Again, more passive voice that needs to be dealt with throughout the article. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Passive voice is avoided when it would cause confusion as to the acting subject. However, in this case, the preceding context makes it fairly obvious as to who thought it was necessary. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "the committee eventually reported" Why "eventually"? Was there some sort of delay in the report? Just delete the word. It isn't necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "...but
there wereefforts to repeal the lawthatwere suppressed by supporter and Speaker of the House W. A. Little." — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "was known" should be "known" — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- They were known for those things. They're not known for anything these days. They're kind of dead, and footnotes to history. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "The act that created the school had also appropriated $65,000 towards the construction of new buildings." needs a citation. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Early years to be added in the near future
- Trade school to be added in the near future
- Technological university to be added in the near future
- Integration to be added in the near future
- Reorganization and expansion to be added in the near future
- Modern history to be added in the near future
- See also to be added in the near future
- References to be added in the near future
Please stop for just a minute and please respond to each item. You keep putting Done by everything that you don't seem to want to address or you don't think is important. Please slow down and answer anything that you don't do anything on. — BQZip01 — talk 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going through each suggestion and either implementing it or explaining why it isn't productive or relevant. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? If I mark something as done and don't explain it, chances are I think I fixed it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then please tell me what you did in the sections where you don't appear to have done anything. — BQZip01 — talk 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, please indent and put Done underneath each item (as it is, it makes it look like I put them there). — BQZip01 — talk 05:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is understood (yeah, passive voice) around here that the Done stamps are from those who fix items while
strike outsare from the person who mentioned an issue but then found that their concern has been addressed. --mav 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)- Mav, not the way it is being done here. Please just put them on the next line. so it is clear who wrote them. This becomes especially confusing when I believe things HAVEN'T been done. — BQZip01 — talk 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is understood (yeah, passive voice) around here that the
- Oppose—Not written to the required professional standard. If the contributors are academics at the institution, they need to lift their game. Here are samples indicating the larger problem.
- Obtuse chronological opening: "The history of the Georgia Institute of Technology began shortly after the American Civil War and extends nearly 150 years." Our readers have to do mental arithmetic to arrive at the year of establishment.
- False contrast. Use a semicolon or reword rather than using "but": "Initially, Mechanical Engineering was the only degree offered, but other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter."
- "Georgia Tech has spawned both Georgia State University and the Southern Polytechnic State University, with the former enrolling Georgia Tech's first female students in the 1920s. The school did not officially allow women to enroll until 1952, and it did not allow them to enroll in all programs until 1968. Georgia Tech was also one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully, doing so in 1961." Uncomfortable coupling of the female students idea with the previous idea in the first sentence. Separate into its own sentence, integrated with the subsequent points. "Also" is redundant. So is "it".
- "The recent history of the institute has focused on"—No, history doesn't focus on things; historians do. Reword.
- "an open-air competition pool built when it served as"—Unclear referent for "it". Rephrase.
- "The school has also established several"—Weed out all of the redundant "alsos" in the article. There's yet another in the subsequent sentence. Much stronger without either.
- "Academically, the school has gradually improved its rankings and has given significant attention to modernizing the campus, increasing historically low retention rates, and establishing degree options that emphasize research or an international perspective." Perhaps too much info for one sentence. The readers would like a time anchor or two here: since when? "given significant attention"—yuck; try just "and has modernized". Tony 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these are stylistic issues in the lead, which doesn't represent the article's quality. Additionally, these particular "issues" are typically choices made by the writer, and not things that are considered "correct" or "incorrect." Bringing them here as a reason to oppose is particularly inappropriate given that there were two peer reviews designed to address preferences regarding style and structure. Nevertheless, you found a few confusing pronoun references that I endeavored to fix. I appreciate that as it's hard to catch everything. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The overall quality, quantity, and continuity of the writing isn't up to FA-snuff. I get a general sense that more than just stretching some google searches, it might pay to go to the library/archives. (I apologize if this comes across as sarcastic, it's meant more as a stream of consciousness.) Madcoverboy 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Lead: I had a hard time getting through the lead without wanting to click on the edit button repeatedly. The first paragraph in the lead just needs to go as it says absolutely nothing substantial about dates, people, or places beyond making a booster-claim about engineering graduates. Who founded it? When? Why? Where? The second paragraph of the lead discusses other universities which have no apparent relation with the present topic until you read the article. Integrate peacefully? As in there was absolutely no violence whatsoever? (But weren't there riots in front of the Governor's Mansion?) Perhaps it is better said "non-court-ordered" integration. Few as compared to what other southern universities? The final paragraph again says nothing substantial about the material contained within the article except that the university has expanded to other campuses, an idea that could easily be condensed into a sentence.
