Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2007: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Featured log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:00, 16 February 2007 editGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 edits heading for TOC← Previous edit Revision as of 06:03, 17 February 2007 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
==February 2007== ==February 2007==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Delhi}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Roman-Spartan War}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Military brat (U.S. subculture)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Thomas Playford IV}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Law}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bill Russell}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Solar System}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Maserati MC12}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jack Sheppard}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jack Sheppard}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nick Drake}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nick Drake}}

Revision as of 06:03, 17 February 2007

February 2007

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Delhi

previous FAC

A metropolis in India, Delhi includes New Delhi, the capital of the country. At present a Good Article, several points raised in the previous FAC have been addressed. The article is under the scope of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Indian cities. Please advice so that the article acieves FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Image problems: Image:Bahailotustemple.jpg is from Flickr and was listed as "cc-by-sa-2.5" which is a license Flickr doesn't offer (they only have 2.0). When I went to check it say it's non-commercial now, which isn't usable by Misplaced Pages. If they originally released it as CC-BY-SA then changed it you can probably use it since, once it's released it's released.... but, get that cleared up. Image:Waterboy.jpg has the same problem. Also Image:Maharaji Nehru stadium.jpg says who it was uploaded by but it's not clear about copyrighted / creator. Probably minor but should be cleaned up. Image:Connaughtplace.jpg has no source. No need to look further until all of that is cleared up. gren グレン 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
reply Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/Free licenses says cc-by-2.0 is free! Please clarify. Trying to fix the problems of the other images. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
reply2 Image:Maharaji Nehru stadium.jpg is from the commons. The copyright status has been stated in the commons. Image:Connaughtplace.jpg has no source because the creator himself (User:Deepak gupta) uploaded the image and released it under appropriate license. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
image fixing Image:Waterboy.jpg, Image:Maharaji Nehru stadium.jpg and Image:Bahailotustemple.jpg removed. Image:Connaughtplace.jpg retained - it does not need any source as it was released by the photographer himself. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks (I hadn't noticed that it was taken by the uploader). Just to clarify the two images from Flickr have CC-BY-2.5 listed on Misplaced Pages even though Flickr only offers CC-BY-2.0. CC-BY-2.0 is free, however, the images now state that they are CC-BY-NC-2.0 which is not free since it doesn't allow for commercial use. Since the uploader used the incorrect tag in the first place I cannot tell if the Flickr user changed their mind (which would mean it would be free, because once released you cannot revoke it) or if the uploader was just wrong. If you can get an answer to that then you can use it--just make sure to explain on the image page. In any case, by not using them you have fixed the problem in another way.
  • Comment. I'm sorry but, I won't support until I've seen other's opinions. This is because I know certain things that make articles opposable but I am not sure what makes it featured quality. Hopefully my comments will help. The pronunciation should follow whichever pronunciation it is representing (which, is not the English). The only other comment I quickly have is that maybe there should be more book references. Although, the main section that would benefit is the History one which has a sub-article. Sorry I'm not more help--but I'd like to see what others say first. gren グレン 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's about time that this article should get featured. But I did have some difficulties understanding the difference between Delhi, New Delhi and Old Delhi. Apart from that, I would give it support. --Wolf 09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Now the lead contains information about what is Old Delhi and New Delhi. The Mughals built a particular section of the city known as Shahjahanabad, now known as Old City or Old Delhi. New Delhi was built by the British as an administrative section of the city, and now serves as the capital of India. Apart from being mentioned in the lead, this has been further discussed in "History" and also, to some extent, in "Government and politics". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jkelly for the great help. The image was removed. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But number of districts in the infobox is 9, same as described in the body of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the lapse. The districts portion of the infobox has been fixed now. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There are still a few instances of flabby prose. Examples:
  • last sentence of the lead
  • this: "However, the city is said to have lost its own identity and socio-cultural legacies as it went to absorb multitude of humanity from across the country and has morphed into an amorphous pool of cultural styles"
Still support, but please fix. Saravask 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Roman-Spartan War

Self nom. This article has had a previous FAC which can be seen here. The FAC was withdrawn and since then the article has been greatly improve by myself and Wandalstouring and has under gone many copy-edits by various users. I think that the article passes feature article criteria. Kyriakos 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. There are still issues with the writing, including:
  • "The Roman-Spartan War or Laconian War (Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος), occurring in 195 BC, was a military conflict in Ancient Greece…" is verbose and redundant;
  • "as part of games of power" is unidiomatic;
  • "official casus belli"; official?
  • "the region of Laconia" otiose (Laconia is sufficient);
  • "were able to capture" otiose ("captured")
  • "whilst" archaism
  • "later" for "latter", etc.
  • Also, the bibliography needs to be all English, I think, which means replacing the Baltroush in n. 35 (which is German) and the Κουτσιλιέρη in n. 19 (modern Greek); can a better source than Kassis, Mani's History (n. 2) be found? An author in n. 4?; Smith's dictionary (n. 10) is positively archaic (1875!); Fermor's Mani: Travels in the Southern Peloponesse (n. 17) and Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos Deep into Mani:Journey to the southern tip of Greece (n. 35) are travel-guides and therefore should be replaced by something more scholarly; punctuation throughout the footnotes is erratic.
  • Generally, I think the context needs clarification throughout. All the way through I get the feeling that its one fact happening after another without giving me much sense at to what it all means, how this all fits into the wider historical context. Semperf 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Response:First, I don't see why sources in other languages should be excluded. Recently featured article like Alcibiades (Greek) and Demosthenes (Greek and German) both have sources in other languages and I'm sure if I look at more FA's I'll find more FA with sources in other languages. Secondly, I dont see a problem with including Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos and Fermor. Yes both book may be tour guide books but they also deal with the history of the areas they travel through as well as the whole region. Thirdly, I don't think Smith is a problem. Smith gives a detailed description on Nabis' life which is one of the best I have seen on Nabis. As for Kassis, he gives a good description of events during the war and I don't see why I should not use him. Thats all for the moment and I'll work on your other comments ASAP. Thanks. Kyriakos 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. On the question of sources in English, the more fundamental question is what references are for. Are they tags to say to your reader "fact x is confirmed"? Or are they sign-posts to show the reader where they can go to check things out for themselves and pursue the matter further if they wish? I incline towards the latter, which means that in English wikipedia, the references should be accessible to the readership. On whether a travel-guide is a good source, it seems to me the point is that[REDACTED] requires no original research because it should depend on the best modern scholarship--that is, on things that are original research. A travel guide--even an excellent one--is never going to be that, in my view. Semperf 21:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed Greenhalgh and Eliopulos as well as Greenhalgh from the inline citations and sources. Kyriakos 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply It is usus in scientific literature in this field to work multilingual, so often there is no equivalent work in other languages, but works from different languages are used. In this case it is from a scholarly book(that is part of a series written by university professor which is continuosly translated into other languages), so it is likely that one day there is an English version. However, until then we have to use whatever source we have. And to be more specific in this case the claims from this book can be verified independently(took a lot of research to retrieve). So as long as someone at least uses as much suitable English material as possible there should be no objections. Some fields of scholarly research are simply non-existent in English language (pretty much of precolonial African history and African metallurgy for example, etc.) and you have to use works in Russian, French, German, etc.(publications are often multilingual, switching between several languages if quoting other publications) like any serious English-speaking scientist working on the topic. Of course you can raise doubts if an article is completely lacking English sources, but that can be the case due to systemic bias in the world of science or someone needs a helping hand to find any English sources, what is neither the case. Wandalstouring 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore lots of native English speakers are not monolingual and scientific/university published material in other languages is available in the UK and the USA.
I will insert the page number soon. Wandalstouring 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. On the topic of source languages, it may cause confusion with a non-English source however, we have had articles even more controversial (when judging sources) like the battle of Marathon and the Greco-Persian Wars that are both A-class and are currently very close to FA with Greek and non-English sources. Therefore I don't know if it is that big a problem. Regarding the content of the article itself, it seems quite good, the lead has been trimmed down and probably for the best. The article also carries a very decent number of citations. I have been looking at the article with a hawk-eye and am finding far more difficult to find grammar errors recently. I have made several edits, including structure and word strengthening and article aesthetics but it really seems to be at the stage where it really needs no more significant improvement. Having said that, there are probably still a few minor things to look at like that will still be found in the days to come. But certainly this article is of FA class in my humble opinion.--Arsenous Commodore 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Continued oppose. The footnotes have erratic punctuation with misplaced, stray quotation marks. The Baltrush has no page number in n. 35. Some of the bibliography is of dubious value--it is not merely a question of the language (which I raised above), but also the quality. We should aim to have works that are published by academic publishing houses such as university presses. The titles of Kassis and Κουτσιλιέρη imply that they are general works covering 2000+ years of the history one small region of what used to be Laconia. For a featured article, we should expect sources that concentrate on this specific period of history written by experts. Semperf 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading Warfare in the Classical World(University of Oklahoma Press) and while it is generally acceptable quality in-depth research shows some flaws, so a university publishing house is no guarantee. On the other hand Osprey is generally held in high esteem, although no university publishing house. Wandalstouring 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's true. There are many fine scholarly books written outside the university presses--Routledge, Blackwells, too. (I don't recall anything by Osprey, but that may be my failure. But I'm not convinced that the items that we're arguing about here are reliable. Here's the test: do the first rate scholars (in this case Gruen and Green and Cartledge) cite them? do handbooks and textbooks include them in their bibliographies? It they don't we shouldn't either. Semperf 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Osprey is not scientific research material, but is the *A*-class(genre-specific term for highest degree of accurate presentation) bible of the reenactment scene (most reenactors' presentations conflict with Osprey). It has an acceptable bibliography and refers a lot to findings of equipment and regions, etc.
OK, I can accept that although I'm not fluent with the aforementioned authors.(The whole subject wasn't quite my topic, I only improved the article on a few spots.) So you point out that some of the material used as a reference is possibly not reliable (lacking use by authoritative works). Perhaps we could try to retrieve another editor who is also familiar with these books, so we have more than one opinion on this delicate subject (I want to avoid bad blood and a precedence for all our national POV-pushers.).Wandalstouring 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. To me it doesn't really matter how famous the books are as long as they provide good infomation. Kassis for example is widely acclaimed as having the one of best books on the history of Mani. And those who are think what the hell Mani is it the middle leg of the Peloponnese hwere Gythium and Las are situated. Κουτσιλιέρη many not be well known by non-Greeks but his publishing house is well known in Greece. So in other words it doesn't really matter to me if a book is written by the worlds most famous author or by the world's least famous author as long as they give good info and history. Kyriakos 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It does matter to me. Check out WP:RS#Types_of_source_material. We want to use especially primary (such as Livy) and the most authoritative secondary sources we can (here Gruen, Green, Holleaux, etc.). Kassis strikes me as tertiary. Semperf 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The correct procedure is to track down the primary sources of the secondary(and tertiary) works and to present the exact passage in the primary source to the reader as possibility for verification of the claims. How you interpret the primary source is based on the secondary(and tertiary) works. That is the approach of Alcibiades and Pericles (have been involved in the primary source tracking process in the latter). Do both of you agree that this is acceptable? Are there any specific issues where the Kassis provides doubtful concepts to the article? Wandalstouring 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Response. I have omitted Kassis and Κουτσιλιέρη from the article and have replaced them with Livy and I have done the came with their inline citations. Kyriakos 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Maps. Another point, which I raise on the talk page, is that the maps aren't very helpful for this article. The map of Greece in c. 200 BC would be brilliant, but it comes before the second Macedonian War, which changed a lot. At the very least, the article needs maps that allow the reader to see the places mentioned in the article. (E.g., Argos and Gytheum are important for the article, but many readers won't know where they are without a map.) Semperf 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though the map does not show the exact time it is still good. They are roughly the borders of the countries except for Macedon. But also the narrative starts at around 200 BC and it ends at 188 BC which is the time period that the map shows. Plus we have put a request for a map of Greece at 195 BC so we got these maps which are the best we can do for the moment.

