Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2010: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

June 2010

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 23:06, 11 June 2010 [1].

Richard Dawkins

Nominator(s): Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's fantastic and topical. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection your honor! Your haven't made a single edit before nominating this article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection! Extremely racist! It's already perfect. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the article is excellent, I don't know, but FAC rules state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Was this done? Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Further to my remark, above, a quick check using the toolbox on the right reveals a great many dead links, evidence that the article has not been prepared for FAC against the Featured Article criteria. Request withdrawal. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:25, 8 June 2010 [2].

National Treasures of Japan

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been a very stable good article for a while. I am nominating it for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the Featured article criteria. It serves as an overview article of the (currently) 1,079 national treasures which are covered in more detail in the Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - after reviewing the article in more detail, I feel that it is not ready for FA at this time. Below are some of my specific concerns.
  • Check consistency of US vs UK spelling
  • Missed a couple - check "-or" vs "-our"
Can't find any. I was searching for "or " (that's "or" plus space) and all I found was a "splendor" in the references. Since it is written in this way on the website, I don't think it should be changed. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay - with that search parameter, you would have missed the one in the "Notes" section.
Ah, okay, fixed the one ("armored->armoured"). Please let me know if there are any more American words.
  • I don't like the current organization of the article - it makes for a very bloated ToC and some very short subsections. I would suggest merging some of those shorter sections, maybe taking a more summary-style approach and creating daughter articles where necessary, perhaps also changing some of the headings to be more clear
  • Which part of the ToC are you referring to, the subsections of "Categories of National Treasures" or those of "History", or both? The categories subsections are already written in summary style (of the respective Lists of National Treasures of Japan articles. Which headings do you consider not clear? Would it be better, if I replaced the subsections (===Subsection-heading) with unnumbered headings (;Subsection-heading).
  • Both - the ToC is quite long, and quite a few subsections have only one paragraph. Subheading example: "Types of National Treasures" is confusing because "type" was used earlier to refer to the categories, and including "National Treasures" in the subheading seems redundant. As for the numbered vs unnumbered headings, I'm not sure of the convention there - it would definitely reduce the size of the ToC, but it may not help with the larger organizational issue.
  • I would recommend finding someone to copy-edit the article for you. The prose is frequently awkward and lacking in the crispness and clarity I would expect from a featured article, and at times includes grammatical errors.
  • The article has been thoroughly copy-edited by Truthkeeper88. Could you give examples for the issues you mentioned in order to know what to look for in another copy-edit?
  • Example of awkwardness: "Only if the owner cannot be located, or damages the property, or fails to adequately protect the property, or is unwilling to cooperate for public access to the property, does the government have the right to name a custodian which is usually a local governing body." - very long sentence, awkwardly worded. Lack of crispness: "As a term "National Treasure" has been used in Japan since 1897, though the meaning changed in 1950. The significance of the term pre-1950 differs from the term in post-1950." - redundant phrasing. Lack of clarity: "There are 122 swords and sword mounting National Treasures" - phrasing is unclear "mounting" should be plural, and you earlier said that there were 122 swords, period. Grammatical errors: "National treasures" vs "national treasures" vs "National Treasures" - need to differentiate between these terms. These are just examples - there are numerous problems with the prose that I would need to see resolved before I could consider supporting.
  • Not brilliant, but better
  • The first paragraph of the lead, in particular the first sentence, needs revision. The purpose of the lead is to give a concise summary of the subject that won't overwhelm readers unfamiliar with the topic. "National Treasures are the most precious of Japan's Tangible Cultural Properties - precious in terms of monetary or "sentimental" or historical value? What is a Tangible Cultural Property? (I know it's linked, but a concise explanation would be appropriate)
  • Point taken concerning "precious". Not sure which part of "tangible cultural property" needs further explanation. Do I need to explain "cultural property" as well or only the full term ("a cultural property that can be touched...)?
  • Well, "tangible cultural property" is pretty self-explanatory, but doesn't Tangible Cultural Properties of Japan mean something beyond that? That's the term used in that sentence, so that's the term that needs to be explained.
  • Some stacking and sandwiching of images on my screen. In particular, I would suggest using the multiple image template to group the two distribution maps.
  • I used the "double image" template to join the two distribution maps. Could you explain what issues you have with the other images, since on my screen it just looks fine?
  • When you stack images one on top of another as in the "Categories" section, it makes the edit links bunch up; in the "Preservation" section, the two images sandwich the text between them. Take a look at WP:PIC for some tips.
  • File:Ujigami Haiden.jpg needs a description. Also, can we translate the descriptions for File:Todaiji daibutsuden 20070923.jpg and File:Okakura Tenshin.jpg?
  • Done.
  • Numbers under 10 are usually spelled out
  • Don't duplicate images - you've got enough pictures without including more than one of the same thing
  • OK. Just to make sure, are you referring to the first image, the mosaic?
  • Yes
  • Fixed. In fact it was not the same image but an image that showed the same structure.
  • Avoid writing paragraphs with fewer than 3 sentences
  • Check for consistency between footnotes and bibliography. For example, you've got full citation information for Deal twice, no full citation for Kishida, etc. Make sure that books include page numbers and locations. Also make sure that web links include publisher and access dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the article. I understand most of the issues you raised and will try to fix them. With some of the items, I am not sure, so I asked above. I'd be happy if you could clarify them. bamse (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 is addressing the copy-edit issues. bamse (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 has done an amazing job copy-editing the whole article once more. Following your suggestions I combined a couple of sections and changed the headings. Copy-edits are almost done, we'll just have a final look over it. As for the image stacking in the categories section, neither Truthkeeper88 nor me see it. Can you let us know how the subsection height (e.g. "Historical materials") compares to the image height? If they are almost the same, maybe a simple "{{-}}" could fix it. Alternatively, would removing all the images in the "categories" section be an option? bamse (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blank spaces would resolve the problem in most cases, but would waste a lot of empty space. While removing all of the images in that section would of course eliminate the issue, consider instead alternating the images left and right to prevent stacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented your suggestion on my sandbox since I don't know what looks best on your screen. The last three versions there are new: alternating left/right as you suggested, alternating left/right as you suggested and some changes to the headings, original version with some changes to the headings. Please take a look and let me know what looks best. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen, the alternating version with no heading changes looks the best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented in the article. bamse (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: Sources themselves look OK. There are some formatting and presentation issues:-

  • Retrieval dates are not necessary for online sources that are print-based. However, it is necessary to be consistent, one way or the other. At present the Enders, Gibbon, Hickman, Jokilehto, McVeigh and several other books are lacking retrieval dates. These should be added – or the others removed.
  • Likewise, publisher locations should be given in all or none cases.
  • The convention for book titles is capitalisation of all key words, hence Architecture and Authority, A History of Architectural Conservation etc.
  • Refs 3, 45, 52, 60, 72 require retrieval dates.
  • Ref 6: It is not necessary to format this in full when the details are in the bibliography. Tre ref could be "Deal (2007), p. 315"
  • Any reason why the Munsterberg book (ref 81) is not listed in the bibliography?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I fixed all references as you suggested. bamse (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:25, 8 June 2010 [3].

