Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2011

June 2011

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [1].

---

Jennifer Connelly

Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me! 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC) --Gunt50 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Transcluded 21:25, May 30, 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been previously nominated to FA after a peer review. The article was not promoted and the last weeks underwent a new Peer Review and copy-editing.GDuwenTell me! 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments These are all rather small things.

• "In 2001, she stated that director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on Marvel's superhero was what had sparked her interest in the film.[54]" I think that "In 2001," should be dropped since it seems a bit unnecessary. Also, this and the sentence before it began with "In", so it's kinda repetitious.
• "a film that saw limited release in the fall of 2007.[67]" Things like "fall" should be avoided
• "She played a major role in an adaptation of the novel Little Children" I think it would be better to link "an adaption" rather than just adaption since some readers (like me) might assume that it links to an article about adapting literature material rather than the actual movie
• Isn't He's Just Not That Into You a 2009 release?
• The last part of the 2008-2011 section should be at the beginning since it's taking about her modeling contracts from 2008 onward.
• "In the mid-1990s," I think "During the mid-1990s," would fit better, also because the previous paragraph starts will "in"
• Reference 38 is incorrect. Rotten Tomatoes' publisher is Flixster, not News Corporation. Same for other RT sources (like 88)
• There seems to be something wrong with reference 54
• You should remove the period in the publisher in reference 47 since it comes out as ""A Beautiful Mind (2001)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb.com, Inc.."
• Shouldn't the 'work' for reference 39 be Salon.com instead of Salon Media?
• The Daily Mail (ref 104) is a tabloid and not always reliable. Could you substitute the source for something else?

Crystal Clear x3 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The corrections were made. Reference 54 seems to work now, I removed the archive URL since that probably that caused the problem. Thanks for the comments.--GDuwenTell me! 02:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome =). Two more things I found were: in the 2008-2011 section per above, "In the spring of 2008" and "their publicity shots for the fall of 2009", should be reworded aswell.Crystal Clear x3 23:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks again. I just took care of the unnecessary things you noticed.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards support with a few more minor things:

• The two last captions should just have her last name to remain consistent with the others.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 2008 in "2008 remake" should also be linked.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• "2009 roles included" Should be "Other 2009 roles included" since you mentioned HJNTIY in the previous paragraph.

The line was modified by Jimknut in a previous revision.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the filmography chart, I think it would be better to say her role in 9 was "7 (voice)" and state that it was an Animated film in the notes section

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 2009 Toronto International Film Festival should be linked in the last caption

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Clear x3 08:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Crystal Clear x3 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Risker

Your comments and work on copy-edits are much appreciated. I've been working on some of them. Because of reality matters me and GDuwen will keep working on this later, so we beg for patience. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't feel an urge to rush; better to take your time and make considered changes. I'm hoping that you soon get more comments as well, as you have done a lot of very good work already. Risker (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copy-editing as I reviewed the article.

We appreciate you took the time for that. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Early life - St. Ann's in one sentence, Saint Ann's two sentences later.Risker (talk)

I spotted it twice on the article, but I substituted its second appearance for the 'same school'. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Move the TV Guide review of Inventing The Abbotts, it is not adding anything (she isn't mentioned in it) and the placement of the reference interrupts the flow of the sentence. If you really feel it must be kept, put it at the end of the sentence.Risker (talk)

I did it

• Generally speaking, try to avoid placing references in the middle of a sentence, as it adversely affects the readability of the article. Consider whether one or two references will cover the key information rather than having three or more for a single sentence. There are still a few, but they seem to make sense to me.Risker (talk)
  • Examples: Sentence about Higher Learning; the eight-word sentence "The family moved to Woodstock, New York in 1976" has three references, one should suffice; critical success of A Beautiful Mind; first sentence of the 2005-2007 paragraph, etc.

The excess of sources was moderated.--GDuwenTell me! 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Try not to mix information about two films in the same sentence, e.g. the paragraph about Hulk and House of Sand and Fog; a clean break helps the reader identify the new "thought" better. Risker (talk)

Clarified with a two-sentence break.--GDuwenTell me! 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Re The Day the Earth Stood Still: The section "but unlike the original, in which her character was a secretary and her romantic relationship with Klaatu the focus of the movie, the remake emphasized the troubled relationship between her and her stepson" is confusing, as it suggests Connelly performed in both versions. Try to rework this sentence to make it more clear. Clearer. Risker (talk)

The sentence was rephrased in order to avoid further confusion.--GDuwenTell me! 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest rewording the sentence "She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You,[77] based on the self-help book of the same name,[78][79] which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin. which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin." to:
  • "She was included in the ensemble cast (which also featured Jennifer Aniston and Ginnifer Goodwin) of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You, based on the self-help book of the same name." Risker (talk)

Phrase reworded--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Re Creation: Consider reworking the sentence "The pair are both in mourning following the death of their daughter Annie."
  • "The couple are in mourning..."? "Both husband and wife are separately mourning the death of their daughter..."? You are probably more familiar with the appropriate context here. I made a tiny further copy edit to more standard English usage. Risker (talk)

I made some arrangements in the sentence, that should explain it better.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• The paragraph about "2011" films needs some work: both films were released in January 2011, so they were obviously filmed before then. Perhaps reworking the sentences to say "Howard directed her in the 2011 release..." or words to that effect would help. Risker (talk)

I rephrased the sentences.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Her Amnesty International ambassadorship is mentioned in the lead; however, the only reference to it in the article is a single sentence that isn't much longer than the one in the lead. Suggest trying to beef this up a bit if you can find suitable references. It might be worthwhile even to include some information on such ambassadorships generally to provide context. Risker (talk)

I removed the line from the lead, as it is just a one liner in the article.--GDuwenTell me! 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any information on future professional or personal plans? This might be a good way to "wrap up" the article. Okay, I guess it's a timing thing. Risker (talk)

Her last project which she filmed before her pregnancy is opening next month. Me and the other nominator have followed news about her and there's nothing indicating a future project (excepting for a rumored movie which she denied). We're gonna add some info about her future as long as something is confirmed. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have not reviewed many of the references for this article.

As I don't always have a chance to get over to this page, please ping me on my talk page when you've considered my comments above. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Risker (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• My issues listed above are satisfactorily resolved, and I've done a tiny bit more copy editing as I've gone through again.
• Second sentence about Career Opportunities: I don't think that is quite what the reference source says; I'm reading it as Whaley looking at Connelly rather than Connelly looking at Whaley. I'd suggest trying to find the original People Magazine article that complained of Connelly's exploitation or, alternately, to remove the sentence.

I corrected the line, Whaley was looking at Connelly, it was my own confussion.--GDuwenTell me! 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Casliber about adding a little more about some of the films; if there aren't interviews or reviews about her performance, even a fuller description of the movie or character (properly sourced, of course) might add some colour to the article.

Me & Gunt50 are working to expand further details of some films, I agree that it would make the article more complete.--GDuwenTell me! 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Are there references for the "most beautiful woman" lists? When was she included in the lists? Might this fit into the "Personal life" section?

The reference is next to each publication listed, whe decided to remove previously the years in which she was included in the lists to avoid redundancies and to shorten all of them into one sentence.--GDuwenTell me! 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Article is coming along very nicely, you are doing good work! Risker (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note right now, my intended final once-over last night got unexpectedly derailed. I'll be back online in about 2 hours, at which time this will be my first priority. Risker (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As seems to be the way my weekend has been going, my continued review has been interrupted several times. I have, however, been making some notes as I go through, and I've done a couple of copy edits. While I am not finished, one of the things I was doing was matching the content to the reference sources, and I've noted some weaknesses. Since I'm not finished, I will leave them in my sandbox, but the nominators can feel free to jump ahead and try to address some of these issues. I'll continue tomorrow. Incidentally, I can see that there have been some notable improvements since the last time I read the article through. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment — The filmography list has been made sortable but the titles do not sort properly. Titles that begin with "The", "A", or "An" should never sort under those words. Instead they should sort under the title's following world. Example: The Day the Earth Stood Still should sort under "Day". Please fix this. Jimknut (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, it is now fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

... but now it's fixed better! Jimknut (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I'll make copyedits as I read through (check edit summaries for explanations) - please revert any inadvertent changes I introduce as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

...is an American film actress and former child model who started modeling after a friend of her parents suggested an audition. - tricky - best not to double up on words if one can help it, could we rewrite as "is an American film actress, and who enjoyed a career as a child model after a friend of her parents suggested an audition." or something like it?

It's fixed now.--GDuwenTell me! 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the article as a whole lacks something - there are a sprinkling of bio facts and a long list of films. I am wondering if there is other material out there which might have some more encompassing material in it - what did she enjoy working on the most, more about her background and philosophy etc.

I've tried to add more material but there is not much available online that provides of further details of Ms. Connelly's biography (other than the ones that are already used). I feel that the article is similar to Kirsten Dunst's, that already is a FA. Both articles concentrate in their filmography, and in both cases the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections cover almost the same aspects.--GDuwenTell me! 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good comparison - looking at them, I do feel some of the individual films have a little more material. I think if you find any other material (for instance) where Connelly discusses a role, or someone else does, or any other aspect of a film which seems noteworthy, then these are extremely valuable in breaking up a "she did this film, then that film, then...etc.". I just feel sprinkling a little more would help this article greatly. I saw some other material online about her being in the Union of the Snake clip and so think there can be a little more gleaned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for content that might be interesting in interviews. It's not very clear if she appeared in the clip of Union of the Snake, it was previously included in the article but due that there are several debates if she was or not in it we decided to remove it. Either way I was not able to find a reliable source online to cite it.--GDuwenTell me! 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to add some more info about her personal considerations to the article. I added a statement she made on becoming a parent which seems interesting since she expresses her the changes in her persona after giving birth to her first child. --Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much to add about her main roles since they're already described. We considered the roles good enough described. We had to cover the former-poorly-explained critics' and casting (about A Beautiful Mind) aspects before nominating the article again. We're all ears to hear more suggestions. --Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, looking a little better - yes, that's the idea of the sort of material I was thinking the article would benefit from. I'm still not crazy about the article - there are loads of hits on google books for all sorts of bits and pieces - also saw this, though I don't know much about it...I have been browsing the books to see if anything comes up that fits the bill...Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Jennifer Connelly Handbook" is a compilation of Wikipedia articles, includes this article plus the ones of her movies. I've been reading the available content in Google Books, but most of the information I found is already included in the article.--GDuwenTell me! 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: No issues copyright-wise, however I would like to see better descriptions added for File:Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg, File:Paul Bettany-Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg (both just have IMG_# as description), and File:JenniferConnellycomiccon.JPG (desc. says Tim Burton at comic-con yet he's not in the pic) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions are now complete.--GDuwenTell me! 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good now. As a suggestion, you may want to ask those who gave a prose review to revisit and see if they want to support now. This is likely to be archived again due to lack of support otherwise. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost ready for support Overall this article looks extremely good to me. I made a few minor changes in the text so that it reads better(in my opinion at least). There is only one other suggestion that I will make before I give it my full support and that is with the outline structure:

Rather than this ...	... how about doing it this way?
Contents [hide] Early life Child modelling and early movie appearances Career 1980s–1990s Early 2000s 2005–2007 2008–2011 Personal life Filmography References External links	Contents [hide] Life and career Birth and early life Child modelling and early movie appearances 1980s–1990s Early 2000s 2005–2007 2008–2011 Personal life Filmography References External links

I think it will make the article to look better organized. The "Birth and early life" sub-section would be followed by the sentence "Connelly was born in Round Top, New York ..." Jimknut (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, certainly the article looks better organized now.--GDuwenTell me! 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support This article looks extremely good and I recommend it for FA status. — Jimknut (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing source checks for reliability, close paraphrasing, and accurate representation of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I swear I'm not trying to pick on this article, but I still think it needs additional improvement before it is ready for promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note - for people unfamiliar with my reviewing style, I thought I should clarify: on points where I say "check for others" or similar, the example provided is an example only, not the only instance of the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 14: publisher, page(s)?

Number added.--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are a number of other print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verification

Missing page numbers added--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Referencing format needs cleanup for consistency. For example, compare refs 17 and 23

The inconsistency between those two sources relies in the type of citation, ref 17 is a web citation (use of the template Cite web), while ref 23 is an article citation (use of cite news template).--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you cite the original source for this material and this story?

I've found the original of Vanity Fair but not the one related to veganism.--GDuwenTell me! 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Some WP:MOS issues - repeated wikilinks, quotation problems, etc
• "When Connelly was ten years old, an advertising executive friend of her father suggested she audition as a model.[3] As a result she joined the Ford Modeling Agency and began modelling in print advertisements when she was ten years old" - "When Connelly was ten years old...when she was ten years old". Check for other instances of repetition

Repetition erased.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, most of the complaints concerned an ad" - unclear phrasing, check for others

I've tried to make it more clear.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "where she was selected for a supporting role as Deborah Gelly in Sergio Leone's 1984 gangster epic, Once Upon a Time in America" - cited source agrees she was in that movie, but doesn't specify her role, how she was selected, or the details of the film

I removed that ref, leaving instead the article of Interview Magazine.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The clip ended with the phrase..." - no, according to the source this ad was a cardboard cutout with the phrase written on it. I found a few other instances of material unsupported by or contradictory to the cited source - nothing egregious, but please double-check interpretation of sources

OK, my bad. Fixed--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "In December 1986 recorded two pop songs" - grammar, check for other errors

Subject added to the phrase.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "In an interview with Rolling Stone during her sophomore year at Yale, Connelly stated..." - where does the following quote end? There are no closing quotation marks. Check for other punctuation errors throughout.

Quote closed.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• When not attributing material directly to a critic or writer, you must maintain an academic tone. Phrases like "afforded her the chance to work with" seem to lean towards POV writing

Is it ok now?--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Although a disappointment at the box office" - source?

The performance at the box office was sourced.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Some minor instances of overly close paraphrasing - for example, "director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on the Marvel Comics superhero" vs "director Ang Lee's philosophical perspective on Marvel's superhero". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [2].

---

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Nominator(s): -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is a WP:GA quality article. Valuable feedback was received during the GA Review, from Hadger, and also during a completed Peer Review, from Casliber and Herostratus – and their suggestions were implemented. Now putting this article for consideration for Featured Article status, as I believe it meets the criteria. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not
• ref 22: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Nikkimaria

1. Thank you, good point, I have added in additional publisher info.
2. I accessed this source via NewsBank, and no page number was given. However, I have added a note that it was accessed via this database, to make verification easier for others in the future.

Thank you for your help, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Sadads

1. Lead seems a little bare bones. I know it meets enough for WP:Lead but it is not very enticing and could use a little more umph.
2. Content section: Not sure if you need all the instructions on how the bacon should be prepared, I mean they can read the book if they want.
3. "Perry writes, "In the morning, the sound and smell of bacon cooking in the skillet give me the feeling that I have time. I can relax and savor the day."[13] Perry writes how consuming bacon products can become habitual."" - Two perry writes in a row, makes for very mechanical reading,
4. Publication section seems a little out of place, I like seeing them at the end of articles (which is the standard per WP:MOS (novels)) but that is a personal preference thing
5. Reception section could use some summary of the general impression of all the critics at the beginning of that section. Going straight into comments by the reviewers is a little shocking if you aren't prepared, and reads a little bit too much like a list.
6. At several points, two sentences from the same source will each have footnotes. As long as its clear, you don't need footnotes for each sentence

Those are my initial thoughts, I will likely come back through and reread again for some more, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads, I will look over these suggestions in more depth and try to address them as best I can. Then, I will note it, back here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sadads

Thanks very much for these specific helpful suggestions. I have made some edits to address the above recommendations:

1. I added a bit more to the lede/intro.
2. Trimmed a bit down from the Contents sect.
3. Copyedited those sentences, good point, thanks. :)
4. Moved the Publication history sect lower down in the article, per above suggestion.
5. Added a summary intro to the Reception sect.
6. Re-checked cites and trimmed a bit here and there.

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - after those changes, everything looks really good, Sadads (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tony1

• Comment—all quotes removed? I wonder whether just a few short ones could show us the author's tone. Is she humorous or quirky in places? Tony (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to the above FAC comment by 56tyvfg88yju (talk · contribs). But please, take a look at the prior version with quotes. Are there any in particular that stand out, that you feel should be added back into the article? -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tony1

Thank you for the input, perhaps it was too much to remove all quotes, I will try to add a few back selectively.

1. I added back one quote, to the Contents sect, diff.
2. Also, added in one quote, to the Background sect, diff.

Thanks again for the suggestion, -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tbhotch

• Infobox

The ALT can be improved

• Lead

Per WP:LEAD, as it is supposed that the information is in the body, references shoudn't go here (excepting WP:LEADCITE).

• Content summary

"Meals and appetizers are discussed.[11][12]" Too short, merge it with another sentence.

• Background

"and cookbook writer Sara Perry had" -> "and cookbook writer, Sara Perry had"

"at Chronicle Books suggested bacon" -> maybe "suggested her"?

• Reception

"Another writer for The Denver Post" -> maybe "Another writer for the same newspaper."

"The Toronto Star review" -> "The review"

• It looks good. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tbhotch

1. I added some more to the ALT in the infobox.
2. Removed the references from the lede.
3. Merged the info with another sentence.
4. Copyedited the sentence, as suggested.
5. Utilized recommendation to edit the sentence.
6. Changed the wording here in Reception sect.
7. Modified the text to just "the review".

Thank you for your helpful comments. -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your kind comments about the quality of the article, aside from those comments. Much appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I found no other issues. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What about using Template:Harvard citation no brackets? TGilmour (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Per above suggestion by TGilmour (talk · contribs), I changed the referencing format to Template:Harvard citation no brackets. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to change it to shortened footnotes. My bad. I support if you change it. TGilmour (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I just did change it to shortened footnotes. Perhaps you can explain? -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You changed it to Harvard, but shortened footnotes has better layout. Not a big deal but then it will look more consummate if you change it. TGilmour (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now it has shortened footnotes formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: Only image is a non-free cover, and its use appears acceptable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I appreciate the work that has been done to this article. Reference formatting has been improved so now it is perfect. TGilmour (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

• Oppose I have several reservations about this article, which unlike TGilmour above I do not think is perfect, but then what is. First a few prose issues:

1. "It was first published in 2002 by publisher Chronicle Books." So it was published by a publisher? How unusual.
2. "... commented favorably of the author's excitement". Should be "commented on", not "of".
3. "Louis Mahoney of the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote that Perry's technique of cooking bacon was best out of other types of methodologies." Apart fom being a barbarism (missing "the") it seems like a bit of a word salad. And is "methodology" really the right word to be using about cooking?
4. "Assistant Texas Taste Editor for The Dallas Morning News Laura H. Ehret wrote that the book successfully replicated the experience of consuming bacon through its descriptive text." But it no longer does?
5. "Marty Meitus wrote for the Rocky Mountain News that the book had contributed to increasing his appetite for bacon dishes." Very awkward: why not something like "had contributed to his increased appetite for bacon"?
6. "Assistant Texas Taste Editor for The Dallas Morning News Laura H. Ehret wrote that the book successfully replicated the experience of consuming bacon through its descriptive text." How do you consume bacon through a text?
7. "Cindy Hoedel of The Kansas City Star wrote favorably regarding photography in the book by Sheri Giblin." Yuk!
8. "... Sara Perry had written and published four books (The New Complete Coffee Book, The New Tea Book, Christmastime Treats, and Weekends with the Kids) when her editor at Chronicle Books suggested bacon to her as a cookbook subject." That chronology is impossible.
9. "Everything Tastes Better with Bacon received a generally positive reception among book reviews and food critics". Among book reviews or reviewers? Shouldn't that be "from reviewers and food critics" anyway?
10. "Lawson noted the author had compiled fundamental information about bacon together in the book." Compiled together? as opposed to compiled apart?

I could go on and on, but these few examples will hopefully make the point. My other concern is the lack of coverage of what is merely hinted at in the article with snippets like "the phenomenon of works displaying the adaptability of bacon in cooking recipes", and "the more intriguing cookbooks within the topic". Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Malleus Fatuorum, for your helpful comments about points on how to improve the quality of this article. I shall make some effort to address your suggestions, and note it back here afterwards. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Thank you for these suggestions. I addressed the specific ones:

1. Good point, removed word, "publisher", as this is self-evident here.
2. Changed to "commented on".
3. Copyedited sentence, removed "methodology", change to "technique".
4. Good suggestion, removed word, "replicated", changed to "conveyed".
5. Thank you for this recommendation, directly implemented the change to: "had contributed to his increased appetite for bacon".
6. Good point, removed this unnecessary phrasing from the end of the sentence.
7. I see how this sentence could be improved, and I changed the ordering and copyedited it a bit.
8. Broke this sentence apart, to make the chronology a bit more evident. Note: I had changed this sentence previously, per a suggestion from a prior FAC Reviewer, above.
9. Good point, changed it to, "from reviewers and food critics".
10. I see how that was unnecessary, so removed word, "together".

As far as the latter portion of the feedback, more specificity on how to improve the article's quality, would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What's being hinted at is that there's a corpus of work on bacon, so the obvious question is why, and in particular how does this book fit into it? Regarding #4 above, I think that "conveyed" is a better choice of word, but it's still in the past tense. Does the book no longer convey the experience of consuming bacon? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I changed it from "conveyed" to "conveys". As to what is being hinted at — unfortunately in the course of my research I did not come across other secondary sources which further analyze what you are referring to. I would most appreciate it if you wish to suggest any secondary sources not yet used in this article — and I would be quite happy to work with you to incorporate them. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Much as I like bacon I've got some shit shovelling to attend to. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I fully follow your meaning, but without further specifics from the FAC comments, unfortunately there is not much else that is actionable here to address, having used all available secondary sources in the article text. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is of course up to the delegates, not me, but I'm suggesting that this article fails the comprehensiveness criteria because it fails to place this book in its context, instead merely hinting at the presence of a context. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I respect your opinion, Malleus Fatuorum, however without recommending any additional secondary sources to utilize, I'm just not sure there is anything actionable here to deal with. -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not my job to find sources, that would be yours. If the article makes claims about a corpus of work, which it does, then surely secondary sources can be found. Otherwise the claims have to be removed as unsupported by reliable sources. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I have been over the searches in multiple databases numerous times, and have not found anything more in additional secondary sources — as all the worthwhile ones are already used in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt, if Malleus is saying "I could go on and on", more work must be required on the prose. Tony (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that is something that definitely can be responded to, sure. I'll do my best to work more on the prose. And I'll try to see if I can get a some an editor or two for additional copyediting. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a request for copyediting help to improve prose, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon and with WP:GOCE. Also posted a note to the two editors listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers with interests in food-articles: Casliber and bibliomaniac15. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't need copy edit. TGilmour (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Malleus and I appear to be making some good faith progress, [3]. Malleus is going to provide some additional specific feedback on my user talk page, and I'll address those suggestions as best I can. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from TGilmour

• Comment "Bacon was becoming increasingly popular at the time, but Perry believed a paucity of recipes would make the project difficult." What project? TGilmour (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The project of writing the book itself. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I copyedited this, now it's more clear. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm not just reading but perusing the article and will come up with the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGilmour (talk • contribs)

Alright sounds good, I'll try to address those as best I can. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, now I'm eating a cheese with a flavor of bacon – really tasty. TGilmour (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have preserved a bacon for dinner. Probably, I'll roast it. Roast bacon - one of my favorite dishes. TGilmour (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds enticing. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. TGilmour (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "A review in The Toronto Star was negative, and criticized the author's lack of creativity in the recipe selection." How can review criticize author's lack of creativity? Maybe the author of the review? TGilmour (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Copyedited this sentence, made it a bit more clear. -- Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Fran McCullough, author of The Best American Recipes" Maybe "the" before "author"? TGilmour (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Implemented this suggestion in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've just finished carefully reading the article, only two aforementioned and fixed issues were found, so the necessity of copy editing has been obviated. You can remove the request from the Guild. TGilmour (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Really? So you don't see a problem with this kind of thing then? "A review in The Toronto Star was negative, and criticized the Perry's lack of creativity in the recipe selection." Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional feedback, Malleus Fatuorum, I've made some effort to perform additional copyediting for prose. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You might also like to take a look at this: "... yet noted its lack of comprehensiveness and small size of total recipes included". Is that complaining about the size of the recipes or the number of recipes? Basically, despite what anyone else may think, I firmly believe that the prose still needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Malleus Fatuorum, I will continue to do some additional copyediting for prose, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Went through another pass at some more copyediting to further improve the prose. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Truthkeeper88

Comment: I saw this request for a copyedit and decided to have a look at the page. Frankly I think it needs more than a copyedit. I don't understand why this book is notable and I think that point needs to be made clear. Is the author notable? Is this the only cookbook about bacon? Apparently not after looking at Amazon. So, I think it needs to be placed in a genre - i.e is this a niche genre for cookbooks? Do we know the print-run? Do we know how well the book has sold? Have additional editions been printed? And why bacon? A very quick google search showed this article, explaining that bacon is becoming a new cult, like chocolate or olive oil, and this from the Christian Science Monitor saying that bacon has been vilified but is becoming a popular cooking ingredient. I've only scanned the first few lines, but if this is true, then some sort of context needs to be added here. Essentially I don't think this is comprehensive, but not sure it's a topic that can be comprehensive. Also, I'm not sure how much of this actionable, so understand if nothing is done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment- it's not strictly necessary to cite the primary source; in other words the "Content summary" doesn't need to be cited (except for direct quotations). But, I think that's probably a matter of style. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthkeeper88, for the great ideas! I'll try to get to implementing them soon. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments from Truthkeeper88

I've added some info to the article per above helpful suggestions from Truthkeeper88:

1. Utilized suggested source, The Atlantic, in subsection, Genre.
2. Added recommended reference, Christian Science Monitor, to the selfsame section.
3. Incorporated another source from the article, St. Petersburg Times, also into that section.
4. The Genre section now helps to place the book into a greater context within its niche genre, and grounds the reader prior to reading about its Impact, later on in the article. :)

-- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The genre paragraph still doesn't convince me why this book, this genre, this subject is notable. Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. The sources I linked above were simply meant to show that more exists on this subject, but I don't have a sense of how much more or why a cookbook about bacon is important Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Striking my oppose and comment here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Sorry, but I have to move to oppose, mostly based on the FA policy regarding content. I don't see how this one book is important and quite frankly it feels like a promotional piece. Until content can be added to show that this book is particularly notable within a particularly notable culinary trend, then I have to stick with this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not part of WP:WIAFA-- it is determined at WP:AFD. Any article that survives AFD can be a featured article. Opposes here have to be based on WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: The "oppose" was struck by the user himself, Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs), diff. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jeff Bedford

Comment: The non-free cover image used is appropriate and in line with the image use policy, as pointed out by Wizardman, above. Based on WP:FACR and other high-quality food and literature Wikipedia articles, the addition of one image in the body of the article would help to better illustrate the subject of the article. While some of us may be quite familiar with the bacon-added-to-food trend, other readers of this article (especially in countries where bacon is not commonly consumed) may not be able to develop a complete understanding of the theme of this book without a relevant photo. Two ideas include:

• Take a photo of a dish that was made from a recipe in this book. One solid photograph placed alongside the Content summary section would be ideal, but it could be located elsewhere. For example, the photo of the chili half-smoke at Ben's_Chili_Bowl#Menu is an appropriate and helpful illustration of a menu item at that restaurant.

• Take or obtain (with permission for release under a free use license) a photo of the book's author, perhaps at a book signing or other related activity, as shown in Halo:_Contact_Harvest#Background.