Maps are no FA criteria. If it is wrong, we remove it. Wandalstouring 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Prelude section. This section needs to be renamed, reorganized, and rewritten. What is the point of this section? I assume to acquaint the reader with the major players and important events before the war, especially Nabis and his dealings during the Second Macedonian War. But this is buried in a lot of detail--the nature of Spartan kingship, the decline of the population of Spartiates, and Nabis' reforms--that largely obscures what is important here. Much of this detail should be moved into the Nabis article; a summary should be sufficient. Semperf 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Well, we felt that this was important to understand the nature of the conflict as it is rather complicated regarding the political implications, not the campaign itself. However, it may be restructured and better implemented to support an understanding of the camapaign. If you read carefully, you will notice that the whole legal dispute who is to be king of Sparta is involved into this conflict. So without mentioning Nabis' reforms it is not very clear why the Romans didn't replace him and without this it is neither clear why the war happened at all. We have hinted the Spartan expansion there. Of course we can break down into a very detailled analyses of the argy-bargy who conquers the peninsula. The Achean League was shaken by the social unequality and Nabis offered a solution, making the fundaments of democracy shake because many people were fancying with the choice between sth. to eat in a dictatorship and the right to declare war in a democracy. I didn't know how deep we should go into Greek domestic politics and social problems. Wandalstouring 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • formatting issues in notes. One thing that I've noticed is that there are a lot of minor typos and formatting problems in the footnotes. One consistent problem is that many of the titles are put in italics with the double-single-quotemark '', but the italic is not ended with another, but with a single double-quotemark ("). The result is this:v Holleaux, Rome and the Mediterranean; 218-133 B.C, 190. This needs to be fixed throughout. (Note also the punctuation in the notes: B.C needs another period here.) Semperf 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If this comment is intended to make sense you must point out what is missing. The article length itself is absolutely sufficient for FA criteria. Wandalstouring 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that comment is useless. Many article of lesser size have become FA's. For example just look at the Cretan War which passes FAC 2 months ago. Kyriakos 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find it a bit strange that 3/4 of the article focuses on the background, preparations and aftermath, while the actual war is addressed rather briefly in comparison. Jaqu 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. I you have read the article you would see that the campaign itself only goes on for a month or two which answers the shortness of the actual campaign. Kyriakos 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; the serious concerns seem to have been addressed, and the sources strike me as quite sufficient. --Robth 06:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An excellent article on a very little known war. I have a couple of very minor suggestions for improvement:
  • I think most readers would be unfamiliar with terms such as "helot", "perioeci", "phalangite", "agoge", "syssitia" and others and ideally I would like these to be (very briefly) explained in-line in the article. I feel a user not familiar with the topic should ideally be able to understand everything in the article in a self-contained manner without having to consult other articles except if they wanted further detail. - this has now been done
  • My second comment is more to do with the format of the military conflict infobox - I know this is not specific to this article but for complicated conflicts such as this the list of combatants is listed but a name is not assigned at the top of the list for how the "side" as a whole is referred to. This makes it confusing sometimes since a single term is not established for each side that can then be used elsewhere in the article. I would love for the military conflict infobox template to be altered to allow a name to be assigned as a whole to all the combatants on one side eg "Spartan Coalition" and "Anti-Spartan Coalition" or similar, in this case.
I don't think that is very useful. Wandalstouring
Can you elaborate, Wandals? its only marginally useful to this FAC, agreed (and maybe we should move discussion elsewhere), but I feel this would be really useful in several of the battle and war infoboxes and articles.
  • I love the system of separate notes and citations
  • I know that neither of the main editors speak English as a first language and despite their grasp of English being extremely high there are a certain number of very slightly awkward-sounding sentences in the article. I shall work through and try and re-word some of them. If anyone else is able to copyedit the whole thing that would be best.
  • If a map exists showing the route of advance of the Laconian campaign, I think this would be a more fitting image than the current line drawing of the onager.
The onager is there to illustrate the siege engines which played an important role. Wandalstouring
I don't have a real problem with the onager graphic, I just think its difficult to visualise the troop movements without a campaign map, especially if you're not familar with Greek geography.
  • Is it worth mentioning in summary at the beginning of the background Sparta's long and proud military history?
I don't see the long and proud military history mentioned, rather the decline and the creation of a new military system. There were two reasons for including this: the old élite was still around and wanted their power back and the Cretan fighting style, although they were a similar Doric culture, was totally different. If these changes are not mentioned most readers with a bit of background on Sparta would assume that there were these élite hoplites fighting Rome. Wandalstouring
Again, I'm not saying anything that is there needs taking out but, as you point out, the common perception is of Spartan hoplites. I think it might be worth mentioning more clearly in a throwaway sentence in the intro that the old Spartan military culture of hoplite citizens was big before but was at this point a thing of the past. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A few "why did they do that?" questions occurred to me when reading the article, that the article didn't answer:
  • Why did the Roman army initially march past Sparta on their way to Mount Menelaus, instead of investing Sparta immediately?
Sparta was utterly unimportant. The whole affair was about Gythium and the other naval bases of the Cretan pirates. There is a note somewhere about a later invasion of Crete by the Roman army and the subsequent freeing of thousands of enslaved Romans. If I assume correctly it was part of Pompeys struggle against pirates, however I couldn't find it in the campaign list. Will continue searching. Wandalstouring
I wasn't asking for my knowledge so much as saying that it could do with being explained in the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why were the Cretans willing to suport Sparta militarily? What did they have to gain?
Sparta was the host bearing the brunt of attacks for their share in piracy. I lack sources(I didn't research much), but you could say that Sparta was a Cretan puppet state. The Cretan pirates furnished the mercenaries that established Nabis in power and in exchange had free access to establish their naval bases. From these naval bases they could much easier venture on their expeditions. Wandalstouring 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, this could do with being explained as clearly as this in the article.
Only the few little niggles above to clear up and it's a big 'ol Support vote from me - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Jenna Jameson

My first FAC nomination, representing about six months of work improving an existing article. Great thanks to User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. who provided a checklist that kicked the process off, the article reviewers, who provided extensive comments, User:Rosenzweig and User:Tabercil who worked on the article itself, post-review, and finally the countless nameless vandalism-reverters (the article averaged several vandalisms almost every day) without whom this would never have been possible.

The article describes the current "world's most famous porn star"— no other way to put it. She has had a rather interesting life. The motivation was to write at least one article to set a standard for the encyclopedia's other porn star articles to aim for; we have a lot of them, they should at least try to be good. When I started work, I thought this could be very controversial, but considering that History of erotic depictions made it to the front page, this should be less so (though I still expect some controversy here, be polite, please).

I believe it meets the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. It is "well written" in the sense that many pairs of eyes have made style suggestions, most of which were implemented. It is "comprehensive", I guarantee more so than any other article about her on the Web (and there are many) and even more comprehensive than her autobiography, since it includes many events after that book's publishing, and business details it doesn't. It is "factually accurate", with over 100 mostly different references, many very high quality: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes ... and not leaning overly much directly on the autobiography (in fact, until late in the process it didn't reference it directly at all, until I was finally convinced that a few refs were necessary and wouldn't hurt). It is "neutral", presenting many controversies without bias. It is "stable", with no major ongoing edits except for grammar, phrasing, and such - with the obvious exception of the ongoing vandalism reverts. It has a summary lead section of the appropriate length covering all major topics in the rest of the article. It has a hierarchical system of headings and table of contents. It has a number of images, only in appropriate places, mostly free (thanks again, Tabercil), a few rigorously justified fair use. It is of appropriate length - 60 kilobytes total, but half of that is references and credits lists (the references are necessary since almost everything about her could be considered at least somewhat controversial, and she has won a lot of awards). Less than 32 kilobytes otherwise (no warning). --AnonEMouse 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose fails 1a, per comments below, all references are not fully formatted, including last access dates (example:Jenna Jameson's American Sex Star Playboy TV reality sex show official page. ), and strangely, one section heading is used twice in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I spent 3 days going over the access dates, and see I missed a few. I think I got them all this time, but if I missed any more, please say. The section heading has been resolved by moving the filmography section to a separate article.--AnonEMouse 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is an embarrassment of an article. It is not of appropriate length; 60kb on a porn star is ridiculous, and 106 references is absurd beyond description. It is very poorly written, presenting quotes as if they are fact rather than summarising in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Her words express her own point of view, of course, and the author of this article adopts that point of view without question. The list of awards is not necessary; it just reinforces the impression that the author is a huge fan. "Notable pornographic work" - who decided these works are the notable ones? Many sentences are complete non sequiturs, such as her father didn't recognize her when she got off the plane. He was then living in California, home of the American adult film industry.. This really exemplifies the very worst of Misplaced Pages, and in my opinion it would bring the project into disrepute if an article like this got featured. Re-write totally, neutrally and at appropriate length and I would reconsider my vote. Worldtraveller 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Partially because I've been looking at this article for a while, and partly because of the worthlessness of that statement, I'm going to support this article. Can't wait till she gets to the main page...Phoenix2 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Supporting because you disagreed with what I wrote? Interesting. Worldtraveller 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we have a fundamentally different approach to writing an encyclopaedia. I just find everything about this article deeply embarrassing. Not just the size but what is done with it - the obvious bias, misuse of quotes, the dreadful writing. Anyone looking at Misplaced Pages, wondering whether to take it seriously as a reference work, and finding this article, is surely going to look elsewhere. Worldtraveller 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have a problem with the writing and use of quotes, or feel that the article does not conform to NPOV, then by all means, share these concerns. If you feel that the article is too long and detailed, then say what in it should be take out, in your opinion. But if, as it appears, your main problem is that you feel the article is not "important" enough to be FA, or even in Misplaced Pages at all, then please go back and read WP:WIAFA again, as that concern is not in there. --PresN 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely the problem is that articles on more important subjects have yet to be improved, and not that this one ought to be shorter or less well-referenced just to maintain a sense of proportion? For better or worse, Misplaced Pages articles don't get improved in proportion to, or in the order of, their relative importance. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and they both have dozens of sister and daughter articles. Gandhi has his own nav template. (Neither is that good at the moment, but that's beside the point.) So comparing raw sizes is a complete red herring, and while I might agree with you on broader points, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here, are you saying the article should be less comprehensive and have fewer references? Because that, to me, seems absurd. It's 60kb including references, but that's not really relevant; the main body of text is under 5000 words which is fine. But even if you don't think it should be featured, saying it "exemplifies the very worst of Misplaced Pages" is just not true, and borderline incivil. Trebor 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I reread what you had said Worldtraveller, and apologize... I mistook what you had said. Let me paraphrase what you said just so we're all clear on what you mean:
  • With regards to article length that we've gone overboard and have gone into too much depth, and we ought to cut it back.
  • You're saying the full list of awards is not necessary in this article, correct? If we were to break it out into a separate article, much like List of Alison Krauss awards, and stub the mention in the main Jenna article, would that clear up this objection?
  • There seems to be a general consensus regarding the choppiness of the text, and I'm agreeing with you that the general sentence length is rather short. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Tabercil 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Awards section aside, there seems to be precedent for moving the filmography to a separate article as was done in the WP:FA articles on Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis. Did that. That will shorten the article a bit, but note that Misplaced Pages:article size specifically excludes tabular, list, and reference sections when measuring size, and for good reason. As I wrote in opening the FAC, the many references are quite necessary per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, note how potentially controversial almost every part of the article is: even besides pornography, we write about rape, homosexuality, false id use, drug addiction, flagrant adultery, and numerous public criticisms. Following the instructions on the bottom of WP:SIZE, I don't get a size warning, which I believe means it's less than 32K.--AnonEMouse 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. There's a cited statement within the body of the article for the bisexuality; I've applied that cite to the infobox. Tabercil 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ObjectSee below due to prose issues; there are many choppy-sounding sentences and the writing overall strikes me as sophomoric. For example (and please comb through the text for others):
    • "Jameson began to feel that Randall was "a shark", was taking advantage of her, and she stopped working for her." Italicized part, ugh.
    • "accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin, and at times even her father." - marvelous misplaced modifier.
    • "Her acceptance into the general socio-economic field..." - what?
    • "She acts in a porn film directed by Brian Griffin (the dog) which wins an award." - misplaced modifier again. (end prose examples)
    • Grdina is repeatedly referred to as her husband, then we find out at the end that they're no longer together; try 'then-husband'.
      • Technically, the divorce isn't final, so they are currently married, but that's beside the point - as far as I understand, in a biographical article it is understood that we're always discussing a point in time. To give some specific FA examples, Bette Davis, uses "husband", rather than "then-husband" to refer to two distinct people, both of whom she later divorced, Vivien Leigh refers to "her husband, Laurence Olivier", though they divorced, etc. It seems to be practice to do that.--AnonEMouse 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • If they're still technically married, I suppose it's moot. In general (IMO) there should be some temporal indicator when he's introduced and especially in the image caption, which is likely to be read separately from the text. Just like you'd caption a photo of her at 22 'Jenna Jameson at 22' and not just 'Jenna Jameson', even if it's in the section where her early-twenties exploits are discussed. Opabinia regalis 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Since she's best known for porn, is it appropriate that the 'mainstream appearances' section is longer than the 'pornographic film career' section?
    • What does make the selected films in the filmography notable?
    • I generally agree with Worldtraveller on the use of quotes in the text (though not with the same force); there are several instances where Jameson's statements are written into the text as if they were statements of fact. A relatively benign example is that she "left after two months because the schedule was "brutal ... and the money was terrible"." Why not "she left after two months, complaining of low pay and demanding work schedules"? (or some variant, depending on what the source actually says). There's a general overuse of cquote (to be fair, I hate this template and its goofy blue quotation marks).
      • Per WP:NPOV we are supposed to let the facts -- in this case her statements -- speak for themselves. If we write "complaining", we're injecting our opinion. But I can see that this line reads like we may be claiming her opinion is fact -- rephrased. I looked through the text, and couldn't find any other quotes that aren't clearly described to be her statements rather than facts. --AnonEMouse 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, 'complaining' is just an example, as I don't know what the context of the statement was in the original source. Sorry, I don't have time tonight to read it again in detail, but the version I read originally had a couple of cases of rather trivial single sentences set off from the main text in cquotes. Opabinia regalis 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Sigh. I admit, I like cquotes. But in the interests of getting your support, I changed two of the four, leaving two rather important quotes emphasized - the shorter one is possibly the most complete characterization that could be managed in that length. Good enough for a compromise? --AnonEMouse 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lastly, there's some referencing weirdness; why are random ISBNs in the text? There should be no internal jumps, as in "(See Awards)". Opabinia regalis 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Not sure what the problem is here. The only ISBNs are for the autobiography, which is rather important, not random. The "see #Awards" is the equivalent of "see below" with a more useful link added. This isn't something I'll fight to the death over, and will get rid of either or all if you insist, but what is wrong with either of those? To me, they seem useful, and fairly standard usage. Is there any guideline regarding the use of either of these that I am missing and you are referring to? --AnonEMouse 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Put reference information in the references section. Or 'notes', or a bibliography, or just about anywhere besides the middle of a paragraph. You can link internally, but - just as with wikilinks to other articles - the link should be integrated into the text, not dangling as a parenthetical. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Internal link integrated. ISBNs I still like, but I promised not to contest too much, so removed as I can't see a separate section containing one book. They are in the separate book article, I guess. --AnonEMouse 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Switch to support. I can't see spending too much time on the quote thing, as it's essentially a stylistic matter. There are a few lingering prose issues (eg, 'first Club Jenna produced film' should have a hyphen, 'Early Club Jenna films starred Jameson herself, limiting herself...' is awkwardly phrased), but they're minor and hard to avoid in an article whose subject invites vandalism and edit creep. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I recognise that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has improved greatly since I saw it at peer review, but the writing just isn't up to standard yet. There are a lot of very awkward run-on sentences that need to be rephrased. For example: "Jenna wrote in her autobiography, with graphic details, that in October 1990, while the family was living on a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was beaten with rocks and gang raped by four boys after a football game." There's also: "Stern also put her in his semi-autobiographical 1997 film Private Parts, where she played "Mandy", the "First Nude Woman on Radio", reflecting those appearances." These aren't isolated examples. On the whole the article has a lot of promise, but it's just not there yet. MLilburne 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Rephrased, hopefully fixed, both, others have also been fixed elsewhere, am looking for more. I apologise, but must ask for specific examples, as otherwise I might miss the phrasings you think are the most awkward. --AnonEMouse 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(necessary for editing, see: )