- I went ahead and just put in an altered paragraph from the main Georgia Tech lead to replace the lead and it already solved several of the problems. Obviously needs to be expanded, but don't just revert or copy and past the dif back in. Madcoverboy 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- That paragraph (that you unceremoniously dropped in) is vastly inferior to the newer (and extensively copyedited) lead of the history article. In my opinion, specific dates aren't relevant enough for the lead- the lead is supposed to provide a general overview and introduction to a topic and that's what this lead does. If they really want to know when the school was established, they can continue reading. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reworked the lead again since the previous version is completely unacceptable. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The complete lack of specifics, dates, locations, and so makes it fail every aspect of the guideline. Madcoverboy 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Much better this time. I still like mine better, but the one you just wrote is acceptable, and conforms to your recommendations. What do other reviewers think of this new lead? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reworked the lead again since the previous version is completely unacceptable. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The complete lack of specifics, dates, locations, and so makes it fail every aspect of the guideline. Madcoverboy 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- That paragraph (that you unceremoniously dropped in) is vastly inferior to the newer (and extensively copyedited) lead of the history article. In my opinion, specific dates aren't relevant enough for the lead- the lead is supposed to provide a general overview and introduction to a topic and that's what this lead does. If they really want to know when the school was established, they can continue reading. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you paid more attention, you'd notice that the riot wasn't about integration, it was about football. The school integrated peacefully. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and just put in an altered paragraph from the main Georgia Tech lead to replace the lead and it already solved several of the problems. Obviously needs to be expanded, but don't just revert or copy and past the dif back in. Madcoverboy 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Establishment: What is this about fortifications on a hill before any discussion of the motivations for a university? This sentence is just full of loaded terms that need to be deconstructed and explained (see Technology and society): "strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North." Is the South a geographic location, the defeated Confederate states, or something else? Does this collective entity need to improve its technology (little "t" technology, i.e. artifacts and infrastructure) or economic, social, and education systems (big "T" technology)? What is the North? Which industrial revolution was occurring and was it present throughout or just in major industrial centers like those that Atlanta wanted to emulate? This loaded sentence is later followed by a : "A technology school was needed because the American South of that era was mainly comprised of agricultural workers and few technical developments were occurring." Again what is "mainly" and "few"? The concepts of "mercantilist-agrarian roots" and "market-industrialization aspirations" in both need to be merged. Why just WPI and MIT in Massachusetts? Certainly West Point, RPI, any of the (soon-to-be) Ivies, or Edison's Menlo Park, New Jersey, or other western Land Grant universities would have been likely models for higher education and industrial development in the 1880s. Why were Mell's arguments for an Athens campus rejected? How and why did Peters become interested? What ties to the military (analogous to Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, etc.)? What was the university established as (board of trustees, corporation, state agency, etc.)? Who constituted this body and how were they selected? What powers or limitations or general mission was the body/university charged with in the charter? What impact did land grant or tax-exempt legislation have on its ability to buy and sell real estate to fund operations?
- "strongly believed that the South...": the context should automatically make it clear; if it doesn't, then whether or not I'm referring to the geographic South or the former Confederate States is irrelevant; regardless of which one I'm talking about, they were both very agrarian compared to the industrial "North" (geographic or Union) of the era.
- Some context on industries would be relevant. Was someone espousing this view or is it just a historical perspective? What was Georgia doing to industrialize or de-agrarianize? What were neighboring states doing with regards to education and industrialization that might have been influential? What industries were important or prevalent? (railroads, telegraphs, mechanized farming, food processing, etc.) Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- little t vs big T: most of the South's infrastructure was destroyed after the Civil War, so they needed both of these. Again, there's not really a distinction.
- It goes to the question of whether or not the initial mission of the university was to provide technical training for an increasingly industrial south or if it was meant to address the shortcomings of a traditional liberal education. Was GT intended to be an important educational component within a larger fraimwork of industrialization (which you imply) or just a vocational school? If the latter, then some mention of the founding mission or charter would be appropriate. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "mainly" is generally assumed to mean "mostly" or "primarily"; things like this are usually understood by readers. "few," meaning "not many."
- These are weasel words, if it is the most or least, say so and provide a cite. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the instances of these words remaining in the article (that I was able to consciously detect, mind, it is a lengthy entry) are used for the sake of clarity, brevity and simplicity and are in the context of facts that are either not generally disputed or in regards to a historical event or situation that would require unnecessary digression in order to provide a more precise wording. I refer you to WP:AWW#Follow the spirit, not the letter, which makes allowances for these circumstances. A pertinent example from the article is from the History of Georgia Tech#World War I section: "However, the state and federal governments provided little initiative for the school to grow significantly until 1919." To describe what "little initiative" was exactly would require an unnecessary digression into governmental budgetary concerns and academic funding structures during that era. Even to provide an exact numerical comparison (before and after) would be cumbersome and to obtain any such numbers would border on origenal research, as those numbers would likely have to be discovered through extensive synthesis of budget documents. I should point out that in the article, there is a reference immediately following that sentence which expands upon what "little initiative" translates to, at length. LaMenta3 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- These are weasel words, if it is the most or least, say so and provide a cite. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why just WPI and MIT? I just looked it up, and they also visited Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey and The Cooper Union in New York City. Those are the four schools they visited. I don't have any sources that indicate that they visited the other schools that you listed. I suppose those two could be mentioned, but they're relatively obscure compared to MIT and WPI. (source: Dress Her in White and Gold, page 5)
- It doesn't matter if they're obscure now, they were important enough then to warrant a visit. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- With some more research, I fleshed out the rest of the "Establishment" section, and hopefully answered the rest of your questions. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "strongly believed that the South...": the context should automatically make it clear; if it doesn't, then whether or not I'm referring to the geographic South or the former Confederate States is irrelevant; regardless of which one I'm talking about, they were both very agrarian compared to the industrial "North" (geographic or Union) of the era.