If others feel that the recipe photo would be of help, I'd be happy to make a recipe from the book and snap a photo. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A recipe photo would be lovely. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Jeff Bedford has graciously said he will work on this, diff. — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Colm

Oppose - I'm very sorry Cirt, but for such a short article on a minor recipe book to become featured, the prose really has to shine. It doesn't. There is bad grammar, "Recipes from the work have been featured in related cookbooks, and its impact served to increase interest in cooking with bacon." The antecedent for "it's" is "Recipes" not the book. And this sentence is difficult to understand: "Janet F. Keeler of the St. Petersburg Times commented positively on the book's title, and noted the work was covered by food critics, who included its recipes in articles about the subject". In trying to avoid a second use of "book", the sentence has become ambiguous, and what subject, bacon or the the book or its recipes? The whole flow of the prose is choppy, not pleasant to read and not engaging. I can't support this. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [4].

---

Robin Friday

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria, simply put. I think that a quick copy-edit by somebody other than me may be necessary, as well as a few fresh sets of eyes, but I think that the meat of an FA is already here. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• No citations to Hayes 2006
• See here for a list of problematic links
• Why does the format of note 9 differ from the other website citations?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hayes included only for Cardiff statistics, but forgot to place inline citation with page number – will rectify.
    • Substituted Hayes for John Crooks, The Bluebirds (1987). Inline citations and so forth included. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know why those pop up as problematic – click through manually and they work fine.
  • The backpagefootball one I will admit is perhaps stretching it a bit – I was happy with it for GA but I don't think it's essential so I've taken it out. There was only one claim it stood alone for anyway, and it wasn't a big one. The other two are both fine, however. Richard Rundle's Football Club History Database gives a list of reliable sources here. Statto, meanwhile, uses Tony Brown's SoccerData databases. Brown has published many definitive statistical books and The Football Association itself uses his databases. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Just as additional info, FCHD was accepted as reliable by Eadlgyth over at FLC a couple of years back. I can link to the discussion if it would help..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I've used FCHD on a number of FLCs and a couple FACs if memory serves, but I remember the point being brought up at each occasion that reliability needed to be proved each time; I'm not having a go at you, I'm just explaining why I took the line I did above. The point I'm trying to make is that FCHD has previously been reliable but we shouldn't take it as so for that reason and no other. I think we're agreed here in any case. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Read through most of the article and have a few concerns that should be quick to resolve. Will try to read the rest at some point.

• Most of the time the lead's content doesn't have to be cited, but for quotations like "the complete centre-forward", I'd expect to see references for them.
• Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League: Some over-citation can be seen in this section; for example, four straight sentences end with reference 10. Only the one reference at the end is truly needed.
• 1976–77 season: "Friday reported back for pre-season training in very bad condition, and although Hurley claimed that Friday was trying very hard to regain fitness". The two "very"s don't serve that much purpose here, coming off as excess verbiage. The sentence wouldn't be harmed if they were just removed. There's a third one later in the sentence as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've referenced quotations in the lead. Funnily enough the over-citation is the result of an attempt to counter under-citation, I've rectified it as you said. Finally, I've taken the "very"s out. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • We have "Biographer Paulo Hewitt" at the end of Post-retirement and "journalist Paulo Hewitt" at the start of Style of play and legacy. I'm thinking that his first name and profession (writer) don't need to be repeated the second time around, especially because it's close to the first usage.
    • "Friday would kiss them or fondle with their testicles." Not too familiar with the usage here, but I would have thought it would be without the "with", as in "fondle their testicles." If it's a common usage, then it's fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, fixed Hewitt. I'm not sure where I got "fondle with"; a quick web search reveals it to be an incorrect usage and yet it's how I've always used the word. Evidently I was wrong, so I'll change that too. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: The images that are PD check out as being okay. As for the fair use image, after reading through the style/legacy section and checking the rationale, I actually think that this image would be okay staying in the article, though if any image people want to provide a second opinion here they can. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also just like to make the point that the fair use image handily illustrates Friday without us needing to put a second fair use file in the infobox. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Content review: (as that seems to be the style here!) - I found it incredibly interesting, funny, tragic and emotive. Really enjoyed it, highly accessible and well written. I made a few notes on the talk page which I'd like to see addressed but in any case, this is a lovely article, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Just thought I should make a note on here that I'm going to be away for a week starting from tomorrow. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [5].

---

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked hard on this article several times for several years to bring it to FA status and I've done all of the additions and copy-editing that I think I can before bringing it to FA, including two prior nominations and a peer review. If anyone has suggestions during this process, I can meet them. If you look at the previous two nominations, they were held up mostly due to lack of enthusiasm from reviewers and concerns about copyrights which were met. (Aside: I would really like to this to pass before August 18, as that is the three-year anniversary of the album and could be a good opportunity to nominate it for the main page.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment- Check your references. You need publishers for all those newspapers, and many sites and magazines you used in your sources. Also, for location, as indicated on the template page for {{citenews}}, you only need city (eg Toronto or London), and not the redundant "London, England, United Kingdom", or "New York City, New York, United States". Also, ref number 8 has no publisher, access-date, or url. Is it an online or paper source? Orane (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. I'd be happy to re-assess once some of the below have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Some copy-editing is needed for clarity, grammar and flow. For example, "The same lossless and MP3 options were available for purchase and marketing was again handled by Topspin Media and the company created a second embeddable media player for the EP."
• WP:MOS editing needed. For example, "%" should be spelled out in article text
• Newspaper or magazine articles without weblinks need page numbers
• Source formatting issues raised by Orane above need to be dealt with. In general, source formatting needs to be much more consistent
• Don't include cited sources in External links
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This source is a self-published blog,, so be careful how you use it (and how much)
• Given the size of the article, the lead should be slightly longer
• Don't use contractions
• This and this are dead links, check for others
• WP:OVERLINK
• File:David_Byrne_and_Brian_Eno_-_Everything_That_Happens_Will_Happen_Today_deluxe.jpg - source link is dead
• File:Everything_That_Happens_Will_Happen_Today_closeup.png - FUR needs work. In particular, you need to actually state who holds copyright to this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Things to do

• Publishers for all those newspapers, and many sites and magazines you used in your sources.
• For location, as indicated on the template page for {{citenews}}, you only need city (eg Toronto or London) Comment: The template explicitly gives examples that aren't just the city.
• Ref number 8 has no publisher, access-date, or url. Is it an online or paper source?
• Some copy-editing is needed for clarity, grammar and flow. For example, "The same lossless and MP3 options were available for purchase and marketing was again handled by Topspin Media and the company created a second embeddable media player for the EP." Comment: I've done some of this and addressed your specific concern--this is the hardest part for me, and I've gone through the article several times to copyredit the prose. I'll continue to do this as you think appropriate.
• WP:MOS editing needed. For example, "%" should be spelled out in article text Comment: Again, this specific incident was fixed and I'm looking at the MOS now to see what else I can amend.
• Newspaper or magazine articles without weblinks need page numbers
• Don't include cited sources in External links Comment: the only external links used in the article are to Allmusic and Metacritic; it's pretty common to use these cites in external links--hence the templates. Are these really a problem?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This source is a self-published blog,, so be careful how you use it (and how much)
• Given the size of the article, the lead should be slightly longer
• Don't use contractions
• This and this are dead links, check for others
• WP:OVERLINK
• File:David_Byrne_and_Brian_Eno_-_Everything_That_Happens_Will_Happen_Today_deluxe.jpg - source link is dead
• File:Everything_That_Happens_Will_Happen_Today_closeup.png - FUR needs work. In particular, you need to actually state who holds copyright to this image.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [6].

---

Manhunter (film)

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a gradual series of improvements since its last FAC nomination, and a peer review to further enhance and tweak it, I feel it is ready to be considered a featured article. It's come a long way since its time as a stubby trivia list, and the pet project I started simply as a result of opening a random back issue of Total Film has led to me learning more than any one man man should ever know about 1980s neo-noir. I feel it's only right that we all get to be privy to a great becoming. GRAPPLE X 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date formatting
• Publications like Chicago Tribune should be italicized
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
• Book sources need page numbers
• Ref 35: publisher?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Despite having formatting issues raised in the previous FAC, this article needs extensive cleanup in regards to reference formatting, particularly consistency issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have addressed everything but the page numbers, which I'm about to start adding now. Not sure how I missed the date inconsistency... :( GRAPPLE X 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers added now too. GRAPPLE X 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Hi, a quick thing I noticed, throughout the article you're spelling Hannibal Lecktor's name with the spelling as it is in this film, Lecktor, however, I wonder if many readers will assume this is a typo, due to the spelling of the cannibals name in the novels and other films in the series. Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't mention why the spelling was different in this film. Would the article benefit from a brief explanation of why this was in the production section? Coolug (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't actually seem to be a reason. Both Lecter/Lecktor and Dollarhyde/Dolarhyde were changed, but nothing I've been able to turn up indicates why the changes were made. I could add a note in the cast section to say that the names were changed, though. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Hannibal Lecter claims it was a copyright issue, with this as a source. It's ten minutes long, so I haven't watched it all, but it might contain what you need. cya Coolug (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make me watch Terry Wogan. I'll give it a look now, but my gut tells me it's a bit off that they would have the rights to the book but not some character names. I suppose it can be worded to be sure it's Cox making the claim, not stated as encyclopaedic fact. GRAPPLE X 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cannot cite YouTube to begin with because of the high potential for deletion of videos because of copyright issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to look for the episode information to cite the program itself but I needn't bother—what Cox actually says is that someone had acquired the rights to the name 'Hannibal Lecter', and almost forced Silence of the Lambs to rename the character. The information doesn't pertain to Manhunter. I've simply included a note in the 'Cast' section, where it mentions Cox playing the role, stating the name was changed from the novel's spelling. It may well remain one of those strange little mysteries. :( GRAPPLE X 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose due to not all references listed at the last peer review being fully vetted. A featured article needs to be comprehensive and well-researched, so the print references should at least be reviewed. If a reference's content is redundant to what exists in the article already, that is fine. But a reference like The Cinema of Michael Mann, with a whole chapter about this film, deserves a look. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have had no luck in locating this book in either my university's library or the public library, and short of buying it myself, this seems to be an unavoidable outcome, as, as mentioned in the peer review, online sources such as Google Books or Amazon do not allow even searching the book's contents, bar its initial contents page, to vet its contents for redundancy. If this is going to be a genuine stumbling block to the nomination, I'll withdraw until such time as I can purchase anything I can't find elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 19 June 2011 [7].

---

Luke Schenn

Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm bringing Schenn's article back for another crack at FAC. He's currently suiting up for Canada at the World Championships, but I don't believe stability will be much of an issue. There were a few issues raised last time, but not a lot of input. I believe I have addressed the issues regarding images and sourcing from my last attempt. There has also been a copyedit done by an uninvolved editor (User:Diannaa) who did a much better job than I could have hoped to do. I appreciate any comments that are offered up. Canada Hky (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Addendum I am involved in the currently running Wikicup, but would prefer that no one feel beholden to offer reviews according to those timelines. Apologies to everyone involved for not adding this in sooner. Canada Hky (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources were checked at the last FAC; I don't see many major changes. Haven't done spotchecks yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image, deadlink and copvio check Article makes good use of two properly licensed images. No deadlinks. Does the Maple Leafs website usually mirror Wikipedia and cite no attribution? No copyvios found, that one site most certainly appears to be a mirror.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a mirror to me. I don't think it is the Leafs official site, which would be "shop.nhl.mapleleafs.com" or something very similar. I'll dig around it a little bit more later to confirm. Canada Hky (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an unofficial site, I took this from the "About Us" page: "Consumers save up to 40% off the unit prices compared with that of official online retailing nhl jerseys store". There are several spelling mistakes (on player names), and the Leafs roster is not up to date. Canada Hky (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I gave my main review the first time this was at FAC, and don't have much to add. The only thing I can think of is that he set new career-highs in assists and points. Might be worthy of a mention. Also, I would advise that the article be updated right after the World Championships (or after Canada is eliminated), but that can be dealt with when that time comes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments. I have added the note about his career highs, nice catch. I have been keeping an eye on the WC. At the end of the tourney, I plan to update with his stats and Canada's results. He's kind of plodding along as he usually does, with one assist in five games, so there won't be much more than a sentence or two to add. There will also be some contract information this summer, but that can be dealt with as well when the time comes. Canada Hky (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated for Canada's unfortunately early exit from the WC. :( Canada Hky (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The only things I would recommend involving the update are citing Canada's finish and adding a PDF indicator to reference 28. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Got both of those things fixed up, thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Everything I've brought up in both FACs has been addressed and the article seems to be up to standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is probably just the nature of the beast, but it seems like his name is used excessively especially towards the end of the professional section. It starts to seem very repetitive could some pronouns bee used in order to break-up some of the monotony? --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to smooth this out a bit. Let me know how successful you think I was. Canada Hky (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Query - How much is he earning? Could be worth a mention. Utinsh (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Added the info about his salary and the value of potential bonuses. Canada Hky (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Article looks as comprehensive as it can right now. Utinsh (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I appreciate a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid I don't think it's quite up to standard yet. There are several issues with prose in particular. There are several examples of redundancy (some below) and a repetitive sentence structure which makes it hard work to read. I also have issues with comprehensiveness as there does not seem to be much detail about his achievements, or how well he performed particularly in his early career. I read to the end of the Junior section and skimmed the rest. I also picked up one or two jargon issues which need explaining or linking for the general reader. Another point, which I have raised before, but would not oppose on outright: I wonder how comprehensive an article can be about a 21 year old player at the beginning of his career; would it not be better to wait? The above comment that it is as comprehensive as it can be right now suggests that it may need much more work later. These are the main issues I have found, mainly prose related, but they are samples only: — Sarastro — continues after insertion below

• "Schenn was named to the league's Second All-Star Team": Not sure how you can be named to a team, rather than on or in.
  • "Named to" is pretty common for hockey's post-season all-star teams. I've never actually heard on or in for a hockey player. Possibly a regional (Canadian) thing?
    • My argument is that this article should not reflect "hockey-speak", but it should be encyclopaedic. Hence, I think "named to" is too colloquial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • "Named to" isn't really "hockey-speak". Stephen Harper named MPs "to" his cabinet, according to most natinal news sources, so I will stick with Canadian usage of the term for an appointment. Canada Hky (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm still not entirely convinced, but I won't insist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• "He was a highly-touted prospect…": What does highly-touted mean in this context? I suspect "highly regarded" may work better.
  • Agreed, changed.
• "he was selected in the first round (fifth overall) by the Maple Leafs…" I continue to have a very rudimentary understanding of the draft system, but two points arise: that a link to "drafting" rather than the specific 2008 draft, which does not really explain the system to the casual reader, may be preferable; and I think "first round" may be sufficient detail for the lead, and a little more elegant. The information about him being the fifth overall pick can wait.
  • Worked in a link to the NHL Entry Draft page
    • I'm not sure this helps, and the other points still apply. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The details about draft position are important. There is a significant difference between an early first rounder and a late first rounder. Canada Hky (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll take your word for it and strike, but I'd like a link that explains how the drafting works if at all possible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• While "defensive defenceman" may be the correct term, it is a horrible expression!
  • Yes, well hockey has its quirks. The other option is "Stay at home defenceman" which seems a bit more jargon-y. I can switch it out, but the redundancy might be preferable to the jargon.
    • On the contrary, I think "Stay at home defenceman" sounds a little better, and no more jargony than the current phrase. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure, I can change that. Canada Hky (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• "He has served as captain and alternate captain at several levels of play.": The repetition of captain and the imprecise "several levels of play" make this an uncomfortable sentence.
  • Removed this mention from the lead, and reworked captaincy mentions in text.
• "He does charity work during the season by helping military families attend Maple Leafs home games.": Does this qualify as a charity? If so, which one? How does he help? Does he drive them? Pay for them? The sentence implies multiple charities; perhaps "He supports XXX charity by…"
  • Clarified that it is his own charity, please let me know if this remains unclear.
• I think the information about his upbringing would be better placed here at the beginning of the article, as my first questions were about where he came from, etc. But I can understand why you placed it where you did.
  • I am of two minds. I typically place it at the end, because he isn't particularly notable for his family life, but rather his hockey career. There isn't usually enough material for more than one or two paragraphs, so splitting it up chronologically is awkward.
• "Schenn played minor hockey in his hometown of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. His first minor hockey team was the Saskatoon Red Wings, where he was coached by his father, Jeff." Perhaps these sentences could be merged: "Schenn first played minor hockey for the Saskatoon Red Wings in his hometown of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, where he was coached by his father Jeff."
  • Fixed that up a bit.
• AAA midget hockey: AAA needs linking, and midget hockey should be linked or explained.
  • Wikilinked to league page, information about level of play and age are in that article.
• "Schenn made his on-ice debut for the Rockets during the 2005–06 WHL season." Would an off-ice debut be possible?
  • Not an off-ice debut per se, but he joined the team during the playoffs of the previous season as an observer, and then joined as a player the following season. I'll try to clear it up a bit.
• "often paired with current Buffalo Sabres defenceman Tyler Myers": Don't use current (WP:DATED).
  • Adjusted.
• Junior: It seems odd to begin with his debut and then go back to prior to his debut. Also, apart from his awards, nothing is given about his success, the effectiveness of his play or any judgements on how well he did. Reading this section, he could have been a genius or a mediocre player. For example, why did his ranking improve from seventh to fifth? "Some scouts saw him as a mix between Dion Phaneuf and Adam Foote" is meaningless, even when following the links. Presumably this says something about his ability or style, but the general reader is none-the-wiser.
  • Scouting services don't typically release their exact reasoning for moving a player in the rankings. As an observer, there are two reasons - either he got better, or the guys ahead of him got worse. There are a lot of variables involved, and I wouldn't like to speculate as to why they made the move.
  • Also, I reorganized so the junior section starts with his off-ice experience at the Memorial Cup.
  • It is somewhat limited by the sources as always. Anything I add to clarify this will be original research. I don't think its meaningless to follow the wikilinks and find out that Schenn was compared to a defenceman who has an Olympic gold medal, two Stanley Cups and a World Championship, and one who was nominated for the NHL's top defenceman award in his third season.
    • I don't think we should expect the reader to do all the work; if the article mentions his comparison to these players, it should say something about them. It doesn't need much, just one or two words. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Added brief mentions of the accomplishments for the guys he was compared to. Canada Hky (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Scanning the rest of the article, I notice several potentially POV words such as "impressive" and "strong". Presumably these are from a source and therefore should be attributed in text: i.e. X says Schenn was impressive.
  • Removed a few mentions that were further from the direct source, left in the ones that were more directly sourced.
• Sentence structure is repetitive throughout and not really at FA standard for prose: lots of sentences begin "Schenn", "He", "His", or a subject. Many others begin with a simple prepositional phrase ("On March 14,", "While playing with the Contacts", "In/During XXXX…") --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Started addressing some of these issues, will be working on them further. Canada Hky (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Still working on a few of the above raised issues, and scrubbing through the text for similar mentions in the sections you didn't go through in detail - thanks very much for the review!
  • To the point about comprehensiveness "right now", was more a comment about its completeness at this point rather than expecting large changes in the future. I understand the concerns (and I realize that you said you wouldn't oppose solely on this grounds, it's just something I will address), I just don't think its likely a subject that will undergo major changes in the future. Its a much more difficult task to get the article to the stage where future updates just require a sentence or two and a source. He'll sign a contract this summer. He might be named an alternate captain on a permanent basis, but there is nothing that will change on a day-to-day or even week-to-week basis. Canada Hky (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments: The article still has a few issues with prose, comprehensiveness and jargon. These are a few more examples, but there are others and it may benefit from a copy-edit by an uninvolved editor who is unfamiliar with hockey. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• My comments on prose above still stand; there are lots of subject-verb sentences or adverb-subject-verb sentences. This needs looking at and it is not FAC standard.
• Apart from brief comments on the 2009-10 season, there are no comments on his performances. Are there any match reports which assess his play? What about end of season reports? His performances cannot just be judged on his awards. For me, this is a major sticking point. As a reader, I want to know how he played and how successful he was.
  • Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of material that hasn't been included. He started out the season with high expectations, played poorly and picked it up at the end of the season. Canada Hky (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• There is quite a lot of redundant prose. Some examples:
• "He roomed with Shea Weber as the team wanted Schenn to learn about the role he was expected to play with the team.": Redundancy and awkwardness; maybe "He roomed with Shea Weber to learn about his prospective role in the team."
• "Rockets general manager Bruce Hamilton said, "That was the most important thing we ever did in getting him [Schenn] to understand from Weber what he's got to do."" Is there any point to this quote as this simply rephrases the previous sentence?
  • Fixed up both of these, removed the quote. Canada Hky (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• "ranked fifth among North American skaters by the NHL Central Scouting Bureau heading into the draft": "Into the draft" redundant.
  • Removed. Canada Hky (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• "with a base salary of $850,000 per season. His contract included bonus clauses that could raise the value as high as $1.25 million per season." Wordy: could this be cut to one sentence such as "an annual salary of $850,000 with the potential to reach $1.25 million with [performance?] bonuses."
  • Tweaked. Canada Hky (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Jargon examples: "national midget hockey champions", "alternate captain", "entry-level contract", "team roster",
• "At the 2008 Entry Draft, the Toronto Maple Leafs, traded up to the fifth overall slot (originally held by the New York Islanders) to select Schenn." While some jargon is inevitable in an article such as this, I believe it should be kept minimal and this phrase is almost impossible for a non-specialist to understand. Surely it could be phrased for the general reader?
  • I think this has been improve, please let me know what you think.Canada Hky (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank you for the time and effort you have put into reviewing the article. Still working on a few kinks, but I am making progress. Canada Hky (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks

• you may like to trim down on the excessive details. it's just a hockey player. there're things in the world that are actually important, many things. one example in case you may be confused is curing diseases.rm2dance (talk)

• Woah, rm2 - the first sentence is constructive, and you should have stopped there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not to be glib, but that's actually my day job. Canada Hky (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Has Sarastro been back to look at the prose in the last week? Would like to see some opinions since the rewrite was finished. Karanacs (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't sure if the copy-edit was finished or not, so I hadn't had a look. A quick look now shows improvements, but I'm afraid the same issues persist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: Still has a repetitive sentence structure: for example, 5 out of 8 sentences in first paragraph of "Professional" begin with "Schenn" or "He"; this is replicated throughout the article and the only variation seems to be simple prepositional phrases at the beginning of sentences.
  • Working on this, professional section should be improved. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Choppy sentences: Throughout the text, sentences do not flow and seem disjointed. For example, first paragraph of "Junior": the sentences are about joining the team, his roommate, his debut, his position as alternate captain, named as part of the Russia-Canada challenge, top prospects team, All star line up, etc. None of these sentences seem to flow together and just seem to be a collection of disparate facts.
  • I understand the concern, but its as close to a chronological account of his junior career that can be constructed from the available sources. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Redundancy: Still numerous examples throughout text; two at random: "He roomed with Shea Weber as the team wanted him to learn about his future [prospective?] role on the team" and "After his rookie season, expectations were high heading into the 2009–10 NHL season."
  • Those are embarrassing. Thanks for pointing them out. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Slightly awkward phrasing: For example "He played for Canada twice at the Under-18 level. At the 2006 Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament, he was a member of the gold-medal-winning club, and in 2007 he participated in the 2007 IIHF World U18 Championships, where Canada finished fourth": Could be improved to "He played for Canada twice at Under-18 level: in 2006 at the Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament, where his team won gold, and in 2007 at the IIHF World U18 Championships, where Canada finished fourth."
  • Tweaked. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comprehensiveness: While appreciating the above comment about performances, I do not think the current level of detail is comprehensive enough. I know FAs on similar sports use newspaper reports to fill in gaps, but I don't know if these are available. But the article needs something more; it does not even discuss the number of games he played in each season.
  • I'll add the info about games played, and do another scrub for sources, but I think I have pretty much run the well dry, aside from newspaper reports mentioning that he played, without offering any info on his performance. Canada Hky (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Jargon seems better. I think it could still be made more comprehensible, but not a major sticking point for me. However, I would prefer another non-hockey reviewer to give an opinion on this one as well.
  • I have tried to improve this, notably found some better links for midget hockey early in the article. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• I maintain that an independent copy-edit is necessary, and I notice this has not been done yet. This would probably solve most of the problems. Normally, I would offer to have a go myself, but I don't really have the time right now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll take a further look at the other issues, but there has been an independent copy-edit done on the article, by User:Diannaa, as stated in the nom. Canada Hky (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I've had another look, but while the examples I cited above have been fixed, I would stress that these were only examples, and the issues persist throughout the article. I'm sorry to be such a pain about this but I still don't believe the prose is near FAC standard. The same goes for comprehensiveness. I appreciate that the sources may not be there, but it could be possible that there are not enough sources to make this an FA yet. Again, I'm really sorry for I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this and I hate being a pain about it. But I would re-iterate that another copy-edit is in order. There may have been a copy-edit before the nomination, but as issues persist (in my view, anyway!) there really should be another one. I personally think it is impossible to have too many copy-edits, especially for a sports article where the prose can become repetitive. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support by Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• "The Los Angeles Kings selected his younger brother Brayden fifth overall in the 2009 NHL Entry Draft." This sentence should not be in the lead. The lead exists for the sole purpose of summarizing those pieces of information which are most important for understanding the topic, not for introducing irrelevant trivia.
  • Respectfully - it's not irrelevant trivia. Brothers in the NHL are not so common that it isn't worthy of mention. In order for the lead to accurately summarize Luke Schenn, it needs to mention that his brother is also an NHLer. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If you insist on keeping this fact in the lead, I strongly advise that you rephrase it in such a way to maintain focus on Luke rather than Brayden. One possibility: "Luke is the older brother of Brayden Schenn, a player for the Manchester Monarchs." This phrasing, which can certainly be adjusted as needed, makes it clear that the sentence is to clarify the existence of a relationship between the two Schenns rather than arbitrarily touting the merits of the younger. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I will try to change this to focus more on Luke. Thanks for the suggestion. Canada Hky (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think the wording now is better, and more in keeping with what you were suggesting, please let me know what you think. Canada Hky (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• "He roomed with Shea Weber as the team wanted him to learn about his future role. After this experience, Schenn debuted with the Rockets during the 2005–06 WHL season, and was the team's Rookie of the Year." I don't see how the first sentence is relevant. Worse, the second sentence implies that the rooming situation was one of the factors that eventually led to the RotY award. This implication is not supported by the source given (Ref 5: Player Profile Luke Schenn)
  • The first sentence is not irrelevant, it is widely mentioned in hockey coverage as one of the reasons for his development. I have tweaked the second sentence. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Caption: "Schenn during his rookie season" I suggest specifying that this is referring to his rookie season in the NHL. It is difficult to read the "Toronto Maple Leafs" on his jersey.
  • Tweaked, I had figured the placement in the professional section was enough, but it could be made clearer. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• "The NHL named Schenn to the 2008–09 All-Rookie Team on June 18, 2009, along with fellow 2008 draftee Drew Doughty." Was Drew Doughty a teammate? If not, the mention is completely irrelevant.
  • Teammate at the junior level internationally, and two 18 year old rookies being the top 2 rookie d-men in the league is an oddity. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ...and how exactly is the reader supposed to infer this connection? This is the only mention of Doughty's name in the article. The current sentence implies that there is something special about two 2008 draftees appearing on the 08–09 All-Rookie Team, which is obviously silly, since all members of that team would be 2008 draftees by default. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No, NHL rookies very rarely make an impact the year immediately following their draft. Schenn & Doughty were the only 2008 draftees on the ART that year. Typically, they will play at least one more year of junior or college hockey, and then spend some time in the AHL or in a professional league in their home country. The year before Doughty and Schenn were named ART d-men right after their draft, the defensive pairing was Tobias Enstrom, who was 24, and Tom Gilbert, who was 26. Canada Hky (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah. I don't follow sports. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke feels Schenn is a key part of the team's long-term future" No, we don't know how Burke feels. We only know what he has said to have felt. I suggest replacing "feels" with "has said that" or "has maintained that".
  • Tweaked. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• "He was recognized for his leadership when he was briefly named an alternate captain after Kaberle was traded." This statement, taken from Playing style, presents the same information as the following statement, taken from Professional: "When Kaberle was traded to the Boston Bruins in February 2011, Schenn was briefly named an alternate captain in his place". This redundant redundancy should be expurgated.
  • Tweaked slightly, to make the prose not quite so redundant. A factual mention that he was named alternate captain is needed in the recounting of the 2010-11 season, and the playing style section needs an example of his recognition for leadership. Canada Hky (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I should have said this earlier, but thank you for your comments, and the time you have taken to read the article and offer up suggestions. I appreciate the help. Canada Hky (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Six weeks in and prose issues are still apparent (per Sarastro1, I had a look); please secure an independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:49, 18 June 2011 [8].