  • Oppose Fair use images do not contribute significantly to the article - book cover, dvd cover, screen cap, all debatable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are the only three fair use images in the article. The book cover relates directly to the section on the book, which discusses it in great detail and contributes significantly to the section. The DVD cover is related to the section next to it as the first release from her distribution company, and contributes significantly, allowing readers to discren the quality of the release. The screencap is arguably one of the most mainstream performances that she has offered, and is easily recognizable. I don't think I agree with any of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. The book cover I am afraid I will fight for to the death against all odds - the book is mentioned all over the article, it's crucial, indispensable, to Jameson's mainstream fame, and, when you come down to it, it's an autobiography, kind of important to a biography article by definition. The book isn't just important to the autobiography section, it gets noticeable text in the mainstream appearances section and the article header. Without the book she would not be the same person, and we would not be writing this article. I just can't see this article without it, no way. The DVD cover is not quite as important, but still important - it basically "put legs under" the ClubJenna company, not just by being their first movie, as Jeff writes, but by being the best selling genre movie of the year. In addition, it was Jameson's return to film after a many year absence. Finally, it's what she does, we need one, and it is as close as we can get to a demonstration of what she does for a living without being unnecessarily risque. So I really do think it is also important enough to keep. The screen capture - well, as Jeff writes, this seems an important one, she is playing herself, in an animation that wanted an iconic porn star, showing she was an icon. I guess I can be convinced otherwise if there is such a consensus, but I don't see it yet -- are there other opinions? --AnonEMouse 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll agree with badlydrawnjeff and AnonEMouse on this count, for the book and DVD covers at the least. Both images are used in a fashion that just about perfectly matches the intent of WP:FU, and especially point 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)" (emphasis in this case added by me). The book cover, as the Mouse says, illustrates the article segment about the book. The DVD cover illustrates specific text within the Business section, namely this snippet: "The first ClubJenna film, Briana Loves Jenna (2001),... was the best selling and best renting pornographic title of its year, winning twin AVN Awards." As well, the criteria which IMO most commonly causes fair use images to get deleted (#1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information") does not apply. Tabercil 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But the text doesn't actually discuss either cover; it discusses the products. It's arguable that neither cover is a particularly notable or relevant part of the product. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • While anything can be arguable, it has been generally decided that covers are quite relevant and notable to the product, and discussion of the product is sufficient, discussion of the cover is not necessary. Look at most cover usage within writer and actor Misplaced Pages:Featured articles - Isaac Asimov uses a cover of Foundation, J. R. R. Tolkien uses three book covers, Diane Keaton uses two movie posters, Douglas Adams uses two book covers and a video game cover, Anthony Michael Hall uses a DVD cover, Katie Holmes uses a film poster, many others... in all these cases, the discussion in the article is of the product, not the cover. These are all illustrative of specific points, not decorative. Also the DVD cover is specifically discussed, note the prominent comment about Jameson's return to film on it. --AnonEMouse 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Looking at the other existing FA, we have the video game Shadow of the Colossus which has a soundtrack cover present within the article, but no discussion of the cover. In fact if I interpret your argumemt correctly, any use of a cover for a book or DVD, or even a promotional poster for a movie without a discussion of the cover (or poster) itself is using the image incorrectly and doesn't qualify for FA! So that means the feature articles Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Blade Runner, Dog Day Afternoon and more all fail. And horror of horrors, we have the album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which has the front cover, the back cover and even an alternate cover present within the article, but no discussion of any those covers within the article! Yes, I realize that my point is slightly inane, perhaps even farscical, but I feel that you've missed the intent of point 8 of WP:FU and this is the best way to show that. Tabercil 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Featured Articles are about presenting the best content that a free (as in speech) encyclopedia can present. Such articles should avoid using unfree (as in speech and beer) content like the plague. These images are not imperitive to the article - they are, arguably, eye candy to break up the text. If such candy is needed, we should be seeking out free (as in speech) content. Contact the publicity agent and beg for GFDL releases on some images. Get some guys flikr cc-by-sa images in the article. Per mindspillage, the crackdown on fair-use is coming. DVD covers on articles about actors will be gone before you know it. Why not make this the best it can be? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • It's got more completely free images than almost all FAs, obtained just the way you recommend. That's actually one of the things we can be most proud of here. Commercial cover images have never been released, are not replaceable, and are not eye candy. --AnonEMouse 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I have to agree with AnonEMouse here. Even Jimbo has said that things like soundtrack covers are good fair use - any "crackdown' is unlikely to include those sorts of things, and their use in this article is more than okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very well referenced, mostly adequately written apart from confusingly switching between her surnames, slightly long, however, overall probably acceptable. Addhoc 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions on how to handle the switch? We're supposed to use last names to refer to article subjects. Her stage name is indubitably better known, but I can't see using it for her early life before she invented it. Mark Twain seems to do it the way this article does, using it after it was taken, John Wayne uses the stage name even earlier, but neither one is a Misplaced Pages: Featured article. Is there a guideline or FA model to follow? --AnonEMouse 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, as it happens Bob Dylan uses the same format. I think my confusion was partly due to the use of her first name, for when she was younger. From the discussion on my talk page, I appreciate your reasons for this. Addhoc 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The existing way is probably the cleanest way to do it, and Dylan was the example I was going to use. Another FA that also has a birth name different than the eventual famous name is Vivian Leigh - she was born Vivian Hartley. How that article handles is to refer to Vivian by her full name (Vivian Hartley) up until she took her professional name of Vivian Leigh, then refers to her thereafter as by just her last name of Leigh. In my opinion, the way it's handled in the Vivian Leigh article is rather clunky in comparison to how its handles in the articles for Dylan and Jenna. Tabercil 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well-written, well-sourced, interesting, and, I suspect, the best article on the subject on the Web or, likely, anywhere else. Unlike articles on major subjects which become POV-battle-grounds, and are redundant to other sources when they don't, this one shows Misplaced Pages at its best. In a category so often criticized for having too many stubs, the "too long" complaint is somewhat puzzling. If she is indeed the "World's most famous porn star," then a long article is not out of order. If the Gandhi article is not lengthy enough, then improve that one so that it's as good as this one. Great job, AnonEMouse. Dekkappai 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose No detailed fair use rationale provided for Image:Jameson j-howtomakelovelike.jpg. ShadowHalo 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; length is not an issue. The fact no-one has put in the effort to write longer articles for people with more historical or contemporary importance has absolutely no bearing on this article. What, have all wiki editors got to rewrite every other article before putting in effort to articles for less significant figures? The article had prose issues, but these are disappearing. I'm afraid subject matter doesn't dictate FA criteria for me, and this article passes on enough of those criteria for me to support. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems like a good article, a few minor concerns:
    • The article Briana Loves Jenna should be created, at least as a stub, red links in the lead don't look very good.
      • Hoist by my own petard! Stubbed.
    • Are all of these double and triple footnotes really necessary? For instance, "has been called the world's most famous porn star" has three footnote, Rolling Stone, Forbes and Wall Street Journal. Any one of them would be sufficient.
      • That's pretty strong puffery, without being cited as being from very reputable sources it would not be WP:NPOV - however, that is exactly how they refer to her. Other lines with multiple citations are similarly potentially controversial.
    • Why is Adult Star Path of Fame bold in the awards list? Is that something special?
      • No - yikes, even the link is bad! That addition was a recent "gift" from a new contributor. Removed bold, shortened, fixed link, and if anyone complains further can remove altogether. I don't like to outright remove well intentioned contributions, but also don't know that it's really an important award.
    • The mainstream appearances section is not chronological, it jumps from 2003 to 1999 and then back to 2001, what is the logic behind that exactly?
      • I tried to put the major controversies/debates (Abercrombie & Fitch, Oxford Union, Bill O'Reilly) together thematically, rather than just have that section be a chronological list. Since dates are given for each, I hoped it wouldn't be that confusing. Is it?
    • Using two different styles for quotes, Cquote and blockquote, is not good.
      • See above for the criticism that caused me to remove a few Cquotes. I do think it properly emphasizes important quotes, while the blockquote is for something interesting enough to be quoted, but hardly career-defining.
    • If it actually was her autobiography that marked her mainstream breakthrough, it should be made clear in the lead. Right now it reads like this was just another random career step.
      • Really? Most authors would give their right arm to have a book spend six weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list. It was the breakthrough in the sense that after it much of the mainstream treated her differently, but exactly how differently is hard to say in one sentence; details and before/after contrast takes half of the mainstream appearances section. Can you suggest something short enough for the header?
    • Why is there so much text, even full sentences (Preacher has denied this.), between brackets? Jaqu 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article if ever I saw one. The definitive guide to Ms. Jameson's life and œuvre. Very well done. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fails criteria 1a and 4, specifically the prose is often awkward and the article is full of unnecessary detail. Nearly every section could be cut by at least half. After having defended two articles at WP:FAR lately I'm a little surprised there aren't more vocal opposes here. In all fairness, comments are supposed to be specific and actionable, so detailed list follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lead paragraph, second sentence is awkward.
    • Parentheticals are nearly always just sloppy prose.
    • Early life - unnecessary details include where her mother danced, how much time her father spent working. Is the beating and rape a documented fact? The reference seems to quote her autobiography. Presenting this as fact seems dubious. Perhaps these both could be condensed to "In her autobiography, she says she was beaten and gang raped, and in a separate incident raped again, both when she was 16."
    • Early career - nearly all of this is sourced to quotes from Jenna (reported in a variety of publications). Presenting this as sourced "facts" in an encyclopedia seems kind of a stretch. I don't know what to do about this, but condensing it down to a paragraph or at most two would probably help.
    • Pornographic film career - Even though it has two references, I'd cut the first sentence completely (the references are no doubt two different interviews). Her signature move is oral sex, "lubricated with plenty of saliva" ... overcoming her addiction "by spending several weeks with her father and grandmother recovering on butter and focaccia bread" - aren't these sort of the definition of unnecessary detail? Yet, despite all this unnecessary (even lurid) detail, there isn't a count of how many movies she made between 1995 and 2001. "She was the first entertainer to have won" - perhaps "to win"?
    • Relationships - cut by half, unnecessary details include famous boyfriends, "scion of a wealthy cattle-ranching family", Roman Catholic-style ceremony, ring finger tattoo, where they lived, how much their house cost, gossip column level details about her current relationship.
    • Business - also cut by half.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Military brat (U.S. subculture)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Thomas Playford IV

Sir Thomas Playford KCMG (July 5, 1896 – 16 June 1981) served as Premier of South Australia from November 5, 1938 to March 10, 1965, which at 26 years and 125 days, remains a British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader. His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states. Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives. His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.