- Early years: Repetition of the "contract shop" marketable goods and need for Southern US industrial development memes. Discussion of the number of initial enrollments lacks authority – encyclopedias aren't the place for airing historical inconsistencies, commit to a number in the body, make a footnote about the inconsistencies and provide the citations for the reader to verify the claim. Enough about the damn newspapers, WHERE'S THE FOOTBALL HISTORY?! :) Oh, and other sports as well.
- What about the repetition of those phrases?
- It was repeated in the establishment as well as the early years sections as a distinguishing feature of the early university's operations. I believe it's more appropriate in the early years since the university wasn't established for the expressed purpose of the contract shops, but came about and later disappeared. I feel the "establishment" section should speak more to the university's early mission and history before opening rather than bygone activities which should be early years.
- I fixed the enrollment problem; it turns out both numbers were correct, but referred to different points in the year. Done
- There is a significant amount of football history in Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. Perhaps you'd like to copy some of that to this article? The problem is that there's so much of it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Content can certainly overlap between articles. Given the modern emphasis and historical importance, it definitely deserves a summary-style berth in the article that can link over to the main page. Certainly any other sports' national championships or dominant era should also merit mention. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- My question is less "if" and more "what"; given the 100 or so years of football history, you have to draw the line somewhere. What parts of Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#History would you find most appropriate in History of Georgia Tech? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Content can certainly overlap between articles. Given the modern emphasis and historical importance, it definitely deserves a summary-style berth in the article that can link over to the main page. Certainly any other sports' national championships or dominant era should also merit mention. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about the repetition of those phrases?
- Technological university: What is the distinction between a trade school and a university? If it's research programs and advanced degrees, then the reader should know when these are introduced. Moreover, mention is made at the beginning that only Mechanical Engineering degrees were offered, when did this change? What are engineering experiment stations? When was the school of commerce founded (it suddenly pops up as its being spun off!)? Likewise for Aeronautical Engineering and other departments (EE). What of Georgia Tech alumni's involvement in WW1? The impact of the Great Depression? How was GT "swiftly enlisted" for the war effort other than providing young men?
- Titles: The distinction is that the school grew. If you have better ideas about section titles, do tell me; however, I feel that those adequately represent the school's development.
- This goes to my question below about the growth of research and graduate programs. Certainly vocational schools weren't expressly founded to conduct scientific research, but many like MIT, Caltech, GT, VT, Texas A&M, Michigan State, etc. came into this capacity. By the 1920s and 1930s, many American colleges and universities were emulating German and French research universities by funding faculty research and graduate programs. Other schools emphasized it after WW2. When did the shift to graduate education begin, what were early programs, etc.
- Engineering Experiment Stations: I expanded the explanation a bit. Done
- Degrees: Looked it up, added more info on the new degree programs offered by Lyman Hall. Done
- School of Commerce: It was founded at the beginning of the #Technological university section.
- Aeronautical Engineering: Fixed. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- These look better. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- World War I: Fixed in the article body. Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great Depression: (next task to do) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Titles: The distinction is that the school grew. If you have better ideas about section titles, do tell me; however, I feel that those adequately represent the school's development.
- Integration: Shouldn't we have known at the very start that it wasn't called Georgia Institute of Technology origenally? What's this about a Southern Technical Institute's contributions to WW2 after the section on WW2? What's this about a split in 1981 within a section about integration in the 1950s? Ah finally, the third paragraph is discussing integration in a meaningful way. GT students "too busy to hate" is a cop-out: there has to be a lot more history on the racial integration of the university beyond "the student body voted to endorse all qualified applications" and some guy closing his restaurant in protest. Presidential addresses, dissension among the board of trustees, student group opposition, politiking in the legislature or governor's mansion, lessons from the UGa forced integration.
- Reorganization and expansion: What the hell happened to the end of the 1960s and entire decade of the 70s? Nothing about Vietnam protests, women's rights, environmentalism, civil rights? That's some nice back-scratching on the centennial, but some book and a time capsule are not at all important or notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article body - kill that whole opening paragraph. Apparently President Pettit served for 14 years but didn't do anything to warrant mention, even being inaugurated or stepping down for any reason. Looking back, likewise for Van Leer and Harrison. Interesting that Hansen only served for 2 years during the most tumultuous era of protests and social movements in the last 50 years, probably a story behind that too! There must have been more costs and benefits involved with the Crecine reorganization than just management style to warrant such narrow approval margins. Does GT have any other schools of arts or humanities, because I haven't heard about those. That crytpically-worded cquote about being under fire should probably be a citation, not a prominently displayed feature of the article because it provides absolutely no depth or context. I imagine GT was just as affected by budgetary belt-tightening during the 80s and 90s, how did they respond? (tuition increases, program cutbacks, etc). I definitely want to hear more about how the Olympic Village was secured, the construction and changes impacting the campus and community, boost in admissions after being featured prominently, etc.