---

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Nominator(s): Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria and the sections of the article are completely without any problems and perfect writing. Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see multiple dead links noted, and that's without going to the checklinks box. The reception also has an expansion tag on it. While it's likely no longer needed, simple things such as this should be taken care of pre-FAC. I would recommend going to GAN first, as articles at FAC should not have obvious issues on a skim. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. If this gets more opposing votes, then I will move this nomination to the GAN.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest GAN - agree with Wizardman, unfortunately this article is not yet ready for FAC. In addition to the tags, on a quick scan I also see WP:MOS issues and extensive problems with references (all web citations need at minimum title, URL, publisher and accessdate) and formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 15 June 2011 [9].

---

Fluorine

Nominator(s): R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it finally meets the criteria. I've been working on it several months; that's my first FAC and I promise to address any point pointed with two days (except possibly for weekends, but I'll be back to help on working days anyway). Of course, I support as nominator.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Oxidation of fluorine by the extraction of an electron requires so much energy that no known oxidant can oxidize fluorine to any positive oxidation state." - source?

  I wonder what kind of source this should be. However, since the highlighted means only "No chemical is known to oxidize fluorine", I'll try to figure it out in the following days--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• "notable for bonding very close to ionic in solid, unlike any nonmetals binary compound" - source?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• " Several thousand tonnes of fluorine are produced annually" - source?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• "However, water is not an inert solvent in case of hydrogen fluoride: when less basic solvents such as anhydrous acetic acid are used, hydrofluoric acid is the strongest of the hydrohalic acids" - source? Check for other unsourced statements

  Done. I've worked on the article relatively long and don't think there's anything challenging left. The only point I was quite dubious about has already been highlighted--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Multi-page PDFs need page numbers

  Two fixed, others possibly to go--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 4: retrieval date?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bibliography should use the same formatting as References and should be in alphabetical order

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• This site appears to be targeted to schoolchildren - why does it qualify as a high-quality reliable source?

  Because it shares the same root and suffix with jlab.org, both held by U.S.-owned Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. I think that's a good enough reason.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• ref 10: what kind of source is this? Where was it published?

  A website with a claimed copyright, held by a man who also has a lab (or just from the lab). Lab added as the publisher--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• ref 11: 1998 is the source date, not retrieval date

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher for Lidin?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 15: formatting

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 19: what kind of source is this? If a book, needs page(s)

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Inorganic chemistry or Chemistry? Does it have issue numbers or not? Check for other inconsistencies in referencing

  Shown ones are done. I don't currently see any others--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers or not

  These are never given, except for case of Template:Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd, used in many other articles--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 27: pages? Check for other missing information in references

  The shown done. The others -- again, on a quick read, I see nothing. You're welcome to add them, if anything found, except for missing access dates, on which I'm working. At the same time, I'll take a look on this--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date formatting

  Do you mean YYYY-MM-DD format?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Began bringing to YYYY-MM-DD format--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why not cite the original version of this source?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose until multiple referencing issues have been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 15:02, May 5, 2011 Comment—I reviewed this article during the PR process and it seemed in decent shape. Here's a few minor concerns:

• "The high affinity for electrons of fluorine...". Should this be "The high affinity of fluorine for electrons"? Otherwise it seems ambiguous.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Most fluorine is created either during a supernova ... or when a blue Wolf-Rayet star massing over 40 solar masses ..." A. Renda et al. (2004) specifically mention Type II supernovae, rather then all types of supernovae. (I believe this is true in most subsequent journal articles on the subject.) Also, the paper says that AGB stars were an important contributor early in the history of the galaxy. Hence the statement is only partly true and you may need to add a proviso.

  I'm not really sure, that's out of my comfortable zone, is this better?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's better, thanks. I'm not sure how necessary listing the reaction series is for the description, but it's your call.—RJH (talk)

• Does "ready reactions" have some specific physical meaning?

  "ready" word removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It can even oxidize elemental nitrogen to give nitrogen trifluoride". Can the text explain why this is especially significant?

  Done?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  Could you please consider re-writing that sentence? It doesn't flow very well and I had to re-read it several times to make sure I understood it properly. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

  I think it's now good. If still not, please, add a better variant--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Could you trim the redundant additive terms where appropriate: "Additionally", "Furthermore", "also"?

  Alsos a bit cut, the previous two fully removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments - Elements are fun! Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Everything in the "See also" section is linked in the article.

  Yes, MOS recommend not to repeat links in main body and See also section, but per common sense these are left (which is also allowed by MOS)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Restored, however--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Now totally done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• The section on hydrogen fluoride and hydrofluoric acid is a bit vague. An introduction similar to that in the main article, with the chemical formula and the difference between the two species would be helpful.

  I don't think much about this is needed, however, one more sentence may be useful, and added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Elemental fluorine (fluorine gas) is a highly toxic, corrosive oxidant, which can cause ignition of organic material (not perfluorinated materials).[109] Fluorine gas is so reactive to the sense of smell that concentrations as low as one part in 20 billions are detectable by odor." These sentences don't flow together really well, nor does the part about smell really seem appropriate under "Precautions".

  These two are the only for F₂ precautions, so they're together in the same para. About the part about smell, it was discussed to be left here on the first PR (I hope I haven't mistaken). By the way, what's wrong do you find in placing it here?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Just that smell/odour on its own has nothing to do with precautions, its a physical property. If it is going to stay here, maybe a mention about inhalation toxicity or something similar would help

  I don't really think smell is a physical property, since it's caused by chemical reactions. Anyway, I've added a bit, and I believe the point is now finally addressed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • These sentences don't really make much sense to me. "F gas is so reactive to the sense of smell..." might lead an unknowing reader to think that the F reacts chemically with the sense of smell (which probably isn't what is meant...!).Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

    An interesting catch. (However, I don't think there's anyone that stupid) Rephrased as "gas is so reactive to smell receptors" (because here fluorine really reacts with smell receptors)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Fluorine therefore usually replaces hydrogen in hydrocarbons without significant changes in molecular size." Rather than "usually", perhaps "can". I get that you are trying to say when fluorine replaces hydrogen the molecules are the same size, but "usually replaces" without any further explanation makes it sound like it just happens.

  Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cation is linked in the first section, presumably anion could be linked as well.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• A note that the noble gases are typically nonreactive would add clarity.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in how units are expressed: (kJ mol-1 vs. grams per liter).

  Brought to word standard, as this way it's more often, except only for degrees (°C and °F), which are never used in words--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would a piped link to hide the "Category" in the See also note look a little smoother? MoS permitting, of course.

  Afraid to admit, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Have I been right to do this edit?

  That was it! Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note 3: "For example, larger oxide, which is a weaker oxidant and is more likely to form covalent bonds, forms those only in four compounds (manganese heptoxide, technetium heptoxide, ruthenium tetroxide and osmium tetroxide), unlike fluorine, which forms covalent bonds to twelve metals; see fluoride volatility" Should this be "a larger oxide", or something else?

  Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence, "Metal penta- and higher fluorides are volatile; this unique property of fluoride is caused by its small radius" Possibly, "the unique volatility of these fluorides is caused by the small ionic radius"

  "the unique volatility of these fluorides is caused by the small ionic radius" should be succeeded by "fluoride small radius". However, I tried to figure out a better way. Is it OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Fluorine is known to form compounds with all elements in which the reaction has been attempted, up to einsteinium, element 99." This seems a touch unclear. Have reactions been attempted with all elements up to 99?

  Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Fluorine occurs naturally on Earth only in form of its only stable isotope, fluorine-19,[33] which makes fluorine both a monoisotopic and mononuclidic element; however, fluorine-18 has been found to occur in stars due to classical nova nucleosynthesis." There is a lot being said in this sentence, any way to break up some of the "only" and "fluorine" usages. Possibly a couple shorter sentences.

  What's wrong in the given sentence? Not like logical statements here are too long; the sentence, which is allowed to be a bit longer than a logical statement, seems to be OK. However, if disagreed, a suggestion from you could be useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Its not so much that the content in the sentences is too much, just that the wording is awkward, with two "only"'s in close succession and four "fluorine"s. How about this, which does not change the meaning: "Fluorine-19 is the only stable isotope that occurs naturally on Earth, fluorine-18 has been found in stars as a result of classical nova nucleosynthesis." The part about mononuclidic and monoisotopic can be left out, as it just reiterates the previously mentioned information. Canada Hky (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Broken into two sentences; they count together three "fluorine"s and one "only". Further removing one of the "fluorine"s make the sentence kinda ugly... About your way...it could do somewhere among the text but certainly not in the beginning of a subsection--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fluorine-18 is linked twice in close succession.

  Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hydrofluoric acid is not linked on its first occurrence.

  Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Who started calling those scientists "fluorine martyrs"?

  Added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some grammar errors. A few below:
  • "From the perspective of cosmology, fluorine is relatively rare with 400 ppb in the universe because the solar temperatures needed to make it enable to fuse with hydrogen quickly to form oxygen and helium, or with helium to become neon and hydrogen."
  • "In total abundance fluorine is the thirteenth most common element in Earth crust, making up 800 ppm of the crust by mass."

  Better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough for now. I'll be back again. Canada Hky (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will come back to this, and go about it in order. The prose could use a fair bit of work, there is a lot of information here that needs to be molded a bit more. Canada Hky (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing left is the category link - can that be piped, or is it intentional? Canada Hky (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose for now I'm a chemist by training, so I'm not unsympathetic, but some ref comments before I even look at the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• using the "language=" parameter is neater and preferred to "language icon"
  • No. The language= parameter causes the language to be lost among the citation text, while the language icon bolds it and can be placed at the front of the citation so that the readers clearly sees it, making it easier to determine how much of the article is non-English sourced. The language= parameter is not preferred, at least by the delegate who has to close the FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I changed to language = because I was criticised fro using the icon at FAC (: 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• journal names should not be abbreviated, also best to spell out WHO

  Could you please point to a guideline saying that "journal names should not be abbreviated" (I would agree that in full they are clearer, but the entire world abbreviates them in science - some are really unwieldy in full) Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is a specific guideline, but you're inconsistent, abbreviating some and not others, at least one journal is given in both styles. Spelling out is more transparent, this isn't a paper encyclopaedia so length of name is immaterial Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you justify having both styles, even for the same journal eg Inorganic Chemistry and Inorg. Chem.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Russian cited text, please transliterate from Cyrillic to Roman alphabet (as you have done with the authors) or translate as Chemical properties of inorganic substances. Chemistry Who is the publisher? also Timatov ref needs transliteration

  For USSR Academy of Sciences works publisher given (which is the Academy itself). Translitaretion is always given rather than translate - as for French links--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• capitalisation style of article titles seems random, please aim for consistency

  Hold on. The article titles are (were) kept as they were published, and I thought we must keep that on wikipedia. Am I missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, you did miss something ... see WP:ALLCAPS, we reduce to title case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  How is ALLCAPS relevant here? I thought we are talking about "Capitalizing Titles in Journal Articles" and "Capitalizing titles in journal articles" issue. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again, it's a matter of consistency. You are not bound by the house styled of the journals, so adopt a uniform approach, title case being preferred as more natural and reading better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  Frankly, my major issue is wasting time: many (if not most) journal titles are fetched by the citation bot from Crossref, which copies it from the publisher, I believe. Two minor things. (i) We have to keep typos in the titles if any (this happens), that is, the title is a sort of quote, so why force its style (allcaps aside)? (ii) Some words do change meaning when (de)capitalized, which is why forcing blind lowcase/uppercase conversion can potentially introduce errors. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• some web refs lack publishers
• what makes ref 4 an independent reliable source, looks like spam to me?

  I've changed the publisher. Does it give a better impression?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• some books have publisher location, others don't - consistency needed

  Please see Nikkimaria's comment and my reply - these are never given, except for reference template Template:Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd, which uses publisher, but publishers aren't used across the article anywhere else--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• publisher wrong for ref 47, Peter Meiers self-published

  Even through he might hold the given source, publishing from your own source gives you a publisher of your source, but not you personally--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  Self-published: what makes him meet WP:SPS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  He has been published in other journals or similar, for example, here and here, so it meets the criteria set. BTW, everything there is sourced--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• author initials, full stops for all or none

  Always now--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• pub month - all or none

  None, since there were few--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• not a ref issue - "found" occurs twice in second sentence of lead, use "occurs" to avoid repetition

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to the comments above, third para of lead has something badly wrong in last couple of sentences Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• last para of physical, second sentence, what does "this" refer back to? Can't see a singular subject Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• including palladium(VI)[15] and platinum(VI),[16] which can be received via direct reaction — received? and again later.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• via extremely hard reaction at — clarify please Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• alkali metals... notable for bonding — grammar or meaning problem here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• alkaline earth metals do not react violently, but nevertheless at room temperature. — still a problem, "nevertheless" should be followed by a clause telling us something else.

  Are these two better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since the fluorides of virtually all elements are known, a large variety of inorganic fluorides are known.

  I believe these six are addressed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've not finished going through yet, but I've made these edits. I think an independent copyedit might be a good idea. More comments to come when I've read the rest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks! I've just corrected a bit, but still thanks, that's useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fluorine replaces hydrogen in hydrocarbons even at room temperature without significant change of molecular size Why is temperature relevant to molecular size?

  I'm sure this means "the reaction occurs at 20C and during it, the molecular size doesn't seriously change". In the article, I've clarified--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• This attributes to the molecular polarity induced by the halides and the polarity of halides — attributes?

  Is "is caused by" this better?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• magnetogyric — unlinked and unexplained

  magnetogyric ratio has got a wikilink now--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• See also — all the items are linked in the text, "see also" should be used for related topics without prior links.

  OK, you may be right, but I can't think of anything better than we have now. Suggestions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• that's it! Just the two items just added, and the alkali metal issue above, and we are done, I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• You don't have to have a "See Also", I rarely do in my FACs, and it shouldn't repeat links or spurious connections like caesium. However, enough has been done to garner my support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• One more thing: we should also have a picture of gaseous fluorine in there (reqphoto template). [10]? After all, File:Thorium crystal.jpg was accepted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  FA oxygen doesn't, and it's OK. What's more, when I began working on the article, this was the photo in infobox, but it was later counted as speculation, or unreliable (I don't really remember), and removed. I'm not sure myself fluorine is brown :) However, I found this (see page 12) as possible gaseous photo. If it's OK, I might insert it into Chemical section, but... You've taken the images anyway, you may decide yourself (I'm just not sure I may take the best decision abot this; still, remember about oxygen)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oxygen doesn't have an image of it in gaseous form because it looks like there's nothing there, like this: . Fluorine, however, isn't colourless, so a photo is more called for there. (BTW, I don't see the fluorine in that photo. Where is it?? I think that if a description is provided with the photo, it should be reliable.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Also, I think the photo of gaseous fluorine you were referring to was this: . It was deemed unreliable and possibly faked as only specialised transparent containers can contain F (a few months ago I would've written "no transparent container", but now I know better thanks to Alchemist-hp), and that container doesn't look like those specialised ones. The blatant fake was this one: File:Fluorine imitation.jpg. It has since been deleted, but you can find it at here. Generally, I feel that a gaseous element infobox should have a photo of the element as a liquid inside it; gaseous photos or glowing photos can be placed in the lead. But that's just my opinion :-). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've switched the two images because I think it looks better this way. :-) But currently the File:Fluorine.jpg contains the entire description from Greg P himself...could someone help shorten the description to only what's really necessary?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This article has been completely changed since I de-stubbed it and added a table several years ago; it now has everything an element article should have. References look good, content is great and informative w/o going into excess detail (although the lede is a tad longer than I like), layout is spot on. In short, great article! --mav (reviews needed) 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I naturally would. If this does not make FA, I would be dead. FREYWA 05:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Small oppose - A detailed review: 1a - in the Chemical section: "Current iridium highest oxidation state fluoride, iridium(VI) fluoride, is an example of a chemical compound with rare high oxidation state in binary fluoride." What is this? I have no idea. Everything else about prose is fine. 1c, 2c - OK. 1d, 1e - obviously pass. 2a, 2b - comfortable lead and ToC, pass. 3 - only 2 of them are copyrighted, and they have FURs. 1b, 4 - yes. FREYWA 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support FREYWA 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per mav. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• R8R Gtrs has stated above that he supports as nominator. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nominator support is implied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support The quality, referencing and the language are up to the level I like.--Stone (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Spot checks for WP:V and close paraphrasing not done? Please review self-published sourcing concern. The term "fluoride" is introduced in the lead before the distinction between flourine and flouride is explained. More review needed; independent review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tentative and conditional supportComments beginning a look-over now. Will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) based on the lead having the jack-boot of brilliant prose workover applied to it well - plaudits for all who gave it a workover in the past week. This support is pending (probably fairly straightforward) referencing issues to be addressed below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• image review - FUR for first two accepted - the element appears difficult to photograph! Others ok, apart from File:Henri Moissan.jpg as we don't know who the author is and he might have died sooner than 70 years ago...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not very likely given that Moissan himself died in 1907. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Gah! My dates were wrong - ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• The prose is a bit repetitive "fluorine is.." but I have reduced a few. Any more rationalising of the word "fluorine" would be good, but do not sacrifice meaning.

Otherwise looking on target. No deal-breakers really but would be good to address the status of that one image. I am not good on images so someone else might comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments:

• Positive: I really like the subject! The article has some very nice content (the noble gas compound discussion, picture of the PET scan, etc.). Good stuff. In general, I like the tone of the article in terms of trying to explain things to non-PhDs (someone with freshman chem can get most of the discussions). [There are some rocky spots, but my point is it's generally good.] Also, I like the paragraph sizing (not super-long).
• Concerns: Lead needs work to "shine" (paragraphs do not have central unifying themes (A with A, B with B), also the tribology discussion is over-long). Other structure concerns in sections of the article where there is duplication of content amongst sections. A few places where there is poor/flawed chemical explanation (e.g. "is a weak acid because it's anion is basic", also the discussion of the reason for the high ionization energy). Also some places where the prose is flabby (thoughts repeated within a sentence). I could murder-board it in detail (there's a bunch of little things...things like why do we say the gas is yellow-green in text, but tan-yellow in photo), but would only do so if I knew that kind of detailed review would be justified time spent.

Net/net: really want this to make FA, but would feel better about star-standards if the thing got the fluorine-steel passivation wirebrushed off.  ;)

TCO (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the lead. it doesn't really "grab" me, but alternatives aren't jumping out at me either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just do what I said. Cut the tribology stuff in length (it's cool stuff and well described in the article, but overlong for the lead.) Then make each paragraph unified (yes this is "hard", but that's why we get the big bucks...oh wait!) Rright now only the last paragraph in the lead has a nice unified subject. Make the first para about definition and physical properteis only. (move some of the other stuff further down and integrate in a chemical compounds para). Second and third para can be about compounds/chemical reactivity and then about historical isolation/industrial production ("sources of the element"). But those are separate distinct paras. (I don't care the order, but care that the paras have distinct "topics"). Right now, we have historical aspects of fluorospar being talked about in both the second and third para.

A strong structure makes things easier for the reader (just basic rules of composition). It can be a little non-trivial, because you only get 4 paras total (and often have more sections than that), but that just means we need to think about what fits with what. Obviously medical impact and precautions "go together". Similarly, I would argue that chemical reactivity and compounds go together. And then mineral sources, initial isolation, naming, and current large-scale productions can be tied into a thematic paragraph. Or maybe we decide the mineral should go with compounds. But it has to go one place or other, not both (in lead) and we should make really think hard about the best structure, because the reader benefits from that.

The lead should be a mini-essay that is really honed and strong and good to read all on its own. I think sometimes we get too wrapped up in just transferring topic sentences from the article body (usually slavishly in the order of the article) and lose sight of writing an integrated, tight lead.

P.s. Don't mean to come across as over-bearing, but that's my explanation. I think it's standard structure advice. (And I was nice to you on Lion.) And I'm not a good writer like Tony or Wehwalt. But that's my two cents...  ;) TCO (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am too tired now (late here in oz) - will have a look in the am if no-one else has had a rejig. Agree with what you've said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi back! I've rewritten the lead, so please go and check it out, comments are welcome. About the infobox photo, I don't like it, because the gas there is ... brown, but it's actually yellow-green. I'll think about removing the image.

I have another picture of fluorine around from the Periodic Table of Videos. The gaseous one is uninteresting: the liquid one seems redundant though. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, doesn't the description of F say "tan or yellow gas"?? That photo's tan, isn't it? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe "tan" comes only from the picture. If no reference will be given in several days, I'll remove the image. I'll maybe add a steam of gaseous element instead--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In fact, the description dates from 15 April 2010. (If you were wondering about the File:Fluorine.jpg there, they were referring to this, which used to have the "Fluorine.jpg" filename.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still sure so. Maybe the user saw it not in Wikipedia, and changed. Again, providing a proof it is tan would resolve the question, otherwise I may call it OR and remove--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

>>"is a weak acid because it's anion is basic", also the discussion of the reason for the high ionization energy

Do you mean these are hard to understand? If so, could you give some advise? If so not, hmmm... could you give some ideas what's wrong then?

Of course, I'd love to see a detailed review. If it's published, I'll probably start working on it on Tuesday.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuing at talk (of this page) as Sandy has requested of me in the past. TCO (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are the cites for Ullmann the same as Aigueperse et al? Or something different? What is Ullmann?  – Ling.Nut 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, it is the same. If you want, I may rename Ullman refs as Aigueperse.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's a bit confusing as it stands, and cites should be given by author's name rather than editor's anyhow. Credit where credit is due, and all that.  – Ling.Nut 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think this is a particular case that is different. The "authors" are not really co-authors in the sense of someone writing a book, but writers of sections within that overall thing. Also, it is MUCH more commonly recognized by the Ullman "brand". (Do a Google search and see.) TCO (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead is good. I reviewed the article's lead, and I am now satisfied with the material presented therein. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A few nits but leaning toward support:

• "fluorine is very hard to oxidize; its first ionization energy is 1,681 kilojoules per mole, which makes a fluorine atom extremely difficult to oxidize into a monopositive cation, F+."--The wording is repetitive, difficulty to oxidize

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Most frequently, the metals should be powdered, because many metals form fluorides layers that resists further oxidation."--A little "how to-ish." Maybe "the metals must be..."?

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• In Isotopes, can any other decay times be found for the other isotopes? If not it's no big, just thought it would make a nice addition in some spots of the last two paragraphs.

  Easily, but it's not needed. Only the stable one and the most stable unstable one (others are way too unstable anyway), and the only meta. It's OK, elements like xenon or tin or any heavier even element (Z<82) can have more, but the same length wouldn't do for fluorine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm through Characteristics and so far it's very good. I've only looked at the prose and scope (both done well), not the references. I will continue shortly. Happy editing! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, waiting!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good changes, I agree with you on the isotope information. Sorry I'm going so slow, real life is.....well, intruding.  :-/ NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support see my last comment at the bottom of my review. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose reluctantly. There are still problems with the references. I have fixed a few pp. versus p. issues, but other problems remain. Some do not have a "p." or "pp." at all. Reference 83 for example just has, "Basting, D.; Marowsky, G. (2005). Excimer Laser Technology. Springer." Reference 77 has an odd edit link at the end. I think about an hour's more work is needed to smarten these up to FA standard. Also, do we really need access dates for journals? And please be consistent as to whether journal titles are given in full or not. There is an option in Dave Ibberri's [11] reference filling template to use the full journal title. I am also concerned about unsourced statements such as:

• "Sodium fluoroacetate has been used as an insecticide, especially against cockroaches, and is effective as a bait-poison against mammalian pests."
• "fluorinated pharmaceuticals (often antibiotics and antidepressants) are among the major fluorinated organics found in treated city sewage and wastewater". This does not seem to be supported by ref 116.[12]
• "Once absorbed into blood through the skin, hydrogen fluoride reacts with blood calcium and may cause cardiac arrest."

I suggest checking for other unsupported statements. The first half of the symptoms of exposure section seems to solely sourced to ref 136, which is a primary study on male nude rats. Can we find a review article to use for this section? Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tried to address the referencing problem with the full journal title, added a ref for Sodium fluoroacetate, added hydrogen fluoride reference. --Stone (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

fluorinated pharmaceuticals in sewage might need a lot more search.--Stone (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Improved the remaining journal names, restructured the ref 77--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you have missed a lot. Ref 79 has some odd formatting and that strange edit link is still at the end of Ref 77. There is still a mixture of references that use p. or pp. and those that do not. Some references still have abbreviated journal names, e.g. J Burn Care Res, while others are given in full. And as per WP:NONENG are there sources in English that can be used instead of the Russian and French? Graham Colm (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The odd edit link at the end is caused by the cite doi template, I do not know enough about it and encountered it only a few times, but in general it might good to have it every where or nowhere. The two French refs are the original publications of Ampere who named fluorine and the other of Moissan with the description of the first fluorine synthesis. Most element articles add the original publications of the discoverers additionally to broader refs coverying the whole history. For the Russian ones I can't speak.--Stone (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Ref 77 is finally OK. Ref 79 is formatted OK - what's wrong? I spelled out two more journals, don't see others, but if I find them, I'll spell them out, too. French sources are historical, dating back to 19th century and are original documents of events of fluorine history. In my opinion, they should be kept. Russian refs are: ref 23, the first synthesis of Cu(IV) ever; ref 24, the first one ever of Ag(IV), ref 28; the only ref on Au(VII) claim, none else claimed so; Lidin in bibliography supports two statements: N₂+F₂ reaction is possible (it is mostly thought so not, because of hard conditions required) and that platinum group metals react with pure fluorine on 550-700 K (I have originally searched for an English source (yeah, it's English Wikipedia, I know), but found none). Don't criticize me on short journal names, I'll search again later. Consider this message as intermediate, more to be done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You fixed Ref 79 here [13]. I think the p. and pp. issues are a fault in the cite template. Could someone who understands how these work take a look? Thank you for justifying the use of the non-English sources; I felt the question needed to be asked. I think the minor problems with the references can be fixed in time. My main concerns are the unsourced statements that I have listed above and that there might be more of these.Graham Colm (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding referencing and page ranges - it is a good idea to stick to the same rule - eg. last two digits if higher are the same, thus "624-48", not "624-648". May as well do this at same time as double checking p./pp. fix. It is just a last peice of polish which I feel is needed for all these articles to look like they came out of, well, an encyclopedia :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that p./pp./- relies on what you are citing — a report, a journal (where p. and pp. are certainly not used), a book (where certainly used and so on. p. (if produced) is produced by |page parameter, while pp. is produced by |pages. I haven't taken a look yet, but it may be useful. About "624-48" vs. "624-648", I'd prefer the latter one, because more factual, more useful for robots, and a thought we're writing something serious and thus should use proper paging--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The first statement was already sourced when I looked, Stone seems to have reported about it; I found no ref at the end of the another one, but I added one. Feel free to find more disputed statements. Are there any abbreviated journal names left? If so, could they be pointed; if so not, what else do you want (I may have missed something)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are other unsourced statements, mainly in the History section. Here are some examples:

• The first recorded preparation of hydrofluoric acid occurred in 1720 by an unknown English glassworker.