Lad, A Dog

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas[4][5]. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The article has three images, one of which is a non-free image of the novel's cover, and two public domain illustrating the real life dog the novel is based on, some of the other dogs frequently mentioned in the work, and the author who is the novel's "Master". This satisfies criteria 3. It also stays on topic without excessive detail, meeting the final criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards Support with comments
    • Proofread done - no issues found, no amendments made - there is one bit where the text says "vice verse", I wondered whether that should be "vice versa"?
    • Comment - Section: Sequels and adaptations, paragraph 2 says "saving the baby from a snack". This sounds odd. So the baby was reaching for a dangerous foodstuff and Lad stops the baby? The sentence sits a bit unhappily and raises unanswered questions; perhaps put something in parentheses to clarify.
    • Article v FAC criteria
    • 1(a) Prose style - PROFESSIONAL, ENGAGING - yep, I have no interest in dogs and I think, were I to read these stories, I'd probably hate them. But this article reads very well.
    • 1(b) Comprehensiveness - COMMENT: - I was left wondering if Lassie has any relationship to this book? Was this book not an inspiration for Lassie in any way? If not, fine. But if any parallels have ever been drawn it would be good to see them mentioned. Otherwise, to my untrained eye, I feel this article covers the subject well enough.
    • 1(c) Research - COMMENT: - I am a little worried about Section - themes... virtually the whole of that block is from one source; please check that we're not violating the referenced works copyright or stripping out too much of its content. As a further note, I would be grateful if other reviewers would leave a message on my talk page letting me know if we have any policies on how much we can take from a single source.
    • 1(d) Neutral? - YES - Doesn't evangelise; includes a negative review of the subject.
    • 1(e) Stable? - YES - No sign of strife throughout article history; article begun in October 2009.
    • 2(a) Lead - V.GOOD
    • 2(b) Structure - V.GOOD - The order the sections are placed in makes perfect sense to me.
    • 2(c) Consistent citations - NOT CHECKED
    • 3 Images - NOT CHECKED - I'm not sufficiently aware of image policies.
    • 4 Length - EXCELLENT - article is well within upper bounds of article length. Doesn't outstay its welcome and seems to cover everything; I wasn't left unsatisfied.
  • bodnotbod (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the typo. The novel has no relation to Lassie Come-Home that I could find. Though the latter was published 19 years after this novel, Knight has never stated any inspiration from Terhune and though I agree, it would seem to be obvious to draw parallels from the literary perspective, I found no reliable sources doing so. Knight himself stated he was inspired to right his novel based on his own collie, and at the time he wrote it, collies were one of the most popular breeds. I did, however, just find one article from a Sport's Illustrated archive comparing Terhune's dogs to Lassie by noting that unlike Lassie, they did not stay perpetually young, but grew old and died. I'll add that note in. :-) (Yay to SI for putting old archives online for free finally!) For the themes section, it primarily draws from one source because that source gave the most in-depth look at the novel's themes. Most sources simply gave reception information, rather than literary analysis. Unfortunately, I have yet to find any other reliable source that really goes into the themes at all. I don't think it is a copyright violation as it is a summary of some ten pages of material in four paragraphs, and it is written in my own words so I don't think it is a plagiarism issue. If it makes the article seem unbalanced, I suppose some of it could be cut, but I think it would lose some really great information. I've added a bit from the Sports Illustrated article there as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it can't be put at Lad: A Dog Because Lad: is the interwiki prefix for lad.wikipedia.org, the Ladino (Judaeo-Spanish), Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title ought to be accurate. Have you inquired about a technical fix? Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I didn't think there was any way to change it, as I'd presume they'd give preference to an interwiki link. Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), display title can't be used for this as the displayed name is supposed to still resolve to the article and there is no fix mentioned. But I've added {{Namespace conflict}} to the article per its suggestions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's a good article. The template partially addresses the concern, but I still think it would be a good idea to get a definitive answer about the technical aspects of the situation. Everyking (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask around, but I don't think it should affect the FAC one way or another. There are quite a few other articles not at their "proper" name because of technical issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). AnmaFinotera has indeed done everything in her power to resolve this issue; unfortunately, it isn't technically possible. The title could at best be "plastered over" via a clumsy solution similar to {{Title override}}, but it does not work for all browsers, and does, quite frankly, look miserable. Replacing one of the characters in the title with a similar non-Latin character is another possible stunt, but is undesirable since it will inevitably cause linking-concerns. (the only solution here would be to build a time-machine, and talk the book's author into a different title for the novel...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and referencing matters

  • The author is Unkelbach, not "Unkleback"
  • I believe that the full correct title of the Unkelbach book is Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook: A Centennial Biography. (refs 1, 5, 10, 11)
  • Suggest redlink only the first "Collie Health Foundation", as per normal linking rules.
  • When you are citing audio, video or film sources, more information is needed beyond title and date. See WP:CITET ("cite video") for an indication of the required info; you don't have to adopt the template format.
  • I notice numerous links to Amazon. If the sole purpose is to verify that a book exists, or to confirm publication data, that's OK. However, the second paragraph of the "Sequels and adaptations" section, which cites four Amazon pages, contains content detail which does not appear in the Amazon details.
  • The "Further reading" section should follow, not precede, references.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First two fixed. The title was confusing as the side of the book just has Albert Payson Terhune: A Centennial Biography while the inside title pages has Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook. Fixed the further reading. Only the first instance of Collie Health Foundation is redlinked in the text (authors/publishers in references are always linked in each instance for reader convenience). I am not citing any audio, video or film, so I don't understand that remark? Amazon is used to verify publication data. If needed, I can add cites to the individual books as well, which confirm that he saved her from a snake rather than just saved her. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at 17 (audio cassette), 18 (audio CD) and 33 (film). Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are cites to Amazon to confirm the items release details, not sources to the items themselves, as such the current cite web is the appropriate template :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unkelbach fixed. The redlinks in the references are fine, to me, as they will eventually be blue links and therefore acceptable per WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking why you need two redlinks on Collie Health Foundation in the references. One is fine. Two is unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are references. The publisher of a reference is linked in all instances of the references, not just one, because you can't predict which one a reader will go to first, so the link is done for all instances. It is done in many other FAs and I see no reason not to do it here just because this particular one is a "red link" when it meets WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was wondering why "baby" is sometimes upper-case, sometimes not.