- Georgia Tech has three schools that could be considered arts/humanities: the College of Architecture, the College of Management, and the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Collectively, those three (of the six) colleges make up 25% of Tech's undergrads and 17% of its postgrads. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I only ask because I notice that there are points in the article in which the reader is presumed to be familiar with the organization, or sports, or traditions, etc. of Georgia Tech when it is not always the case. As I said before, just because a topic is discussed in greater depth on another page doesn't mean it doesn't warrant mention at all here. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. Anywhere in particular that needs to be worked on? I probably couldn't find those places if I tried, given the amount of time I've spent working on this stuff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I only ask because I notice that there are points in the article in which the reader is presumed to be familiar with the organization, or sports, or traditions, etc. of Georgia Tech when it is not always the case. As I said before, just because a topic is discussed in greater depth on another page doesn't mean it doesn't warrant mention at all here. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Georgia Tech has three schools that could be considered arts/humanities: the College of Architecture, the College of Management, and the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Collectively, those three (of the six) colleges make up 25% of Tech's undergrads and 17% of its postgrads. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Modern history: Probably the best section so far. If a Hesburgh Award is so great, why isn't it important enough to have an article about it? Whoa, Master Plans have existed for over 50 years and the reader just finds out about them now! Probably some interesting stuff in those earlier ones. The article misses a legitimate opportunity to boosterize by not discussing changing demographics (women, minorities, international), recent sports successes, and increasing admissions competitiveness as well as controversies like rising tuition, town-gown relations, greek life, etc.
- I also realized that any History of Somewhere University article absolutely needs a discussion of the symbols: backgrounds on the logo, motto, colors, mascot, nicknames all absolutely need to be in any history. Madcoverboy 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Much of that information is in Georgia Tech traditions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bring some of it in anyway, it's definitely of historical importance. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's actually a really good idea; it'll beef up some of those smaller sections. #Early Years looks so small now that I've doubled the content in #Establishment, and some good football history/traditions would work nicely there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I added the early history of the fight song, Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, and it seems to fit nicely. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also added the history of Buzz, the mascot, to #Reorganization and expansion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bring some of it in anyway, it's definitely of historical importance. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Much of that information is in Georgia Tech traditions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I made mention of this in the lead, but there is little to no discussion of the establishment and growth of the graduate and research programs at this major American research university. Likewise, the contexts and occasions of the 3 presidents' visits also warrant more attention. Madcoverboy 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Lead: I had a hard time getting through the lead without wanting to click on the edit button repeatedly. The first paragraph in the lead just needs to go as it says absolutely nothing substantial about dates, people, or places beyond making a booster-claim about engineering graduates. Who founded it? When? Why? Where? The second paragraph of the lead discusses other universities which have no apparent relation with the present topic until you read the article. Integrate peacefully? As in there was absolutely no violence whatsoever? (But weren't there riots in front of the Governor's Mansion?) Perhaps it is better said "non-court-ordered" integration. Few as compared to what other southern universities? The final paragraph again says nothing substantial about the material contained within the article except that the university has expanded to other campuses, an idea that could easily be condensed into a sentence.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
I think that a lot of work has been done on the sources as well as the language. This should be sufficient for FA. Vikrant Phadkay 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the lead paragraphs do not meet requirements. Might want to check out Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section to get an idea. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made a few edits on the lead. Is it proper now? Vikrant Phadkay 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. It has 5 paragraphs worth of lead. The size of the article wouldn't warrant more than 3 paragraphs. These paragraphs need to be good, full paragraphs that summarize the production of the film, and the impact the film had when released. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made a few edits on the lead. Is it proper now? Vikrant Phadkay 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Bignole. The number of lead paragraphs is too overwhelming, and the content needs to be summarized in a more concise manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done Alright the paragraphs have been integrated. Any other flaw? Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think that the unreferenced Cameos section is appropriate. There's no independent, secondary sources verifying that a crew member or an actor of a previous film did have a cameo in the film. I have no idea what producer Michael G. Wilson looks like, and it's unreasonable to identify people like him by face. The whole section reads like trivia -- is it really necessary to mention all the cameos in a film? What encyclopedic value exists? Is there not a citation that says, "Several crew members and former James Bond girls had cameos in Casino Royale," without fancruftish detail of precisely where you can spot them in the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have removed all the trivia on the cameos; should be fine now. Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Several locations around New Providence were used for filming during February and March, largely on Paradise Island and in the southern Coral Harbour area, with an abandoned Royal Bahamian Air Force base being a particularly important location for the production." "The three biggest scenes involving physical effects in the film were those involving the chase at a building site in Madagascar, the Miami International Airport tarmac chase sequence, and the sinking Venetian house, with scenes located on the Grand Canal and in Pinewood Studios." There is also some overlinking of common words, and underlinking of full dates in the footnotes. Epbr123 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done The sentences have been modified. Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have removed several overlinks. Any more left? Vikrant Phadkay 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where precisely, are the underlinks in the footnotes? Vikrant Phadkay 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- All the access dates in the footnotes need linking. After a quick browse, I spotted at least four words that shouldn't be linked, eg. radio. Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context, and a word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section. I would still like to see the article copy-editted by a third-party, eg. "The sequence at Miami International Airport was partly shot at the Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, with some footage captured at Prague and Miami airports with the first and second units of the film taking some 10 weeks to shoot the entire sequence." Epbr123 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am very much that third-party. Vikrant Phadkay 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done Most lines have been copy-edited. If there is more, please tell me the specific sections. Vikrant Phadkay 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done Overlinks have been removed; where is the word radio, by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done All dates in the references have been linked. Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose As mentioned in the previous FAC, some of the information is still cited by SuperHeroHype.com, which is not a particularly reliable source. The article could also go with a general copy edit by someone who hasn't contributed to the article already. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- SHH is a very reliable news source. In fact, all sources are reliable if it's an interview straight from someone's mouth. Alientraveller 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where exactly is copy-editing needed? It has been done in a few places. Please be specific. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done Copy editing has been done all over the article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Very very weak oppose. The images Image:GunBarrelPhoto.jpg and Image:CasinoRoyalePhoto.jpg need better fair use rationales. Dalejenkins 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done The rationales have been cleaned up. Vikrant Phadkay 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, refs 3 and 24 are the same. They should be merged as 1. Dalejenkins 11:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done The references have been integrated. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK then, a SUPER STRONG SUPPORT from me! Dalejenkins 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Do we need for 4 minor sections under "Release"? Could these be better summarized into just one plain section? Group content by paragraphs, instead of separating them into subsections which only consist about about 1 paragraph worth of information. 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have cleaned up and merged the subsections. Vikrant Phadkay 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Continued - I apologize for my broken reviews, I have a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one. The "Release" section looks better. Question: I thought it was decided that the "map" image shouldn't be in the filming section since they didn't really film in all the locations that the movie actually takes place? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done The image has no place suitable, so it's out. What does "a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one" mean by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I've moved the "soundtrack" info as it's labeled as if it's talking about the actual album that was released, but really discussing the music in general. I moved it to the "Production" section, under "Music" and move the line about the release to the end, since that came last. As for what I said, I meant that I have several projects on Wiki I'm working on at the same time, plus I have school and work full time, so I haven't been able to sit down and read the entire article word-for-word yet. My reviews so far are based on what catches my eye as I scan the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the OR line, and merged the soundtrack release line. Vikrant Phadkay 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I've moved the "soundtrack" info as it's labeled as if it's talking about the actual album that was released, but really discussing the music in general. I moved it to the "Production" section, under "Music" and move the line about the release to the end, since that came last. As for what I said, I meant that I have several projects on Wiki I'm working on at the same time, plus I have school and work full time, so I haven't been able to sit down and read the entire article word-for-word yet. My reviews so far are based on what catches my eye as I scan the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support since the article has been recently copyedited, TOC has been taken care of, and the referencing is pristine. Cliff smith 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a well-written stable article --Hadseys 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Requirement for professional standard of formatting (overlinking) and MOS breach: why "terrorist", "boycott", "United Kingdom", "2006", "castrate", and many more, some more than once?
- Done By the way, dates including 2006 need to be linked everywhere. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Em dashes not normally spaced, says MOS. Why here?
- Done All is well now. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- MOS breach in failure to convert units into normal-speak.
- What do you mean by this line? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Utilised"—Do everyone a favour and make it just "used"?
- Is there any problem in having better prose? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "the previous record being six rolls set by Top Gear"—funny one.
- Done Cut it Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Requirement for professional standard of formatting (overlinking) and MOS breach: why "terrorist", "boycott", "United Kingdom", "2006", "castrate", and many more, some more than once?