  No proof found, removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• In 1771, Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele obtained impure hydrofluoric acid by heating fluorite with sulfuric acid in a glass retort, which was greatly corroded by the product; as a result, vessels made of metal were used in subsequent experiments with the substance.

  Shortened, referenced--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The nearly anhydrous acid was reported in 1809

  Not very notable, removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Owing to its extreme reactivity, elemental fluorine was not isolated until many years after the characterization of fluorite.

  Call it OR, but if fluorite was characterized in 1530, and fluorine isolated in 1886, the statement is right. Both mentioned are referenced. A ref doesn't seem to be needed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The two most prominent uses of organofluorine compounds, Teflon (invented 1938), and hydrofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (for example Freon-12, introduced as a refrigerant in the late 1920s), are still major applications for fluorine.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Most SSRI antidepressants are fluorinated organics, such as citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine.

  Added a ref--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fluoroquinolones are a commonly used family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

  Added a ref--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Several pharmaceuticals and organic pesticides contain fluorine.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, the article is, on the whole, well written, especially for a technical subject, and the editors should be congratulated. There are one or two glitches however for example:

• "In fact, the great oxidizing potential of fluorine lead to that fluorine, if reacts with a chemical, will only oxidize but not reduce" This not English.

Fixed by another editor.[14] Graham Colm (talk)

• "The noble gases, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, are generally nonreactive substances. They all have fully filled electronic shells, which are extremely stable, and thus are generally non-reactive." Repetition of nonreactive and inconsistency of spelling.

I have edited this sentence, please check for accuracy. Graham Colm (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The references still need consistent formatting. One of the joys and pains of writing for Wikipedia is that we don't have type-setters to fix things; we have to do ourselves. FAs should be as professionally presented as published paper sources. Or as near as we can get, given the limitations of the software. The cite templates can be useful, but their output often needs checking. I don't think the "p./pp./- relies on what you are citing", I think there are glitches with the templates used. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the nomination subject to a satisfactory outcome of the image review and the addition of references to the statements about pesticides and waste water and to the first half of the symptoms of exposure section. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Review:
With regards to the article's images there are some issues that could really do with being sorted out, pretty much every image could use some work.

• Firstly the lead image in the infobox illustrates the subject just fine, its the licensing that needs to be looked at. Firstly it is claimed as fair-use as a poster, while I can see why this was done, it isn't technically a poster but is a promotional shot of a product that was sold on Ebay. Second, the blueish blur in the bottom-right hand corner of the image is actually a watermark that appears on other images from the same source which would have read "Copyright © 2008 Theodore W. Gray" before it was blurred out. Now the file description claims that the photographer has "sole and exclusive right and licence to produce, publish and further license the image" which is correct but the image is copyrighted and there is no indication that Theodore Gray has allowed use of his image. It seems to me that the watermark has been blurred to hide the copyright notice and claim use of the image under fair-use. While the image may sketchily pass as fair use as being a irreplaceable image, for a lead image of a potential FA some effort should be made to contact the photographer to see if they will release the image under a free license, ideally via Commons:OTRS. This isn't a major issue but it would certainly be better if the first image readers see of a possible FA isn't a fair-use image with a watermark across it.
  • As I am the uploader, I feel I need to explain...no, it wasn't blurred out by me, I just took the smallest size I could get (http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/009.5/index.s7.html). Have a look at the normal size (http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/009.5/index.s12.html) and the copyright notice is still there. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I see what you mean, apologies for jumping to conclusions ;) While fair use image is ok, still would be better if we could get a free version, looks like TCO may have a go at this. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• There is a similar issue with the file Fluorine liquid.jpg which has had a copyright watermark cropped off and is also claimed fair-use as a poster, which it clearly isn't.
  • I got a donation for this and FS cleaned it up visually as well (progress!)TCO (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• File:Fluorite crystals (rotated 90).jpg has bigger issues. This is a derivative work of a copyrighted image File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg which has somehow survived on Commons since 2005. The file description of this acknowledges the copyright but is published as CC-By-SA 3.0 by the uploader User:Jurema Oliveira, who is not the author so they have no claim over the image or what license to publish it by. So this image shouldn't even be on Commons and should instead, it at all be on Wikipedia as fair-use.

Done image has been replaced. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Another image that could use some clarification in its file description is File:Henri Moissan.jpg. While it is likely the image is in the public domain because of its apparent age, there is no link to a source to confirm its status.

Sorted. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• And what's going on with File:Fluorine cell room.jpg I'm not sure. It is again claimed as PD but while it appears as though the uploader may be a employee of the company there isn't confirmation of this and it doesn't mean they have the permission to release the photo. There is no link to a source to confirm that F2 Chemicals Ltd have released the image.
• File:Iodine-heptafluoride-3D-balls.png seems fine but it could do with a proper file description, including the date, author and description.

Done file desc added. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The animated image is a nice inclusion in the article and is already a FP so that's all good there.
• File:100 0783.JPG illustrates a Teflon frying pan fairly enough but I think a better example could be found or if not this image could use some clean-up, like cutting the pan out of the tiled background.

Done image was replaced with File:Teflon tape wound around threaded pipe.jpg. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

*And last but not least File:Sodium-fluoroacetate-2D-skeletal.png is fine but a simple text and line image like this should really be converted to vector as an SVG.

Also done, made SVG and replaced in article. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed out the crystal image and started deletion proceedings for the old image at Commons.

I looked at the F2 picture again and hope it is OK. We don't really have a good alternate and it is really good illustration of a real industrial setting. I don't see the image up on their website and the user is evidently from both his name and his ccontribution history someone who works with fluorines. I had a little concern at first that it was promotional, but actually I think it is fine...is showing industrial use. I left a note on his page, but he has been gone for a year. I think we should just take the fellow at his word (we have to for images anyhow). I don't think FOP has anything to do with chemical plants and as to whether the fellow should have gotten a release from F2, I figure that is between him and his bosses. We just care about the copyright of the photo, not competitors seeing the cell designs. No?

If there are any that you can just fix for us (description filling out, vectorizing) would appreciate it.

I'm going to be bold and replace the frying pan with a picture of Teflon tape (shows the color of the polymer better). If R8 disagrees, then I guess we need the frying pan cleaned up.

I agree we should at least ask for permission for the top image and am willing to send the email (have done this a lot). I can also try for a donation from Burdon who photographed the gas and reported on it in 1987 the Journal of Fluorine.TCO (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• One point on the prose:
• Fluorine is known to form compounds with all elements up to einsteinium, element 99,[24] as well as rutherfordium, element 104,[25] and seaborgium, element 106.[26] No attempt has been made to oxidize astatine, francium, four later actinides, dubnium and all elements above seaborgium with fluorine, due to the radioactive instability of these elements, though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory.[27] Computational studies have suggested that helium could form a bond with fluorine,[28] and excited states containing neon—fluorine bonds have been observed in a mixture of neon and fluorine irradiated with electrons.[29] Argon forms argon fluorohydride at low temperature.[30]
• Fluorine is not known to form compounds with helium (I won't quibble about neon here, although it isn't a compound). → ← this should be slightly reworked. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks later, I still need image clearance and a close paraphrasing check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment

Physical properties

Fluorine gas liquefies at −188.12 °C (−306.62 °F),[5] comparable to oxygen and nitrogen, and solidifies at −219.62 °C (−363.32 °F).[5] — Should you just say "Fluorine liquefies ..." since it is obvious from context that this is the gas-liquid transition? The reader will assume anyway that the transition to solid refers to the freezing of the liquid unless you say otherwise.

Chemical reactivity

• even the generally nonreactive ones, like the noble gas radon — remove the comma after ones, there are too many commas in this sentence
• many metals form fluorides layers that resists further oxidation -> many metals form fluoride layers that resist further oxidation
• which is notable for bonding very close to ionic in solid, unlike any nonmetals binary compound, including other hydrogen halides. -> which is notable for having bonding very close to ionic in the solid form, unlike other binary compounds of nonmetals including the other hydrogen halides
• are thought to be possible in theory — either "are thought to be possible" or "are possible in theory" depending I presume on the sources

Occurrence

• element in Earth crust -> element in the Earth's crust
• is the least abundant of three -> is the least abundant of the three

Living organisms

Perhaps mention typical concentrations for fluoridation to contrast with the lethal doses mentioned below? Although that may be like opening Pandora's box.

Notes

Consistency: please end all notes or none with a full stop.

Final question

I was left wondering about the contrast between hydrogen fluoride being still partly covalent when dissolved in water yet nearly ionic as a solid. Do sources offer any further comment about this?

Overall a well-presented article. --Mirokado (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great comments. I think we should cut the stuff about ionic in the solid unless we can find some discussion of the structure that shows a close-packed lattice. Yeah, it's a very polar bond, but it's still clearly molecular.TCO (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO review: still needs significant polishing My review is on the talk page of this archive. There is a lot of very nice work in here. But I think needs a polishing to be professional. Also in the course of polishing usually we still learn a little more about the content and then that informs our writing. Have a bunch of specific observations, but I can't catch everything. I hope that in some broad issues, we don't just fix the nitpicks, but use it to check the article as a whole for issues:

• (positive) by and large we cover the right content in hitting things and in right level of emphasis. We've got the material.
• Facts: Found a few small places where a ref was the wrong ref or a minor fact was incorrect. Think the whole thing needs a go over, to check that it all is sourced right. In particular, if there is old content from previous versions, not checked but just relied on. Also, there are still many facts that are unreferrenced. And we can't rely on other wiki articles to support this one, or the project elements database (they have mistakes in there, we need to check everything that is in this article and have an in article ref for it).
• Getting there, but still needs prose polishing for cutting wordiness and for catching some English errors (use of article). Would like a prose grandmaster to CE the whole thing (just fix it as you go.)
• I know this is laborious, but all the linking needs to be checked one by one, manually. External links should be checked that they go to the right place (I have found a couple that did not and I have not clicked all). Wikilinks should only be done when needed (not "rock", "star", etc.) and should pipe from the first usage, but not after that. Excess blue is a real turn off for reading.
• I want to have an external academic like Christe go over the thing as well, but would like us to get it as clean as we can ourselves first.TCO (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Support A great work has been done to this article since the nomination, so now I suggest it meets the criteria. TGilmour (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:54, 15 June 2011 [15].

---

Schubert's last sonatas

Nominator(s): mcoverdale (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it to be a model of its kind--well-sourced, readable, comprehensive, providing a thorough overview of its topic. I'd love to see more WP articles on classical music aspire to this level of quality.mcoverdale (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The article seems pretty good on a quick read-through by a listener-only person like myself , but I can't see that you have notified the two major contributors, which you are supposed to do. Should the title specify "piano" sonatas? There are some more images that could be used - Schubert's last home, his glasses, many portraits & so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

CommentThanks. I agree with your suggestions, particularly about the title change. I have no idea who the main two contributors are since unlike many of these nominations this is not a vanity nomination--just an article I came across and was very impressed by. My only contribution was to do a cosmetic clean-up of the opening paragraphs after I nominated it.mcoverdale (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It says at the top "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." You can find the 2 main editors (perhaps mainly just one) through the "history" page here; both are still active. The nominator(s) of an FA need to be very familiar with the subject and sources, and also general WP issues. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. The article looks impressive, but has had little significant work since its GA in December 2008. It really needs another peer review, this time against the specific FA criteria, before being brought here. After a quick skim I can see several areas that require attention: under-referencing in parts of the article; some lack of neutrality in the prose; excessive use of bullet points in prose; the music examples need to be linked to specific sources, not to a portal; MOS format issues, e.g. use of hyphens in page ranges; mixing of source material with further reading, etc... I would also underline the point made above about the need for nominators to have detailed knowledge of the subject matter, which normally means familiarity with the research that underpins the article. I would very much like to see this article in the FA fold at some future time, but as of now the nomination is premature, and should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural close / Oppose - FAC instructions not followed. It's understandable that you would want to see this article recognized, but you're not a major contributor and have not consulted, as you are required to do before nomination. I also agree with the issues raised by Brian above - this article is of good quality, but needs more than a cosmetic clean-up to be of featured quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is an issue with quotation marks. “ and ” should be changed to ". I tried to replace them but something was wrong with my Word. TGilmour (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:47, 14 June 2011 [16].

---

Kurt Hummel

Nominator(s): HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel is quite a fascinating character to grace the screens of television these days. He's a representation of how gay people struggle with bullying in high school, is often regarded as an icon for the gay community, and is referred to by critics as a "fashionista". Originally a background character, he's grown into one of the more complicating leading character's to be featured on Glee. The article is currently a Good Article, and has undergone a peer review and two copy-edits. A lot of work has gone into bringing this article up to standards, and I think it has a chance to be a Featured Article here on Wikipedia. This is my first nomination. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unfamiliar with Glee, so this might sound odd, but would it be possible to get an image of Kurt for the infobox under fair-use? Also, in it's current state, it seems pointless to have both File:Chris Colfer (Glee).jpg and File:Chris Colfer 2011 Shankbone.JPG so close together. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now there is a fair use image File:KurtHummel.png, but I didn't know whether or not to keep it before nominating. The rationale right now is to highlight the high class wardrobe the character wears which is quite different from the way Chris Colfer dresses in real life, but I didn't know it if it would pass the FUR. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a question which has come up a few times recently on the NFC talk page, and an issue on which I am personally undecided. From the pictures, the character and the actor don't look all that different- they even do their hair in the same way. However, it would obviously be improper to lead the article with a picture of the actor not in role, as the actor =/= the character. Not an easy one to call. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at a few other articles about TV characters and non-free images seem to be ok to use on a fair use basis. Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson and Bernard Quatermass are all FA class articles and have non-free images. I would put it. Coolug (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Publications like Los Angeles Times should be italicized
• Use a consistent date format
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc
• Ref 6: publisher?
• Why do you sometimes include publishers for newspapers and sometimes not?
• In general, reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
• The author of this site has a restricted profile - can you expound on their expertise/qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I just went through every source and rearranged them. Does this look more consistent now? Also, AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com is a media website that posts news pertaining to LGBT people/characters. The site was founded by Sarah Warn in 2002. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but who is the author of that particular article, and what qualifications does that author have? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was written by journalist Lesley Goldberg, who has worked for the Los Angeles Times, and Frontiers in LA magazine. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Sources need a lot of work. The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Out TV Guide and many others need to all be italicized as they are magazine/newspaper publications. You need to check for a lot of formatting inconsistencies. For example, the {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} templates are not used properly throughout: refs. 50 and 61 are from Entertainment Weekly, and each use a separate template; Boston Herald should be cited using a news template; ditto for ref 57. Ref 83 uses the news template, but it's not used for ref 7, even though they're the same work. A number of citations lack publishing information or have general important information missing: ref #1 has no publishing information, although the same work is listed with a publisher in other citations, the same for refs 34, 53, 23, 20; refs 10, 44, 54, 71, 35 etc etc need publisher info. To be honest, while it's sometimes excusable for websites to lack publishing info., there should be no reason for it to be missing in newspaper and magazine citations; ref 85 has no retrieval date; ref 39 lacks both publisher and work. For ref 75, Atlantic Media Company is the publisher, and should not be italicized- the work is The Atlantic (publisher found for ref 60!). There is also a lot of general inconsistencies: Why is IGN italicized in ref. 24, but not italicized in refs 21, 32, 43, 54, 55 etc? Refs. 41, 42 and 47 are from the same work, but written/formatted completely differently, all lacking a publisher. Also, for ref 47, E! Online isn't published by E!, but by NBCUniversal. Should websites be italicizes? PR Newswire is italicized in one citation and not italicized in another. I doubt this is a high-quality reliable source. I'm sure you can find the same info on a more reputable website. Orane (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• If time permits, I'll see if I can help you with some of these citation errors. You've done a great job on the article, but as I've learned, references are just as important as the article itself, and need to be just as consistent and professional. Orane (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your input. I'm going to try to look over those sources again ASAP! HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just went over and smoothed over the kinks in the sources. I think it looks better now. Can you take a look? HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot better now. There is still a couple minor errors, but not enough for me to still object. For example, For ref 47, work should be "CBS News" and publisher should be "CBS Corporation". Ref 54 is not formatted properly, and ref 53 is missing the work field (which I'm assuming is IGN); ref 66, 69 and 73 should all be using the citenews template. For ref 29, is "Starry Magazine" really the publisher? If not, leave the field blank in the template. It's better to have missing info than incorrect info. Orane (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just went and fixed all the small problems you mentioned here. Is there anything else that might need work? HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're all good. Orane (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. I really wanted to do the copyediting myself here, but there's a bit more than I have time for, and a lot of judgment calls I don't think I have the answers to. I'll just throw out the sentences and words I ran across that seem problematic. If you can get some copyediting help, that would be great, I'd like to see the article pass. This is all from the lead section:

• "Glee follows the trials of an Ohio-based high school glee club mostly seen as a group of outsiders and rejects": trials, Ohio-based and rejects aren't quite right, and a definition for "glee club" in the text would be best, although some writers prefer to handle this with a link ... you offer a link, but not at the first occurrence of the term.
• "a glee club ... Kurt is a member of New Directions": the reader will wonder at this point whether you're talking about one or two glee clubs.
• "His storylines focus on his struggle with his sexuality as he comes out to his father and deals with his crush on the glee club co-captain.": Well, if this is what the best secondary sources say, then that's fine, but from memory, in most of the scenes he appears in, he's advancing a wide variety of plot lines and integrating well with the students. This description makes it sound like he's oppressed, brooding and solitary.
• "He subsequently encounters a homophobic classmate": Better would be "After a homophobic classmate [does specific thing] at [specific point in the season], Kurt ..."
• "Colfer describes Kurt as projecting a very confident "I'm better than you" persona, but ultimately being a typically scared and anxious teenager.": Since your POV shifts here to Colfer, the paragraph break would work better just before this sentence. When that happens, the middle paragraph will look skimpy; more detail would be helpful.
• "usually concentrating on show tunes": again, going from memory, most of the time he's singing, he's singing whatever the group is singing, so he doesn't really concentrate on show tunes in practice, even if he prefers them.
• "Kurt's occasionally complex relationship with his father has been a focus for the show.": This would be better combined with the similar sentence in the second paragraph.
• "Colfer and the series' writers have received critical praise and awards for how Kurt has been portrayed, including Colfer's winning Best Supporting Actor at the 2011 Golden Globe Awards.": Skimming the article, I don't see any award won by the writers, but I might have missed it. If this is true, then I wouldn't lump Colfer and the writers together as the subject of this sentence, I'd break it into two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait, looking at Glee (TV series), I see the show won the "2010 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy", which is sort of an award for the writers. Per WP:LEAD, if you say that someone or something won an award in the lead section of this article, then that should be backed up in the text of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed up most of your comments. What do you think? HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not great, but as I say in my standard disclaimer, publishers are more interested in good writers than in writers with good copyediting skills, so don't sweat it, keep writing. You might ask for help with the copyediting at WT:GOCE or possibly WT:LGBT. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:47, 14 June 2011 [17].

---

Rex Ryan

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I feel it meets the criteria after having undergone extensive work. As one of the most boisterous yet successful personalities to headline the NFL, Rex Ryan would have one more thing to boast about if given a bronze star. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Source for coaching record?
• Why not include both authors for citations to Play Like You Mean It?
• Page ranges should use endashes
• Italicization in references needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review

The three photos check out with appropriate licenses, however, the second (File:Rex Ryan.jpg) should not have a period at the end of the caption because that is not a complete sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Link review

The external links come up fine with the tool. There is one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed. Jim Caldwell redirects to James Caldwell, which is a DAB page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All the aforementioned issues in the source, image and link reviews have been corrected. Thank you for your reviews! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the lead, the abbreviated version of NFL should appear after the first full use (in the opening sentence).
• "which has included two back-to-back AFC Championship appearances in two consecutive seasons." Lot of redundancies in this sentence, between "two", "back-to-back", and "two consecutive seasons". How about "which has included back-to-back AFC Championship appearances in the 2009 and 2010 seasons."?
• For the quote at the end of the lead, MOS:QUOTE states that quotations inside of a quote should have one quotation mark, not two. Even if it is that way in the source, a reasonable allowance for style fixes is permitted in the linked style guide.
  • For this one, I meant that the quote inside of a quote should have one mark on each side. This means that there should be one mark at the start, and a single and double mark at the end of the sentence. Sorry if the original comment was confusing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• College: "At Kentucky". Isn't it Eastern Kentucky? Kentucky is another university.
• "Ryan was the Sooners' defensive coordinator...". Since the first name of the college isn't given anywhere, I would add Oklahoma to this sentence, in front of the nickname.
• National Football League: Minor, but the semi-colon before "Ryan's only Super Bowl ring" should be just a regular old comma.
• Pro Football Weekly should be italicized since that is a magazine.
• Add a semi-colon before "however" in the fourth paragraph of the NFL assistant coach section (x2), plus one in the fifth paragraph? Alternatively, you could use "but" for one or two of them for variety. In general, these "xxx however, xxx" bits need work.
• Head coach: "Accepting the offer, Ryan immediately began to carry out a platform he outlined for the franchise's future, team building." Something seems off toward the end of the sentence. Is it the comma?
• Should game in AFC Championship game be capitalized? I do think it's commonly treated as a proper noun...
• Don't need two Patriots links here.
• Book: Sports Illustrated needs italics as well.
• References 5, 21, and 55 have only Ryan's name, and not the co-author's. Is that intentional?
• References 7, 17, and 33 have page ranges, which should have pp. in them, not p. as they are now.
• Last but not least, almost half of the references are to Ryan's autobiography. This is a very large percentage, especially for a modern sports figure whom sources can readily be found for. Basic facts like background details are not a problem, but I'm more concerned about assertions like "his success as a defensive coach can be attributed to this compensation." Things like this need attribution to Ryan. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Giants! There are some things that you cannot find through other sources however, I believe the percentage is so large because the autobiography was used to chronicle the team's past two seasons under Ryan which were abbreviated in the book but had all pertinent information. However, I do understand the concern and I would have no issue finding other sources if that is what should and needs to happen. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The autobio refs actually concern me as well, and actually keeps me from wanting to do a full review. Some additions for early life/personal info is fine, but for a head coach finding online refs is no trouble at all, so if nothing else it should not be used during his Jets tenure. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to significantly cut down the number of refs that are from his autobiography. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:47, 14 June 2011 [18].

---

History of macroeconomic thought

Nominator(s): Bkwillwm (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive overview of the development of macroeconomic theory and is thoroughly referenced with high quality sources. The article has been through a peer review and a copyedit, and I am not sure how else I can make it better. I think it meets the criteria of an FA. Bkwillwm (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lots of pesky and time consuming 2c problems; 1c looks decent enough Random sampling for probably undergraduate textbooks revealed no problemsFifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on bringing the article this far.
  • Variance in footnotes between Author (Year) and Author Year; due to partial implementation of internal linking?
    • The copy editor added the internal linking to the existing citation system. Should I change the other references to match the Author Year format? Would that suffice?--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • FAC requirement is consistency, you don't need the internal linking, but neither is it forbidden. You need to choose one way or the other and then implement throughout the footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Problem with fn124, and another (Ball), Shapiro, C.; Stiglitz, J. E. (1984), edit suggestion appearing "^ See Fischer, S. (1977). "Long-Term Contracts, Rational Expectations, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule". The Journal of Political Economy 85 (1): 191–205. doi:10.1086/260551. edit"
    • I think the "edit" is a result of the JSTOR citation template. Should I replace the template?--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • All links from footnotes to bibliography work; JSTORS, ISBN, dois clear in footnotes except: broken doi: Smets, Frank; Wouters, Rafael (2007). ; suggest nominator checks ISBNs, JSTORS, dois in bibliography
    • Fixed Smets and Wouters.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Lacks a title, Lipsey, R.G. (February 1960). Economica. 27. pp. 1-31. , "The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1862-1957: A Further Analysis"
    • Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Lacks Author or indication it is an editorial: ^ "A model approach". Nature 460 (7256):
    • Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • p./pp. versus [no page indicator] inconsistent
  • lack of n-dashes in page ranges
  • terminal fullstops in footnotes inconsistent
  • commas, colons and periods within cites inconsistent
  • Bibliography publisher location inconsistency (ie: Blinder, Alan S. (2008) not listed) resolved
    • The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is an online publication and no location is given in their citations.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • State or Nationstate listing for non-major-publishing cities inconsistency; Fletcher, Gordon (2002) has it, Davidson, Paul (2005). doesn't.
    • Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Improbable publisher location?—Mark, Nelson Chung (2001).
    • Fixed. That reference was all wrong.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Title? Farmer, J. Doyne; Foley, Duncan (6 August 2009). Nature. 460. pp. 685–686. doi:10.1038/460685a.
    • Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes this Woodford, Michael (1999). a High Quality Reliable Source, or a Reliable Source at all; a personal or departmental paper doesn't cut it. And it was presented at a conference, was it peer reviewed, is the named chair enough? Cite the conference regardless of the RS/HQRS outcome.
    • What do you mean by "named chair"? Are you referring to Woodford's stature? Woodford is very well known, so the article has clout. The same mimeo was used as a reference in Blanchard (2000). If it's good enough for Blanchard in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, then its good enough here. I'll add the conference..--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ta. If someone is sufficiently expert, then non-peer reviewed papers can be fine. Australia's HERDC reporting, for example, considers keynote papers as "peer reviewed" if they were delivered to a peer reviewed conference, even if the keynote itself wasn't peer reviewed. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I standardized the footnote format and used ndashes for the page ranges. This should take care of the formatting issues.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment With a title including "history", I was expecting something beginning much further back. The article begins "Macroeconomic theory began with John Maynard Keynes who described the economy as a whole instead of looking at individual, microeconomic parts", but I wonder how true this is. From the little I know about the subject, much early economic thought at least tried to grapple with larger issues. Later on, a section begins: "Modern macroeconomics can be said to have begun with John Maynard Keynes", & I think the qualifier is necessary. Also why "thought"? "Theory" is what the article uses, & seems more correct. So History of modern macroeconomic theory would seem a better title. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I stuck with "thought" over "theory" following the convention in History of economic thought. Aside from inconsistency, I'm not opposed to that change. I do oppose qualifying the article with "modern." Many sources say macro began with Keynes, and most history of macro overviews start with Keynes (see Mankiw (2006). Unlike many works on this topic, this article does include earlier work. Like Blanchard (2000) and Woodford (1999), it starts with work in business cycles and monetary theory. I haven't seen a survey of macro that gives proportionally more attention to pre-Keynes work, so I feel like this time period is given due weight. Considering that most sources, including Mankiw 2006, don't consider macro to have begun until Keynes, I don't see a point in adding "modern." Moreover, "modern macro" is sometimes used to refer to macroeconomics after the development of rational expectations. Renaming could cause confusion. I will add some sentences at the beginning of the lead referring to the "origins" section.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • AFAIA, Macro begins with Keynes. Previous system wide analyses used fundamentally different methodologies to Keynes, and were generally known as Political Economy IIRC. (And, even while some later Macroeconomics work is also Political Economy… "its complex"). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Source for MONIAC caption, King's College caption?
• Which Neo-Keynesian model does that graph represent?
• File:Phillips_and_MONIAC_LSE.jpg - from the page linked as "Permission": "many of our images are of unknown provenance, with no accompanying data about their creators or date of creation. If you make use of an image from our photostream, you are reminded to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding with a particular new use". Was this done?
• File:ACEGESGUI.png - source link is dead, and without it there's no evidence of the image's PD status. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for checking the images on the page. I'll add a King's college ref. Both the IS/LM and Philips curve captions were accidentally removed when I added alttext to those images. Captions have been fixed. The user who uploaded the ACEGESGUI image exclusively edited ACEGES and related articles. The user's screen name is the same as that of the ACEGES ‎PI. I give the SN the benefit of the doubt here. It looks like it belongs to the image's copyright owner. I sent a request to the ACEGES site to verify this through OTRS, just in case. The MONIAC image is the complicated issue. I assumed that the Flickr no known restrictions license was acceptable because it was an eligible selection in Commons. If not, I can get another image for the lead image.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I went through the ACEGES website and contacted the author of the ACEGESGUI.png image and had uploaded the image to Commons. He documented permissions for this image through Commons OTRS.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I created a new composite image of free photos of economists here. I think all of the image issues have been addressed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I'm trying to review the whole article this weekend. I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so consider my comments as comments of an interested lay person. The article so far is extraordinally well-written, but I do have a number of comments:

Origins

• The term "money velocity" seems to be crucial to the whole article, yet, it is nowhere explained. Please do so. Consider spending quite some detail on this.
  • I tried to explain this a bit parenthetically.
    • OK. Consider changing "(the frequency with which a given piece of currency is used in transactions) (V)" to "... transactions, V)". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• You indicate a "simple version of the quantity theory". In the interest of a comprehensive article, what are the less simple ones?
  • Distinguished the two main versions.
    • Just to make sure I'm following you: the simple one is Fisher's, the other one is Keynes' and the Cambridge school? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keynes's general theory

• Say's Law is stated only for money in section 1. How is it applied to labor markets, as well?
  • Section 1 says it was applied to the whole economy. I think the wording is OK now. Say's law just says you have X of whatever goods, labor, etc. on the market. The price will drop until all X are sold.
    • OK, I get it. However, how about changing "which stated that whatever is supplied to the market will be sold" to something like "which stated that whatever is supplied to the market, be it goods or labor force [...or whatever else is important...] will be sold"? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting with "Classical economists" is very repetitive. In the interest of a concise exposition, I'd urge you to eliminate these redundancies: "Keynes rejected the assertion that money velocity is stable and uncorrelated with output." says exactly the same as the sentence directly following it. Moreover, this par. says almost the same as the last par. in section 1. I think the last par of section 1 should go and whatever is important there should be merged into section 2.
  • Cleaned up a little bit. There's some difference between section 1 and 2. I'll work on making this clearer.
• I don't understand "During downturns, government could increase spending to employ excesses". What do you mean by employ excesses here?
  • Reworded.
    • This may totally be just me (I'm not a native speaker), but "government could increase spending to purchase excess and goods " does not sink in with me. How can one purchase an excess? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keynes's successors

• "externalities" -- jargon.
  • Yes, it's jargon, but I feel like it's OK. This article can't explain every economic term. Each math article doesn't explain what a real number is. I have to draw a line somewhere, and externalities are a microeconomic concept. The term is ilinked for those who don't know it.
    • True. However, the comparison does not quite work: it takes some space to explain real numbers, whereas here you could simply reword to "[[externalities|external factors]]"? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Section 3.2. says that Keynes' work did not include price levels. I assume this means he did not care about inflation? If so, why is Philipps' curve "the weakest part of the Keynesian system"?
  • There's a difference between Keynes's system and the Keynesian system. Keynes ignored price level. Keynes's successors added the Phillips curve to the Keynesian system even though Keynes was dead. I could try to reword this but its conventional terminology and it should be clear what's going on.
    • This must be one of the trivial things for insiders. But, indeed, I was wondering. Do you see a good way of pointing out the difference between the two (i.e., emphasizing that Keynes' stuff and Keynesian stuff are not exactly the same)? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New classical economics

• "They did share the Keynesian focus ..." -- I don't understand who did and who did not share what. As it stands, it reads like the new classical economists broke with Keynesian theory "completely", but "did share" K's focus. A contradiction?
  • NC's shared the Keynesian focus on the short-run, but didn't adopt any Keynesian theory. Reworded to clarify.
    • I'm still concerned about the word "completely". You will know better, but saying that someone disagrees completely means he does not like a single bit of that one, right? Would replacing "completely" by "largely" or the like be still OK with you? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Again, the diagram integrates relatively poorly with the text: what is Q, what is D, what is the red and blue curve? If you consider the diagram to be important enough to be in this article, it deserves a more thorough coverage. Like this, it is of little use for newcomers.
  • Explained elements of the graph in the caption.
    • An improvement, thanks. However, please be mindful of MOS which asks for succinct image captions. In fact, it is easy to conform to this: "John Muth first proposed rational expectations when he criticized the cobweb model (example above) of agricultural prices. Muth showed that agents making based on rational expectations would be more successful than those who made their estimates based on adaptive expectations, which could lead to the cobweb situation" -- all of this should not need to be in the image caption, I believe, but in the main text instead. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace (1975)[85] applied rational expectations to the Phillips curve and found that " -- how did they find that?

New Keynesian eco

• The distinction "nominal" vs. "real" occurs a number of times, but is nowhere explained (unless I missed it). This applies to wages here and rigidities later.
  • Added more in the "Origins" section to set this up. Also tried to do a better job explaining real rigidities.
• You use the word "shirk" about 10 times. Consider rewording this a bit.
  • Swapped in "slack off" a couple times.
    • Hm, there are still 7 shirks in this one paragraph + image caption.... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New growth theory

• "Marginalist revolution" -- again, hard to understand without background.
  • Added time period to this and explained that it was a period of micro research.
• The first few sentences leave me puzzled: when was what? Especially the sentence "Research on the topic ..." seems ill-placed. I suggest putting everything in strict chronological order.
  • Sentence reworded. Section is now in chronological order.
• "basically" sounds a bit weaselly.
  • Removed "basically."
  • Reworded.
• "The first challenged the assumption of diminishing marginal returns to capital by introducing positive externalities to capital accumulation." -- Sorry. I cannot make heads nor tails of this. What are "diminishing marginal returns", what are "positive externalities"?
  • Tried to reword to reduce jargon. Positive externalities are spillover benefits.
• "The second saw technological growth as endogenous, so entrepreneurs would be more likely to expand knowledge given more of an incentive to profit." -- I don't (again, this may be my fault) understand why the second part of the sentence is a consequence of the first.
  • Probably my fault. Simplified.
• "The final set" -- is this just the third set? Why do you call it "final"?
  • Yes, this is the third set. Merged with last sentence to be clearer and more concise.

Another point that keeps popping up and leaving me unsatisfied: the

Heterodox theories

• will review in the next few days.

Financial crisis

• will review in the next few days.

Misc comments

• Things like mid-1950's should have a hyphen, I think? (Several times throughout the article)
• This is not an FA requirement, just a suggestion: things like "Keynes (1940) showed..." could be formatted a bit more nicely by using the {{Harvard citations}} template: Keynes (1940).

General questions/qualms

• At few places, the article mentions connections to the "real world". It gives a bit the impression that the theories were developed without a view towards applications/the current economical situation. I believe this is not the case? I don't have any request what should be in here, though, but this is just because I don't know the topic well.
  • Macroeconomists create models that are extreme simplifications of very complex systems. When one economist doesn't like another's model, it's easy to pick at the simplifying assumptions as unrealistic.
    • OK, maybe my comment was unclear: the fact that Keynes did not care about inflation might be explained by the fact that little inflation occurred when he did his work. (Right?) Pointing out such connections between theory and ambient "real world" seems beneficial to me: after all a theory reflects in some sense what its creator wanted it to be. Does this question make any sense to you? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • • I agree. A concern with economic policy and problems (unemployment, inflation) is one of the characteristic features of macroeconomics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• A similar issue: even though all of this is very very scientific, I imagine that many of the theories build on certain assumptions that often reflect ideological beliefs or are based on other, ultimately subjective ideas. Is this right? If so, the article should, I think, carve out more clearly what underlying ideas (or axioms) drove the development of these ideas. The ideological confrontations between the schools is briefly mentioned in the article, but as a reader I don't feel satisfied in this respect.
  • I tried to avoid framing this in ideological terms. I think it would easily become POV heavy otherwise. Most other macro surveys also deal with ideology with a light hand. While Keynesians trend left and monetarists/new classicals lean right, the break downs between economic schools of thought aren't necessarily political anyway. Greg Mankiw is a prominent Keynesian and well-known conservative who advised George W. Bush. Volcker is associated with monetarism, but he advised Obama.
    • Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to dig my heels in. What I'm after is this: "everyone knows" (?), and the article in one place acknowledges, that much of the debates were inflicted by ideological assumptions etc. If this impression of mine is true, you have to reflect this state of things in a certain depth, I think. Ideally: find a neutral, secondary source which deals with the ideological ruptures etc. surrounding this and base your discussion on this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I added a quote discussing ideology and Europe/disequilibrium and American/equilibrium ideologies, in a footnote.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Finally, something else where I think the article is weak: almost nothing is said about the methods of macroeconomics. Why? How did these scholars get all their results? Just two points that come to my mind: there is a whole philosophical branch studying philosophy of eco. E.g., to what extent are the empirical data useful at all? Also, increasingly sophisticated mathematics have been developed and used in economics. This qualm of mine is somewhat confirmed when one looks at the references. The article is well-referenced, it seems, but if you take together the books Garrison 2005, Snowdone & Vane, Mankiw 1990, Froyen 1990, Romer 2006, you have more than 50% of the citations. I'm not questioning the reliability of these and other sources used, but this means that half of the article consists of what is contained in these books. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but for a huge topic like this, this strikes me as relatively narrow a scope.
  • I noticed that a few of your comments seemed to request an explanation of methods. I tried to focus on theory instead of methods to limit the scope of the article, but I'll add a little more on methodology to try to make the article less abstract. I did rely heavily on S&V, but it's the one, recent book length treatment of the history of macro. Moreover, S&V takes a neutral approach to the subject while other surveys are usually trying to push a point of view or pitch a certain perspective on the subject (like Mankiw's scientists vs. engineers). I also used every other reputable survey I had access to (Blanchard, Mankiw, Woodford), and several topic specific sources like Delong and Goodfriend & King. Collectively, it was works by Mankiw, Romer, and S&V that I relied most on. Mankiw and Romer are two of the top textbook writers and respected research economists themselves, and S&V is the top source on this subject. I think those are reasonable sources to build on the core of this article. The other sources add a few more perspectives, and I don't think there's a notable perspective that's absent.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

    Look at Perry Mehrling's book. I think that he studied with Desai (more of a LSE/Cambridge post-Keynesian and Douglas Gale).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Hm. I'll buy your statement that S&V does cover most of what we need to have in this article. (Not so much because I'm convinced, but because I don't have enough insight into the topic, nor do I have this book or other books). I will also post on WT:WikiProject Economics to get expert input on this question. However, I'm fairly convinced that the article needs to have more on methodology. Imagine an article History of genetics that aims to be comprehensive (an FA criterion) that just says: Mendel "found" this and that, Watson and Crick found this and this, without ever saying how they did so. This would simply be wanting in depth. Displaying how a science evolves necessarily includes the development of its methods. In this case: Mendel actually fooled around in his garden with peas (or what was it?) and prevented them from mixing among each other, Watson and Craig used microscopes in their work etc. Not telling this and similar bits implies that the reader will never know why certain things were not possible before they were actually done etc. Back to this article: I just looked at google.books and S&V, which talks (p. 680) about the "wrenching transformation [of economics] from operating as a purely verbal science to [...] a purely mathematical science". Of course, this is just one particular quote and I'm not insisting you put this particular one into the article. However, it is an aspect not at all talked about in the article as it currently stands. If you agree with that quote and consider it non-POV etc., you basically have to tell something about this "wrenching transformation". Otherwise the article is, I firmly believe, not comprehensive. You might object that the article becomes too technical etc., when talking about complicated maths (or whatever else complicated might occur). Yet, it is an FA's job not to "dumb down" the topic (while doing the best possible in explaining the things, so that the largest reasonable audience will benefit). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll add a few more methodological elements to the article. The neo-Keynesian synthesis produced much of the shift from words to math you mention above. I'll discuss that more. I'll discuss monetarist methodologies more. And I'll do more on RBC and DSGE methodologies (probably where better discussion of methodology is needed most). I think that, on top of what's already there, like the large-scale macromodel section, should be enough methodology for a theory article. I'm still going to argue that methodology isn't central to a theory article. I don't see a history of theoretical physics dwelling on the methodological differences between Newton, Einstein, quantum theory, and string theory. It would focus on differences in theories and maybe make mention of certain methodological tools that play a major (particle accelerators). I also got my hands on A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. I'll use that to a little more diversity citations.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding mathematical economics and econometrics: I quote from the New Palgrave article:

Robert M. Solow concluded that mathematical economics was the core "infrastructure" of contemporary economics:

Economics is no longer a fit conversation piece for ladies and gentlemen. It has become a technical subject. Like any technical subject it attracts some people who are more interested in the technique than the subject. That is too bad, but it may be inevitable. In any case, do not kid yourself: the technical core of economics is indispensable infrastructure for the political economy. That is why, if you consult [a reference in contemporary economics] looking for enlightenment about the world today, you will be led to technical economics, or history, or nothing at all.

I think that the article should emphasize the methodological shift from viewing the economy as a system (Leontiev models and structural models with simultaneous equations) to optimization/equilibrium modeling. In particular, in the 1970s, the recognition of dynamic and stochastic optimization problems required the movement from static GE to dynamic programming, probability, and functional analysis (e.g., Telser, Lucas & Stokes, etc.). There is no recognition of mathematical progress in economics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See also

• This is not an FA requirement, but I often think that a FA that needs to say "see also ..." can be improved: if the see also items are important, you might integrate them in the actual text, if not, just remove them.
  • The topics are all minor or tangential. I'll remove the section.

External links all need accessdates. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks leading section is too large 2nd paragraph is too large -- break it up since this is a history article, the sections should be dated, like "Keynes's successors and the neoclassical synthesis 1940s-1970s" if the leading section is not even top-notch quality, the rest of the article likely needs a lot of workrm2dance (talk)

Disagree with all of that, FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree with all of that. Per MOS:LEAD#Length the lead section is appropriate length for this article. There's also no requirement to have dates in headlines for history articles. Dates are not as important in articles based on the history of ideas. There are several contemporaneous movements here. The history of macroeconomics doesn't break down neatly into eras.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Qualified support. There are a couple of minor points outstanding but I am ready to support, with some qualifications. I have not reviewed images or sources; and I am not qualified to judge if the article is comprehensive and balanced. It is well-written and I have no prose concerns. The article structure is sound and I think it does a remarkable job of explaining a large, technical and abstract topic to a layperson. Comments by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library). I am reading through the article and will add comments. I am making some minor copyedits as I go; please revert if they are inaccurate, as I'm not expert in this field.

• "described the economy as an aggregate whole": do we need both "aggregate" and "whole"?
  • Now "whole economy in terms of aggregates."
• "cast doubt on the consensus and its understanding of the macroeconomy": given that the previous sentence seems to indicate there was more than one current theoretical viewpoint, I'm not sure what "consensus" refers to.
  • The consensus is explained two sentences before. Were you confused by the sentence on growth theory? Growth theory is another area of research, not an opposing viewpoint. I changed the sentence so that it says that financial crisis damaged the credibility of the synthesis/consensus with respect to business cycles. I hope this clarifies the meaning.

    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Business cycle theory attempted to describe the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity." I think this needs a little more at the end to clarify that this refers to an existing phenomenon: e.g. "the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity that were an observed feature of developed economies by the end of the 19th century". I just made that up, but some qualifier is necessary for a reader unfamiliar with the territory.
  • I redid the first part of that section. I'm not sure it addressed your concerns though. Let me know.

    I think it needs a bit more; plus now you have "activity" twice. The issue is that lay readers won't know what you mean by "frequent violent shifts in economic activity". I'm really asking for a concise definition of business cycle to be given along with an indication that it was a well known phenomenon that needed a theoretical explanation. How about "economists attempted to explain the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity between booms and recessions", since "boom" and "recession" are widely understood?

• "One of several points of contention in interpreting Keynes." Looks like a sentence fragment left over after an edit?
  • Removed this. I think it was awkward restructuring.
• "Economists even debate the interpretation of his policy prescription for unemployment, one of the more explicit parts of The General Theory, and whether it was intended as a revolutionary reaction to a serious problem or a moderately conservative solution to deal with the issue": I don't think this has quite enough information. It sounds as though the debate is not over what he said, merely over whether his proposed solution should be regarded as revolutionary or conservative -- is that correct? If so, I don't think "interpretation" is the right word.
  • I was worried that this sentence would be interpreted that way. The key is "intended." That debate is over whether Keynes himself thought of this as a radical measure or simple fix. I tried rewording the sentence. I'm not sure if its that much clearer. I think the "revolutionary" might have altered the feel.

    I think if you change "whether it was intended" to "whether Keynes intended it" that would do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• 'One group emerged representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, and they merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."' I don't like "emerged" and "merged" so close together. How about 'One group, representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."'
  • Used combined instead of merged.
• File:Philipsus60.png doesn't label the dots with years; shouldn't it do so?
  • I don't think its absolutely necessary because its the relationships between output and input that matter most. I'll try to get a new image up though, because it would be better to have one with dates.

    OK, striking; I think an image with dates would be informative but as you say it's not necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Near the start of the "New classical economics" section there are two sentences starting with "However". Can one be cut, or at least varied?
  • Cut one.
• "Research on the topic basically went dormant from 1970 until 1985": a little informal, and it seems to belong more naturally before the prior sentence too. How about "... work tapered off during the marginalist revolution, and there was little or no research on growth from 1970 until 1985"?
  • Reworded.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a read through; comments are above. I will take a look at the sources and images later. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Artoasis (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sources: Several problems I found when I was converting the notes to the harvard style.

Cooper & John 1988: missing from ref section

Mankiw & Romer 1991: also missing

Sargent 1998: also missing

• Prose

"This was consistent with the classical dichotomy view that real aspects of the economy and nominal factors ... can considered be independent from one another."

can be considered independent...

... in which individual markets interact with each other in a system...

I think one another might be better here.

...a trade off between inflation and output...

trade-off

One group emerged representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, and they merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."

emerge and merge too close?

Monetarism lost influence among central bankers, but its core tenets of long-run neutrality of money ... and use of monetary policy for stabilization became enshrined in the macroeconomic mainstream even among Keynesians.

enshrine is a very strong word.

Commentary ridiculed the mainstream and proposed a major reassessment.

mainstream macroeconomics

In the Austrian model, inflation is only a secondary problem stemming from monetary expansion, capital misallocation is the primary concern.

A semicolon (;) would work better between "expansion" and "capital".

• Lead

I think you could consider linking these concepts in the lead:

price level, Keynesian theory, business cycle, demand for money and money supply.

The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession cast doubt on the consensus...

By consensus, do you mean the "new neoclassical synthesis"? It could be a little confusing.

I adopted all of your recommendations except for the first under prose. I reworded it to flip the "considered" and "be." I don't know if that's what was causing your problem. It sounded like you wanted to cut out "one another." I don't think leaving it as "independent" will work. Its ambiguous. "Independent" of what? They're not completely independent of everything. I could say "independently," but I think "from one another" or "each other" is best.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was meant to suggest you flip "consider" and "be", not remove "one another". I should have finished that sentence instead of using... Sorry again, :) Artoasis (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Image

Keynes (right) at a 1946 International Monetary Fund meeting

I think it would be better to also include White's name. Keynes (right) at a 1946 International Monetary Fund meeting with Harry Dexter White (left)

• Oppose I (and now User:Volunteer_Marek, VM) left comments on the talk page of the article. I list problems roughly in order of importance:

1. The neglect of econometrics and policy is a severe problem about the scope of the article. There is little about macroeconomic-policy evaluation, although a lot of talk about "Lucas critique". Its treatment of data (time series on GDP of countries, for example; or microeconometric models of consumption function), macroeconometrics and econometric evaluation is negligible.
2. It has problems with undue weight, certainly with regard to (a) the "agency based models" which cite non-economics journals and The Economist. VM couldn't find high quality reliable sources for these claims. I claim that there is undue weight given to (b) fringe economics (so-called "Post-Keynesian" and "Austrian"); VM argues that the discussion is appropriate for an article on the history of macroeconomics. These sections have no claims that these "theories" (unlike DSGE models) have succeeded in making predictions, so I would remove them all. (WP should not promote pseudo-science, particularly cultlike pseudo-science: There was a discussion of the undue weight of some WP editors promoting "Austrian economics" some years ago at the WikiProject Economics, which succeeded in improving things civilly.)
3. It, following popular graduate textbooks, over-emphasizes new-classical economics and DSGE economics. Frank Hahn demolished many of the bizarre but popular claims about these models long ago, but they are often repeated by textbooks and by this article. Criticism of these models occurs only in the section on the recent economic crisis, which cites popular accounts rather than detailed professional vivisections by Hahn and Solow from 15 years ago.
4. It neglects disequilibrium economics, represented for example by Presidents of the Econometric/European-Economic Societies (Malinvaud and French economists; Drèze and Belgian economists). (In a collection of the 1980s, Hahn praised Drèze's model very highly. Drèze was elected to be the first President of the EEA. Thus, this neglect seems possibly undue weight. Drèzes's Presidential addres to the EEA would be a good source for this article.)
5. It included many statements that "article x showed y", many of which I copy-edited.

These issues make the article not yet worthy of FA status, imho. This article is at GA status, which is a great accomplishment given its scope and the (essentially) one-man writing  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding point one, this is a theory article. I limited this to "history of macroeconomic thought" instead of "history of macroeconomics" so I could write something that was not too unwieldy. I intentionally avoided econometric and policy issues unless they clearly broached on the work in theory. If I'm missing something theory related on econometrics or policy, please let me know, but the limited treatment of these aspects of macroeconomics is intentional and in keeping with the scope of this article.

Macroeconomics was invented to explain the great depression and its initial formulations guided policy, with some success, as noted by Hahn and Solow. Your article just has assertions about theory, without any attempt to assess policy relevance or empirical adequacy; this is particularly problematic given your focus on the Lucas critique of policy. Some statement of the empirical adequacy of the "theories" is needed, particularly for the weirdo "theories", which have nothing to say about reality apparently.

Regarding two, three, and four: I am worried that your own personal views are guiding most of your comments about undue weight. I tried very hard to check my biases when I wrote this article and it's content is based on what other sources on this topic covered and mimic their content. Most history of thought sources cover heterodox theories, so this article should too. Snowdon and Vane and "A Companion to the History of Economic Thought" both have entire chapters on Austrian and Post Keynesian economics. They should be represented here too. Each has a small section here and feel like a completely appropriate amount of weight is given.

I have suggested that you look at Solow and Hahn, particularly since you have written an article repeating claims that new classical economics is based on general equilibrium theory, which Hahn just laughs at. Given Hahn's knowledge of GET and monetary theory, you should take his views seriously---much more seriously than "historians" writing about macroeconomic theory. Again, you don't cite any of the Handbooks of Economics, JEL, JEP, or New Palgrave (2nd ed., which stoped the undue weight of weirdos in the first ed.), despite their being the usual reference books in economics. Tell me, how many chapters do "Austrian economics" or "post Keynesian" "economics" get in the Handbook of Economics?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think handbooks on economics are the best sources for this article, and definitely not a good guide to weight. Handbooks are generally focused on the current state of the field and not the history. I looked through the Handbook on Macroeconomics and there was nothing on Post Keynesianism or Austrian economics, but there was also nothing on Dreze or general disequilibrium. Malinvaud had two works in the bibliography, but nothing in the text.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment also implies that we should use empirical tests to validate what gets covered here. I think you're completely breaking from Wikipedia standards. I looked at the literature, I put in a lot of effort to weight things based on the different views are presented. Do you have any source you're working from? It seems like you are just throwing out your personal (albeit informed) views.

You misunderstand me or have trouble with logic.

Every "Principles of Economics" textbook and see that the presentation of macroeconomics includes a discussion of its empirical adequacy (particularly for prediction) and of policy implications.

Every serious textbook on graduate macro-theory also includes some discussion of these matters. To exclude such discussion is undue weight.

I think this is especially clear given your third point. Yes, I followed popular graduate textbooks, which is exactly what I should be doing. You may have your own opinions about DSGE models and new classicals, but they are both part of the mainstream and are presented based on mainstream viewpoints. I also included scrutiny of both. While the article does emphasize the demonstrated importance of these topics, it doesn't push them.

Solow and others criticized new classical and and DSGE models long before the current crisis. Others asserted the improved predictive performance of DSGE models before the crisis. Both these important points are missing. The second omission is due to the systematic neglect empirics in your article.

Based on your earlier comments, I expanded the section on general disequilibrium and added mentions of Dreze and Malinvaud. GD usually gets scant treatment in history of macro theory sources. I found only a couple mentions of Dreze and Malinvaud and S&V. I recognize that part of this likely because Francophone research in economics doesn't get adequate coverage in the Anglosphere. I found another source on Malinvaud, so I'll added some more about his theories of unemployment.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Layard is serious, and should be consulted. Hahn is serious and is another source. Thanks for your replies. (Again, I am a fan of your article, but I don't think it's at FA status now.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add a non-expert perspective to one of the points made above: the comment that too much weight is given to the heterodox theories such as the Austrian business cycle theory. Eyeballing it, it seems that the heterodox section is around 10 percent of the article text, which doesn't seem excessive for a section describing exceptions. I also think we should remember that the Austrians have gained some news coverage in the US; I gather few economists regard them as anything other than cranks, but I believe some on the Republican right in the US are taking them seriously -- I recall reading that Hayek is now recommended reading in some political quarters. I don't think that means they should be presented as credible, but appearance in political discourse is evidence of notability (or notoriety, I suppose). Even so, I'd be OK if the article were more explicit about the lack of credibility that the Austrians have in their own field, and I'd be OK with trimming that section somewhat. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Popularity among Americans is not a criterion for inclusion, otherwise we would have similarly lengthed sections about creation of the earth 6000 years ago in articles on geology and evolution. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; perhaps I phrased my comment badly. Creationism doesn't need to be mentioned more than in passing in the evolution article, but it should certainly be covered in any "History of evolutionary thought" article, since at one time it was an orthodox view, and such an article would probably mention its persistence in some sections of the population. Similarly I would not expect ABC to get more than a passing mention in an article on macroneconomics. I don't know if ABC was ever thought of as orthodox, but the situations are somewhat parallel -- if creationism had no constituency now, its coverage in historical surveys would no doubt need to be less comprehensive. And, as I said, I'm fine with trimming the section; it was less a comment about accuracy than about notability, and what we could infer a reader might hence want to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification.

I would replace the lead's undue weight with something like: "Non-professional discussions of economics sometimes refer to 'post-Keynesian' economics and 'Austrian' economics, two traditions that are regarded as fringe science by nearly all economists at English-speaking research universities."

[Stigler and Solow describe the marginality of both traditions, in reviews of the New Palgrave (1st ed.).]

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have an MA in Economics from about a gabillion years ago. I have not read this article. But I did search for "Marshall" and found his name only in image captions. Please do forgive me, but that is an Opposable omission. I am not Opposing (dear Sandy, please note!), but rather am waiting patiently (cue Muzak) for an explanation. :-)  – Ling.Nut 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer_Marek and I both dislike the "unusual suspects" in the initial graphic.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's so unusual about the choices for the image? Who's on there that really bugs you? I tried to get a cross sampling of various economists from various schools of thought. One of the guiding forces behind the selection was the availability of free images. I couldn't find free images for most of the people you recommended. Modigliani was already there, and I'm fine with Solow, but who should he replace?

I would suggest a 2x3 picture-box, without Menger, Marshall, or Scwarz.