    One spring, a relative of the Mistress brings her invalid Baby to the Place in the hope that the weather will help her grow stronger. Lad immediately befriends the girl and becomes her constant companion. By summer, the Baby is growing healthier, though she is still unable to walk. One afternoon, the mother sits the baby near the lake, then leaves her to go meet the Master and Mistress, who are returning from town. Lad saves the baby from a copperhead snake, but the distraught mother only sees Lad throw the baby backwards and begins beating him. To protect her friend, Baby manages to shakily walk to her mother and explain what happened.

    SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The character is called "Baby" in the story, but is also referred to as a baby (though from the story she sounds more like a toddler). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using Baby as a name, that's fine, but it seems to be used inconsistently, e.g. the Baby is growing, but mother sits the baby. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit to replace most descriptive baby usage to child or toddler, or to use the proper noun version. How does that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better, thanks. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose On no basis is File:Lad_a_Dog,_Anniverary_Printing.jpg, not replaceable by free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this particular person basically opposes any FA with an image, will be disregarding the comment. Image is not replaceable by free content as any accurate cover would still be non-free. Image meets Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and WP:FAC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the delegate will take this comment into account. Why the free 1919 edition is not used and the unfree 1965 edition is used will be a big factor on how this article is graded. I note that you have attacked me rather that properly responding to this comment. I will take no further part in this FAC as I feel FAC nominators should assume good faith when dealing with reviewers who voluntarily give up their time to review the nominators' articles for them. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1919 edition is not free. The cover shown in the 1965 edition is the same cover, and the book is still under copyright. Nor is a 1919 edition obtainable. Sorry, but I don't see how you have given up any time to review articles, all I see is you going to every FAC and making the same oppose if you find a single non-free image. Nor did I attack you, I made a basic statement of fact as shown by your own edit history with FACs. I assumed good faith the first time you did it, that you continue to make the same incorrect argument over and over again, despite numerous editors pointing out that you are wrong, is what makes your comments something no longer something I will take any regard for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check Lad: a Dog and Further Adventures of Lad both in the public domain and available with pics. --Brad (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those have the actual original covers, only the inside title pages and the under covers. Nor do I see how those are somehow public domain as Dutton owns the copyright for both. It seems pretty clear from the sources that Dutton did renew the copyright, so how can it be public domain now? And if it is public domain, then that would make the current image also public domain making the entire question moot. However, since it seems like it will just become a stumbling block on this FAC, even if I disagree with the logistics, I have removed the image all together. I see no value in adding the one from the Google Docs, as it is just a plain cover with the title. Of course, I suspect now the FAC will be opposed for lacking a cover image... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a book was published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923, it's in the public domain. Therefore, yes, the 1919 edition is in fact free; you may want to see Wikipedia:Public domain for details. That's one of the reasons the entire book is available via Google. :) Use the title page, or perhaps even the picture of Lad included in the Preface, if someone pushes for an image. I wouldn't typically agree with such an oppose rationale, since many book-related FACs have been passed with a non-free cover included, but seeing as how there is a free edition of this book available... María (habla conmigo) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that, but it didn't really explain why one copy is PD, but not the other. I would think that if the 1967 copy is still copyrighted, then the work itself is still copyrighted, since it is the same work. The whole thing is rather confusing. I used that particular image because Dutton used the original 1919 cover (the only difference is the addition of the "Anniversary Edition" text, and because a decent quality image of the actual 1919 cover (rather than the book's plain inner cover) has been unfindable. Wish I did have a first edition, but they are going for $1500 and more...even I'm not that book crazy. :-P The picture of Lad from the preface is used in the article further down, but I don't think it would be a good infobox image since it isn't a picture of the book itself. As you said, if someone opposes now for no infobox image, I'll throw in the title page, because I'd hate to see this article fail for such a silly thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the cover version you scanned had the "Anniversary Edition" added to the 1919 cover then the publisher was able to claim a copyright as it was a modified version. The same would apply when the publisher made an "Anniversary Edition" of the book which would allow copyright on the entire work. They probably had a different introduction and the history behind the book in the 67 copy. I did check the library networks I have access to and there are several copies of the 1919 book available for loan. In the meantime the lack of a cover photo should not be a reason to fail this nom. Brad (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:08, 7 June 2010 [6].

Michael Phelps

Nominator(s): Philipmj24 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the high standards of a featured article. This article is highly sourced with good sources and the article is very detailed with his swimming career. Michael Phelps made history in 2008 by winning eight gold medals in one Olympics and is considered the best swimmer in history.Philipmj24 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip: You have not yet transcluded this onto the main FAC page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and therefore are not receiving any reviews. I suggest you not do so yet, however, as the article needs some work. Looking at the references, you will see some dead links and bare urls, inconsistency in citation formats, missing information, and some sources which likely are open to challenge (Buzzle.com?). I suggest you withdraw this until those matters can be resolved-- with a shortage of reviewers, you are more likely to obtain reviews if the article appears ready to go on all technical matters. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - I agree completely with the concerns noted above by Kablammo. The article falls short of many of the FA criteria, specifically those related to MoS, prose, and sourcing (I did not check comprehensiveness or images). I would recommend to the nominator that he pursue WP:GA or WP:PR before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdraw (by an odd name) as well. Sorry if it seems like a pile-on (or a pylon, as it were) but the lack of publishers in some cites, ref date formats all over the place (2008-08-11, July 30, 2009, 2/13/2007, 16 August 2008, ...), and general inconsistency ("Retrieved [date]"? "Retrieved on [date]"? Pick one) are deal-breakers. In at least one place, "NBC" is even in italics, as though it were a work instead of a publisher or broadcaster.