This is my sixth attempt at a featured article; it is thoroughly referenced and well written. Any concerns or problems will be dealt with promptly. Thanks for voting/commenting! michael 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments The lead section lacks a bit of specificity (see WP:LEAD if you fancy)

  • When you say, 'His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states.' do you mean at the time or throughout Australian history?
    • In Australian history. Thus, it stands alone, and needs no further explanation.
The 'was not matched by' makes you wonder if it was just that period of Australian history or all of Australian history upto today. I couldn't say one way or another from this sentence.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence 'Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives.' uses the word unique a bit too strongly, but maybe it's appropriate, though when you say he personally oversaw his industrial initiatives it leads me to ask 'who else would oversee their own industrial initiatives than themselves?'. The wording could be better.
    • The sentence means what it states. Most Premiers did not involve themselves in their economies as much as Playford ("unique", "strong and hands-on") and did not have industrial initiatives like Playford did.
It's not exacting enough. What is a strong approach? 'took a hands-on approach' and 'personally oversaw' are identical, and so you have a redundancy there. This sentence doesn't describe this guy's "uniqueness" well enough. Readers should be able to take away alot of information, and a summary of the entire article from just the lead section.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In the sentence 'His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.' you wikify 'name' with the wikilink 'Playmander'. Playmander should probably follow name like such 'his name, Playmander'.
    • I will rectify this.
  • The semicolon. Your use of the semicolon is extensive and in my years as a reader I've never seen such frequent use. You could be starting a new trend, or be misusing it. In the Family section, in the sentence 'Four children was born to the couple; three daughters and one son, Sir Thomas.' you are misusing it.
    • I probably am overusing it. I am still not the best writer, so this type of feedback is helpful; can you elaborate?
How about you tell me how many semicolons you put in the article? :) I don't even really know how to use the semicolon. Have to brush up on that.-BiancaOfHell 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are my comments at the moment. I'm a new voice here, so hopefully others will pipe in who have more experience.-BiancaOfHell 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers are indented. michael 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral - it's good, but it could be better. I don't like the lead - the first paragraph is good and appropriate, but the second two paragraphs read like they belong primarily in the "Early life" section, with a few paragraphs about his premiership and later life tacked on for good measure. I'd like it fixed up and written with a better overview of the whole article - at present it's not balanced. Secondly, there's a whole paragraph on his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without a reference. Can you add one? In fact, I think you could add a few more references to the article - one per paragraph often isn't enough. Thirdly, you may like to get someone to grammar check your article. I found some misplaced apostrophes in the article that shouldn't have been there. I would be happy to do it but don't have time at present. Fourthly, I don't think "Don Dunstan" is the best header you could have - something like "working relationship with Don Dunstan" or something like that would be more appropriate; the article is about Playford, not Don Dunstan. Otherwise well done. JROBBO 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the latter two paragraphs of the introduction to provide an overview of his life, and will now attempt to find a reference for his religious beliefs.
(Much better. JROBBO 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
  • I don't want to have to change the heading of 'Don Dunstan'. Despite Dunstan having his own article, he was integral to Playford's downfall (and that of the conservatives in South Australia), and this deserves attention. Of the sources I have, entire chapters are spent on the Playford-Dunstan relationship and transition.
  • I have no intention to clutter the article needlessly with references. Forty is more than sufficient; I have referenced where appropriate, not because a certain number is expected. michael 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but I think it could be better referenced. The third paragraph of "Retirement", the third paragraph of fall from power, and the third paragraph of the "ascendance to office" paragraph don't have any references, and some editors could see those paragraphs, as well as elsewhere, as containing statements that are not obvious facts. I'll be happy though if you fix up those three paragraphs where it might be seen not to be obvious. JROBBO 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I will reference those paragraphs; give me a day or two. michael 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Playford 1956.jpg was taken in 1956, PD-Australia only applies to images pre 1955; has no source information. Will need to be changes to fair use; and there is no real reason this image could be fairly used.
Image:Playford portrait 38.jpg has no source information
Image:Parliament house sa.jpg has no source information
--Peta 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
All have been updated; the first picture is a government photograph and it is 50 years since it has been taken, and therefore is out of copyright (expired in 2006). michael 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The records search link doesn't work; images from the NAA should have item numbers or some other form of identification that could be added to the image page. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. --Peta 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I could not get the link to work but have provided all the information about the image that is available. michael 06:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Law

In order for this to come on the main page I believe it must pass the FAC test. So I nominate this article for making it an FA. --Parker007 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To Raul - Please give credit to Wikidea if this becomes a FA article. I have not done any work on this. --Parker007 12:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude, there have been so many people helping out in this article you can't just give credit to one person. I have striked struck out your comment. --Maclean1 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
But this chap can be given all the credit for discrediting me! :) Wikidea 10:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yikes. Mixed reference styles in the lead? I didn't get past that. Please convert your refs to one, consistent style. Also, pls have a look at WP:LEAD, particularly, "The lead section, lead paragraph or introduction of a Misplaced Pages article is the section before the first headline. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)  Done
Object and refer to peer review. Ten days later, still not correctly referenced, an article on a topic as complex as Law - with structural problems - can't be written while on FAC. Compelling prose: Law is usually learned in different subjects. Please withdraw the article and prepare it properly to meet FA standards. Also, pls see WP:FN for footnote placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)  Done
I've just done these references that I think you were talking about. I got mixed up and thought you had meant the links. And I've fixed the objection to the legal subjects opening. The article isn't all that bad though is it? It's better than the "B" which it was given a while ago. I do think, as well, that most of the initial criticisms have been patched up. I'm not sure what the new "structural problems" are, but would be very glad to hear! Wikidea 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Second look - far from featured. Seealso templates are used incorrectly (they belong at top of sections), references are not formatted correctly (cite templates may help sort out incorrect manual formatting), no discussion of differences between Napoleonic Law and English Law, drop-down navigational templatess in the body of the article, WP:LEAD is not a summary of the article, external jump to a blog in the text Done, lack of citing throughout, including statements that look like opinion ("The more people are involved with and concerned by how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the law becomes to the people.") Done, and too much text that just doesn't say anything (" there are certain core subjects, that students are required to learn in order to practise law.") Still suggest peer review is a better venue at this stage in this article's development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment thanks for saying more, please see the new updates. But I disagree with a few of your suggestions; Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the difference between "napoleonic" law and english law, I think you mean the difference between Civil and Common law, which there are clearly sections on, aren't there?
No, I mean the fundamental difference between the legal systems in Latin America, Italy and France and, for example, Britian and the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)  Done
Yes, you do mean the difference between civil and common law; Latin America, Italy, France, most of continental Europe, (and some historically interesting places like Louisiana and Scotland) are fundamentally different to Britain, the USA, India, and so on because of the absence of judge made law, and the practice of comprehensively codifying laws. That's what's explained in the civil and common law parts of the law page already; or have a read of the main article Legal systems of the world. Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
For the navigational templates, I can imagine there's a rule about not having them in the body. But in the case of this article, there's no reason why they don't do a very good job where they are. It helps to have links to different countries alongside the discussion of systems. Rules aren't ends in themselves, surely! Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Same point on the seealso template can't be at the bottom of a section. If there's a rule about this somewhere, it's not very good. It makes sense to have them at the bottom sometimes, after you read about a topic. Wouldn't the words "see also" suggest that you'd "seen something to start with" Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:GTL and {{See also}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
From Misplaced Pages:Gtl: "Rather than scattering such additional references thoughout the text of a section, they should be grouped together at the beginning of the section for easy selection by the reader:" Do you think they are "scattered" in the article? Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the lead, it's not an exact summary of the article, you're right. It provides information and quotes that you don't find elsewhere. But it does summarise the main headers. Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I'm happy to fill out more on institutions though maybe. Is that what you had in mind?  Done Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reference to core subjects, which you say doesn't say anything is precisely what the headings of the legal subjects follows before the further disciplines part. What would you prefer? Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But if you want to refer this article to a peer review, please do so - I haven't seen one of these done before myself. I'm more than happy for you to go ahead and refer! Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles can't be placed at WP:PR and WP:FAC at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh right, so you can just give some more helpful advice straight away through the FAC review then! That's great :) Wikidea 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Partially fixed, though I wonder if the nominator will respond to any criticisms of the article, since he created the account right before he nominated this article. And I say partially because I thought this problem was confined only to the lead. It actually crops up throughout the article. This article needs lots of copyediting/formatting help before it comes to FAC. Jeffpw 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The image layout and selection could use some work. Most of them are teeny-tiny, and a few don't seem to be all that relevant as illustrations of an article on law in general. For example:
  • Overall, I think the effort of trying to bring such a broad topic to FA quality is very commendable (even if the nomination itself might not be all that serious). / Peter 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I noticed that the lead didn't actually make any attempt to define "law", but rather just gave lots of examples of how it's used. I tried to make the first paragraph a bit more encyclopedic. Do feel free to rewrite, but keep in mind that the lead of an article should always (unless its an abstract term or something like it) start with something like "A law is X and Y..." rather than "Law(s) has/have function X and Y..." / Peter 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)  Done
  • Comment: I think it has room for improvement. Wiki wa wa 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I was really pleased to see this nominated, as I have done quite a lot of this article (the layout, all the pictures, the intro, the legal subjects, institutions, etc) since about September 2006. People have criticised the intro and lack of definition before. The problem is really a philosophical one, and you can read a bit about it on the Law#Philosophy of law or the Jurisprudence page, under analytical jurisprudence. But I'll give up arguing and put a definition up. And, I'll rewrite the part underneath, so that you don't have words linking to subjects (although someone seems to have already started on this. As for the images, I agree about the clipboard being a bit naff! Can anyone think of something better that implies "regulation"? The way I got all of them was simply taking them from other Misplaced Pages pages, because I've been told off before from getting them from the internet or elsewhere. The one of Ronald Dworkin is simply from his page. Anything else I can do? Wikidea 08:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's a bunch of the article written from in the first person plural ("our" is everywhere), which is weird to me. I don't know if this goes against the MoS, does anyone know? Wickethewok 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)  Done
  • Object and refer to peer-review. These article needs a peer-review; not a FAC-review. Many problems. Let's enumerate them:
Stylistic:
  1. I see about 15 external jumps.  Done
  2. I'm afraid articles already linked in the main article are repeated in "See also" section.  Done
Verifiability problems: Many citations with printed sources have no pages.
Prose problems:
  1. Un-cyclopedic prose. "The numerous ways that we can think of law reflects the numerous ways law comes into our lives. Contract law governs everything from buying a bus ticket, to our obligations in the workplace. When we buy or rent a house, property law defines our rights and duties towards our bank, or landlord. When we earn pensions, trust law protects our savings. Tort law gives us claims for compensation when someone injures us or damages our property. But if someone harms us intentionally, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." "Criminal law is the most familiar kind of law that we hear about from the papers, or news on TV, despite its relatively small part in the legal whole." "We"?! "us"?! This is totally un-cyclopedic and improper for an article having to do with the legal science.  Done
  2. "Ancient law" is listy.
Citing problems. Whole sections or sub-sections like "Criminal law" are uncited.  Done
Stubbyness. See, for instance, the stubby sub-section "Civil law".  Done
Content problems.
  1. Let's take "Criminal law". The editor describes us how criminal law is perceived by Common Law. But what about Continental Law? I though this is an article about law in general, and not anly about Common law. Unfortunately, the whole "Legal subjects" section, the "heart" of the article is directed towards common law. Continental law is almost ignored.  Done
  2. And what about legal procedure: civil and criminal? This is also a part of law! But I do not see the adequate analysis here.  Done
  3. And only a sub-sub-paragraph for European Law? Nothing about the recent developments and controversies with the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?
  4. The article seems to ignore sociology of law.  Done
  5. In "Philosophy of law" where is Immanuel Kant? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? OK, let's forget these guys. Where is Hans Kelsen?  Done
  6. The human rights related material is more than inadequate. Nothing about the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?  Done
  7. Civil-Common law is not the only distincion. Other important categorizations such as private law-public law are ignored.  Done
  8. Nothing about the differences of the way administrative law works in continental and civil law? Conseil d'Etat in France does not deserve mentioning in "Constitutional and administrative law" or "Judiciary"?  Done
I'm afraid the current version of the article confirms the law quality of many law-related articles of Misplaced Pages in the most vivid way.--Yannismarou 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yannismarou. And I find it unsatisfactory to plunge straight into a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law before encompassing its universal aspects in the lead. Tony 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Thanks for all the interest! I've done lots of the suggestions:
  1. changed first person plural/prosey style in introduction
  2. added Kelsen to jurisprudence
  3. improved the criminal law section (although, please note that the mens rea, actus reus stuff isn't at all only common law, in Germany its der Tat und Vorsatz, in France intention e act, etc - criminal law's pretty similar in the fundamentals)
  4. added comment on civil/common law not being the only distinction in the legal systems section
  5. emboldened section on Procedural law, which is with the further disciplines section
  • Things I'm usure of though are these:
  1. do we need sociology of law? I took a course in this in Germany, and it's often very specific to particular systems. It's often political philosophy, and as you can see nobody has much to say about it in its own article. Max Weber is mentioned in jurisprudence
  2. I'm afraid disagree about giving more than the passing mention to EU law in its own right - just as I would about a separate section for US Law or Greek Law. On the other hand there are links there for both the Convention and the Court of Human Rights; the Constitution might be something to put in in future, but perhaps we should wait till it's ratified.
  3. What does "15 external jumps" mean? I'm not too good on wikijargon!
  4. I'm not quite sure what a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law refers to. I agree that the history of law isn't so good though.
  • Another point of me. I respect Wikidea's opinion about European Law, but I want to stress that European law is not like US or Greek law, because "The European Union is unique among international organisations" (per Misplaced Pages!). I as reading an article of Sally McNamara of the Thatcher Center of Freedom; I quote:"Justice Antonin Scalia notes that the Framers of the US Constituion were absolutely clear that the US has a different moral and legal framework from Europe, one that is jeopardized by the aggressive exportation of EU law. The European COurt of Human Rights has been responsible for some truly egregious rulings in recent years. With a Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EC of Justice and EC of Human Rights would together preside over the final destruction of common law tradition and promote judicial activism both within and outside of the EU." And Sally McNamara inists: "The wrongful interpretation of the American Constitution on the basis of foreign law would only increase with an EU constitution that encompasses such a vastly prescriptive legal enterprise. As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said recently, "what we see here is a vision of international law that if taken aggressively would literally strike at the heart of some of out basic fundamental principles"." I obviously do not espouse the approach of Scalia and McNamara (with Chertoff I'm not sure!), but they do state interesting things, and they reveal that EU law is not like other national laws; it is regarded as something more; as a threat for the common law! And within this framework European Constitution (a misleading title of the treaty for me, but anyway) and the atached Charter of Fundamental Rights are of huge importance IMO, and deserve some further mentioning.--Yannismarou 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not I think I added that quote about EU law being unique - it's from a case called Van Gend en Loos, about the free movement of workers, and its famous line is that the EEC (as it then was) constitutes a new legal order - that's the idea I wanted to get across by talking about EU law as the first and only example of a supranational legal system (although in S. America, something similar may happen). You're definitely right that it deserves special mention for this reason. Though I'm not sure that the common law will die, as the Europhobe thatcherites want us to believe! I'll try to change these external links :) Wikidea 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I still see some stylistic problems like the external jumps.--Yannismarou 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed the external jumps, correct me if I missed some, I found only 6. The 6 External Jumps had reference templates used after it, or they had been wiki-linked to other articles in the same sentence, so I deleted them. --Parker007 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to insist in my objection per Sandy's comments. The article needs proper preparation and a thorough peer-review, in order to get rid of its current deficiencies (inconsistent referencing , not brilliant prose, some listy sections which should get rid of the bullets style and get proper prose , I see printed sources without pages etc.). Under the pressure of WP:FAC I don't think that these things could be achieved. A delay of 2-3 weeks will not harm the article. It is on the right track, but IMO it needs some further work, and a peer-review would probably help it "shine".--Yannismarou 08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read today's reply by User:Wikidea to Sandy's comment, if you haven't already done so. The reason many long paragraphs have not even one citation is because it is just a summary of the "main article", if you know what I mean. Sure we could just remove the bullets in some section, but wouldn't that make the article worse? And regarding your comment of printed sources with no pages, I doubt any Wiki-editors have the actual books, (I may be wrong though). But in any chance, you are the more experienced editor of Misplaced Pages than me, so I guess you know what a FA is, and what it isnt, so I am changing my vote to abstain, due to conflict of interest. --Parker007 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Human Right law is POV. Human Rights doesn't come from anybody but the human itself. According to UN Human Rights can not exists without a state giving the people those rights. And the article echoes this. UN's way of creating freedom is through socialism rather than liberty shown clearly by their publications and actions. Only their side is presented in the article. Lord Metroid 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is your POV, which IMO does not constitute a valid objection. In legal terms the relevant section is not inaccurate. HR may come from the human itself, but how are you going to defend them without documents protecting them? Hm?!--Yannismarou 07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only way you can defend your rights which among many are life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness is to do like a monarch would do. If someone try to violate a monarch's right, that man soon will know that he can not do so without force and the monarch would use force against that violator. The document is nothing worth without a person himself standing up for his rights. Sometimes that may lead to death, protecting one's rights isn't easy. It wasn't easy for monarchs either but that is the only way one can protect ones rights. The state is a direct peril to these rights as the state is an organization of force(If you don't do as the state want you to do. You are in big trouble as the state tries to force you to do so by various means of coercion). The UN want to protect people's right by granting(granting is a paradox in itself as the state has nothing to grant) the individual his human rights using the state, the very entity that is the number one threat to someone's human rights, the threat which was widely recognized by the founding fathers of USA. Lord Metroid 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dude, what you say is very interesting, but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the article. The state may be a threat for HR, but it is also the institution that can protect them, and that is why societies have assigned it this authority. Do you forget that also the US Constitution protects human rights and that the Supreme Court of the US (a state institution) has created through his decisions a net (which sometimes get looser) protecting HR? So, I don't know what the founding fathers wanted, but the way the US institutions and the way UN institutions proceeded and implemented the protection of HR have many similarities. At the end of the day, the individual who stands up for his right has no chance to protect them effectively, if the state where he lives does not respect HR. Of course, there is an interaction between individual and state, but the individual who lives in an organized society has realized that the most effective way to create this "net of protection" is to assign certain authorities to a state strong enough to impose itself through force, and to try through a democratic structure to make this state better and to further improve the "net of protection". Now, UN explicitely recognizes the primordial role of the state and, as you say, the founding fathers don't. This may be true, because: 1) UN is an international organization consisting of states, and it cannot ignore them; UN lives through the state; 2) UN is also influenced by the European conception of "state" which is more regulatory than the US state. But, despite the differing philosophy behind the words or the differing expressions, the outcome is the same: The UN acknowledges the primordial role of the state in the protection of UR, and the US, as a "strong state" (per Schmitt and per Fukuyama!) adhere to the philosophy of UN, using state institutions (courts) and documents (constitution and law) to protect HR!--Yannismarou 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is a very interesting concept. I didn't think I had anything further to reply until I noticed the edit summary, "what has this to do with the article?", If the article is about the written law then I suppose it would have nothing to do with the article. Maybe a clarification in the article that the article is only a mere presentation of the various laws existing as laws written in text. However if the article is about concept of law in general which it seems to be as one scrutinize the article in general. Then I think it would be beneficial to include the philosphy of why the laws exists and the idea behind their implementation. Like it has been done in other sections of the article regarding other kinds of laws.
Comment, Better yet, rewrite the article to create a more logical representation. Because as it is now the information on one subject such as Human Rights are spread widely over the different sections which makes it hard to get an overview. Lord Metroid 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe human rights article is reasonably good: perhaps that's the place to raise these matters? Have a read about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who say some quite interesting things about enforcement and natural rights. As yet, I don't really know what you mean about the philosophy of why laws exist. Read the Philosophy of law article; and political philosophy (which is covered on the law page itself). Wikidea 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have put ticks next to all the requests for changes, and in my view, all the criticisms have been dealt with. The exceptions are the "structural problems" and the "capitalist view of law" because I don't know what these things mean. Also I tend to disagree about lists, because sometimes they're necessary; and not citing pages, because sometimes its general. But thank you to the useful people that have made specific criticisms. Wikidea 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the legal systems section, there's information about the history of these systems and where they are in practice, but no real explanation about what they are really about, or what is the difference between them. CG 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that supposed to be covered under the "main article" above the paragraph? --Parker007 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to provide a small summary about what each system is about. CG 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)  Done
  • Object - Prose issues; it feels a little chatty at times. Some POV-ish sentences, such as "But despite the complexity, law is a highly rewarding study" lurk, Done and I'm not sure about the Civil Society para either. Done Footnote placement doesn't follow WP:FN. CloudNine 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would much appreciate if you were to explain how the "Footnote placement doesn't follow WP:FN." --Parker007 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've hopefully improved on the suggestions above; but I too don't know what is wrong with footnotes. I've written a lot of footnotes before, and I am really not sure why they are being wrongly placed. Please do explain what you mean! Wikidea 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It means the ref marks go after punctuation on WP.  Done. Gimmetrow 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not ready to support this article, and my objection stands. Because of that I decided to offer the article a full-scale review. These are my remarks:

  • Some parts of the article are still under-cites. See for instance "trusts and equity", where the first paragraph is uncited or sections (and sub-sections) "Civil law"  Done, "European law", "Asian law"  Done, "Legislature", "Executive", and "Religious law" Done (no citations there). I could add a lot of these ugly s, but I do not want to do it.
  • "Human rights" law isn't is a part of international law? And souldn't we mention that the "European convention on human rights" is a convention with a binding force, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not?  Done
  • the ECHR is technically not binding. Countries are more politically obliged to adhere to judgments (some still don't). You could say it's binding via the EU, where EU law is concerned (from the Solange II judgments), although that's why the EU is mentioned as a one of a kind. Good point about public international law not being binding though. I'm putting that in.
  • "Ancient law" remains listed (IMO)  Done and undercited. Three "bullets", which IMO should be turned into proper prose have no citations.
  • "Austin and Bentham, following David Hume thought this conflated what "is" and what "ought to be" the case. They believed in law's positivism, that real law is entirely separate from "morality"." Uncited assessments.
  • "Kelsen believed that though law is separate from morality, it is endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. Whilst laws are positive "is" statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is $500), law tells us what we "should" do (i.e. not drive backwards). So every legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) telling us we should obey the law." Uncited.
  • "Today's proponents, such as Richard Posner from the so called Chicago School of economists and lawyers, are generally advocates of deregulation, privatization, and are hostile to state regulation, or what they see as restrictions on the operation of free markets." Uncited.
  • "John Locke in Two Treatises On Civil Government and Baron de Montesquieu after him in Spirit of Laws advocated a separation of powers between the institutions that wield political influence, namely the judiciary, legislature and executive. Their principle was that no person should be able to usurp, as Thomas Hobbes wanted for an all powerful sovereign, a Leviathan of power." (the above sentences are just an example) Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentences. Otherwise, you interrupt the prose flaw. Put them in the missle only if it is necessary for emphasis reasons.
  • I see what you mean, but I think that to some extent, this is unavoidable. In the case above, I'd have to turn it into three sentences; I think most of the others are where you have cases, and they really ought to have citations alongside. Wikidea 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Coase said that regardless of whether the judge ruled that the sweetmaker had to stop using his machinery, or that the doctor had to put up with it, they could strike a mutually beneficial bargain about who moves house that reaches the same outcome of resource distribution. Only, the existence of transaction costs may prevent this. So the law ought to pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that law, and regulation, is not as important or effective at helping people as lawyers, and government planners, believe." Uncited; since he "said" these things, we need a source to verify that.  Done
  • "More recently Max Weber, and many others, reshaped thinking about the extensions of the state, which come under the control of the executive. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens' daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers like Locke and Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession itself is an important part of people's access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that are the political base of the law." Further uncited assessments.
  • "Most legislatures are bi-cameral, having two legislative houses." OK, but unicameralism doesn't deserve mentioning (still alive in Denmark, Greece, Israel)?  Done
  • "Under such presidential systems the executive is directly elected by a popular vote, and may appoint a cabinet that is not directly elected." This is inaccurate: 1) It is not the executive which is elected by popular vote, but the president himself, who then appoints the government (which is not usually elected), 2) Again, the president is not always elected by "popular vote". A characteristic example is US; the president is elected by representatives of the states not the popular vote (see the 2000 US elections). I think that the relevant article has a more accurate definition of the presidential system: "A presidential system, also called a congressional system, is a system of government where the executive branch exists and presides (hence the term) separate from the legislature, to which it is not accountable, and which cannot in normal circumstances dismiss it." The part in italics is indeed the most important, and the definition in the article in question fails to include it.  Done
  • "The military and police are sometimes referred to as "the long arms of the law". Referred by whom? As it is now this uncited assertion-quote, it looks like weasel.  Done
  • IMO in "Military and Police" Carl Schmitt deserves some mentioning, since he was the first theoritician who focused on the important of enforcement, and on the theory that the state is basically a machine of legal violence and enforcement (see his related theoris about the state of emergency and the distinction "friend and enemy" ("freund und feind")). But again this may be a personal preference.
  • I'm not sure if in "Bureaucracy" the reader gets the right idea; that for Weber bureaucracy is not a bad thing, but an institution necessary for a developped state; that it is another thing bureaucracy as an institution, and another thing bureaucracy as "red tape"; that the conception of bureaucracy in England or US is different from its conception in Germany, France, Greece etc. where the public administration is built on bureaucracy.  Done
  • Many printed sources in "References" still have no pages. This is an important problem for an article set to become FA.--Yannismarou 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply thanks for all this. I'll do my best. A lot are really just a matter of reading the articles already cited, a few are tricky to get books on. (Weasel? The "long arm of the law" is from Dickens!) Wikidea 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have updated the rating to A from B via the Assessment scales provided for: This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Misplaced Pages. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. & This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. Law has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. If it was wrong for me to do this please revert and state your reason here. Previously instead of A it was B. --Parker007 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm reluctant to rate as A-Class articles that have not gone through (at least!) GAC. If this article passes FAC, your rating will be of no importance; the article will be FA. If the article fails FAC, then it will be rated as A-Class, although it has never gone through GAC. So, you will have rated as A-Class a failed FAC, which will be neither officially recognized a good article!--Yannismarou 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do you think if it gets to FA status, and is featured on the main page many anon editors with knowledge about law will chip in to improve all the sub articles, which has been given a brief mention in the Law article (i.e it states Main article above)? --Parker007 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But again my opinion is that the driving force of Misplaced Pages are not anon editors but "eponymous editors" like you and Wikidea who dedicate time in the project. And what appears in the main page must really be "our best", so as not to receive criticisms for the quality-level of our articles.--Yannismarou 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Can someone tell me, how do you use a template, and repeat it throughout the text but with different page numbers? I mean, I know how to go "ref name=xxx" and then a template, but you can't have different pages in each footnote when you do it that way. Wikidea 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, stick something different to the right of "page ="? Oh, and which template is this? And are you trying to give references to different parts of the same document the same name? That just won't work (if that's what you're doing!).--Rmky87 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Another questionSorry, just the cite book reference template - I mean I don't want to keep having to write out the whole thing each time I refer to a different page; I was hoping that I could do the ref name=xxx thing; is that what you say I can't do??
  • Oppose because of poor structure. It's a very difficult, complex topic whose boundaries are hard to define, and the article does a good job of summarizing many of the areas of law. However, the opening two paragraphs are shockingly confusing, there should be a more general definition & history section at the beginning, and the all the legal branches should be discussed equally. With some work it could be featureable. Theonlyedge 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply You aren't being clear - is it the structure or the introduction that doesn't suit your fancy? Which bit shockingly confuses you? If you read the article, especially down to philosophy of law, there's a very good reason for not doing a definition at the start. Everyone agrees about history improvements - but you haven't given any reason why it should go before legal subjects. Surely the substance is the most important thing first!Wikidea 09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment-Update: IMO it is not so important if history section is first or last. Wikidea has his arguments. The most important thing is comprehensiveness. I want to inform the other reviewers here that I have started some edits in the article (citing, rephrasing, formatting). I think that it is on the right track, and I would like to ask Raul not to close yet this nomination. I'll focus my attention now on the formatting of the citations (in some cases there is huge inconsistency). With the main work of Misplaced Pages, and my parallel minor edits, I hope that the article will soon be ready to make it through.--Yannismarou 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Reply. You are right, the history-location argument was nit-picky. But the article's intro remains very confusing, and the branches section comes as a bit of a shock because only a weak definition has been given at that point. Still oppose, Theonlyedge 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC). Re:Reply. I rewrote the lead section, in order to serve better its role per WP:LEAD. Do you think it is still confusing? Can you be more clear about what should be changed in the branches section, so as to initiate improvements?--Yannismarou 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Object - its tone is far too chatty and it seems to be quite messy. I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles. Some comments jumped out at me:

"But if the harm is criminalised, and the act is intentional, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." This sentence implies that everyone who commits a crime goes to jail, which is obviously not true.

changed "is" to "can" and thanks for catching that one. Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Criminal law is the most familiar kind of law from the papers, or TV news, despite its relatively small part in the legal whole." Familiar to whom?