NECESSARY REMOVALS: The only pre-Keynesian theorist could be Irving Fisher. I assume that Carl Menger wins points with initiates of Austrian economics, but he doesn't belong; Karl Marx has had a lot larger influence on macroeconomics (business cycle, etc.), and I wouldn't urge including him. Alfred Marshall is properly ignored by the article, and therefore must go.

SENSIBLE REMOVALS: Anna Schwarz', important mainly for collaboration with Friedman (not a Nobel prize-winner or an Econometric Society President, and below the level of the others); her WP article makes extraordinary claims is largely unsourced, btw.

NECESSARY ADDITIONS: Paul Samuelson (e.g., Overlapping generations models, which needs to be discussed).

POSSIBLE ADDITIONS with pictures Edmund Phelps, maybe Olivier Blanchard, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Diamond, Frank Hahn, Robert Solow.

LACK PICTURES: John Hicks and Jacques Drèze lack a picture. Malinvaud has a bad picture. Michael Woodford and Roger Guesnerie could be added.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On these, I'd definitely remove Marshall, since that's mostly "micro" rather than "macro". I'd remove Schwarz because she's only known for MHoUS, but it would be nice to have a woman in the picture box. Nancy Stokey? If a free pic is available. Samuelson needs to be in there, as does Solow. For the others, it's important to recognize that we are constrained by what images are freely available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And it's a huge shame that there's no free image of Robert Lucas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Arguing with you would necessitate a major investment in time and effort, tracking down a large number of references to shore up fragmentary memories from two decades ago. It is even possible that I am confusing Marshall with someone else. I fold.  – Ling.Nut 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:16, 13 June 2011 [19].

---

Dexter (episode)

Nominator(s): That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dexter (episode) is being nominated because it is a perfect example of a top-class, top-quality television episode article. It was previously nominated and everything that was mentioned that stopped it from passing last time has now been fixed. A good reason for its inclusion is that it meets all criteria. Thank you for reading and considering. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the effort that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Check punctuation, especially for quotes. Footnotes should not be within quotation marks.
• "On July 7, 2008 Dexter premiered in Australia on Network Ten, where it was watched by a little less than a million viewers, finishing highest in the 18-49, 16-39 and 25-54 demographics." - source?
• WP:MOS edits needed: wikilinking issues, italicization inconsistencies, etc
• Use a consistent date format
• Use of questionable sources, for example this
• See here for problematic links
• Copy-editing needed for grammar, flow and clarity. For example, "The crew begun to film the pilot in Miami", "summarizing, in a monologue, that something is to occur on that night", etc
• Don't use contractions
• Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Nikkimaria that this article isn't quite there yet. I'll add a few more examples of why not:

• "While solving murders in the Homicide division, Dexter also spends his time hunting and killing murderers and criminals ..."
• "... footage shot in both Miami and Los Angeles were used in the episode".
• "Rita also has two young children ...". Why "also"?
• "... the boy had been killing neighborhood pets ... Hall was in New York and thinking of going back to theatre work ...". Are you using American or British English spelling?
• "The incentive was first launched in 2003, and was refunded by the state legislature ...". How can you refund an incentive?
• "Shooting began on the first episode on 18 September." Elsewhere the article uses American format dates, i.e., September 18.
• "In September 2006, CBS and YouTube stroke a strategic content and advertising partnership ...". What on Earth does that mean? Should it be "struck a strategic content and management partnership"?
• "The Seven Seas Motel is an actual location and they didn't change the name for the motel." This is another example of the article's overly informal style.
• "... used for the flashbacks of the 8-year old Dexter", Should be "8-year-old Dexter.

Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 12 June 2011 [20].

---

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my second article I have sent to FAC, and my third experience at FAC (the first article was declined once). I think I have found everything I can on Sevastopol. It's passed a MilHist AcR and a GA review. This article means more to me than others because this is the first article I created, albeit in my userspace. I await your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in whether you provide states for publisher locations, and if so whether those states are abbreviated. Also, is it necessary to include "United Kingdom" for London? Conventionally one would not
• ISBN for Balakin?
• Location for Taras? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The MilHist ACR stated that UK had to be listed there. I've generailized the states. Neither the ISBN or location is available for the two books you lsited, and this has been discussed in the AcR.Buggie111 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Strange, but in that case why not just "UK"? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • K then, I'll fix it tomorrow. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• All images are in the public domain, properly licensed and have alt text.
• External links are all working correctly.
• There is one dab link that needs fixing.
• Conversions of measurement need work. In converting metric measurements there currently is a variety of conversions used here such as nautical miles, miles and fathoms. Some measurements have no conversions at all. Remember that when converting a nautical measurement you need the metric and US equivalents. Brad (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, Brad. I'll get to work on them tomorrow. Buggie111 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• What was the ship doing between 1901 and 1904? Brad (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I think I've got the conversions done, could you please say if there are any mistakes. OK, now for your question. Nothing. It just sat there. Buggie111 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In what manner are your sources giving you measurements? If they give a nautical measurement convert it to metric and US. If they give you metric measurement convert it to US. In the last paragraph of the article there is a conversion of metric to nautical, in this case fathoms. What was the reasoning behind that? Brad (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe everything is fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I made some corrections and added a cn tag where a conversion is missing. Don't wikilink common measurements like meters, foot, kph, mph etc. Think about adding a sentence or two to explain the missing 3 years while the ship just sat around. Brad (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

K' there. All done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Knots, nautical miles, etc. are not common units and should be linked. We know what they are because we use them all the time. The average person doesn't have a clue how they differ from ordinary units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. That popped up in my mind, but I went ahead. Fixing. Buggie111 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, on both counts. Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Balakin and Taras sources should be reconsidered per WP:NONENG Strike comment. Russian ship Russian sources. Brad (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the reference books listed have OCLC numbers and some don't. All books listed should either have the OCLC number or none at all. The exception being books published prior to use of ISBN's. Brad (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I see no further issues. Brad (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also supporting on MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "instruments measured higher speed and horsepower". The quantity measured is called 'power'.
• The title "Service history" is displaced to the right on my screen. That may be due to the placement of images.
• The 'General characteristics' has some primary units in full '47-millimeter' and some abbreviated/symbolic e.g. '4,000 nmi'. It might be worth checking if this issue applies to many of these tables in ship articles. In a summary table, I think it's fine to use abbreviations/symbols for all.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The large amount of vertical whitespace in the Construction section looks weird if you read this article on a < 1080p screen/browser. Presumably it's there due to problems with image flow (running into the next section heading)? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead comment: The material that is presented in the lead is sufficiently well-written, but as a whole the lead is not yet complete. There needs to be material to summarize the Design and Construction sections. At the very least, the lead should answer the question "How big was this thing?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments - leaning support:

• Lead -
• this sentence has too much going on and is difficult to follow: "After she was slightly damaged during the surprise attack on Port Arthur in early February, she participated in several attempts to break out from the port, most notably the Battle of the Yellow Sea, where she was damaged by several shells but managed to make it back to port." Should be split or rewritten
• The Battle of the Yellow Sea should be mentioned in the lead
• Characteristics -
• LT or long tons? Both are used.
• First paragraph, second sentence about the crew doesn't seem to fit. Can it reorganized somehow?
• First it says Ekaterina II has six guns, then it says she had seven guns. Is this a mistake or are they different types of gun?
• This sentence needs clarification: " During a three-hour test on 11 July 1900, several instruments measured higher speed and power than in her sister ships. It turned out to be a flaw in one of the mechanisms, as it read the same measurements on both the Poltava and Petropavlosk, while other instruments read normally for each of the ships" - was the problem fixed?
• Wartime service -
• A few minutes later / several minutes later. Can these be reworded - it's a bit repetitive
• Make sure all instances of Sevastapol are in italics
• This sentence would be better if it were recast: "During three weeks of attacks in which 80 torpedoes were launched, four hit"

This is an interesting article and quite easy to read. Nothing major to be fixed. I'll do some spot-checks and be back to in a few days. TK (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Source spot-check: These sentences below from the "Wartime service" section are all cited to page 52-53 of Forczyk. I know it's only snippit view, but using keyword search phrases from the text, I'm not finding any results on those pages. However some results are showing up on page 43, [21]. Is this a page numbering error?

A few minutes later, Mikasa was hit by two 12-inch (305 mm) shells and one 6-inch (152 mm) shell from Retvizan and Sevastopol, which caused 40 casualties. Several minutes after that, when it seemed that the Russians would be able to escape to Vladivostok, two 12-inch shells from Asashi penetrated the conning tower of the Russian flagship Tsesarevich, killing Vitgeft and the helmsman, severely wounding the captain, and causing the ship to come to a dead stop after executing a sharp turn. Thinking that this was a maneuver planned by Vitgeft, the Russian line started to execute the same turn, causing all of the ships directly behind Tsesarevich, including Sevastopol, to maneuver wildly to avoid hitting the stationary flagship. Prince Pavel Ukhtomski, second in command of the squadron, who was on the Peresvyet, proceeded to signal the other Russian ships via semaphore to steam back to Port Arthur, although the signals were only gradually recognized by Pobeda, Poltava, Pallada and Sevastopol.

Will check a few more. TK (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: After an initial read, two sentences struck me as containing factual errors, or at least being unclear.

• From the "Design" section: "Some characteristics were also copied from the French battleship Brennus and the American Indiana-class battleships, such as the flush-deck hull and high freeboard."
  

The Indiana-class ships were notable for having a low freeboard (they were designed to be coast-defense battleships), so it seems odd that they would be mentioned as providing a model to the Sevastopol in this regard. If the high freeboard claim is solely in reference to the Brennus, this sentence should be clarified.

• From the "Characteristics" section: "Mounting a main battery of four 12-inch (305 mm) guns in two twin turrets, Sevastopol's armament was only eclipsed by the Ekaterina II-class battleships, which were a decade older, mounting six of the same type of gun."
  

Sevastopol's guns were not of the same type as the Ekaterina II class -- she mounted 12"/40 caliber Pattern 1895 guns, in comparison to her predecessor's 12"/30 caliber Pattern 1877s. The Pattern 1895s were very different from the 1877s, using smokeless powder, among other things. They were also significantly more powerful. Finally, the reference to Sevastopol in the sentence shoud be in italics.

Hope this helps. Jrt989 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Buggie, are you able to address the last few comments? Karanacs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Buggie doesn't seem to have edited for a few weeks, and my ping for another MILHIST reviewer to take over has gone unheeded. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing, Buggie has not edited since May 22, and there are outstanding concerns about accuracy of info per sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: First three images are clearly pre-Russian revolution, so PD tag is appropriate. On the fourth, while a year on the publication of "Records of Naval Battles in Meiji 37th, 38th vol. 2" may be helpful, it clearly looks to be PD for Japan. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:24, 9 June 2011 [22].

---

Flag of Azerbaijan

Nominator(s): Neftchi (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because its an important article. I have worked on this page together with Zscout370. Recently, this article had a peer review, see here. Neftchi (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I wish I was consulted before this FAC has gone through. As a writer of a lot of flag articles that have gone to FAC, this even falls short of my benchmark. The technical specifications I wrote, so I know they are accurate. However, I need to stress to Neftchi to obtain "AZS 001-2006. Azərbaycan Respublikasının Dövlət Bayrağı. Texniki şərtlər." to make sure we got everything (but this won't cause the article to stop at FAC, since this document is mentioned in the article text). Symbolism I need to check out, but I need to see what the current Azeri Government has in the terms of symbolism to see if they match historical contexts (and see if the Turkish flag had any role in forming this flag).

The history section is something that I need to go over, but I have a lot of materials for the final Soviet Azeri flag that we have displayed. I need to make sure the sources are correct and provide some small details. I have the books at my home, so I can look at them and fix the sources.

In the Use and Customs, I do not like the chart at all. I want that to be converted to prose and a lot of uses of the flag are ignored, such as covering the coffins of state heroes (I remember seeing a funeral of 2 service members being decorated with the title Hero of Azerbaijan and both of their coffins were covered with state flags). Mourning protocol, like what we have with the flag of Japan must be included.

Influence and derivatives section is missing...everything. It only mentions how the flag inspired words used in slogans and the state anthem. The national flag, or at least the design of it, is used in various flags of Azerbaijan (Navy, Border Guards, Presidential standard, Army, etc) and those are not even covered. I can do SVGs without any issues, and if I cannot do the SVGs, I have located a website that have scans of official Azeri law (and those are PD under their copyright rules).

In short, this article is no where near there to FA, or even GA. I will work with this user to make it happen, but if you ask me, this needs a lot of work (not to mention the typical stuff at FAC that I even face, such as copyedits, image checks, reference checks, formatting, MOS, alt text and any other things that have been added since I last went through here with the Russian anthem article). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Another note on the sources; a lot of them point towards Flags of the World (a site that I frequently contribute to with text and images and used to maintain several pages on the site). A lot of the information there about Azerbaijan, I will have to double check and make sure that my Azeri sources are right. A lot of the information is based from Album des Pavillons (http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/bib-pay.html#pay00) and since that book was published in 2000, there was a lot of changes and some information that I found for other nations that made it a source to not just accept blindly. I will need to have time on this, but it will definitely take longer than what the FAC period will allow. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [23].

---

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you know? ...that that Kraft created a Star Trek-branded marshmallow dispenser as a tie-in for this film, the one that nearly killed the Star Trek franchise? Learn more from this article! I think it meets criteria, natch, after a GAN and Peer Review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• I notice you're using a single "Reeves-Stevens" for shortened citations to the work by Judith and Garfield. However, given that you have works by both one and two Shatners, this could create some confusion as to which a "Shatner" shortened citation refers to
• Use a consistent formatting for Kraemer citations
• Page(s) for Schultes?
• Tietelbaum or Teitelbaum?
• No citations to Okuda 2003
• Check for consistency on small details - for example, whether "Sec." is capitalized or not
• Newspaper citations without weblinks need page numbers
• Note 59, 127: formatting
• Be consistent in whether you use website URLs or organization names as publishers
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Note 126: which The Advertiser?
• Use ndashes instead of doubled hyphens
• Note 130: why include publisher location here but not for other books?
• Should give page ranges for journal references
• Be consistent in how editions and works within larger works are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the look. I think I've addressed many of the above issues. One book is by Shatner with a coauthor (Kreski) so I was hoping that would be enough disambiguation for the other Shatner book (solely written by Lisbeth Shatner). As for the ref you describe, Anthony Pascale, the site owner and editor-in-chief has been cited as a Star Trek expert (to the point that he's featured on the film's Blu-Ray editions) and has been cited by CBS, USA Today and the Globe and Mail, among others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with Shatner & Kreski, the one I'm worried about is Lisabeth Shatner versus William and Elizabeth Shatner. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Do you have any suggestions for rectifying it? It'd just be kind of weird to use the year of publication as a disambig only for those two refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Shatner & Shatner? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, despite the title as (William) Shatner's "personal account", the entire book is solely credited to his daughter so that feels a tad disingenuous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

• It says "110-degree heat". If it doesn't use Celsius, it needs to say what the unit is and provide a conversion into Celsius.
• It says "100-degree fahrenheit heat". Fahreneheit needs a capital letter. It needs a conversion into Celsius.

Lightmouse (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom comments

As a self-confessed fan of all things Trek (although I'm not one of those wierdos parodied so effectively on SNL) this caught my eye. I'll review it as I read it, but here are some early points I noted:

• The plot section is a little simplistic. I don't think you need to go into much more detail, but "Learning of Enterprise's mission, the Klingon Captain Klaa decides to fight Kirk for personal glory." is a good example. Who Klaa is, and where he is, needs to be explained. For all we know he might be camping with the others.
• "On Nimbus III, the Enterprise crew discovers that renegade Vulcan Sybok" - why not "that a renegade Vulcan named Sybok"?
• "Sybok wants to use a ship to reach the mythical planet Sha Ka Ree, the place creation began" - why not "the place where creation supposedly began"?
• "Sybok uses his unique ability to reveal and mend the innermost pain of a person" - what unique ability? Don't presume the reader already knows this, just say he has a unique ability, tell us what it is, and then say what he does with it.
• "Enterprise successfully breaches the barrier, pursued by Klaa's vessel" - Klaa has a vessel?
• "The others doubt a being who would inflict harm on people for pleasure; Sybok realizes the entity is not God." - actually, "The others doubt that a being who would inflict harm for pleasure could be God" is more accurate.

• In the Cast section, there may be a problem with tense - for instance, Shatner doesn't "play" Kirk, he "played" Kirk.

More to come, but it looks like a very interesting read. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. I've taken a stab at addressing the above. For the cast section, I'm modeling it after other film FAs, which treat the portrayal as a present tense thing (c.f., Changeling (film).) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Shatner put himself into the best shape he had been in years" - that sounds too colloquial to me, what he actually did was a lot of aerobics and strength training to improve his physical fitness.
• "He woke at 4am every day during filming, no matter what time he fell asleep" - why is this relevant to the previous sentence?
• "Leonard Nimoy portrays the Vulcan Spock." - there's more than one Vulcan in the film series, and in this film. And actually, he's half-Vulcan.
• " He did not tell Shatner this so as to not embarrass him" - that reads awkwardly, as though another reason for his not telling him is missing - "he didn't buy the lollipop for Jane, he bought the lollipop for Peter"
• "Kelley was content to let Shatner direct, noting that the ambition had deserted him years earlier and after seeing the difficulties Nimoy faced on set" - why wouldn't he be content? Was there some underlying tension?
• "Takei said that despite the pressure to complete the film on time" - what pressure? Nothing about studio pressure has been mentioned thus far.
• "The biggest challenge Takei faced was learning to ride horses for the film" - was this Takei's claim?
• "Bill Shepard cast additional roles. He combed through initial auditions for promising actors, then presented his choices to Shatner." - bit awkward, perhaps "Casting Director? Bill Shepard was in charge of casting additional roles, and after combing through initial auditions from promising actors, presented his choices to Shatner." or similar.
• "Additional players include Todd Bryant as Captain Klaa" - since Spock's race is mentioned, perhaps Klaa's should be too?
• "Bryant was playing ping pong at a beach party when a casting director approached him for the role" - the casting director didn't take the role from Bryant, he offered him the role (replace role with another noun if you don't follow).
• "Bryant performed his audition twice after Shatner requested he redo his performance speaking in Klingon" - one audition in English and one in Klingon, or one in English and two in Klingon?
• "Williams-Crosby thought Vixis was Kirk's girlfriend when she arrived for her audience" - audience or audition?
• "and recalled that it was "fun" to play a villain" presumably this recollection was made after the film was shot, and not at her audition?
• "diplomats to Nimbus III" - I'm not clear on the terminology but I don't think one can be a diplomat "to" a country or place. Parrot of Doom 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Production

• "During the television series," - what television series?
• "Shatner and Nimoy's lawyers drafted what Shatner termed a "favored nations clause", with the result that whatever Shatner received—e.g., a pay raise or script control—Nimoy also got and vice versa." - this sentence implies that filming for TOS occurred at the same time as The Final Frontier, especially as the following sentence implies that ST3 and ST4 were shot before TOS. Some kind of reference to dates/years are needed here, perhaps "during the original series, shot between 19xx and 19xx, Shatner and Nimoy's lawyers had drafted..."
• "When he signed on to reprise the role of Captain Kirk in The Voyage Home following a pay dispute, Shatner was promised he could direct the next film.[12] Shatner had previously directed plays and television episodes.[1]" - I suggest merging and rearranging these two sentences as its a little confused.
• "Shatner settled on his idea for the film's story, influenced by televangelists on television at the time" - the film's story hadn't then been set in stone.
• "While The Voyage Home was still filming" - this makes the earlier assertion "Before he was officially given the director's job" seem a bit unclear. When exactly was he promised the director's chair, and when did he settle on his idea for The Final Frontier?
• "Not everyone was happy with the story. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry objected to the search for God in general" - presumably he objected to characters in Star Trek searching for God, and not people in the real world searching for God?
• "Loughery was forced to stop work on the script after the Writers Guild of America went on strike" - after they went on strike, or when they went on strike?
• "production was further delayed when Nimoy began working on The Good Mother." - was this timing problem a result of the strike?
• "During the downtime Shatner began writing a screenplay idea which placed his television cop character T. J. Hooker in the future; the idea became the TekWar science fiction series" - what does this tell us about Star Trek?
• "Shatner also reconsidered elements of the Star Trek V story; Sybok's character was softened and made more sympathetic" - who did this, Shatner or Loughery?
• "betrayed by the revised script" - how can anyone feel betrayed by a script? Don't you mean its author?
• "The script was also rewritten to please Nimoy and Kelley" - why didn't they like the earlier script?
• "in spite of the writers' strike cutting into the film's pre-production" - did the production company really rush the film into production to spite the writers? Parrot of Doom 10:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Implemented changes. For some of the chronology questions, I really can't answer them--the literature is vague on anything beyond sequence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think then you should attempt to draw attention away from those things - if when I'm writing an article I find the sources don't give me the information I need, I just gloss over it. After all, if they don't feel it's important, neither do I. There are still some minor issues above which I haven't stricken. Parrot of Doom 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how I'm to gloss over it any more than it is. I can only present the facts, and unfortunately for some of the above I can't answer the questions, but the info is still important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Well for instance, if you don't know why Nimoy and Kelly didn't like the earlier script, just mention that the final script was approved by all, "met everyone's approval", etc. If you can't clarify Nimoy's "Good Mother", just say he had "other commitments". Parrot of Doom 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
          • It says earlier on that Nimoy and Kelley objected to their characters abandoning Kirk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Fair point. I'd suggest though that the script wasn't re-written to please them, it was re-written to address their concerns. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Just a quick note, I'll be away for the weekend but will continue this review on Monday/Tuesday. It looks comprehensive enough to me, just needs a copyedit and I'll be happy to support. I'll help with that if you like, once I've run through the rest of it. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
              • That would be most appreciated. I've hit all the remaining concerns listed above, I believe (I've generalized the Takei piece about pressure, if you think it should be cut and left to the rest of the development I guess that's fine too.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
                • I haven't forgotten this, I've just been busy with other things. I'll get around to it this weekend. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I fully understand. Take your time, no worries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Design

• "especially with Rodis' designs for Shatner's most epic shots" - what does this mean?
• "Shatner praised his costume designs as being futuristic yet real" - colloquialism, "yet real" should be reprhased or quoted.
• "After being disappointed by the costume designers they approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested to Bennett that Rodis become the costume designer as well." - did Shatner and Bennett approach costume designers, or Shatner and Rodis? Also, why was Rodis designing costumes when he wasn't then the costume designer?
• " The production hired Dodie Shepard" - 'the production' can't hire people, but producers and companies can.
• "The production picked Kenny Myers" ditto
• " Myers discussed the sketches with Shatner and developed nicknames for the resulting planned characters" - I don't understand what a resulting planned character is. Either it's a planned character, or a resulting character, but surely not both?
• "Shatner hired Richard Snell as makeup supervisor, advising him to make each Klingon forehead more distinctive" - more distinctive than what?
  • "advising him to make each Klingon forehead distinct" - distinct from what?
• "that the designer could convey his futuristic yet grounded aesthetic." - whose futuristic yet grounded aesthetic, Shatner's or Zimmerman's?
• "Tim Downs scouted possible locations for location filming." - repetition of location, suggest you find a suitable synonym.
• "Because of practical considerations, he looked for a location that could stand in for three different venues without the production having to change hotels or move unnecessarily:" - you seem to be repeating yourself a few times here

Filming

• "Shortly before the beginning of location shooting, the Hollywood Teamsters' Union went on strike" - who are they, and why were they on strike? One might assume that they hated Star Trek.
• "With deadlines looming, the production searched for non-union drivers despite the threat that the Teamsters might retaliate" - risk, or threat? Who made the threat?
• "Spock watches Kirk's ascent—and saves him when he slips and falls—via levitating boots" - make clear this is a movie scene, we're in the real world here.
• "After the Yosemite shots, location shooting moved to desert locales. Nimbus III and its town, Paradise City, were recreated in Yosemite and the Mojave Desert." - I thought they moved to the desert, if so how could they still film in Yosemite?
• "At Paramount, the production filmed all the scenes" - production, or crew?
• "Production was smoother on set, and the production approached shooting ahead of schedule. " - this makes no sense.
• "The crew fabricated a stand-in set for the God planet location for additional footage" - neither, I'm afraid, does this.
• "Spock's catch of the falling Kirk off Yosemite was replicated by creating a set of the forest floor, rotated ninety degrees" - this should be shortened and moved near the part about his rocket boots.
• "The cast celebrated the end of filming the last week of December 1988.[59] Shatner scheduled the campfire scenes to be the last ones shot, after which the cast and crew had a small celebration before a traditional wrap party later" - so when exactly did they celebrate? This isn't at all clear. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Addressed most of the above. I left the Yosemite set in the latter section as it's not location shooting, and the flow of the section is roughly chronological from locations to sets and I'd like to keep it that way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Good work on this, more to come! Parrot of Doom 20:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects

• "The production chose Bran Ferren's effects company Associates and Ferren after soliciting test footage from studios representing their approaches to the film's main effects—the planet Sha Ka Ree and the godlike being residing there." - I'm not sure what's being said here. Certainly the "after soliciting" should come first in the sentence, but the use of "studios" is confusing - do you mean effects companies, or film studios, or film sets? In essence, are you saying they got a bunch of companies to produce some test footage, and chose the one they thought did the best job? Also, use of "production" instead of "producers/crew/etc"
• "and unsuccessfully campaigned to do the effects for The Abyss" - what does this teach us about ST5?
• "produced on the east and west coasts" - coasts of what?
• "Associates and Ferren had three months to complete the effects work—around half the usual time" - industry-wide "usual time", or star trek films "usual time"?
• "but the first pass, with all the things [Shatner] wanted, was [$5 or $6] million." - who said this, Winter?
• "with all the main heads" - this needs explaining for the layman
• "The Rockman climax of the film was ultimately dropped due to difficulties during filming" - what Rockman climax? You introduce this as though the reader will already know what the Rockman is, whereas until this point he's called a "rock monster"
• "ILM delivered the main Enterprise model to Associates and Ferren" - Enterprise should be italicised, also, again, the reader hasn't been introduced to the concept that ILM designed the model. You should preface this with something like "ILM, designers of the Enterprise scale model used in previous films, delivered..." or similar.
  • Now it says "ILM delivered the main Enterprise model, which they had created, to Associates and Ferren" but earlier in the prose it says ILM were too busy to work on the film. You need to make clear where the model came from.
• "However, scenes which included the Enterprise in Spacedock" - what's a Spacedock? I know what it is, but the reader mightn't.
• "The opticals were then assembled in Manhattan before being sent west;[70] for example, bluescreen footage of the motion controlled miniatures was filmed in Hoboken, New Jersey" - how is filming something, an example of assembling something?
• "a single finished shot of a ship moving through space could require more than fifty pieces of film." - could require - is that speculation, or should this be "required"?
• "through which light was cast" - shadows are cast, light is thrown (or shone). Parrot of Doom 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed the above. The "assembled" word is used because the finished film is comprised of plates that are literally assembled before the final print. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I work in television but still I don't understand what you've written there. A layman would never be able to grasp it. If this were an article about film processes then some degree of technical expertise might be expected of a reader, but this is a more general article and such things should be explained either with links, or prose. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing

• "In early test screenings, the film received negative previews. Of the first test audience, only a small portion considered the film "excellent", a rating that most other Star Trek films had enjoyed." - you say "early test screenings" but mention only one instance. And how can a film receive a negative preview - don't you mean a negative review?
• "Segments of the film were re-edited for the wide release" - presumably you mean general release (not wide, as in aspect)? Parrot of Doom 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Great job with the article. Just curious, in the past there was a paragraph that contained an interesting piece of information about the film's home media release. It stated the following:

In 1991, the film premiered on national television on the CBS network. Certain scenes however, were edited out; such as the bar scene featuring the triple breasted dancing cat woman, as well as a scene on the bridge featuring Scotty and Uhura receiving new orders from Starfleet. The scene in the turbolift with Kirk commenting that he "could use a shower" was also cut from the broadcast. Furthermore, the campfire scene with Kirk, Spock and McCoy was edited in length removing the 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat' sing-along.