The sections actually seem decently arranged to me; however, instead of starting Michael Phelps#Honors and awards with "Sources", how about starting that section with the last six points (minus the SI Sportsmen one) as a starting paragraph? Something like

Phelps was a USA Olympic Team Member in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and holds the records for most Olympic gold-medals (14), most such medals in individual events (9), and most such medals at a single games (8, in Beijing 2008).[cites] A street in his hometown of Baltimore was re-named The Michael Phelps Way in 2004.[more cites] He has also received the following awards:[even more cites]

with the list after that. That's minor, though, and the article should be cleaned up and cited to stronger sources before re-nominating (and it will need to be withdrawn and re-nominated). --an odd name 19:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media I am not convinced on the origin of File:Phelps_and_busch.jpg, can we get this on WP:OTRS. I dont like the use of flags without explanation in the succession boxes per MOS:FLAG, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but Object. A lot of work needs to be done. Aside from the inconsistencies in presentation style already mentioned
    • Sometimes there is a hyphen in the names of the events
    • More importantly, comprehensiveness
      • There is no coverage at all of the US Championships. You have to win there to get to represent the country, and due to the great depth in US swimming, it is not easy to come in the top two in the event and get selected.
      • No coverage of 2002 Pan Pacs, he won quite a few there, and nothing of the 2006 (he was world swimmer of the year that year as well)
      • Nothing about him quitting 400IM after Beijing, apparently changing to sprints
      • Nothing about selection controversy in 2004 when he was given a 4x1 free relay spot without having to qualify
      • Crocker did not make a mistake in the 4x1 free, he was sick and swum 50s instead of 48s.
      • No discussion of various rivalries, eg failed attempt to beat Peirsol in backstroke, fighting off Cseh and Lochte in some tough challenges in IM, rancourous stuff and war of words with Cavic
      • There are full-length books on him and only six sentences about him up to age 15.
    • Contractions used
    • Bit about him watching the 2010 Winter Olympics is nn. He gets invited to many events.
    • apart from that, there is a lot of redundant language everywhere
    • While "the Person’s Republic of Michael would have ranked fourth in gold medals [after China, the United States, and Germany] and been ahead of all but 14 countries in the medal count" is a quote, it's stupid and should be struck off, as it treats MP as an individual, but then credits the PRM with 8 golds even though 3 of them were achieved by a team of more than 4 people (reserves in the heats) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:55, 4 June 2010 [7].

Operation Winter Storm

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for FAC over a year ago. With summer starting, I've decided to continue my efforts with three articles I abandoned when I went on "permanent" hiatus from Wikipedia. The old nomination archive can be found here. I've spent a little time copyediting it again, and it seems that whatever direct concerns were raised during the last FAC were fixed. So, I'd like to pick up where I left off! JonCatalán(Talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: (very minor)

  • Ref 39 needs "pp."
  • Ref 91 needs "pp." not "p."
  • Bibliography: Ericson books need publisher location (for consistency)

Otherwise sources all look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all those should be updated. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a bit concerned about the article's sourcing. Erich von Manstein's autobiography is not a good source as it's obviously not neutral and has been criticised for manipulating history. Erhard Raus' autobiography also can't be an entirely neutral account. I believe that Alan Clarke's book is now considered outdated (it pre-dated the release of Soviet records by many years). I'm also surprised that the most recent major work on this battle, David Glantz's book Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942, hasn't been consulted. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's worth considering what each of those sources were used for. Manstein's memoirs are used mostly when citing information pertaining to communication between he and the Sixth Army regarding the strength of the latter and Paulus's decision to not break out of the Stalingrad encirclement. Erhard Raus does not provide a general account of Operation Winter Storm. This particular memoir (which is actually not a memoir, but a study of the battle written for the U.S. Army sometime after the war) covers only the 6th Panzer Division on 13 December. I'm not sure this particular part of the article goes into sufficient enough detail as to make it partial towards the Germans (only general details were extracted from Raus' source). In regards to Clark's book, I use him to cover German movements, and so I'm not sure how relevant Soviet archives are here. Also worth considering Paul Siebert originally did take a look at the article, and edited it where he felt that information on Soviet dispositions could be more accurate (using a Russian source)—the discussion in regards to this can be seen on the article's talk page.
Finally, concerning Glantz' new source, I only own the first book of the trilogy. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy the second source (especially since my main area of interests is no longer military history of the Second World War) just to have a detailed account of the battle, whereas all the pertinent information is just a repeat of what he wrote in earlier volumes (most notably the book and journal piece cited in this article). I'm just not convinced Glantz brings any new scholarship, only instead writing a book dedicated to the Stalingrad using Russian archival evidence that he already provides in past books.JonCatalán(Talk) 04:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the problems with autobiographies in general, von Manstein's memoirs are not a suitable reference for anything, in my view, particularly given their self-serving nature. I'd suggest that you use a secondary source which evaluates von Manstein's memoirs along with the other relevant sources. Clark's book has been used to cite accounts of the fighting between German and Soviet units as well as German movements. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that the evaluation of the article's sourcing is being done objectively, but give that there seems to be two opposed due to the same reason then I'll withdraw the nomination again, and might pick it up at some point in the future. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is sadly lacking in sources, even excluding those in German or Russian. The 23rd Panzer Division history has been translated recently and Glantz's latest book should be essential. Erickson isn't reliable at the tactical level as he's simply wrong about Tigers participating in the attack. No Tiger was in Army Group Don's sector until 1 January. And Raus' memoir, Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941–1945 does cover the campaign in some detail, although he obviously based large sections of it on the post-war histories compiled for the US Army. You don't have to buy any books, but most everything is available through Inter-Library Loan if you're in the US. Check with your nearest public library for details. Be advised that some libraries charge a small fee.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Raus's memoir which was referenced in this article (the one references is listed in the bibliography, and is a collection of essays). In regards to Erickson's account, I guess that is troubling (I don't have any way of verifying either way, at this point). I don't have a library card and so the inter-loan library system is out of the question. The nomination for this article will be withdrawn, and maybe I'll pick it up later if I ever get my hands on Glantz' book. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to give you another book by Raus to consult. I hope that you can get a library card soon; I'd find it impossible to afford all the specialist references I need for FA and A-class articles without ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:39, 4 June 2010 [8].