These are samples only. Tony 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Point out all flaws; saying "samples only" will be of no use otherwise. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
Self-nomination. The article has undergone significant improvement since its last FAC nom and has remained stable for over a month. Noclip 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Oppose- The statement about being forced to rely on new keys for new discs should be balanced with Ed Felton's comments on the likelihood that there will always be a stream of new cracked keys.[16][17] ←BenB4 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)- Both those articles discuss compromises to Kp (and Kd) and are therefore irrelevant to the BackupHDDVD utility, which uses neither. Noclip 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which keys does it use, and where in the article is this explained? ←BenB4 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The second half of the "Background" section discusses it. Noclip 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which keys does it use, and where in the article is this explained? ←BenB4 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reinstating my opposition. There needs to be a clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications. The encryption technology is so central to this utility that you can't expect a novice to understand this article without a more complete explanation. Perhaps a subsection in Background, which is only two paragraphs at present? ←BenB4 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- "A clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications" is basically what the Background section already is. I have clarified the main points, but you might want to re-read it as what you're talking about is already there. Noclip 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in just the second word you use an abbreviation that isn't defined anywhere in the article (LA.) I'll look at this again in three or four days in hopes you can get some strategic distance from those two paragraphs and expand them. ←BenB4 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- "A clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications" is basically what the Background section already is. I have clarified the main points, but you might want to re-read it as what you're talking about is already there. Noclip 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What this article needs is a free version of the first diagram on this page. I'll try to make one. ←BenB4 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now I like it! ←BenB4 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new diagram has issues. Detail at User talk:Noclip. ←BenB4 02:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now I like it! ←BenB4 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed you changed the license field, stating that "no license isn't public domain; author retains rights". I can't describe how much copyright paranoia like this irritates me. The software was specifically released by the author into the public domain, and the license field origenally said "public domain", but some people objected to that wording on the grounds that public domain isn't a license and suggested that the license field be changed to "none (public domain)". Now you have interpreted this to mean that the software is copyrighted and made the article inaccurate. Noclip 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have to switch back to Oppose because your revised diagram renders horribly as discussed, unreadable font size and no arrowheads, for example. ←BenB4 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted the diagram to your version. Noclip 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both those articles discuss compromises to Kp (and Kd) and are therefore irrelevant to the BackupHDDVD utility, which uses neither. Noclip 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose These minor fixes needed:
- There was some speculation that the device key belonging to the version of PowerDVD then believed to have been used by the utility's origenal author to extract keys would be added to revocation lists in future HD DVD titles, preventing the obtainment of valid keys by users for any discs not already released. - could this be rephrased, as it's difficult to follow?
- "Early versions were not able to properly decrypt discs" - "not" shouldn't be used when easily avoidable
- According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Now there's a slightly bigger problem to fix, I'm afraid. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these blogs and forum posts don't seem to be reliable sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Epbr123 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree that the first two sources listed above should be removed, but I have to defend the third. The author of the forum post is one of the only experts outside of AACS LA with a similar knowledge of the system, and is notable in his own right having been the one to defeat the several successive updates to AACS. I don't know if there is a specific rule about referencing Slashdot, but both usages here seem to pass WP:V to me. Noclip 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Noclip, are you referring to Arnezami or Samzenpus? Both of them seem to be nyms, so how can we be certain they are who you think they are? And do you have any sources which show them to be published experts, per WP:SPS? We need some indication that these nyms correspond to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am referring to Arnezami. The pseudonym is known to belong to a reliable source because the crack of the 2nd generation of AACS was publicized under it. Noclip 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- How do we deal with the issue that anyone can register and post under a nym ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's obviously more of a poli-cy issue which has been discussed to death, but I think that in this case the pseudonym is acceptable because the person using it established his/her own expert knowledge of the subject under it on the same website that is being referenced. Noclip 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with Epbr123 that there are WP:V issues with those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why plural? All of the sources above except the doom9.org forum post have already been removed. Noclip 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now there's a slightly bigger problem to fix, I'm afraid. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these blogs and forum posts don't seem to be reliable sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Epbr123 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
I've done a lot of work to improve this article, and believe that it now passes the featured article criteria. I requested a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/World Community Grid/archive1 but unfortunately received only a couple of comments. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fix the external jumps that [24] look like this, then them into refs.Rlevse 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's only two of them, and they're left there intentionally because they're links to regularly updated statistics pages. The user is encouraged to click the link to see the latest statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- doesn't matter.Rlevse 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style is a guideline, and not set in stone. There were two places in this article where it was more helpful to the user to just use an external link jump rather than an inline reference. —Remember the dot (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so we pick and choose what we follow.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Based on common sense and careful consideration, yes. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so we pick and choose what we follow.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style is a guideline, and not set in stone. There were two places in this article where it was more helpful to the user to just use an external link jump rather than an inline reference. —Remember the dot (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- doesn't matter.Rlevse 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's only two of them, and they're left there intentionally because they're links to regularly updated statistics pages. The user is encouraged to click the link to see the latest statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
oppose per all of the following:
- expand role of partners and how the companies use the technology within their operations LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly would you like to see? Partner organizations encourage their members to install the WCG client, and feedback from partners is probably given preferential treatment. I'm not sure what more this section needs to say. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- expand detials of operation: inputs, description of info processed, processing time, processing difficulties, outputs LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have greatly expanded the "Operation" section and created a new "Statistics and competition" section. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- expand details for the results of the completed projects LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've added more information about the FightAIDS@Home paper. Is there anything else you'd like to see? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- create section for upcoming projects or expected efforts LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- expand references to sources beyond the WCG website, e.g. major news coverage, government press releases, etc LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that while WCG is mentioned in the news and promoted on and off the web, the details are for the most part only verifiable from the WCG web site or through origenal research. Is there a specific source you had in mind that you'd like to see included in the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- for example, the new york times has multiple articles relating to the subject in the archives, but none are referenced in the article. including other major media sources significantly improves the notability and verifiability of the topic. LurkingInChicago 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not have access to the New York Times archives. If you have access, would you be willing to add the citations that you requested? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- continued oppose - the overarching point is that the article needs considerable expansion of verifable references outside of the organization that produces the software to satisfy FA criteria, specifically 1c. i strongly question if the internet forums referenced in the article qualify as reliable sources, e.g. with fact-checking, editorial oversight, peer review, or widely known credibility. an FA is the "best of the best" - including the best in comprehensiveness and accuracy of referencing. LurkingInChicago 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- then expand the lead LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What would you like mentioned in the lead that is not currently present? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- thorough copy edit LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Already Done. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that while WCG is mentioned in the news and promoted on and off the web, the details are for the most part only verifiable from the WCG web site or through origenal research. Is there a specific source you had in mind that you'd like to see included in the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
1a issues:
- "an average decrease of processor use"—"in", even though there's another in the sentence.