Has that entry ever been able to be properly sourced? Was the lack of reliable sourcing the reason it was deleted from the article? DeWaine (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to verify the edited scenes, no... that appears to be unverified by a reliable source so far as I can tell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastro1 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 23, 2011

Comments, inclined to: An excellent piece of work. It seems very comprehensive and is engaging and easy to follow. Just a few points to clear up, mainly prose related.

• "after seeing the difficulties Nimoy faced on set": A little tantalising! What were the difficulties?

I'd still like to know what he found difficult when he was directing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• "that he had been mistreated by Nimoy" Again, details may help the reader.
• As Nimoy and Kelly were unhappy over their characters' betrayal of Kirk, could it be made clear what they did? The problem seems to have arisen when Loughery took over the script, rather than the plot outlined earlier in the section. What did they do to betray Kirk?
• "Production went much smoother on set…": Sounds a little clumsy. What about "Production was smoother" or "Production went [much] more smoothly…"
• "even his cost estimates were over budget": Why "even"? Cost estimates are presumably lower ones, but this does not quite make sense to me, and this could be explained further.
• "The model had been damaged…" Presumably the Enterprise model, but the previous sentence also mentions the spacedock.
• "The "God column" that the false god appeared in was created by a rotating cylinder that appeared as a column of light." This is slightly clumsy and does not quite make sense. Presumably the cylinder did not create the God column, but was used to create it. However, I'm not entirely clear how this would work unless it was illuminated in some way. What about: "The "God column" in which the false god appeared was created by rotating a cylinder [and….]; the result appeared as a column of light."
• "shots that showed the creature indirectly with lightning and smoke." Not quite clear; was the creature being represented by lightning and smoke (i.e. indicating it's presence), or was it made from lightning and smoke?
• reedited: or is it re-edited?
• "Segments of the film were reedited for the wide release." Is this the five minutes mentioned in the next sentence or something else? It seems odd that such minor changes would alter reviews. Is there anything specific that was altered by the edits?
• "Sha-ka-ree in music section, Sha Ka Ree everywhere else.
• "although it and other sequels such as failed to make expected returns": Missing words after "such as"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Sarastro. I've taken a stab at the above. The five minute edits were indeed the only changes, although you'd be surprised what minor pacing issues throughout the film can be ameliorated by a second here or there, in addition to more drastic alterations. I've tried to clear it up a little. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm more than happy with the changes and I am now supporting; I've left some items unstruck (I'm assuming these are the ones you have no further info on) in case any more details come up, but they are not enough to prevent my switching to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks rating section needs to start with the rating from imdb and rottentomatos for leading overviewrm2dance (talk)

IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist when this film came out... they are hardly indicative of any qualitative statistic that would be useful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Image check. One fair use (good rationale), free images check out licence wise. Several seem below FA level in the quality of captions, however: Shatner needs a trailing full stop ("period") and File:El Capitan 1.jpg could use a caption that explains the relevance of the image / leads the editor into the article. The file description page itself could use a better description, in fact (obvious not a FACR, but nice nonetheless). I feel the article could also support an additional non-free image of the cast, or an important scene from the film, but that would have to be reasoned on a case-by-case basis. (Also noticed that The Advertiser needs DABing, btw.) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I've tweaked the captions. I was considering a non-free image, but compared to the other films articles I've been working on there's not as much highly technical lingo for explaining the effects, and I wasn't really sure what I had that was defensible per NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [24].

---

Hurricane Michael (2000)

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC), Juliancolton

After fixing nearly all of the issues brought up at the previous FAC, I strongly believe that this article now meets the FA criteria. However, that it just my opinion. I say that because the article is more thorough and comprehensive than it was during its last FAC. After slightly more than a year, I am once again ready for the major constructive criticism phase, also known as the FAC. As a final note before the comments begin, this is a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
• Why link Environment Canada the second time in references but not the first
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done--12george1 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note, spotchecks for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Adding myself as a co-nom, since I believe I wrote most of the initial content. Juliancolton (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Images - all but one are from the US Gov't = PD. The last, File:Michael 2000 track.png, is from a Wikipedian, and gives us the only possible problem. We might need a source for the cyclone track in that image, but I haven't done image reviews in awhile, so I'm not up to current FAC standards on this point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• The track image was generated using a program designed specifically to overlay data from the NHC (which is linked to in the Commons file) onto a NASA image, which is also noted in the file info. Aside from simply feeding the data in, it's all PD-gov. Thanks for the image review! Juliancolton (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I was originally going to do the spotchecks requested by Sandy above, but looking at the prose I have serious concerns about its quality. It will likely need extensive copy-editing for clarity, grammar and flow. Here are some specific examples of problematic phrases:

• "Hurricane Michael was one of only a handful of tropical cyclones to strike Newfoundland in the month of October" - I appreciate it's in the title, but you really should include a year here

Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• "made landfall in Newfoundland on October 20. Michael made landfall on Newfoundland" - repetitive, odd change from "in" to "on". Next sentence repeats a similar construction, and to my non-specialist eyes seems contradictory - was it a cyclone or a hurricane on landfall?

Better?--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• "On later that day", "post-analysis later discovered actually a tropical storm" - grammar

Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Prose is overall very difficult to follow as a non-specialist reader

I would like to see some examples--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lots of repeated words. From the second paragraph of Meteorological history, we see "rapidly...rapidly", "remained...remained", "slightly...slightly", etc

Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Such formed a "hybrid" system" - awkward phrasing.

Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article's prose needs significant editing before it is at FA standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • This link might be useful, since it details the plane's flight and the ET.
    • Have you used this yet? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have a bit of issue with the opening sentence. "handful" is a pretty lousy word for an FA, particularly in the opening sentence. I also see it isn't sourced in the article. Isn't there something more concrete you can put in?
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • See my comment below about the sourciness. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I removed that statement altogether since apparently Michael did not make landfall.--12george1 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the lede should be tweaked slightly to indicate just how far north it was when it peaked as C2. The current wording makes it seem like it happened right away, not at 44º N
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There's also the issue that the lede later contradicts the first sentence. If it was an extratropical storm at landfall, then the opening sentence is false
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No, not fixed, since the MH of the article does indicate the uncertainty whether it was tropical or not at landfall. You've made the lede internally consistent, but you completely ignore the MH. Also, I did some further research, and you're also ignoring what's clearly stated in the TCR. "eventually crossed Newfoundland as a strong extratropical low pressure system", and "During landfall along the south coast of Newfoundland as an extratropical system". I don't know why you're insisting it was tropical at landfall. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The lede doesn't go into any physical damage, so that should probably be mentioned (X houses were damaged, Y people left without power)
    • There is no statistics on the number of houses damaged or people left without power, etc.; I decided to instead include some other damage details, like minor structure damage.--12george1 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, that works. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "which resulted in development into a stationary front" - that could be worded better
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "as a subtropical depression. As a subtropical depression" - really?
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • ...no, it still has the redundancy of saying the exact same phrase twice in a row. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't know what happened with this, I guess I click the back button and thought I saved it instead.--12george1 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Do you realize it still says "as a subtropical depression. As a subtropical depression"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
            • I could have sworn that I fixed it earlier; now it should be fixed--12george1 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
              • There you go! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Michael maintained minimal hurricane status until 1200 UTC on October 18. " - what happened then?
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • How did you fix it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh I guess it was an edit conflict; now it is fixed.--12george1 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This edit I have major problems with. The issue in question was brought up by the WPTC here, in which all but one person agreed that HURDAT (the source you cite) should not be used to cite a record that a user makes up (or personally researches) for the sake of an article. There should be someone reliable actually saying it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I removed that statement since not only was it requiring HURDAT to cite it, it also implied that Michael made landfall while tropical, which is apparently false.--12george1 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Great, that was my biggest qualm with the article. At first I was confused too whether it was tropical or not, but that was before I actually looked at the TCR. I'm content enough to remove my opposition. Here are two more things.
• "However, just prior to landfall, waves on the coast of Newfoundland reached heights of 7–8 m (23–26 ft)." - I think you are taking that out of context. The lack of surge due to low tide makes sense. Looking at the source and the lack of wave damage, it doesn't appear those wave heights were along the coast, unlike a storm like Gert 99, which had wave damage.
• There isn't consistency between the HPC map and the EC report, with regards to the peak Nova Scotia rainfall. Given we have the person who made the HPC map, could you find out the reason for the discrepancy?
  • Here is Thegreatdr's response: "I don't know, since CHC (Canadian Hurricane Center) was the source of the info."--12george1 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [25].

---

12 Gauge (album)

Nominator(s): – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, as a major contributor to the article, I believe it is well-written and informative to the reader. I have tried to make it engaging, and it is about as comprehensive as it can be (in this case, the information culled is from a limited amount of sources since the band isn't as huge as Guns N Roses). The article is very stable. A recent edit added a new album review site, and I quickly (and happily!) incorporated it, and this sparked my interest in giving the article another look-through, hence all of today's edits. It's not the lengthiest article, but everything one would want to know about the album is in there. Thank you very much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Media checks out, it's all legit per the NFCC. The rationale on File:Kalmah sacramentum jynkha sample.ogg could do with a quick clean- rather than the copy-pasted/preloaded rationale used there, a specific rationale detailing what that song illustrates would be useful. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Rationale updated to be more specific, thank you : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article since its last nomination, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links
• Music video section needs to be reworked
• The article's prose needs editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples: "This consistency would keep fans from being disappointed, but would also keep fans from being surprised." is repetitive, and the tense makes its meaning somewhat unclear; "12 Gauge was released on CD and digital download in Japan on February 24, 2010, Canada on March 2, Europe on March 3, and in North America on April 6." - Canada is in North America; "they intended on adding acoustic guitar sections" - grammar.
• The article needs to be more accessible to non-specialists. For example, what is "blackened death metal"? An "outro"?
• WP:MOS edits needed - italicization, spell out numbers under 10, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have completely retooled the entire article, making it far less dependent on actual quotes and I've attempted to write it in a style more similar to those found on other FA music articles (I hope)—though I cannot attest to it being "brilliant". Its grammar, clarity, and flow should be much better. I don't think there are any awkward sentences anymore, either. So, to respond to your specific concerns:

1. I've removed the nocleansing.com site, the dictionary site, and the angrymetalguy site. Regarding the dictionary, I simply left the word "grinding" linked to the Finnish Wikipedia article about grinding. I'm not sure if I need a source for this or not, though. And it's not like it's a necessary thing, I just thought it would be fun to link to, to be honest.
2. EL is removed entirely, since both links were used as sources.
3. Music video section reworked!
4. Article's prose reworked using simpler English. Sorry about the "North America" thing, that was a definite oversight. I tightened the article up a bit and trimmed out some of the most unnecessary and confusing things, especially in the Critical reception section.
5. Article should be far more accessible than it was before. I also removed probably non-necessary sub-section headers, so the article is less broken apart, but the article isn't so lengthy that this isn't a problem. Potentially difficult industry terms have been replaced with simple English. I also looked at the article in two different skins (Vector and Modern) to make sure the article appeared organized and without any issues in both cases.
6. I went through WP:MOS; corrections included ellipses usage (adding a space before them), replacing # with No., and replaced jargon.

Thank you so much for your comments. I hope you can find the time to take a look at the article again. I know that articles tagged "oppose" by trusted users at FAC will pretty much be ignored by other reviewers; if you think this article has made some headway, and you think it should be looked at by other reviewers, please do say so! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better; however, I'm not ready to support its promotion, although I too would welcome the input of other reviewers. In my opinion the prose is not at FA standards - it needs further editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The fair use rational for the music sample included in the article states "It is of a lower quality than the original recording." However, it's 160kbps. That's way to high. It needs to be below 120kbps, preferable 92kbps or below. Orane (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Orane. I've reduced it to 74kbps and tagged the file page to have the higher rate version deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I just saw another error. You need to check the formatting of your sources. Websites and online sources should not be in italics (I see a number of sources like Pop Matters, Amazon, NecroWeb.de, Finishcharts.com and a bunch of others) that are all italicized. By default, the "cite web" template formats the "work" parameter into italics. You have to control this by placing the website's names etc in the "publisher" parameter. Do you understand? Orane (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orane, thanks for noticing that. And, in fact, the italics are purportedly correct. I started a discussion on this a looooooooong time ago. I'll try to dig it up. If I recall correctly, the consensus was to leave the italics as-is, even for websites and non-titles. Weird, I know. I'll post again when I find it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My original discussion is located at Template_talk:Cite_web/Archive_6#.22Work.22_vs_.22Publisher.22_parameters when I was trying to figure out the difference between the work and publisher parameters, but the italicization issue is brought up immediately. The overall feel of the discussion (which is quite long) is that no one has a definite clue what was going on with the italics, but the consensus was to leave websites italicized. In addition (at least, at the time), I had been un-italicizing websites by adding double apostrophes—as you suggested—but they kept being reverted by SmackBot, which I mention in the discussion. Incidentally, the same archive (Archive 6) has two other discussions on this italics issue: This one, a similar discussion to mine, where it looks like there is no consensus about the italics issue, or rather that the italics thing is quite okay since there isn't any rules against italicizing websites; and this discussion which has the exact same theory: there is no clear documentation that websites should not be italicized (on Wikipedia, in references). I cannot find a more recent discussion, so unless it's stated elsewhere, the italicized work parameter doesn't change. At least that gives us three discussions where the outcome is exactly the same. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Imzadi1979 00:50, 8 June 2011 [26].

---

Gobrecht dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The Gobrecht dollar, named after its engraver Christian Gobrecht, is more accurately known as the Flying Eagle dollar, however that terminology is practically extinct these days in numismatic parlance. The obverse is most often credited to Thomas Sully and the reverse to Titian Peale, though a series of individuals were responsible for what ultimately ended up on the coin. The Gobrecht dollar was minted essentially as a trial to determine how a silver dollar would fare in the public eye, as none had been minted for approximately thirty years prior. Apparently the people judged it positively, because the Seated Liberty dollar, which utilizes the same obverse design, began mintage immediately following the conclusion of the Gobrecht dollar. This is the sixth dollar coin article I've nominated for FAC, and the seventh overall (that rascal Wehwalt got to one before me!). Thanks to all the reviewers for your hard work!-RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. The only issue I see is that ref 13 needs more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I added some more information to the ref, but I'm not sure if that's enough. I don't know the publisher, so I'm not sure what to add for that.-RHM22 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Under "1804 dollar", the first two sentences could probably be combined and the word "officially" is superfluous.
• In the second graf in that section: is it possible to make that active voice? It sounds awkward as is.
• Under "Design", the images are all jumbled and overlapping on some displays I've viewed them with.
• The second graf of "Production" could use to be tightened up. There's too much passive voice and excess wording ("this was because" --> "because"). --Coemgenus 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. I am a big admirer of the series of articles on American coins that you and Wehwalt have worked on most effectively. Sadly, I don't think this one is yet up to the standard set by the others. This may be because it has been brought here prematurely; I can see no PR or GA reviews, or evidence of talkpage discussion—yet in your nom statement you thank "all the reviewers for your hard work". I believe it needs considerably more work yet.

Lead

• I would expect the opening sentence to tell me when the Gobrecht dollar was first minted, not simply that it was the first of its kind since 1806
• The lead seems to be concerned with issues of detail rather than the broad general history of this coin. For example, there is no indication given of its lifespan. One could imagine, from reading this, that the coin was still being produced.
• In fact, I learned more about the general history of this coin from your nom ststement than I did from the lead, which is not a good thing.

Images

• For a relatively short article, this appears to be over-imaged. In particular the gallery inserted in mid-article is intrusive and in my view disproportionate.

Comprehensiveness

• There seems to be basic information that needs clarifying in the text. How many Gobrecht dollars were struck? Over what period of years? How many are extant, and what sort of value do they have now?
• The range of sources used seems quite limited, compared with those used in other coin articles, and I wonder if this is part of the problem.

Prose

• I haven't done a complete prose check, but I did notice some phrasing that had me scratching my head. For example, I can't work out the distinction between medal alignment and coin alignment from your text.
• I also saw some prose clumsiness: "hired on to"; "in order to" are examples.
• "Patterson preferred a soaring eagle because he believed that the heraldic eagle commonly used on American coins, which he dismissed as a "mere creature of imagination", was both unappealing as a design." Sentence does not parse. The "both" towards the end is the problem". You should not consider these examples as the only prose issues; please check carefully for other problems.

I am unsure whether to recommend that this be withdrawn and worked on before returning here. I am sure that, given time, it can be raised to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest feedback, and, looking over the article, I see what you mean. Regrettably, I haven't had as much time to devote to Wikipedia editing as I would like, so this article didn't get as much "polishing" as most of the articles have gotten by the time they get to FAC. I think it's best for me to withdraw this nomination for now, and use the two week waiting period to better prepare the article. Before I remove this, could I have your opinion on the makeshift gallery? I agree that it looks a little awkward and unseemly, but I'd like to work those images in somehow. If no one can think of any good way to do that, I'd be ok with removing them, but I do think they really add some interesting information to the article. I suppose I could just work in one obverse sketch from Sully and one reverse sketch from Peale, since that what would be the direct basis for the designs that were eventually adopted. By the way, by "reviewers" in my opening statement, I was referring to the future reviewers and commenters on this FAC. I usually leave some sort of note to that point in my opening statement to show that I appreciate the work of the reviewers, since I do so little of that myself. Anyway, thanks again for the review. I'll start work on the points you mentioned right away, and I'll also look for other areas that need improvement.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that, on balance, withdrawing is the right decision. On the gallery, in my view the text always claims precedence; images support the text, not the other way round. My advice is to concentrate during the next couple of weeks on getting the text right, which I imagine will involve some expansion. Decisions about the images can be made then, and I'll be happy to advise further at that time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll continue work on the article and eliminate the gallery, perhaps integrating a few of the images into the prose. I'm not sure if I can really expand the size of the article considerably beyond possibly the collecting sections, because the coin series was only produced for three years. That said, I'll dig a little deeper into my books and perhaps borrow a few new ones to help improve the quality.-RHM22 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. I fully agree with Brian's comments above. It does seem, short, rushed, and incomplete compared to the other FAs in the genre. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:12, 4 June 2011 [27].

---

Pink Floyd

Nominator(s): TGilmour (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because I'm sure it meets the criteria and if not, I'm not against improving it. I already contacted the primary editor.

And did said primary editor agree that the article meets the FA criteria? You previously stated that this article needs sections on "musical style and lyrical themes", and it still doesn't have those. Ucucha 16:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I know but I wonder if there are other issues concerning this article. TGilmour (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is missing information on these topics, why do you think the article meets the FA criteria? Ucucha 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Drive-by nomination, and after reading primary contributor's talk page, he doesn't seem to want to nominate it. He's a regular at FA, so if it was ready for here he would nom it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I removed Pink Floyd from my watchlist a long time ago, because I felt I'd done enough to get it to GA, and to be honest I was sick and tired of the subject. I haven't looked at the article in a long time and therefore cannot comment on whether or not it is ready to be an FA. Parrot of Doom 19:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• With that note I'll withdraw the oppose, since on a skim the article looks like it's in good shape, though I don't have time right now to give a full review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So please someone start reviewing the article. I'll do my best To promote it to FA status. TGilmour (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Withdraw This is not WP:Peer review. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time, as I don't feel this article is yet at FA standards. Here are some examples of concerns:

• "In a demonstration of his frustration at being effectively sidelined, Barrett tried to teach the band a new song, "Have You Got It Yet?", but changed the structure on each performance—making it impossible for them to learn." - source?
• WP:MOS edits needed - wikilinking issues, ellipses, etc
• Some paragraphs are quite long and should be split to facilitate reading. On the other hand, some paragraphs are very short and choppy
• Citation needed tagged needs to be addressed
• "Waters declined the band's invitation to join them as the tour reached Europe, later expressing his annoyance that some Floyd songs were again being performed in large venues. A 1,200 capacity stand collapsed at Earls Court, during the European leg of the tour, but with no serious injuries, the performance was rescheduled." - source?
• Use a consistent date formatting
• Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
• All web sources need publishers
• What makes brain-damage a high-quality reliable source? Pinkfloydz? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:34, 3 June 2011 [28].

---

21 (Adele album)

Nominator(s): Orane (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it meets all the FA criteria-- it's well written, comprehensive, well-researched. Bought the album and fell in love with it, then came to Wikipedia and was disappointed with the article. Devoted a number of weeks to slowly build it up, using other featured articles, including Love.Angel.Music.Baby as a model. A number of other editors gave invaluable help, including User:Fixer23, User:Mister sparky and User:Acalamari. I'm in school, but I'll try to address every issue as quickly as I can. The album is still charting (currently number one in both U.K and the U.S. etc, so chart info does change, but never enough to affect the article's stability). Orane (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comments No sources in the lead, per WP:LEAD, and please do not send readers to the end of the page with the "(see release history)" in infobox. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  "release history" link removed. Also, re: citations in lede: if you personally want me to remove the sources, then I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure WP:LEAD makes a definite statement on that. I think it says that it depends on how specific the info in the intro is, and it also depends on editorial consensus. I put them in there because I was dealing with numbers, but again, I can remove it if u want. Orane (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Due the lead (is supposed to) summarize article's content, sources in the lead are unneeded (expecting [[WP:LEADCITE|direct quotes and BLP issues). It's up to you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I removed most of the citations from the intro, leaving only two. Is that ok, or did you want those gone? Orane (talk)

  For me it's fine. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: This is such an excellent album (one of my personal faves at the moment), so I'm glad to see the article is as good shape as it is. However, I see a few technical and prose-related issues throughout which need to be addressed:

• My take on the citations in the lead: different people, different opinions. Six inline cites in the lead is a bit much, however, especially two or three in a row. Perhaps consider culling to what you think is necessary?
• Check the Toolbox links on the right side of this page: it's showing a dablink that needs fixing, as well as several ELs (a redirect and deadlink?)
• En dashes (—) are meant to be unspaced, per WP:DASH. I see a few instances in which there's a space after the dash, such as here: "the singer suggests that the name is the most appropriate for the album— not only does it serve..."

• Done. Orane (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unnecessary bolding per WP:BOLD in "Background and conception".

• Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• There's a [verification needed] tag in citation 98, "Brunt Vielfalt Independent Charts".
• I see a couple instances in which WP:LQ may not be followed, such as this sentence in "Songs in lyrics": One of the only love songs not written about her ex was "One and Only." Punc. should be outside of quotation mark, unless it's part of the song title.

• Fixed Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note, I haven't read it in depth, only skimmed. María (habla conmigo) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources - spotchecks not done

• Caption for Rumour Has It sample needs a citation

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Adele has embarked on her second concert tour Adele Live in support of 21, performing sixty shows across Europe and North America. A number of venues had to be rescheduled to larger arenas due to high ticket demand." - source?

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "surpassing "Chasing Pavements" as her best-selling single." - source?

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The track will be released as the third single internationally; it has already peaked at number two in Belgium, at number five in Italy and in the top twenty in Germany and Ireland." - source?

  Sourced. Orane (talk)

• The Music and production section is a bit quote-heavy

  I have a question about that. I was aware when writing the section that a lot of quotes were used. For me that was an editorial decision, because sometimes I think that a direct quote is more useful than a paraphrase: for starters, some things just can't be paraphrased without sounding colloquial or awkward, and it really messes up the tone of the prose sometimes. And sometimes a quote captures the tone of the actual speaker, and implies even more about the person. But either way, I'd never want to be lazy and just substitute quote for actual prose. So, may I ask that you just skim through the section and just indicate which quote is superfluous? And, is it an issue of removing them altogether, or simply connecting them with the prose so the whole thing flows? Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Some of each. The quote on the wide range of musical styles could be shorter; could paraphrase "formulaic", "open", "seriousness", etc; "absolutely not" could for example be "rejected", etc. See what you can do about cutting down on quotes and making it flow more smoothly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've removed some quotations and paraphrased some info, and have trimmed some to give it a smoother flow. Take a look and let me know if more is needed. Orane (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the Charts are missing citations

  Done. Orane (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc in references

  Fixed. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Reference formatting is still somewhat inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the language used by this site, so for my benefit can you explain who the author/publisher is? Same thing for this site, this site, this site

  Fixed. Refs were either replaced, or formatted properly

• Ref 4: "The Official Charts Company" is the publisher; "The Official Charts" is the work

  I think I fixed that. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• When citing material to audio or video sources, particularly if the material is something specific like a quote, you should include a time reference

  Note. The URL for videos used as sources are are incorporated into the citation. However, the none of the videos (both from the interviews on her personal website and on the MTV site) have times, so there is no way for me to reference them. They're on YouTube, but I can't use YouTube as a source, unfortunately. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Solved...? Since the webpage that hold the video clips have 11 videos (one for each track), I've broken down the citation using {{harvnb}}, making it easier to pinpoint which video the specific quote is taken from. The videos are about 30s - 1m long, so it shouldn't be a laborious process to find the quotations. It's the only way to solve it, since as I've said, the videos do not have times on them. Orane (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• No space in ClashMusic.com

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that anything you say about Adele must be well-sourced in accordance with WP:BLP

  Everything said about her is cited, as far as I'm concerned :)

• In general, citation formatting needs some cleanup for consistency

  Cleaned and polished. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Still some inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• ref 29: publisher? Check for others

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?

• For the about.com source, you were having a discussion on the FAC page for "We R Who We R" (i.e that it's published by The New York Times Company etc et). I don't think I need to defend it here. The yahoo source is also of high quality, and is also used by metacritic.com to compile review scores from reputable publications (goes by the name Dotmusic). The allaccess source has been removed and replaced with Billboard magazine. Fixed Orane (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would disagree that either the about.com source or the yahoo source qualify as high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 34: single-page references should use "p.", multi-page use "pp." Also, not required but out of curiosity: who is the "Amy" referred to in the title?