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC), White Shadows (talk) Parsecboy (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I really think that it is the quality that is deservant of a bronze star. I freshly expanded this from stubhood through DYK, GA and a Milhist ACR, and think I'm ready. User:White Shadows will also be working on most of this, especially the second half after I leave on my trip. Also note that this is my and White Shadows's first FAC, so if someone with experience could guide us along, it would be fine. Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no dabs, all the images have alt text and have correct copywrite licences. Everything is cited (even in Russian in one case) and the entire article complies with MOS. If there really is anything that I left out, just let us know and I (or the main contributor, Buggie111) will fix it. Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Welcome to FAC! I've got a few suggestions for improving your article, which you are free to argue with and please help reduce backlog by reviewing other articles too. You've obviously spent some time on this, and a lot of great work has been done. I don't think it's an FA - yet. However, I'm commenting instead of Opposing because I think you can fix the article's issues in time to pass. Good luck, and thanks for all your work so far!

  • Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns)
  • Check US vs UK spelling and conventions
    • Are you saying that this article switches back and forth, or has to use a specific one that it doesn't? I can fix it in twelve hours if it's the former, but if it's the latter, I don't see any problems
      • Switches back and forth. I think it's mostly UK (?), but there are definitely some Americanisms
        • I'll go with U.K., for the sake of laziness
  • Try to avoid sandwiching images and infoboxes
  • Not crazy about the prose - lots of short stubby sentences, could use a good copy-editing, lack of clarity in places. I'll try to do some light editing in a couple of days, but a few extra sets of eyes would help
  • Write with a non-specialist reader in mind - cut down on jargon (especially in the lead), clarify terms and concepts where necessary
    • I've submited a request at WP:GOCE, so maybe that will help this and the above issue.
      • Did my linking in the lead help said non-specialist?
        • Better, but could still use clarification. Also, avoid linking the same term multiple times - your linking in the lead has led to that sort of overlinking
  • Some of the technical details differ between the text and the infobox - double-check, and keep terminology consistent
  • ISBN for Koburger and Hore? Location for Koburger, Miller and Vego?
  • Distinguish between the two Hore books in footnotes
  • Need consistent formatting in References
  • I'm guessing that neither of you speak Russian? Complete citations for Russian sources will thus be harder to get, but they're worth it
    • What do you mean by complete? I speek it, but I would like some cliarification
      • Well, it seems that the Russian citations have disappeared...but my point was that you needed at minimum to include publisher information, and author and date where available (moot point now).
  • Halpern or Haplern?
  • 20:00 in what time zone?
    • Local time, I think?
      • Yes it's local time. However I'm going to have to argue against adding that into the text. It just seems a little odd to add it in the sentence and most people would assume that the time would be local time. If I'm wrong please correct me.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but it's not clear what local time would be. Is the ship at Pola? Brindisi? Somewhere at sea? I would argue that saying "20:00 GMT" (or whatever the time zone may be) is not that odd.
  • Check for typos please - who's "Ferdinad"? Where is "Austro-Hungary"
  • "The Italian fleet was completely unprepared for hostilities" - source?

Feel free to ping me if you have questions or comments on my review. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fluent in Russian, and I won't be able to attend to these immedietly as I'm finishing Reshadieh class battleship. Buggie111 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that FAC's are more important than orking on a stub or start class article Buggie! Anyway, I'll try to take a look at Google books to find the missing citiaion info that you requested. Hoever when I read over Vego, I could not find where it was published...--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat is your friend for finding this stuff; Google Books never has publishing location or the OCLCs. I've fixed up the bibliography. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was 90% done! Buggie111 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: All sources look good. A few very minor issues:-

  • Ref 4: Should be The New York Times not New York Times
    • Done.
  • REf 16: title could be more informative, e.g. Zrinyi in Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
    • Done.
  • Unnecesary linking of "London" in the Hore books
    • Done.
  • Publisher location missing from the Miller book
  • "London" repeated in the Vego book details
    • Done

Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

  • The article includes an absurdity that was recently corrected in the SMS Helgoland article: (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand"). The language is clearly English.
  • The article appears to be quite short (Helgoland is at least 2½ times as long). Are you sure the article is comprehensive?
    • Personally, I think that Helgoland and other German ships attract more attention than the dual-monarchy. Id you check the references section of helgoland you'll se a dizen books titled History of German battleships/battlecruisers or somthing to that tune. Not so many people write about the AUH navy. Also, the fight in the mediterranean was much of a stalemate, whilst the North Sea was a lot more active. Hope this answers your question. Buggie111 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - On what basis is File:Flag_of_Italy_(1861-1946)_crowned.svg deemed to be licensed creative commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what do you mean? How is it not under CC? (Is a bit confused)--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy of Wikipedia is that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who asserts that something, such as media being licensed under CC, to prove it prove it Fasach Nua (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. I initially did not understand what you ment in your question at first. Sorry. And Parsec has asked the same question over at commons so we'll see what comes out of the discussion there.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link the discussion at commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the vferdict. If Flanker made it, like someone made the flag of croats and serbs from a different model on the web, than it's fine, if not, then it's pd-old. Discussion. Buggie111 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can be found here. Flanker has confirmed that s/he created the flag based on the textual requirements of the flag, so it is indeed properly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that solves the imageing issues. So what have we not addressed yet? Is the article in British English yet (for instance)?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • How can the fundamental reference on the Austro-Hungarian Navy not have been consulted? Anthony Eugene Sokol's Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. There are five copies available within 100 miles of me so it's not like it's particularly rare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition is solely based off of the lack of one book? Tell me if I'm wrong but that does not seem like a valid reason to oppose anything.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This omission would fail the article based on criteria 1c. In turn that may also fail it on criteria 1b. You shouldn't be upset about it and instead learn to utilize and find all relevant sources on the subject. Brad (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is in good shape, but needs some more work to meet the FA criteria:
    • I agree that not using the major source on this topic is grounds for the article not meeting the FA criteria
    • This may also be reflected in the current length of the article, which does seem a bit short, even allowing for the ship's short and undistinguished career. It might be worth trying to find German or Austrian editors to see if there are any German-language sources which can also be used if the English-language sources are lacking in detail.
    • "where her sister ships would be built six months later" is a bit inaccurate (and is contradicted by the last sentence of the paragraph) and doesn't capture the fact that it took a long time to build these complex ships
    • "A heavy secondary battery included" - are there any guns not mentioned in the article? If not, the qualifier "included" isn't needed
    • There are some gaps in the chronology - is it possible to say anything about what she was doing during the period June 1910-1912? Details on 1913 and 1914 are very sketchy - during what periods did she take part in patrols in the Ionian Sea?
    • The operation in the Ionian Sea seemed to be more than just a "protest" if it involved blockading the coast
    • "By 1913, the four new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class entered into active service with the fleet" contradicts the article on that class of ships, which states that only two of the four ships had been commissioned by 1913
    • Do we know what the effect of sitting at anchor at Pola had on the ship's crew? They must have been pretty miserable.
      • I've seen nothing on these ships; there was the 1918 revolt in Cattaro, though that was limited to a few armored cruisers. Most of the other ships remained loyal to the government and assisted in suppressing the mutiny. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened to the ship between being taken into Italian custody in 1919 and being scrapped seven years later?
      • I would imagine nothing. By that time she was very outdated and was probably not worth the coal to send her out to sea. I understand that more info is needed and we at least need an Italian port city for her so hopefully Parsec can find that in the book he ordered. If not then I'll go off to google books and try to find a snippet that says the city name and any other info available.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the article is generally well written, some of its prose is a bit awkward and needs to be copy edited to reach FA level (for example, "She was launched from the slipway...", "she was towed to the harbor in Muggia...", "Austro-Hungarian ships bombarded that coast and then Montenegro unmolested...", " The Austro-Hungarian naval defense was then designed around this idea") Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that "unmolested" is a bit dramatic (and too anthropomorphic for me, but YMMV), and "designed around this idea" is clear (so I left it alone) but not "robust"; I'll rewrite Parsecboy got it. With the first two, are you objecting to the passive voice? Active voice would require identifying the tugboat that towed her; both seem fine to me, although it wouldn't hurt to combine the first two sentences in that section. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'd support on FA criteria 1a, 1d, 2a, 2b and 3. However, this is secondary to concerns about 1c, hence 1b and 4 raised above.
  • Please check "...and she was commissioned into the fleet.[1]Radetzky followed six months later on January 15..."
  • I believe that when you say "Haus therefore enacted a strategy based on mines and submarines designed to reduce the numerical superiority of the Allied navies", you mean that Haus' intention was to "...neutralise the numerical superiority...". Exact wording is left to your discretion.
  • Otherwise clear and concise. Perhaps a little too concise. Doug (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:14, 2 June 2010 [9].