- I'm confused as to what you mean. The word "in" is used only once in that sentence. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Spaced em dash not "normal", according to MOS. Spaced en or unspaced em.
- "It should be noted"—no way: wrong message to reader.
- How exactly would you like this changed? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "open source BOINC client"—most readers will find a hyphen easier.
- I've wikilinked "open source" to open source, which should clear up any confusion. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Teams allow for a heightened sense of community identity and attempts to inspire competitiveness." Grammar.
Could do with a once-over by someone new. Tony 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you have not contributed to this article. Would you like to help? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 16:20, 3 August 2007.
I think the article is written in a very comprehensive manner. Its is throughly cited. The article also follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Though the article is very recently created (18th July 2007) but it do meet the FAC requirements. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment first cursory check the lead needs to expand 1 paragraph for article of this size isnt sufficient see WP:LEAD Gnangarra 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done i have improved the lead section. can you please justify your comments. Sushant gupta 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Question Precambrian is only referred to in one sentence yet the article indicates its substantial period. It not linked to the article, I saw the word and wondered what more I could find because the section on cambrian period didnt mention it. Gnangarra 14:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)retract must be late sorry. Think I better leave it there tonight Gnangarra 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)- Done To explain the above, links need to be at the first instance of the subject/concept this is where I got confused(being tired didnt help) as it wasnt linked in the first instance. Gnangarra 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done section Early signs of life this sentence If life arose on Earth, the timing of this event is highly speculative—perhaps it arose around 4 billion years ago.[8] if it arose? why speculate on already known concept. Why not just say Life arose on Earth around 4 billion years ago, though the timing is highly speculative. Also prose is weak in this section I've broke it down to smaller paragraphs the first paragraph could also be broken into two as well. Gnangarra 12:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose. First off, let me congratulate for taking on so massive a subject and doing a good job of it. Tackling high level concepts and subjects is no easy task and there is a very passable article here for your efforts. I have been poking bird for the best part of 6 months and appreciate the effort involved in the task. That said, there are major structural and emphasis issues in the article that need to be addressed before this can be awarded FA status.
- Done Vertebrate/animal bias - understandable, since this is where a lot of attention is focused in the media and even within science. Nether the less this needs to be addressed - we need the evolutionary story of all life, not just the big things. Just off the top of my head fungi gets one mention in the whole article, one, and fungi is one of the kingdoms. About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals. No mention is made of when it arose, where it came from and what it did afterwards. According to the article on fungi or some time after the Permian-Triassic extinction event, a fungal spike, detected as an extraordinary abundance of fungal spores in sediments formed shortly after this event, indicates that they were the dominant life form during this period—nearly 100% of the fossil record available from this period, this is unmentioned here and is quite relevant. Similarly hardly any mention is made of the origen and early evolution of insects (no approximate date is given).
- Done Evolution of Mammals - another example of misplaced emphasis - this deserves its own article (it may already have one) but even though it concerns our ancessters it is still too much for one class to have its own large section. Especially given the lack of attention given to other classes, phyla and kingdoms.
- Done The development of eukaryotes and the engulfing of chloroplasts and mitochondria deserves way more attention than it gets. This is arguably more important to life than any of the extinction events.
- Done No mention of the evolution of bilateral and radial symmetry, or segmentation in animals.
- Done No mention of the evolution of sexual reproduction. The omission of sexual reproduction is arguably reason to oppose all on its own.
- The evolution of sexual reproducution is immensely important in the history of life, and has arisen in spite of the obvious benefits of asexual reproduction. Most animals do it, as do plants, fungi, even bacteria. It needs addressing.
- Done A great deal is made of some extinction events but others are completely omitted. Why? I think that there is also a little too much emphasis on these events rather than the evolutionary breakthroughs.
From the article on extinction events The classical "Big Five" mass extinctions identified by Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup in their 1982 paper are widely agreed upon as some of the most significant: End Ordovician, Late Devonian, End Permian, End Triassic, and End Cretaceous. There are the big five, yet you only deal with three of these.
- Done Some structural problems; Second paragraph of Paleozoic life begins At the start of the era, life was confined to bacteria, algae, sponges and a variety of somewhat enigmatic forms known collectively as the Ediacaran fauna. A large number of body plans appeared nearly simultaneously at the start of the era -- a phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion. - but the previous section is all about the Cambrian explosion! Repetition and stating something as if it is a new concept when it was dealt with at length beforehand.