Well almost all people who haven't studied law that I meet, but you're right, and it's gone.Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Developed political parties, debating clubs, trade unions, impartial media, charities and perhaps even online encyclopedias are signs of a healthy civil society." I really dislike the link to Misplaced Pages here, it just smacks of a self-reference. In fact I dislike that entire sentence as a whole, especially as it has no reference. Who decides what makes a healthy society? You? Cites please. For the following sentence also: "A developed system of law is the strongest sign of a civil society, just as civil society is vital for the law itself."

Yes, me. Sorry, it was a joke for the end of the article, but I suppose a sense of humour doesn't belong there. It's changed. I'm glad you have no worries with the stuff in between! Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just a few things I noticed that I thought were iffy. I don't have the time to go over it properly. I must say I'm surprised this has come up for FAC, after looking at the preceding discusson above and the amount of objections that have been raised. I don't think FAC is meant to be the same as peer review. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not, and that is what I pointed out from the first moment. But, at least, there is now an ongoing effort to make this article featurable; whether it will work or not is something we'll see. And, although many things are left to be done, if you compare the article that was submitted to FAC with this one, you'll find great steps towards the right direction. So, even if the FAC fails, the article earned something from this procedure. DOn't you think?--Yannismarou 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • About changes from Yannismarou's page
  • First, I'm afraid Brittanica is WRONG with its definition of law - law isn't always binding; public international law isn't; it also says that the people need to accept law as binding, which is wrong as well if you're a positivist. Unfortunately, if one takes jurisprudence seriously, this is why we have so much debate in the philosophy of law; I'm putting back the composite definition - but I see the criticism in the intro's complexity from Theonlyedge. Can you suggest anything else?
  • Second, I'm not sure about the etymology and definition's section; I like Rousseau too; but he's a natural lawyer, and as you see he's saying "an unjust law is not a law" or lex injusta non est lex, as the very old saying goes; now this is bitterly contested by all the positivists since Bentham. The definition of law is the philosophy of law (or analytical jurisprudence). I know this is going to seem boring and obtuse, but it's important. If one doesn't try to deal with definitions, then the etymology looks a bit small for its own section.
  • Third, I'm just making a few of the photos smaller, and don't you think the opening photo looks better if bigger?
  • Fourth, I wanted the criminal law case, Dudley and Stephens in there as an example of how a case might spin out; it brings the section more to life by illustrating what can happen. I was going to put one into the trusts section too, because you raised it before.
  • Can I please stress to everyone else who is helping out, do not attempt to define law in a comprehensive way. The definition is the philosophy of law!!! Wikidea 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikidea, what was the problem with the "etymology and definition" section? And if you don't like the definition of Britannica, why did you have to revert the whole lead, as I rewrote it? You see that the lead is under attack by reviewers here, and I agree: it is really confusing. Yes, I suggest a most concise lead, with an one-sentence definition (yes, we need a "comprehensive definition" in the lead!), and a clearer distinction of branches and systems. As it is now, it is really a mess. (The prose in the lead gets uncyclopedic, just like the prose throughout the article, as it has been correctly mentioned above) More definitions of law can go to a seperate "Definitions and etymology" section as I wrote it. And what is the problem with Rousseau?! Of course, it is not an official definition of law. It is not even a stricto sensu definition. But this is a quite interesting short analysis with historical value. I know it may have "flaws", but all the definitions of law have flaws. Even those you mention No legal scholar has offered a satisfactory definition of law. And I added "Rousseau" not as "definition", but as a "quote". It is something parallel; it is something different; it offers what IMO and in other people's opinion constitutes the "human element", which is something very useful for a FA. But I'm afraid why are not there yet, are we?
  • And did you read one of the last criticisms: "I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles." Why, on earth, should we have the whole criminal case here?! What matters is the reference of "necessity". For anything else, for more details, the reader can go to the case's article. This is the essence of WP:SS.
  • Public internation law is not binding?!! Huh?! I now realized what you wrote, and I'm a bit shocked! I strongly object that! Of course, it is. The fact that there may be no courts to impose it does not mean that it is not binding. International treaties, and decisions of UN security council under chapter 7 are binding. A non-binding international treaty is no international law treaty! The decisions of the Hague Court (not the criminal one, which is also binding) are binding! The decision of the international criminal courts are binding! If an internation treaty of decision is not binding, then it is no law! Even the UN human rights declaration is being regarded by some as "binding" through the theory of soft law. Thus, even the non-enforceable documents of international law are getting through soft law enforceable! Therefore, your objection for Britannica's definition does not stand. I had decided not to put it back, but now I'm convinced that you are wrong! It is back!--Yannismarou 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't upset yourself. You're welcome to manipulate the definition of binding to fit into the Brittanica definition, but you'll find yourself at odds with most of the people who've thought about this longer than an FAC review. Do you mean international law is morally/politically binding do you? Does that mean something is legally binding when it's morally binding? Or does it have to be enforced in some way? In what sense is the decision of the ICJ binding when a nation state doesn't listen? Hmmm, doesn't sound very binding to me. I'd leave it to the philosophers if I were you. Wikidea 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I want you to mention me one state that has not followed ICJ rulings! I assure you there is none!! All ICJ rulings have been implemented by the involved parties. International law is binding, because it is legally binding! I don't know how to explain it to you! Whan two states sign an international treaty, they have a legal obligation to follow its provisions. It is not a moral obligation, it is not a political obligation; it is a legal obligation! When a state breaks its obligations and violates the Treaty, then it violates legal obligations. When a state violates the Geneva Treaty duuring a war, then it violates its legal obligations; and it may be held accountable to that by the Security Council-not for political violations, but for legal violations. Iran is now held legally responsible for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its signature to the Treaty entails legal obligations. If it had not signed it, the US wouldn't be able to initiate all these procedures against it.--Yannismarou 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay maybe I was getting ahead of myself. I'm thinking of things like the UN resolutions against Israel that are ignored; or the ius cogens norms that go unheeded, you're probably right about the ICJ; I finally found all the jurisprudence books I've quoted, and Hart makes says it's "binding" - Raz is another one, he says "authoritatively binding" - I'm not a fan of these two, and saying "law is that which is legally/authoritatively binding" is pure tautology, but yes, they say binding; I'm wrong. But I think we can quote them rather than an encyclopedia quoting them. I found a good few sociology of law books too. You'll get all your refs. Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On the change of place of legal systems, the reason it doesn't belong at the top is because when you start to learn law, you must grapple with the content of it. The people who I'm interested in reading this article are people who want to learn something about what law does, not which bit of the world they belong to. That's why it's important to start with subjects. I know a lot of editors looking at this will be more concerned with the form, the style, the use of reference templates and nice looking boxes with quotes. But that's not the way to get people to learn about law, and is why every university teaching law starts the same way as the article, with basic subjects. Wikidea 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What you don't see is that if you put the subjects first, you have to speak to the reader about the differences between common law and civil law in each branch, without having explained yet to him what are these systems! And, this is no university lecture. This is an encyclopedic article. Anyway, I disagree, but I had it your way, although, when you see that two other users are against your opinion, you may have to listen to them a bit.--Yannismarou 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I add some s in some parts of the article there are unsourced claims.--Yannismarou 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you have added the Oxford Handbook, but I do not see its full data (ISBNS etc.) Rhodes is one of the editors; is he also the author of the part you quote?--Yannismarou 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
sorry yes, Ch. 19 called "Public Bureaucracies" is by Donald F. Kettl; and Ch. 8 called the "Development of Civil Society" is by Jose Harris - thought I put the isbn in - it's 0199275696, but I'm no good with the refs, and didn't know how to do chapters Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you keep some things from the changes in the lead?!!! You have the etymology at the end, with no connection with the rest of the paragraph. The etymology should go after the definition. Don't you see that? Definition and etymology are connected. And why don't you insist to have the legal subjects before the legal systems. Both me and Reswik say that the systems as more general should go before the subjects. I still believe this is the correct thing.--Yannismarou 14:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that I've written excellent sections on legal systems (ha ha) but I still think it's better to start with the substance; I don't think people should be led to believe that the approach to law from one system or another alters vastly the outcomes in rules, because there's more in common than divides. Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The following citations have citations with printed sources without mentioning pages: 1, 4, 5, 6, 34, 53, 93, 95 and 100. Even Hegel and Webel should be cited. A general reference of their books is not enough.--Yannismarou 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I turn my vote to neutral for the time being; a lot of work has been done here by a lot of people (especially Wikedia - I also want to thank Robth for his immediate response to my request for prose help), and I think the article is too too close to FA status (and much better than many law articles in other encyclopedias - we have raised the standards too high here!). Some minor flaws do not justify an objection like now. I'll initiate some further improvements, and I think that I'll be able soon to give my full support to the article.--Yannismarou 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral; Are you kidding me? The first paragraph has 6 references. This is way beyod FA status. I say Super FA status! --Parker007 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Parker, you don't judge FA statuss by the number of references in the lead. Please, I know something more about FAs! I've nominated and promoted some of them myself. A huge work is under way right now, so as the article to be a proper FA. Please, respect that, and don't jump into rushy conclusions.--Yannismarou 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for the comment. --Parker007 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • At Yannis' request, I took a look through this over the past day or so and tweaked the phrasing in a few places where it was slightly unusual. I'm in no way knowledgeable about law, so I can't really speak to the content or the referencing of this article very much. What I can note is that I found the phrasing in the Civil Law and Trust and Equity sections to be ambiguous and confusing. I left some commented out questions in those sections, and would appreciate seeing them clarified. Other than that, this looks very good, and it's excellent to see a challenging "top-level" article like this brought up to such a high standard. --Robth 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
These are the last developments in the article:
  • The prose has been reworked and copyedited by Wikedia, Robth, and, in some sections, by Reswik.
  • I wikified and fixed all the citations and references, adding pages, data, and, where necessary, further sources. I also provided clarifications in the "Civil law" section, and trimmed "See also" section incorporating some links in the text.
After these developments, and the work of all the previous weeks, I can now say that this article definitely deserves FA status. Therefore, I change my vote, and, although I have become one of the contributors to this article, I think I can offer my enthusiastic support.--Yannismarou 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The effort put into this article while it has been on FAC has been phenomenal. This is now an extremely impressive article on a very difficult and complex subject, and it fully deserves FA status. —Cuiviénen 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think this page has overrun its time. Thanks to Yannis, this surely is the best referenced page there is! Make everyone happy, and declare it FA! Wikidea 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments I've tried to straighten out some of the use of "publisher" vs. "work" in sources using {{citeweb}}, but I'm not sure I've caught them all. Also, per WP:GTL, navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article; this article has an entire section (Jurisdictions) of navigational templates in the middle of the article (against WP:GTL, unsightly and distracting). A method or restructuring or rewriting to refer to navigational templates at the bottom of the article should be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply*Sandy Georgia, I can see you like the WP:GTL rules, but you didn't respond to my comments above about why it isn't always appropriate to not put navigational templates in the middle of an article. Isn't the burden on you, in this case, to say why it's "unsightly and distracting"? The rules are suggestive, rather mandatory. And shouldn't you propose the way to be found, if you don't like it? I think the templates work well where they are. They're useful and informative, whereas if we shoved them to the page's bottom, they might not be. That said, I'm happy to hear your suggestions. Wikidea 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Bill Russell

Self-nomination. The article on the legendary basketballer and the NBA's most successful player of all time is already a GA, and after going through peer review, reading the FAC and getting valuable help of guys like Quadzilla99, Myasuda, Chensiyuan and others, I want to go for the FA. The WikiProject NBA (WP:NBA) has atm zero FAs, and I would like to make a start. Thanks for reading. —Onomatopoeia 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose For now. There's almost no information about his early life. I once recall watching a documentary about Russell where it discussed the racism he experienced in Louisiana and later San Francisco and how those experiences made him the person he was. I think this article needs to expand its personal life section greatly and needs a few paragraphs about his childhood so that it can delve into just how fascinating and complex the man was. As it stands now, its just mostly an article about his basketball achievements. Warhol13 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

to be sure, there is quite a bit on the non-NBA aspects in the article. yes, not a whole lot on the racism incident but well, if we can agree that is very important, then something has to be done about it. however, i do not think the documentary per se makes it very significant. we need to know why it warrants independent treatment within the article. thanks. Chensiyuan 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I was bringing to light that the article mentions nothing about the first 16 years about the mans life other than where he was born and that he moved to San Franciso. All childhoods are important to understaning who a person is and for Russell this seems to be especially so. Anyway, the documentary I'm referencing is "Sportcentury: Bill Russell" and I saw is on ESPN a few years ago. You might be able to catch is on ESPN Classic sometime. Warhol13 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believed I've remedied that. I'll leave a note on Warhol's talk page. Quadzilla99 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support I think I've addressed the concerns of Warhol and it's a well written, well researched article. Quadzilla99 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support as above. Chensiyuan 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Bill Russell had thirteen blocks in a game because goal tending was legal in college during that time (watch footage of those ncaa chamionship games). Rusell was important is this rule change as well as, along with Wilt Chamberlain, the rule change to extend the paint from 6 to 12 feet. I added this to the article but perhaps it could use work. Also, the "early years" section is coming along. I would like to see some discussion on what impact the racism had on him, perhaps a quote from him. I also know that he experienced racism in San Francisco, a place where his family felt it would get better. Warhol13 20:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a good chunk of info on Russell as a victim of racial abuse, and added his quote that the racist abuse made him harder and how he worked that others saw him as a man first and a basketballer second. —Onomatopoeia 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

there's this part about "the ultimate low blow" - is that what is meant to be said? Chensiyuan 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that getting your skin color registered officially is simply outrageous. But I have changed that. —Onomatopoeia 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Oops, I misread the article and removed that sentence. —Onomatopoeia 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The last picture has a very shaky free use rational. Also, the writing during his career could use some more work. I'll try to work on it some tomorrow. Thanks the three of you. I don't feel like the article is FA status yet but it could get there soon. Warhol13 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Please add WP:PDATA - make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), aging (A) (British: ageing), routing (A) (British: routeing). M3tal H3ad 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I added a WP:PDATA template and read through the article, I didn't really see any of the British spellings in there. They should all be out now. Quadzilla99 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Support M3tal H3ad 06:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose/moral support Support The research is solid, but the article could use more copy-editing. I think the intro (especially the second paragraph) could use some work, as it contains redundancies and non-parallel constructions. I'd love to see this on the main page, though, so I'll try to help out however I can. Zagalejo 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think those concerns have been addressed, could you be more specific as much as the prose has been rewritten in the last couple of days. Quadzilla99 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have time to go into specifics. There are a few minor things to address (unnecessary or incorrect punctuation marks; passive voice; sentences that end with prepositions, etc.), but it looks like the copy-editing is progressing nicely. The article should be fine by the time it has reached the front page, so I'll vote support for now. Zagalejo 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment If anyone has any comments as to the prose please be specific so people can address your concerns. Just saying the prose is not good is not really an actionable objection. A lot of work has been done in recent days and the prose looks pretty solid. Thanks. Quadzilla99 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support My qualms have been address and I support now. Warhol13 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Manderiko 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article is comprehensive and well documented -- the difference between the article from early December of last year to where it stands now are like night and day. My only issue with the article at this time are some redundancies between second paragraphs of the "Awards and feats" and "Legacy" sections, but this is a minor point.Myasuda 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Initially, I had the same reserves as Zagalejo, with regard to passive voice, and other minor grammatical complaints. Overall, however, I belive the article is well written, documented, and sourced. Zodiiak 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough

Self-nom for the above article. Thank you to those who participate. Raymond Palmer 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Gracious me - a favourite of mine since I read Winston Churchill's account many years ago. I see that there was only one comment on the MilHist PR, from Kirill Lokshin. Given his importance, it is unfortunately that there was not a general PR to get other historians, etc, involved. Anyway, this is a very good article, but I have a few comments.
Some general points first:
  • I thought house style was to use straight quotes (' ' and " ") rather than curly ones (‘ ’ and “ ”)
I don't know.
To avoid Red links? Yes ; )
  • It would be useful if someone gave this an end-to-end copyedit, to pick up the occasional infelicty in spelling, etc. I will try when I have time.
Some more specific points:
  • "Unlike his royalist mother-in-law, Winston had had the misfortune of fighting on the losing side of the war for which he, like so many other cavaliers, was forced to pay recompense" - his mother was a royalist, so unlike her he was a parliamentarian (and so on the winning side?) - or perhaps his mother supported Parliament?
  • "The old cavaliers had received recompense for losses incurred fighting parliament during the civil war, but Charles’ own penury meant they received scant reward" - who did they receive recompense from, if Charles could not afford it?
  • Do we know what he was doing in the Great Plague of London or Great Fire of London, in the two years before he was commissioned in the guards?
In my effort to keep the article down in size, I did some clumsy editing! The above should be clearer now.
  • Tangier in 1668 had only just become a British holding, part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza. Why was a junior guardsman like Churchill sent there? Or has he already changed regiment? (was the system of purchasing rank already in existence?)
Not sure I understand your point Aloan.
  • Presuambly he was too insignificant to be mentioned in Pepys' diary?
Absolutely. He was just a teenager when Pepy's wrote his diary
As stated in the article he was promoted to Captian to that Regiment from the Guards. Later 24th of foot. Not sure if that's the Buffs.
  • Given the otherwise extensive level of citaion, can you indicate where Miller and Churchill's Marlborough: His Life and Times are used?
For some unfathomable reason, another user added the Churchill reference to the list. I don't know why but its gone now (I'm sure his heart was in the right place). Miller was used as a reference, but it's true there are no direct citations from him.
  • Which French regiment did he command under Turenne?
No, not a French regiment. It says English regiment remaining in French service. I think the regiment was a composite one with a detachment from the Admiralty Regiment.
Yes, I think that's correct.
Done
Yes he is. Done
  • The explanation of the "Camaret Bay letter" (i.e. the failed Attack on Brest) could be clearer.
  • Blenhim passes in a flash (as do the later battles). Urban goes to some detail explaining how unusual it was for the British Army to march into the bowels of the continent to fight away from the support of the Royal Navy. The column contained a large component of non-British forces (a typical British strategy, given its small army - get others to do the fighting for you - see Wellington in the Peninsular and at Waterloo). Marlborough somehow pursuading the Dutch States-General to let him take their forces away from the Netherlands was also a coup, the force also moved exceptionally quickly due to Marlborough's planning, and to defeat the mighty French in pitched battle was almost unimaginable.
  • Please explain Non Plus Ultra.
I've added a 'see map' and explained in the notes in more detail.
  • There really ought to be more about Blenheim Palace, the commissioning of Vanbrugh, and problems in securing the funding to finish it. An image would be nice.
All in all, this is excellent. I hope the above does not put you off. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all for your comments and thank you Aloan. The reason I didn't enter into detail about the battles and Blenheim Place etc was to keep the article down to a readable length. I had to include his personal life (how can you not include his nagging wife); the political as well as the military aspects. Therefore to balance these concernes meant sacrificing military detail. I also thought that these battles will have their own articles anyway (as does Blenheim palace) so I only gave a brief overview. I may have got the balance wrong, however. Raymond Palmer 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I am going to reply down here:
  • There is no need to avoid redlinks - that is how we know where there are gaps in our coverage.
  • Re Tangier - I was wondering what a guardsman was doing there - was it a typical posting? Was he on a special mission?
  • The Buffs were briefly the 4th (The Lord High Admiral's) Regiment, and later the 3rd Regiment of Foot. The 24th Regiment of Foot were the 2nd Warwickshire, and later South Wales Borderers.
  • Perhaps the unused references are suitable "Further reading"?
  • Sorry, I had the impression that he was commanding a French regiment, not a British one in French service. I would be slightly surprised if it were a composite regiment - can you check?
  • This is a massive topic, and you have done a good job, but there are areas where more could be added - including the battles and architecture.
  • I'll try to take the time to check out your other changes and copyedit later today. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have copyedited - lots of fiddling but generally excellent, and a few more redlinks, but not excessively so. A couple of further things - his progeny are mentioned several times (younger son Charles; daughter Elizabeth, Countess of Bridgwater; daughter Anne, Countess of Sunderland) - should there be a list of his issue, and their marriages (if any)? Should there be a mention of the French antipathy to "Malbrouke". -- ALoan (Talk) 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a list of his legitimate children at Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. The Duke's article mentions the death of his younger son in 1692, while he is in the Tower, but presumably the death of his elder son and heir, John - erstwhile Master of the Horse in fn.59 - in February 1702/3 must have been a crushing blow, having been made a Duke just a few months before in December 1702, and his wife now aged over 40. It seems he also died of smallpox, while at Kings College, Cambridge. The patents for his new titles were amended to allow his daughters to inherit. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Solar System

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Maserati MC12

(Self-nom) I found this article when it was in a bad way and rewrote it. It has since had 2 peer reviews; 1 and 2, the second not providing much which I hope is good. The only criteria I'm hesitant about is 1a. Note: it's written with British spelling. James086 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You say that "the MC12 qualifies as a super car, meeting all criteria" - yet the Super car article says: "The proper application of this term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. In addition, the use of the term is dependent on the era; a vehicle that is considered to be a supercar at one time may not retain its superiority in the future." I agree with what Super car says - there is no set of criteria you can apply to say that this car is or is not a supercar (note arguments about the Arial Atom for example - it equals or beats most supercars in most technical regards but isn't regarded as one because its styling isn't like other supercars and it doesn't cost millions of dollars). Personally, I believe that the term is inherently non-encyclopeadic and that we should delete all references to the term 'super car' in all of our articles (except the Super car article itself). But at the very least, you shouldn't say that the car meets criteria when there are no widely recognised criteria to meet. Aside from that this is a good article - I think the English majors here may have something to say about punctuation - but I'm not in a well-qualified position to complain about that! SteveBaker 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I will change it today, I'm in a bit of a hurry now so I won't be able to do it immediately (real-life beckons) but will come back later and alter it. Thanks for commenting. James086 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job with the re-write. I did a bit of cleanup today: I changed the ambiguous damper wikilink to point to the shock absorber article (but kept damper visible, since the article is written in British style.) There were redundant links to carbon fibre, radio, down force, and clutch that I took out. I also removed a wikilink to leather, which I found too generic word to merit a link from this particular article, and dropped a wikilink to power (physics) which is an extremely technical article, with formulas galore; it just didn't seem like a good fit for the general audience of the car article. I also added three race location links for Imola, Motopark Oschersleben and Dubai Autodrome.

My biggest complaint is the opening sentence:

The Maserati MC12 is a super car produced by Maserati as a road car (for homologation) from which they developed a FIA GT Championship racing variant.

I'm a 49 year old, reasonably well-read and educated American, and I've never heard the word homologation in my life. Maybe in Europe it's more familiar, or well-known among avid racing fans, but I don't think that a lead sentence should have a word that in all likelihood could be unfamiliar to many readers. The word is also wikilinked twice in the article, but I left the redundant link in because I figure readers like myself may need to re-check the word for its meaning. After looking it up, I guess a more-familiar (to me, anyway) term that is equivalent would be street legal, but I'm not sure I'm right about that! Feel free to leave the word in, but I felt I had to comment about it. - Itsfullofstars 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I rewoword it into something along the lines of

The Maserati MC12 is a sports car produced by Maserati as a road car to homologate (meet entry criteria) a FIA GT Championship racing variant.

Or leave out the homologation all together (explaining it). Bearing in mind it is the correct term. Anyway thanks for bringing it up and for the comments. James086 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Homologation doesn't mean anything like street legal. It means something like: When you want to race a really special hand-built kind of race car in certain race events, you are obliged to show that not only is this a 'street legal' car - but also that it's somewhat mass-produced and is sold as street car. So in order to get this car into the race events they wanted it to compete in, they had to make and sell enough of them to the general public. The rules for how many you have to sell - and how similar they are to the car you are planning to race are the homologation rules for that event. I very much doubt there is another word that means the same thing - I'm hard pressed to think of even a shortish phrase that means that. But street legal doesn't cut it. To give you a concrete example, the Mini Cooper'S that won the Monte Carlo rally in 1966 was definitely street legal - but because it had different headlamp dimming circuits from the version they sold to the general public, it failed the homologation test and was disqualified. I think the word has to stay - I don't approve to 'talking down' to our readership...but maybe I'd reorganise the introduction section to move that information down into the second or third paragraph so that the first paragraph is more approachable. SteveBaker 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved the homologation info into the 3rd paragraph (I agree that it needs to be included, but the first sentence should be clearer) and changed "supercar" to "grand tourer" because that's what Maserati calls it officially. Heres the diff: . James086 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the changes. After reading the further comments here, I can absolutely agree that homologation is the proper word and needed to be kept, but its new location outside the lead sentence is a big improvement. It's better not to have a possible 'huh?' factor in the lead paragraph. In retrospect, my mentioning of 'street legal' is embarrassing, but hey, at least I learned a new word. - Itsfullofstars 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WHAT?! Someone learned something by reading Misplaced Pages? OMG - Quick...call the media! Short-sell your Encyclopedia Britannica stock!  :-) SteveBaker 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - With the changes so far, I support this article as FA. SteveBaker 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - What else can I say, very well written, support to keep the term homlogation in as people should know what this term means, if not get to know it, it could be useful for you! Willirennen 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - Well written, well researched. (Someday, I'm going to toss the word Homologation into a conversation to impress my friends, but I worry I may not pronounce it right.) Itsfullofstars 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain - I do like the content and structure of the article, but I have to agree with the nominator: the prose is not up to par yet. There are many grammatical and punctuational errors present, which should be corrected first. Find a good copyeditor and thoroughly cleanse the article. Thanks. --Plek 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have had a friend copyedit the article (mostly in my account, and they later through IP, see diff) and I have requested a copyedit with the League of Copyeditors. James086 09:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being fashionably late. I intended to create a list of all the things I thought needed copyediting, but ended up making the edits myself. As I'm not a stellar copyeditor (I usually have no problem spotting the mishaps, but my corrections are not always the best possible), you might want to look through the diff to see if I messed things up somewhere. Changing vote to abstain. --Plek 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Only one minor wording change , saying that the figures are lower implies it accelerates faster. It is hard to describe in one sentence but I think it is important to keep in there. Thanks for copyediting and improving the article :) James086 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is a very good article. Karrmann 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the TOC is a bit bloated. Also is there any information on how commercially successful the car has been, I couldn't spot it.--Peta 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Firstly thanks for the comments, all suggestions are great. There were only 50 cars made, as it was produced to meet the entry criteria for the FIA GT. Also they probably limited the the number produced to make it seem prestigous. Maserati approached customers that they selected and offered it to them for €600 000. Commercial success isn't really something that applies to this car, especially since you couldn't request to buy it. You shrunk the TOC a bit, should it be reduced any more? I might be able to work some of the specification sections together if need be. James086 07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone

As writer of this article, I believe (and hope) it adheres to the featured article criteria. Two things I should mention before you assess it. First, I am aware that it might not follow the proper naming conventions (cyclone shouldn't be capitalized in the article), but the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently discussing our naming conventions, so if you object because of the title, could you wait until we finish discussing, or could you possibly give your imput? Secondly, as a notice, the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that references are excluded from the lede, and in the body of the article they are used at the end of every block- that is, block A is three sentences long, and ends with ref A. Any comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. This looks smaller than even Irene! But evs. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, this is about 3 kb longer. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Before I support this article I would like to see it reviewed by some Sri Lankan editors. I have left a message on Lahiru k's talk page asking him to address the following:
  • Did the cyclone have a native name in Sinhala or Tamil?
  • Is there a corresponding article in either the Sinhala or Tamil Wikipedias?
  • Are there any POV issues due to a lack of local sources?
  • Are there any obvious factual errors?
Kaldari 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Some of the language is confusing, particularly...