Kenneth Anger

Nominator(s): Sir Richardson (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this currently A-class biography of the seven decade cult experimental filmmaker and occultist. I believe I have dealt with all of mostly minor issues to bring it to standard, such as improving the prose, deleting dead links, and standardizing citations. Any concerns or issues I will be willing to address and deal with. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Concerning the style, there are two successive phrases which begin exactly the same way: He would later relate that "I was a child prodigy who never got smarter."[8] He would later relate that he attended the Santa Monica Cotillon where child stars were encouraged to mix with ordinary children and through this met Shirley Temple, whom he danced with on one occasion.[9]. The Wiki ghost (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record: A Class should be given after an article was "reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject" per WP:ASSESS, which didn't happen here. Hekerui (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: I am very dubious about the claim of this article to A-class. The referencing aspects need some fundamental attention:-

  • The Landis book, which accounts for about two-thirds of the citations, appears as "Further reading". It should be specified as a source.
  • Likewise the Hunter book. ("Further reading" is intended for relevant literature that is not a cited source within the article.)
  • Ref 2 needs proper formatting. The publisher should be given as glbtq, Inc (not the web address). As a more general point, online sources that are cited should not also be listed as "External links"
  • Ref 4 (and others apparently cited to a DVD): clarify what is being cited here. I imagine that since you give page references, this refers to a booklet accompanying the DVD; the citation needs to be specific.
  • Refs 15 and 18: why not format as per Ref 8?
  • Ref 22: formatting (author's name repeated)
  • Ref 68: needs a (subscription required) tag
  • Ref 69: needs formatting - publisher. etc. More specifically, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 72: Why is this source considered reliable? (Bobby BeauSoleil)
  • Ref 85: lacks a publisher
  • Ref 86: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Ref 88: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date) Also, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 93: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date) Also, why is this source considered reliable?
  • Ref 96: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Ref 97: needs formatting (publisher, retrieval date)
  • Page number ranges should use dashes, not hyphens
  • Ranges should be prefaced "pp." not "p."

Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've dealt with all of the dashes and page prefaces. The Anger interview can be found on the reel website page; I thought I'd edited to make it link directly rather than need to scroll down, I'll see what I can do. The name of the glbtq website is just that. The Technicolor Skull website is linked to on subject's official website. More to do, of course. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible at this time - early close - The images are nowhere near ready please review WP:FA Criteria 3 , WP:IMAGES & WP:NFCC, and feel free to renominate in the future Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose.
  • No references for any of the filmography, including claims that films are lost or unfinished.
  • No references for the most significant claims about themes in the films.
  • Given his long history and alleged influence on others such as Martin Scorsese, David Lynch and John Waters, there is a significant overreliance on the one biography. Where are the other sources that will speak to / confirm this influence? It does not seem appropriate to take the word of a single biographer for such a controversial figure. Virtually the whole article is sourced to Landis and to the DVD notes.
  • Significant claims lack sources, or lack quality sources. Egs.:
  • "...showed them to the British National Film Finance Corporation who agreed to provide £15,000 in order for Anger to complete it - something that caused a level of outrage in the British press" - no reference. I don't want Landis either: i want examples of the outrage in the press.
  • "the only movie soundtrack in history recorded inside a prison" - a very bold claim, but a poor source for it.
  • Minor but niggling prose issues throught. Egs.:
  • "he went to the Ford Foundation, who had just started a program..." not who: that
  • "The mid 1960s saw the arrival of the hippie scene..." It didn't come on a train. Emergence perhaps?
  • "Page subsequently agreed to produce the soundtrack for Lucifer Rising, and allowed to use the editing table..." allowed Anger to?

Don't think this is a goer, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:45, 1 June 2010 [10].