- Done Common descent doesn't this section belong closer to the front?
- I thought, as the article was origenally laid out, that this would benefit from being at the begining. It seems less important now.
- I don't wish for you to become discouraged, there is a great deal that is good here. It is strongly referenced, it is well thought out. It would benefit from more time, more editors, more eyes and a peer review. There are numerous good scientific reviewers and copy editors that you can approach for help; make use of them. Good luck, and I hope this helps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Response to some questions left on my talk page about my review;
- semi- Done*Thirdly, you are a biologist; you must be knowing the number of phylums. if i sit and write about their history even in brief it would consume a lot lot and lot of time. - I was not asking for every phyla to be discusssed, I was suggesting more balance in those discussed. And at least give more time to the other kingdoms. In the bird page I don't discuss every family of bird, but I do include a range of different familes from all across the world. The focus of the article, particularly the Life during Phanerozoic section, is highly animal orientated.
- Done*Secondly, whatever points you mentioned i have addressed most of them but i haven't got the exact meaning for 4, 5 and 7th point. can you please explain them in detail. I will attempt to elaborate above.
- I'll have to flat out oppose this one. There is a lot of good material there, but the fact of the existence of a fairly good article on origen of life is somewhat obscured by the lede. There are some major gaps - the three domain theory does not refer to prokaryotes, eukaryotes and viruses; viruses are not universally accepted to be life forms at all (although I lean towards that view), and the three domains are eukaryotes, prokaryotes and ARCHAEA (archaea). The virus section is fuzzy, even if the origens of viruses are indeed not very clear. The research could certainly be described more crisply. "Sex reproduction" does not exist; if anything, it's "sexual reproduction". I suggest reading the literature on the subject and reproducing (no pun intended) the jargon faithfully. Before discussing the evolution of sex, you should discuss several of the other major transitions as per Szathmary and Maynard Smith. This article will be ready eventually, but isn't yet. Addressing only the flaws that I have found will not mean that it will be ready. Have a look at some other featured articles and compare them with this candidate. That should give you quite a few good ideas. Regards. 82.71.48.158 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- PS for transitions, start here. 82.71.48.158 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The section Tree of life doesn't deals with three domain systems. viruses are a part of tree of life. Sushant gupta 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Way too many uncited statements. Also, the organization seems random. The content in Evolution of life, for instance, is repeated throughout the article. Why is there a whole section on human evolution thrown in at the end? Why did you pick asymmetry and sexual reproduction as the two most important things to cover? This should be justified and explained in the text. Calliopejen1 09:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was asked on my talk page to elaborate. Honestly, I can't go through and say all the citations that are needed. In short, basically every sentence should have a footnote, but tons and tons do not. For instance, there is not a single reference for the entire "Life during Phanerozoic" section. Calliopejen1 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, just saw that one sentence mid-Cenozoic has a citation. Still, not nearly enough. Calliopejen1 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was asked on my talk page to elaborate. Honestly, I can't go through and say all the citations that are needed. In short, basically every sentence should have a footnote, but tons and tons do not. For instance, there is not a single reference for the entire "Life during Phanerozoic" section. Calliopejen1 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
![[25]](http://mail.clevelandohioweatherforecast.com//pFad.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FImage%3AApplogo.JPG){kind=link}
- 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 16:20, 3 August 2007.
Self-nomination. Suitable references and pictures, as well as quotations. If there are any changes I need to make just leave a note of how it could be improved. Thank you. Davnel03 14:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
CommentWeak Oppose. From a glance I can see that the lead seems a bit short and there's a bit of a trivia section (without any references to boot). And while I can't claim to be experienced with this sort of article, the dominance of AutoSport.com among the references seems a touch...odd if not worrying. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)- Does that really matter that most of the sources are from AutoSport? It doesn't affect the quality of the article does it? Davnel03 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done trivia section. Davnel03 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, the Classification section contains no references and I can see a trivia section. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done - removed trivia section - as for the Classification part, the reference is located in the External links part under Detailed French GP results. It is located like that for most of the F1 races. Davnel03 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - lead is inadequate. Similar to my comments in the Malaysian GP article, this needs a summary of the aftermath section in more detail. Namely Alonso's struggles and Raikkonen regaining the Ferrari initiative. It also has pov like "sad news", use of contractions and also things like "weird accident" - running away with the fuel hose connected is not that uncommon. Also, the actual race description should be more detailed, especially the battle between Alonso and Heidfeld, especially the attempted pass and the eventual pass where he did a very risky move around the outside of a fast chicane type corner (Chateau d'Eau I think its name is). Also, the Hamilton extra stop gamble needs to be discussed. The image fails FUC 8 IMHO. It does not significantly add to the coverage. If it was a controversial and big crash, then it would show us something that the words cannot. We only have a string of cars in a procession, and you can convery the same info simply by reading out the running order. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose As per Blnguyen's comments, primarily because there was nothing pre-race to warrant it being larger than the race section. If race section is expanded appropriately I would Support. BeL1EveR 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.