  Done Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  This Amy :) Orane (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 42: was this interview broadcast? If so, need a more specific date. If not, from where can one obtain a record or copy of this interview? (rechecked 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC), not fixed)
• Don't notate titles in all-caps

  Taken care of. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all foreign-language sources are notated as such

  Done. Orane (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, not quite done. I'll take care of them. Orane (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Orane (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• dead link and verification needed tags need to be dealt with

  Done. Link wasn't dead. Don't know how that got there. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations must at minimum include publisher and access date - 132 for example has neither

  Done. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format

  Done. Orane (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose until these concerns have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Journalist, just a friendly reminder that per the FAC instructions you shouldn't strike or otherwise alter other people's comments. I've undone your striking. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OMG, I'm so sorry :) I haven't been here in a while. Orane (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, still some sourcing issues outstanding, details above. Also, from a quick look at the text I see WP:MOS issues to be dealt with (italicization, overlinking, etc). The prose could also use editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to look at the article. I'll get to work and see if I can address the issues, although without specific examples of awkward prose, it's a little bit hard. But I'll just do a copyedit. And "somewhat inconsistent" is a bit hard to work with when I don't even know what is inconsistent with the sources. Any examples? Also, I'll state explicitly that I do not intend to address your concern about the about.com and Dot music sources, because quite frankly, I find your issue with them quite arbitrary (and again, I reference the former's affiliation with the New York Times, and the latter's inclusion in Metacritic scoring system). Orane (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some specific examples of prose issues: "Following a few chance meetings they eventually decided to collaborate after meeting" - "meetings...meeting" is repetitive; "Worrying that her new album would become "'19 2.0," she decided to co-write with a number of songwriters and producers, stating that while her debut album was 80%–85% written by her, 21 was about "55%–65% me"." - awkward phrasing, unclear why the first percentage is unquoted but the second is quoted; "In a move to improve her songwriting, Adele immersed herself into various styles of music, attempting to gain insight into the structuring and composition of different types of songs"; "Working with Rubin, on the other hand, was a dream come true" - POV and overly informal wording. Specific examples of reference formatting inconsistencies: incorrect capitalizations (ex ref 122 or 125), missing or incorrect italicizations (ex ref 42), inconsistent notation of website names (some are capitalized, some are wikilinked, etc), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Media: The two images check out, but the four sound files are a little questionable. The copy-pasted rationales are not appropriate for that kind of file- the rationale needs to note what each individual sample brings to the article. What is it illustrating? Why does that need to be illustrated? Why can that not be illustrated by one of the other samples you use? You also need to ask yourself whether you truly need four. I have not read the article, so I can't make a call about how many are needed, but four strikes me as a lot. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• The rationale weren't copy-pasteed. They came preloaded when I uploaded the samples, and it was never indicated that additional rationale was required. But I've begun to provide more specific rationales for each sample. Four may be a lot, but they are useful is capturing the wide range of the songs on the album. I may take one out, but I'll hold off for now, just to see if there's a definite problem with 4 samples. If you don't mind reading the section. If you still feel that way, I'll consider removing one. Orane (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done. One of the samples has been deleted. Orane (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the fact you have removed one, but there is still issue with the remaining samples themselves. The samples should be no more than 64kbps and 10% of the song length (see Wikipedia:Music samples) and, as all the songs are less than 5 mins in length, that is shorter than 5 mins. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• But when does "rule of thumb" and "usually sufficient" (that's how they are described at Wikipedia:Music samples) become binding?
• "Someone Like You"- song length 4:45, which would mean the sample length is 28.5. It's 29s as is, which is roughly accurate; same for "Fire". I'll see about shortening "Rolling" by a second or two. Orane (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• A rule of thumb is not binding, just as most "rules" here are not binding, but it's something to go by unless we have reason not to. The burden of proof lies with you to say why we shouldn't follow the rule, not with me to argue that we should. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Quality and length decreased/shortened for each. For "Set Fire to the Rain", the quality was kept to 76kbps, since the string arrangement, which the article discusses, sounds a bit distorted if the quality is reduced too much. This is explained in the rationale for the sample, and as I've said, Wikipedia:Music samples says "roughly 64kbps" is "usually sufficient". Orane (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on prose concerns. I've just read the first couple of sections; here are a few comments and some examples of prose problems.

• "21 features production from Rick Rubin, Paul Epworth, and Ryan Tedder among others": do you mean they each produced some of the songs? To a non-aficionado of the music business it's an odd phrasing.
• "the album debuted at number one on the UK Album Chart, selling 208,000 copies": presumably selling those copies in its first week? Ditto for the next sentence.
• "an acclaimed performance": this is a bit strong; it's supported by a cite from The Guardian, which is a fine source, but it's just one journalist's opinion. I think "well-received" would be enough.
• "Similar to her first album 19, 21 is essentially a break-up album": this is an ugly adjectival phrase to lead with.
• Sequence of events in the first para is confusing -- we get a summary sentence, then a "prior to" which talks about revealing something that had happened earlier, and then later reveals something else. Finally there's another summary sentence which repeats the content of the initial sentence. The easiest way to unconfuse this would be to put it in simple chronological order, but if not I think it needs to be smoother.
• "as she described it": missing an "as" after "it"?
• "a British slang": missing the word "phrase" after "slang"?
• "which, in her words means": either drop the comma or add one after "words".
• I think you're not consistent with your tenses; the first para has mostly past tense ("described", "decided"), but in the second you switch to present tense ("explains", "suggests").
• "the name ... establishes a juxtaposition with 19" -- to juxtapose two things is to place them next to each other, for contrast; it doesn't mean to contrast or compare.
• "the overt simplicity in titling her album" -- this is vague. I think you mean "the apparent simplicity of the album title 21".
• "as it not only serves as a reflection of her age": wordy; I'm not crazy about the word "reflects" in this sentence, but if you want to use it, why not just "as it not only reflects her age"?
• "artistic growth" appears within a very short span on either side of the long quote in the first section.

That's as far as I got, I'm afraid. Sorry, I don't like to oppose without making comments first and giving a nominator a chance to reply, but I really think this needs a copyedit by a third party. I'll be happy to revisit if you can get someone to run through the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Mike, I'm just going to try and explain something as I see it. It appears that your suggestions and oppose are based on grammatical changes that support your personal taste of wording, not a deemed correct or proper one. I feel that an oppose on prose should be aimed at incorrect or poorly sentenced articles, not one that just doesn't fit your personal liking. Both the current wording, as well as your suggestions are proper, and "well-written". Examples like "I'm not crazy bout the word reflects" or "this word is a bit strong." In fact, the performance was acclaimed and led to the album spending 16 weeks atop the album chart in the UK. I'm sure Orane can provide other sources for that claim, just opting to post one because he didn't find it necessary (I don't either). Please consider this.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  You're right that some of what I commented on is subjective, and I think you've picked two good examples: "acclaimed" and "reflection". I would certainly not oppose just for the use of "reflect"; my objection there is more about the unnecessary wordiness of the phrase, and I added a comment that I didn't personally feel that "reflect" was the best word to choose. For "acclaim" I was thinking about peacock terms; I feel that strong approving language gives the reader the sense that they are being told what to think, and that a more moderate tone is the better way to go. "Acclaim" is a very strong mark of approval.

  Prose quality generally is hard to critique and hard for two people to agree on, but the FA criteria are unambiguous that an FA's prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Every prose reviewer draws on their own background, and you may get other reviewers who are willing to support and who see no problems with the prose. It can be frustrating to receive a prose oppose, but the delegates will promote an article with outstanding opposes; I can't speak for them but I suspect they acknowledge that prose is a somewhat subjective area. I'm happy to go into more detail on why I think some of the points I made are real weaknesses in the prose, but ultimately I have to trust my own knowledge of how good English is written, and base my support or oppose on that. For example, as far as I can see, that's an incorrect use of "juxtaposition"; it just doesn't mean what the article wants it to mean; and "a British slang" is incorrect usage; one says "a slang term" or "a slang phrase"; slang as a noun, not used attributively, does not refer to an individual word. Slightly more subjectively, the lack of chronological order and the repetition in the first paragraph of the body seem to me to be real impediment to the reader; they fuzz up the sequence of events instead of presenting clear and concise information.

  I'd be happy to discuss any or all of the points I've made in order to clarify them, and of course I'll strike them if you convince me I'm wrong (which certainly does happen). If there's a concern that my points would not be shared by other prose reviewers, you might ask someone else who reviews at FAC to look at my comments and see which ones they agree with. Malleus Fatuorum is an excellent prose reviewer, for example; you can find others by looking at other FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• After reading your objections Mike, I can definitely understand your concerns. I've been away from the article for the past few days, hoping to return with a fresh eye, and it has helped. I agree with a lot of your objections, as well as Nikkimaria's about the article's prose, and I'm working on improving the article. To be honest though, the background section was challenging when I initially wrote it (issues of chronology vs clarity etc), but it doesn't reflect the language of the entire article, which I welcome you to read. I have two comments about specific examples you cited.

• I use the word "acclaim" because, to be neutral, is was the response she received for her performance (as User: CallMeNathan explains, I could put it in sourced quotations if you'd like). She brought herself and her audience to tears with the performance, and the British press raved that it altered/made her career. The song jumped at least 50 spots up the charts to number one, and one newspaper states that sales of her album "sky rocket by a stunning 890 per cent on Amazon.co.uk less than an hour after she left the stage." (All described and sourced in the article body.) "Acclaim" is a strong word, but it's accurate. But I can look into changing it.
• Your second comment: "the album debuted at number one on the UK Album Chart, selling 208,000 copies". I've always thought it redundant and wordy to say she debuted with first week sales of x. If its a debut, then it naturally means that the sales are first-week figures. Since once can't debut with second week sales, there's no reason to actually specify. but again, I'll look into it.

• Thanks again for all the comments. I'm working on it, I have worked on it :) (take a look), and I work on it again when I get home. Orane (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – I entirely agree with Mike Christie. The prose is poor and this not a question of personal taste. Some tenses are wrong, "Critics generally praise the depth and maturity reflected in the songs on the album", this should be past tense. It lacks logical flow here; "Adele composed "Rolling in the Deep" the day after the relationship ended" (what relationship?) and here; "However, the majority of the album's production with Rubin were recorded in his studio" (and shouldn't this be "was"?) and here, "Adele initially intended to cover a song by INXS, but later changed to a remake of the Cure's "Lovesong"(changed what?) This needs parallel structure "Adele had already developed a fan-base in Britain from the success of her first album, winning the BRIT Awards Critics' Choice in 2008, and named the number-one predicted breakthrough act of 2008 in an annual BBC poll of music critics, Sound of 2008." There is slang, "her ex" and an amateurish writing style throughout. This is not FA quality. Graham Colm (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for several reasons.

• Throughout the article the United Kingdom is abbreviated to the "UK" whilst the United States is "U.S.". They should be consistent imo.
• Since the article is written in British prose for some readers it could be confusing to see things like "2.4 million" throughout the article. Is that USD or pound sterling?
• The images should also have alt text.
• In the Writing and recording section the first two paragraphs begin with "Adele".

Crystal Clear x3 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Umm, pound sterling or USD? 2.4 million is implying the amount of copies signified by the albums 8 times platinum certification in the UK. They are the total amount of shipments in the country. If you read the article you would know that... Again, if your real motive is to help better the article, then I would suggest giving Orane real constructive criticism and several examples on how to better the article (like those above us) and not just paste 4 generic reasons and an oppose.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Nathan, don't bite reviewers please. They are at the end of the day trying to help in the betterment of the article. It doesn't matter if 21 doesn not pass FAC in its first attempt. You yourself probably know how many times it takes to make an article "almost brilliant". So, yeah, let Orane answer whatever questions Crystal Clear has. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm crossing out some comments, because I was a bit harsh. Crystal, if you truly feel this way then I respect your opinion, and respect to disagree. Yes Legolas, we both know that it usually takes multiple attempts.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

About the pound/USD, that was my misstep. I admit that I should have given the lead a better check. I opposed this article not just for the four comments but based on what others above wrote (again, by bad, should have clarified). The four things I posted, also, are not the only problems I spotted in my glances. Here are some more:

• I'm not sure what the purpose of having a picture of Adele performing in 2007 has to do with this article since she is not performing any songs from this album.
• If things like piano are going to be wikilinked, then so should trailer (film)
• "2011 sci-fi film" -> I think it would be better to write: "2011 science fiction film"
• Lady Gaga should be unlinked in the three parts of the Impact section
• 'the new Amy Winehouse' -> This should not have a link in it since Amy is mentioned just a few sentences earlier in the same paragraph.
• The Beatles should be unlinked in the Chart performance section since it is already linked in Marketing and Promotion.
• The US platinum certification does not have a citation in the charts section
• "on top of the Billboard 200," -> should be unlinked since it is mentioned just a paragraph earlier.
• "Katy Perry's music video for 'California Gurls'" -> Perry should be unlinked as she is mentioned earlier as well.
• "Following a live performance of the song at the Brit Awards," -> why is "Brit" not capitalized like it was earlier in the same section? It also needs to be unlinked
• "Following her performance at the 2011 BRIT Awards," -> also needs to be unlinked
• "It has been certified Platinum by the BPI," -> Why isn't this spelt out like "Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)," with its abbreviation in parentheses.
• Lady Antebellum should be linked

When I first looked at this article, I immediately found these without thoroughly checking it.

This album is very good and Orane has clearly put a lot of elbow sweat into this article and I greatly respect that, but from my point of view it's not FA ready. If anything, this article should have been nominated for/passed GA then peer-reviewed before being nominated here because there could be a lot of issues with an article.Crystal Clear x3 07:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Crystal Clear, the reason I have UK and U.S. is because that's how they are abbreviated in their respective articles (without the period in the UK abbreviation). I too was confused, but thought that I would just follow how they are written on Wikipedia. I'm not aware that "Adele" as the first sentence would be a problem, but I'll see if I can change the sentence structure. Orane (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

For the latter: It's not a big problem, but is rather repetitious. Crystal Clear x3 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding GrahamColm's comments: "'Adele composed "Rolling in the Deep" the day after the relationship ended' (what relationship?)" The relation that the album is about, mentioned in the intro, in almost every paragraph, and twice in the paragraph preceding the sentence you highlighted. But I guess I'll make it clearer. Other verb/tense you highlighted are careless mistakes of mine. I'll get on it.
• Legolas and CallMeNathan, thanks for your input. I had a feeling it would not pass on the first time around. The last featured article I wrote also passed on its second try. To be honest, i may need to withdraw this nomination for now, because I'm currently doing midterms, and have no time to focus on the article until next week. And maybe some time away from it will give me a fresh eye, so I can do a better job at polishing the prose. Orane (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do you want to withdraw this nomination now, or do you want to continue? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:49, 1 June 2011 [29].

---

Livonian War

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the second nomination of Livonian War to FA status. [Edit: Please note this FAC forms part of my entry to the WikiCup, as on talk.] The last time, the dare-I-say barrage of faults - many minor, some not - was just too much to be going on with. So I put it up for A class review at MILHIST, where it went largely without comment (and thus failed); a second A-class review is currently open with two-and-a-half supports. It remains to be seen whether that will pass, but there have been no opposes at any point. I now feel the article is ready to be nominated again. Reasons like copyediting have now been covered, and so won't obscure other problems, or indeed potential support for FA status.

Oh, one thing: I had a go at ALT text for some of it, but for the complicated maps in the article it's somewhat beyond me. The ones I've done probably need improving as well, if someone wants to.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Ivan IV had introduced a new strategy whereby he relied on tens of thousands of native troops, cossacks and tartars instead of a few thousand skilled troops and mercenaries, as was the practice of his adversaries." - source?

Done. (Thank heavens for 'snippet view'!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No citations to Karamzin 2003

Is this a problem? It can be deleted if so, but could potentially be helpful to the reader.

Maybe put it in a "General sources" or "Further reading" section?

• Publisher for Russow?

It doesn't have a publisher (in reality), it's from 1578. I don't believe Frost mentions which version he's using. Frost is the primary citation, so I question whether a full citation for Russow is possible, or indeed useful.

• Bain 1971: title should be italicized, series should not

Done, by changing the field being used.

• Be consistent in how foreign-language sources are notated, and don't double-notate

In the previous nomination, Piotrus suggested the double-notation. Is there a guideline that could be applied to save an argument?

Not that I know of, it just seems redundant. What was his reasoning for including it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations or not, and if so how these are notated and what information is provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(On the last point.) Do you have any particular concerns? I've filled the one source without a location field; in each case, the town or city is listed, with the exception of "Jefferson, North Carolina", a much smaller place (pop. 1,422 in 2010). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, Frost lists only "New Jersey" as place of publication, and Yale University Press is not in a town called Yale. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How silly of me. Now corrected. To avoid quadruple layering the points above: Piotrus' rationale was "I think both should be used. The |language [field] is better for machine searching, but de icon is more visible to the human reader." I personally have no preference. I've also moved Karamzin to a "Further reading" section, seemed most appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The text still needs some work, which perhaps will be sorted out during the A-class review. My feeling is that it would have been wiser to let the A-class review finish, but here are a few examples of the kinds of things I think need some work: — Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 29 May 2011 — continues after insertion below

• "... they may have symbolic of greater Swedish aspirations in the region".

Changed.

• "Similarly, he improved an already effective artillery system, and also recruited cossacks". Why "and also" rather than just "and"?

Removed, it's a personal thing of mine.

• "Unfavourable conditions for Sweden led to a series of future conflicts ...". Clearly "future" is redundant.

Removed.

• "No agreement was forthcoming, and after a ten-day break in negotiations during which time various Russian meetings were held (including the zemsky sobor, the Assembly of the Land) to discuss the issues at stake." After the break then what?

Changed.

• "In the ensuing Battle of Wenden, Russian casualties were severe, and armaments and horses captured leaving Ivan IV with his first time serious defeat in Livonia.

Changed.

• "Similarly, he improved an already effective artillery system, and also recruited cossacks". Another "and also".

Identical to the first point about "And also". (i.e. changed.)

• "In 1581, the force besieged Pskov, a well-fortified and heavily defended fortress but with financial support from the Polish parliament failing ...". That last bit doesn't match what went before.

Hope I've cleared that up, although I wasn't quite sure what you meant.

• "the Polish King and grand duke of Lithuania Sigismund III ...". Why is "King" capitalised but "grand duke" isn't?

Changed, perhaps someone can confirm that capitalisation is correct in these instances. (The phrase is used twice.)

• "Throughout 1561, a Russo-Lithuanian truce was respected by both sides with a scheduled expiration date of 1562." This is saying that both sided had a scheduled expiration(!) date of 1562, not that the treaty would expire in 1562.

Changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandiose (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2011

Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (in ignorance of SG's point below.) I've acted on these (although you're welcome to check they answer the points, of course), but your top message suggests there may be more. Through examination of this type was not forthcoming at ACR – where the article has spent 7 weeks – and I have/had little suspicion that it would soon. The article was copy-edited by the guild, but can be again if reviewers believe there are points to be made. At the moment, I believe posting them here may be sufficient. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, moved to talk. Spotcheck for close paraphrasing and source compliance will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Object till Google Books pages are added (or in some cases, restored) to the page links. Whether this is an official requirement or not, it should be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a fix, as a compromise. Something like (online) to each the references, I think. I can't imagine there will be many objections to that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure to link pages, not just books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Which of the FA criteria mandate links to transient Google Books links, that often work differently depending on which part of the world you live in? Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That they don't work in some parts of the world is not my concern (even through often I live in those parts). Nor do I care that some occasionally break down as Google revises copyright status or such. Most of them work, and they work for majority of editors and readers. The usefulness is obvious, and if FA criteria don't reflect them, they should - and I have my right to request that. (This reminds me of few years back when I was arguing in favor of inline cites...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposals to change the FA criteria should be made at WT:WIAFA (or possibly (WT:FAC), where you're welcome to raise the issue. However, GBooks links are not currently mandated by the FA criteria, so opposing due to their absence is not considered actionable; if that is your only reason for objecting to this article's promotion, I would strongly urge you to withdraw your objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a valid oppose-- the issue has been well discussed at WT:FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I expect that the bureaucratic mentality will disregard my vote. I am relying on the nominator's desire to improve the article to heed up my request, and do what's best for the article. PS. Proven correct during edit conflict... :> PPS. I wouldn't be making this into an issue here if not for the fact that some GBooks page links were present in the article but were removed by the nominator, which IIRC is against even the current imperfect consensus on that issue... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent.) I dispute my "removal" of them, but have otherwise complied. It is my opinion that such a change, most importantly, cannot be considered detrimental to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Question - aside from the copy editing, have other concerns - about neutrality and comprehensiveness, such as the ones raised by Renata - been addressed since last FAR? I see that a couple of her bullet points have been dealt with, but vast majority haven't and I don't see much in edit history of the article to indicate that the other ones were dealt with as well (maybe I'm missing it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that Renata is back, but there has not been a FAR (Featured Article Review); this is FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but that'll be tomorrow. (I think you mean FAC, by the way, a mistake I've made before.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You should not have to "look into it"; issues from previous FACs are supposed to be resolved prior to nomination, and the FAC instructions say that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, my choice of words was merely politeness. I had only a little time, and although I do not believe Renata's comments to still be true, I felt dismissing them in only a couple of sentences would not have done the seriousness of the complaints justice. All of the bulleted points were dealt with following the withdrawal of the FAC, the couple of "completeness" ones will be justified shortly. Renata continues with "the articles misses some very important points (like the fact that Sigismund Augustus not merely supported, but initiated the whole mess with Wilhelm von Brandenburg, the extremely complicated political dynamic between the four countries, etc. -- who supported who and why -- while zooming in on a couple negotiation attempts)." I believe this version is appropriate as indicative of the article at the time. Since then, various small but significant additions and reductions have been made. Additional details have generally been to enhance the breadth of coverage (unfortunately, after some thought, there is no easy way for me to demonstrate this; however, if you have WikiEdDiff (or similar) then perhaps that would make this combined then/now diff workable); reductions have been made to the negotiation attempts Renata describes. (For example, the first paragraph of the "Russian war with Sweden" paragraph has been reduced from around 350 words to around 220, if one excludes the first two sentences of today's version, since they are new material.) With reference to the four-power negotiations, several things have been added. For example, Livonia's appeal to Polish-Lithuania (P-L); Russian efforts to gain control of the P-L throne; P-L's Augsburg Confession to Livonia; the Treaty of Dorpat; the Russian-Swedish truce of 1565; Danish-Swedish context (Kalmar Union, Great Northern War); Russian Swedish truce of 1575; some information on the control of Hapsal, Leal and Lode; the 1580 period of Swedish-Russian war has been elaborated upon; an augmentation of Swedish-Russian negotiations related to the Treaty of Plussa, and some slight additions to the post-conflict "context" as it were. I therefore feel justified in bringing this to FAC again. (If you think I've missed something, bring it up, I apologise in advance if that is the case, I but I don't believe it is.) Sorry if this is a little long reply, but Renata's comments were originally the single largest reason I withdrew the review of the article, and thus there has been some thought on the subject since. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the point about neutrality, this was mainly a point of Piotrus, and was discussed between the last FAC and this one, and I therefore suspect it is no longer an issue. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. My remaining issue the lack/removal of Google Book page links (which, sadly, to some is a non-issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done the 18 references whose Google books pages are visible. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (and by "some" above I did not mean you). Please note that more are visible than just those. For example, here is Frost 2000, p. 2. Keep up the good work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link doesn't go (for me, at least) to the book or page in question. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This article isn't ready, and the addition of a couple of dozen spam links has hardly improved matters. It really does need the attention of a decent copyeditor, one who looks at the overall story being told, not just the grammar and punctuation of individual sentences. I believe that this article as currently constructed fails the 1a FA criterion, and I'll offer a few examples of why:

• "The ensuing Danzig War of 1577 ended when Batory conceded further autonomous rights to the city in turn for a payment of 200,000 zloty." Presumably that should be "in return for a payment".

Changed.Grandiose

• "Poland also claimed the whole of Livonia, without acceptance of Swedish lands." What does "without acceptance of Swedish lands" mean?

Changed, I believe that is now clearer.Grandiose

• "Maximilan's death in October 1576 prevented the conflict from growing any further." In what way does a conflict "grow", as opposed to spread, or intensify?

Reworded, it now reads "escalated". The phrasing of the source is not clear whether scope, intensity or something else is intended (it uses the phrase "[prevented a] major war").Grandiose

• "The failure of the Swedish siege of Narva in 1579 led to Pontus de la Gardie replacing Henrik Klasson Horn as commander-in-chief". No, it led to Pontus de la Gardie's replacement as commander-in-chief, not replacing.

Although Wikipedia is somewhat unclear, the source (whose ref I have moved to this sentence also, it was at the end of the next clause) is clear this is when he becomes Commander-in-Chief. However, ti didn't explicitly say this is what Horn held, so I've removed it. There could be a translation issue on the ranks here. Grandiose

• "... the Russo-Swedish truce was later extended until 1590." It could hardly have been extended earlier.

I used the word "later" to clarify that it was made first, then extended sometime after. Of course, that is the implication without the word "later", but I thought it was better said than implied.

• "This was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he requested the truce in the first place." Rather than in the second, third or fourth place? What is "in the first place" supposed to be telling us?

Removed.Grandiose

• "In 1590, the Russo-Swedish truce of Plussa expired and fighting resumed while the ensuing Russo-Swedish War of 1590–5 ended with the Treaty of Teusina (Tyavzino, Tyavzin), under which Sweden had to cede Ingria and Kexholm to Russia." So how does that work exactly? Fighting resumed in 1590 while a treaty was ratified five years later?

It's what our article on "while" calls a "contrastive sense". Is it sufficiently unclear? As you say, a concurrent-events sense would seem impossible.Grandiose

• "During the same period, the Swedish–Polish alliance began to crumble". Which period is this? When the fighting resumed or when the treaty was signed?

Probably both, but I've removed it as vague and unnecessary to the meaning.Grandiose

• "Local nobles turned to Charles for protection in 1600 when the conflict spread to Livonia where Sigismund had tried to incorporate Swedish Estonia into the Duchy of Livonia." Needs some punctuation.

Added a comma after "Livonia".Grandiose

• "At the same time, Russia was embroiled in civil war over the vacant Russian throne ("Time of Troubles") where none of the many claimants had prevailed." The word "where" signifies a place; what is the place that none of the claimants had prevailed in?

Changed to "when".Grandiose

• "... several Livonian towns were captured, but only Pernau remained after a Polish–Lithuanian counter-offensive". Remained where? Where did the others dash off to?

Clarified.Grandiose

Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting the article up for a second copyedit, I think, given your suggestion there are further points to be made. (This remains a cup nomination, which after you comments, I thought I'd mention – if you have changed your mind about reviewing it, I'm sorry for the suggestion you may not have done; however, I thought I'd make sure this wasn't by mistake.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd already looked through it, so I thought I might as well offer my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Spotcheck—issues my first random spotcheck of Elliot 2000 p. 14 resulted in this "Sweden hoped to establish itself on the eastern side of the Baltic, which was dominated by Denmark who therefore controlled trade with Russia. This helped to precipitate the Northern Seven Years' War" being unacceptably close paraphrase. I then extensively spotchecked Roberts 1968 to my dissatisfaction. Roberts 1968 p 209 was clear. Roberts 1968, p. 255 was close paraphrase. 74d Roberts 1968 p. 258 does not support its assertion (you mean p.258–259). Roberts 1968 p. 260 was uncheckable due to preview. Roberts 1968 p. 263 is clear. fn 92b doesn't support assertion. 92e "Russia would surrender all areas in Livonia it still held" appears close paraphrase due to sentence order and "all areas in Livonia", reconstruct sentence. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've altered everything according. Elliot #14 was bad, and it certainly isn't repeated like that elsewhere. Your edit summary suggested that close paraphrasing was endemic, and although I don't believe it is, I will be combing all the sources I have available to ensure this. Did you check any other sources (save me doing this myself)? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, are there any helpful pages about this? I've dealt with close paraphrasing before, but with the exception of Elliott, the issues you raise seem less apparent than the examples at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to walk the line between avoiding original research, and excellent prose. Often singular adjectival expressions, such as "brilliant prose," are irreplaceable without losing meaning—and this is not necessarily close paraphrasing. Where a unique expression of short length is the only way to express the fact or concept, it is not paraphrasing to do so (perhaps, "Lenin wore a goatee beard" is a simple example, but even here, we can replace the verb, to "kept"). However, I strongly suggest avoiding: identical verbs, identical adjectival or adverbal expressions, identical clause order in multiple clause sentences, and where it doesn't excessively introduce the passive voice, reordering the sentence entirely. The advice on WP:Close paraphrasing of "The right way to use this source would be to read it, read other sources about cats, internalize the information, and then write original content without looking at the structure of the sources" is excellent writing advice. I noticed in your use of Roberts 1968 that you often noted as facts in a single sentence, facts that originally appears in a single sentence in Roberts 1968. This occurred even when you cut down the size of the sentence through removal of redundant clauses.

I can accept that Elliot 2000 may have been a simple authorial mistake; but, the method of using Roberts, and the instances of paraphrase throughout of Roberts, suggests to me that you may need to take the article away and check your citations exhaustively. I only tested Elliot 2000 and Roberts 1968 as it is a painstaking task; and, after investigating Roberts 1968 there was enough evidence of a tendency to make this opposable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.