Roger Federer

Nominator(s): BLUEDOGTN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria for a FA and it is the best tennis article biography on wikipedia.BLUEDOGTN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something needs to be done about the awful dropdown records tables. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest need to be done?BLUEDOGTN 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now (ignore this if problems are fixed but I haven't had time to have another look). The main problem is the article is stats-heavy from the outset. The lead focuses too much on statistics and also includes unnecessary trivia (listing the other players to have won the career grand slam, for instance, is not appropriate in an introduction). The lead should probably also include something about his global appeal and brand.
His tennis career is what makes him NOTABLE, which is the reason for the stats heavy introduction. I am wondering if we put in his brand would it be construde as marketing and adverstising on wikipedia?BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no description of how he got into tennis (I know there's a link to another article but some basic information should be included). There's no need to give the scores of every match that he's involved in (occasionally it might be appropriate) - the important part is the result and effect on his career. The prose is essentially just a list of every tournament he played and how he did - it's hard to read and lacks any context. How did he feel at the time? What was expected of him? What was the response of the press? How did this fit into the peaks and troughs of his overall career?
I agree this article does not talk about how he was started into tennis, which I will find out! I agree on the aspect of the scores in prose, which is now WP:Tennis says is wrong to put them in the body of the article. The reactions are put on the yearly articles because we tried to advoid the SIZE restrictions because this article was becoming way too long.BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that every tournament needs a reaction and so on - just the more significant ones. In terms of size, I think the article could grow a bit without it being a huge problem. The tables at the bottom don't really count towards size, and so there is room for a bit more prose. Trebor (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on RF, but as a 'for instance' - the period from the 2008 Wimbledon final (which could have far more written about it) to him crying after losing the Australian Open to Nadal at the start of 2009 - that has far more about it than the article suggests. It seemed like he was being surpassed by Nadal and there was a transfer of power, along with him losing his number one ranking. But he came back (partly due to Nadal's injuries forcing him to miss Wimbledon), winning the French Open for the first time, regaining his ranking, beating Sampras' record and so on. There is far more going on than him merely winning some tournaments and losing others, but from the article you wouldn't know it.
This is chronicled on the 2008 and 2009 yearly articles because it is way too much to talk about and the years were becoming books!BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand what I'm getting at - and I'm not trying to be harsh. It's just that, at the moment, you don't gain much more from the article than you would get from just reading a list of his results. Trebor (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I get it, which is what you all are suppose to do is to make crutiques! Good JOB...BLUEDOGTN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed that it doesn't use consistent citiations. A few citiations have the first/last special in the template, while others use just the author special in the template. Guy546(Talk) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Why is Bowers listed as a "reference"? There are no citations to his book. And in any case, with such a non-neutral title, what would be its value as a source for a neutral encyclopedia article about Federer?
  • Format consistency required in citations. Titles precede publishers in the first 29 references, then publishers precede titles in the next 18 before changing back, etc.
  • Publisher details should be informative. Acronyms generally are not, except to them in the know. (AELTC, ITF, ATP)
  • Citation 61 lacks publisher information (an url is not a publisher)
  • Citation 79 is unformatted.
  • Names of print sources (The Observer, The New York Times, etc should be italicised. Check throughout. Likewise, names of non-print sources should not be italicised.
  • The Federer oficial website is cited as a source. It should not, therefore, be listed under External links.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Object The article is not comprehensive. It has been chopped out to year-by-year articles, which are needed, but now there is nothing left except a list of stats from GS results, which in any case can be duplicated in table, as the article is more like a bulleted list put end to end. (And 5 lines per year for a person who usually reaches at least teh SF of every big tournament doesn't cut it). For a person who is one of the true greats (a much over-used term) there is now hardly any detail. More importantly the article doesn't convey his evolution as a player and that of his rivals in trying to catch up/nullify him. Nothing is said about Nadal improving on grass and making Wimbledon more difficult, or conversely how Federer was weak on clay and gradually improved. The stats are just laid down and nothing is said about verious epic matches, eg Wimbledon 07-09. And nothing is clarified about his apparent slump in 2008 and early 2009, illness and then return to form, or explaining various changes in his style/repertoire, or dissecting his rise to dominance, etc. And the advertisement+ambassador section is greater than his playing style. Very undue weight as his stylishness and technique is commented on ad nauseum, not the off court stuff. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, close this FAC because I believe I would not have time to fix all of these errors in the time alloted to me for this FAC, I will come back to it at a future date. I will use your all crutiques, and take them under advisement, which will allow me to fix the article over time to be the best article it can be! I welcome more comments if you all want to make them, and appreciate those who have already given them! THANKS...Y'ALL!BLUEDOGTN 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:45, 1 June 2010 [11].

Paul Krichell

Nominator(s): Secret, Wizardman 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In baseball, players and managers can be placed into the Hall of Fame. Even journalists and broadcasters can get a place there through winning an annual award. Scout, by contrast, do not have a way to make it in the Hall. This article is about one of these scouts, considered one of the greatest scouts of the game. One of the many reasons for the Yankees' perennial success from the 1920s to the 1950s, Krichell's article has went through a detailed GAN review, passed GA, and I believe that it now meets FA criteria, or I hope that it is at least close to doing so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. The article mentions "Murderers Row", but the article for that term is titled "Murderers' Row". Which is correct? Ucucha 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter; fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Krichell's talent evaluations and signings were a key reason for the Yankees' dynasty from the Murderers' Row teams of the 1920s to the 1950s teams led by Casey Stengel.[2] - the "were a key reason" part should be reworded so that it is more direct. Maybe something like played a central role?
  • Considered to be one of the greatest scouts in baseball history, he signed over 200 players who later played professional baseball.[3] - it sounds like you are talking about the man in the sentence before
  • His recommendation of Stengel for manager of the Yankees helped persuade their front office to hire him in 1949.[5] - similar to above, but this time it sounds as if you are referring to krichell
  • Early life: maybe some more information and a picture? Maybe you could combine the first two sections?
  • During the offseason, Krichell became a saloon owner, popular with players in the Bronx.[12] - a job popular...
  • In Managing career; Sentence variety issues: lots of sentences begin with "He..."

Generally, it looks like the article is in order. I'm going to weakly support pending the resolution of my concerns above, but I have two suggestions: maybe combine some sections so that it's not choppy, and add maybe a few images important to these sections. ceranthor 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll look for another picture of Krichell if I can find one, though no guarantees there. Trying to look for those first, if I find none I'll add in one of Greenberg or another signee. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

  • What makes http://thedeadballera.com/Obits/Obits_K/Krichell.Paul.Obit.html a reliable source? Also, do they have the right to reprint this New York Times story?
  • The publishers in references 20, 47 and 54 (Sports Illustrated), 34 (USA Today), and 43 (Baseball Digest) should all be in italics as printed publications.
  • Reference 25 should have the page number with a p. instead of pp., since it's only one page.

Otherwise, everything looks okay. Personally, I can't wait to read this one, as the resident Yankees fan of FAC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheDeadballERa seems somewhat reliable, maybe not as a source in of itself but fine for viewing a New York Times piece. Other two issues fixed. I have no idea of their reprinting rights, though the Times' decision to not have public archives probably complicates that question. If it's an issue I'll just replace with [12]. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comments

  • You should certainly switch from Deadballera to the NYT site. I very much doubt that Deadballera has the right to reproduce an article that the NYT charges for. In any event, the working standards of Deadballera are clear from its reference to the "Hew York Times"! You will need to add the (subscription required) template to the NYT source.
  • Refs 3 and 42 need to give publisher details: Baseball Digest (italicised)
  • Italics also required for the journal names in 46 and 53
  • Book sources should have publication dates (per WP:CITE)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not sure how I missed the years for books, but I got them all now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All my referemce/sourcing issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wizardman, this is a very interesting article about a baseball pioneer. I have some comments before I support or oppose.

lead. The first sentence talks about Krichel as a baseball player, yet his notability rests in his reputation and achievements as a scout, so that should be the focus of the lead. When I read the first sentence, Ithought, what on earth? I hadn't even known that Krichel had only two seasons as a ball player in "the show" and that is actually incidental to his career as a scout.
prose. There are many ambiguous statements, or confusing ones. For example, this sentence in the 1940s–1950s section particularly perplexing. Stirnweiss refused, but his father's death soon after his college graduation left him as the sole supporter of his mother and younger brother. Could you get an uninvolved editor to go through this and help you tighten it up?

suggestion tighten up the lead so it focuses on the Krichel's notability up front, and make sure your text says what you want clearly. it's difficult when you're so involved with it to realize that others aren't as familiar with the subject as you are—been there done that myself!—but ... Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be working on this over the next couple days. That's always been my weakness, trying to make sure I write it so non-baseball experts can read the article without a problem. Him being a scout makes it harder since I'm used to writing those that primarily played the game rather than another position. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I could; if there's any further issues I'll try and find an outside person to copyedit. The person I usually have do that already did, so I'll look around. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – To start, I should have come back for a full review earlier, and I struck my source comments above. Though it pains me to fall on the oppose side, I don't think that this is ready for FA, and I'm not convinced the problems can all be fixed in the course of an FAC. In reading just the lead and a couple sections of the body, I found multiple factual errors, along with material not covered by sources and comprehensiveness issues pointed out earlier. Some less important things are also listed below, but there's enough serious problems for me to lack confidence in what I didn't review.

  • Important one from the lead: Stengel was hired by the Yankees in 1948, not 1949, when he actually started managing them. Also, I didn't notice anything about Stengel in the body, though I could have missed it. What's in the lead should be in the body as well.
  • Early life: Yankee Stadium link goes to the new stadium. Yankee Stadium (1923) is surely the intended destination.
  • Feels like the bit about him playing for Ed Barrow would be more appropriate in the next section, where his time with the Royals is further discussed. It would fit well at the end of this paragraph, after the statistics.
  • Playing and managing career: Just discovered a link for the Connecticut League. Seems useful for the first sentence of the section.
  • "The St. Louis Browns signed Krichell in 1911. He was used as a backup catcher during his career." It should say somewhere in here that this is a major league team, to help the non-baseball fan. I can imagine one tripping over the "during his career" part, when his pro career had started several years earlier. Perhaps consider changing that to "during his major league career" or similar (I'm sure that's the intention).
  • Reference 7 says nothing about him platooning with Jim Stephens. It may give his games played, but I don't see Stephens mentioned anywhere.
  • No need for two at bats links in three sentences. Also, there is an inconsistency between "at bats" and "at-bats".
  • "His fielding was among the worst in the league for catchers, with a fielding percentage of .943 that season." Multiple issues here. First, this appears to be his 1911 percentage, not 1912 as indicated; that one is .959, according to the Baseball-Reference profile. Second, I don't see any rankings for AL catchers in the statistics, which would be needed to verify that he was "among the worst". Perhaps the site has a page with year-by-year figures to cover this?
  • I would recommend linking "stole" by the Ty Cobb sentence to stolen base to assist the non-baseball fans again. I dislike having so many links in a row, but they are all baseball jargon or otherwise useful, so I can put up with it.
  • I agree with YellowMonkey that the post-major league playing career needs some expansion. Baseball Reference's minor league page on Krichell has statistics for each year he played in the minors, so that would provide for significant improvements, even if the end result may be a bit stat-heavy and dry.
  • No need for another Barrow link here when there is one in the previous section, which could be moved into this section with one of my suggestions above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article pretty much needs a rewrite based on a couple of the comments, and the likelihood of me finding time to do that is not very good, it's probably better for me to withdraw it. It sucks, I haven't had to fail an FAC before, but things happen. If it's not ready it's not ready, I'll fix it up when I get some free time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:25, 8 June 2010 [13].

RKO Pictures

Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coolest of the classic Hollywood studios? The most tragic? Is there a difference? (N.B.: One intentional dab link—"WOR TV and radio stations".)—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What is the point of an intentional dab?
The link to the disambiguation page is the most efficient way of informing the reader about the two radio stations and TV station. No article encompasses all three or even two.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. Think it should be was a...since it is no longer in existence in the same form.
It is a film production and distribution company that possesses the name and all identity rights of the film production and distribution company founded in 1929. In its earlier form, it was one of the Big Five studios of Hollywood's Golden Age.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the second sentence is very convoluted. Can you tweak that so it is more easily read?
Please specify the point of confusion.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • celebrated for its musicals.... then you go into a sentence with Katherine Hepburn, Mitchum, etc. There should be some kind of transition...Although ...celebrated for its musicals, it also offered an impressive array of comedies and dramas. .... Innovative horror, etc.
Segue phrase added.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • two of the most famous films in motion picture history were produced at the studio.... convoluted. The studio produced two of the most famous ....
Done.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • when did HH take it over? in later years? isn't there a date, or did Hughes keep that a secret too? Again, sentence is awkward as well. Oh, I understand. you're saying Hughes and eventually General Tire. Well, that took me three reads to figure it out. Sooooooo.....
Edited.—DCGeist (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.