  • "Though the cyclone struck areas under control by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, there are no damage reports exist for those regions." - Are there no damage reports because the storm's effect was weaker in these areas? Is the lack of damage reports linked to a lack of cooperation from the Tigers?
  • "By about a month after the cyclone, the Red Cross distributed 10 sheets of roof to 1,720 families..." - I believe "roofing sheets" (per the text of the cited source) or "roofing material" may make more sense here.
Also, I'd like to see an image of the aftermath of the storm to tell the human side of the story. Having just satellite imagery makes it a little too impersonal. Caknuck 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Jack Sheppard

This 18th-century thief was executed at the age of 22, but he became a working-class hero as a result of his repeated escapes from prison in 1723 and 1724. The case became a cause célèbre, and contributed to the ultimate fall from grace of the villainous Jonathan Wild (please also read Geogre's excellent featured article on him).

This article is largely based on Lucy Moore's 2000 work, The Thieves' Opera, and a peer review just finshed with only a couple of responses. Suggestions welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Object Support I'd love to support this article, as it is very well-written and tells a fascinating story, but the almost-exclusive reliance on one source is just too much. Were you not able to track down the other sources that you mentioned at peer review? I might be able to help you get hold of them if it would be useful. Also, have you looked for Defoe's "History of the Remarkable Life of John Sheppard"?
Your citations could use a little work. You need full references for "The London Hanged," for "The Road to Tyburn" and for the source that you cite from Project Gutenberg. They also should be listed in the references as well as in the notes.
I only found one phrase that I question, the description of Sheppard's "syncopated liberation." While it sounds nice, the meaning is less clear. MLilburne 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OBJECT. I agree with MLilburne's comments that more sources need to be used to reference this article. The reliance on one source makes this article not a comprehensive treatment (in terms of addressing all the available coverage). It is a remarkably well-written article, and if it were better sourced, I'd gladly support it. —ExplorerCDT 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I did not add the "syncopated liberation" passage - I have tweaked the wording a little.
On citations, I am afraid I am not sure what you mean by "full reference". I have added an ISBN for "The London Hanged". What else should I add for "The Road to Tyburn", or for the links to Project Gutenberg sources (more links than sources, actually)?
On sources, I said "largely based on" not "derived solely from". The bones of the article were based on work by Geogre derived from Howson and the DNB, although without inline citations; I have augmented it from Moore and other sources, for which inline citations have been added to the article. Inevitably, a recent work like Moore's synthesises the early body of knowledge, although half it is on Wild; I am not aware of recent non-fiction works specifically on Sheppard. I do mention some other potential sources in the peer review: the 2002 article would be nice, but I don't have access to an academic library; Hibbert's book would also be nice, but it dates from 1957 and I have not located a copy. The Newgate Calendar was already mentioned as an external link, but I have added some more specific citations. Tell me if you know of a source that should be included - even better, find one and add some notes (please!). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can get at Victorian Studies, so I've sent you a copy of the 2002 article, ALoan. (For me to pass on a copy to you, and for you to discuss it on Misplaced Pages, is a perfectly kosher use of my access, as far as I can make out.) I thought about adding some information from it and notes about it to the article, but... er... hrm... you do it. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Gosh! Very much thanks. Received and reading. (I also have a long list of articles on Mary Seacole...) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
By "full references," I mean what is specified here: WP:CITE#Full_citations. Personally I find the use of citation templates helpful (WP:CITET), but they're not required. For the footnotes you can use a shorter form (personally I use last name of author, short title and page number, but this is personal practice rather than a rule). Either way, "The Road to Tyburn," "The London Hanged" and any other source that you cite should be listed in full in the references.
I'll come back later to address the other points. MLilburne 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the sources are perfectly identifiable from the current information (don't I already have "name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication"?) Can I appeal to a citation guru like to help me out here if anything further is required. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you have several sources that aren't listed under "References" (as opposed to in foonotes under "Notes") at all. I might be able to help you with that later, but it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult... MLilburne 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right - I thought you were complaining about the absence of "full references". The sources listed in the "References" section are the only ones that I have used - I don't think it would be right to include the others, which is why they are only noted. I was just trying to be helpful by putting some additional information in the footnotes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you should include all the sources that the article cites, whether you used them or not. And ideally, you should really track them down. I'm still getting the feeling that the article really isn't comprehensive enough. MLilburne 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think it would be right to call a source a "reference" when it has not been used to generate or support the contents of the article. For example, the article says that Sheppard's story was written about in The Road to Tyburn by Christopher Hibbert in 1957, with a footnote giving the ISBN of a 2001 reprint. I think it is entirely right that I give enough information for the interested reader to find the book themselves, but I have not used that work as a source so it should not be included in the "References". Ditto, I have not viewed either of the silent movies, or the Tommy Steele film version, despite linking to IMDb pages on all of them, nor Stephenson's recent novels, nor Ainsworth's serialised novelisation from 1839, nor Montcreiff's melodrama from 1825. And, to be honest, I am not convinced that I need to. Having found a copies, I will read Defoe's account and Ainsworths version (I suspect the latter will be useless as a source on the actual Sheppard, by the way) and see if they add anything, but I suspect that the secondary sources I have used already are better able to judge what is worth mentioning than my own reading of a primary source. As for comprehensiveness, what do you think is missing? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The section is called "References," not "Sources," so it seems to me that any book, article or website referenced in the footnotes has contributed enough to the article to be included in that section. It would help the reader look the book up if it was listed in the usual place, in the usual format. To tell you the truth, the way you've listed it now just looks odd.
As for comprehensiveness, what do I think is missing? Well, we've established that the article replies almost exclusively on one source, but that there are a lot of other sources available. These include: 1) the 2002 Victorian Studies article, 2) Linebaugh, who might have more to say, 3) Hibbert, 4) Defoe, 5) Ainsworth, 6) a rather interesting discussion of Sheppard's role in the so-called "Newgate novels," which I've just found here, and 7) any of the rather impressive list of sources cited therein. You're right in saying that Defoe and Ainsworth are useless as reliable sources for Sheppard's actual life, but they are very relevant to the "Legacy" section. While it's incorrect to draw conclusions based on primary sources, they do provide excellent illustrations for an article, and I'm sure that the Defoe, at least, would provide some pithy quotes. MLilburne 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry: I still disagree - I don't think every work mentioned in passing in the footnotes needs to be added as a reference. Would you rather that I removed the footnotes that include helpful information, such as links to Gutenberg versions, IMDb articles and ISBNs for items mentioned in the article? I repeat - they are not references: they are just pointers for additional information. As for articles that use a similar style, how about Dürer's Rhinoceros (now brought to you in featured versions in German and Spanish, and a FAC in French).

Thanks for the additional article: it was interesting. It is more about the reaction to Ainsworth's work as a melodrama/Newgate novel (a juicy redlink for someone, there) than about Sheppard per se, but I will add some extra sentences to the "Legacy" section in due course. The article provided by Bishonen will also help in this regard (it is also more about the reaction to the fictionalised account in Ainsworth's novel than the facts of the historical person). I would not want to give undue weight to later fiction based around the life of the real Jack Sheppard. (How much about Shakespeare's Richard III would you exect in an article about the King?)

To repeat: the article does not rely "almost exclusively on one source" - it is fundamentally based on two very good sources, substantially augmented from a third, plus snippets from a few others. I have read the Defoe "History", which does not add much to the article as it stands (understandably, as the secondary sources will already have used it); the "Narrative" may be more interesting (if anyone can point me to a version; again, I expect the sources already cited will have taken it fully into account). I may read Ainsworth for interest, but I doubt it is going to add much more. I don't have copies of Linebaugh or Hibbert, and don't see that they are essential - do you really think they are going to add anything material to the article as it stands? Finally, there are already a number of illustrations. What more would you like to see pictured? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I follow the same practice as ALoan and don't repeat in the references all the books cited in the notes. There are subtle reasons for that which are difficult to put into words for someone without the feel for it. However, I believe MLilburne's objections might be met easily enough by the addition of a "Further Reading" section beneath the References section, in which could be listed books etc. mentioned (or even unmentioned) in the article that do not appear in the References list.--qp10qp 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added some snippets from Defoe's History and added it as a reference. I could not find too many juicy quotes, and I am sure he made up the reported speech anyway, but what he said people said is at least verifiable. Linebaugh has gone in as a reference (I'm sure the anon read him even though I have not). Hibbert has gone in as "further reading" - Geogre will add some references in due course I hope, and I will expand legacy a little when I have time in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly get behind the idea of a "Further Reading" section. Should Howson be listed in Further Reading rather than References? It doesn't seem to be cited in the article.
I'll be keeping an eye on the article over the next few days, as some of my concerns have been addressed, but I'd like to see how it develops before striking my objection. MLilburne 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Geogre's parts came from Howson, even if there are no inline citations, so it ought to be in "References", I think. Some Victoriana should be added today, when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, and best read I've had in a while. It must be fun writing sentences like "Sheppard was arrested a third time at Blueskin's mother's brandy shop in Rosemary Lane on 23 July by Wild's henchman, Quilt Arnold". I don't see any problem with the sourcing: about a small subject like this, the facts are finite, and I doubt any significant extra ones would be unearthed from sources other than Sheppard's recent biographer.
Linebaugh's views are peculiarly odious; if we must have them, may they not be buried among the clinker at the bottom instead of obtruding where they do?
By the way, it is mentioned Hogarth could have remembered Sheppard in Industry and Idleness, but is that not our boy a-dangle upstage in the sheet illustrated here? --qp10qp 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Linebaugh's views were inserted by an anon here. I don't care much whether they stay or go, although it is an interesting alternative view. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that they should stay, as they are relevant whether one agrees with them or not. Just one point: the citation should be at the end of the paragraph on Linebaugh, not right after his name. MLilburne 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That was where I put the citation in the first place: someone else moved it. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Linebaugh is ... making a point, as it were. I agree/d that the view should stay. The anon originally had a good deal more, as I recall, and we needed to trim it some. My problem is that, as a New Historicist, he's a reactive analysis, and I hate handing people strong readings (Harold Bloom's term for antagonistic/analytic/"deconstructive" readings) before they have the basic reading under their belts, and I always figure our first task is to lay down the dull first principles. Geogre 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with the inevitable prose nitpick or two:
    • Is it possible to break up the "arrests and escapes" section with a subheading or two for navigability?
    • In the lead it says his arrests "were part of the downfall" of Jonathan Wild, but with no specifics; though this is explained in Wild's article, it could use a bit more explanation here.
    • "a ban, at least in London, on licensing any plays" - slightly confused, for two reasons. 1) Is it not clear from the source whether the ban extended outside London? 2) Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "license" a play? (Also - this same phrase is repeated in the legacy section.)
    • "...but then began to be led astray" - not much dispute that he was astray, but the phrase still sounds moralizing.
    • Lead says "little more than a year" of his apprenticeship left, but the early life section says he served five out of the seven years, and the arrests section says he had "less than two years" left. These aren't necessarily inconsistent, but the descriptions are a little sloppy.
    • In the paragraph about Linebaugh, Foucault's "Great Confinement" is mentioned - if this is going to be referenced here, it could use a bit more description, though it gets a little fleshing out in Foucault's article. Having only a stereotyped set of mental associations with Foucault, I wasn't sure if the term was referring to actually putting people in jail or to some sort of foggy sociological phenomenon that happened to get that label.
    • "Wild and Field gave evidence against him at the Old Bailey" - "Old Bailey courthouse"? Some context is useful for the clicking-impaired.
    • "also preventing a plan to take his body to a doctor to be revived." - a bit confused again; even if it took him a long time to die, why would anyone plan to revive him in the middle of his execution? Opabinia regalis 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I have looked at your nitpicks and made some changes which I hope deal with them. I am not sure if the subheads are quite right; it is not entirely clear (to me, at least) whether there was a ban outside London (plays required a licence from the Lord Chamberlain until the Theatres Act 1968); and the dates are reasonbly clear, I hope (indenture for 7 years in April 1717; off the rails in late 1722/early 1723 - more than 5 years in, less than 2 to go; first crime in Spring 1723, little more than a year to go; left his master in August 1723. I may be falling foul of New Style/Old Style issues, of course). Further comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the subheads, though I won't cry if you take them out again; even with the images, that section is a very long block of text without them, and scrolls on for several screenfuls at low resolution. But making them consistently nouns (not "arrested and escaped twice") would read more cleanly. The dates themselves seem internally consistent; it's just the text estimates that sound a bit odd (just reading the text without keeping the specific dates in mind, it's not clear whether "less than two years" is a rephrasing of "little more than a year", or meant to refer to a larger gap of time). I'm still not clear on why there was a plan to take him to the doctor; was that normally done when someone took a long time to die during an execution? Or was it an attempted concession to the crowd? Lastly, one minor question: is "Edgworth Bess" really spelled without the second 'e'? Opabinia regalis 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and I apologize for being virtually vanished as this process has been underway. I have Road to Tyburn and Albion's Fatal Tree and others, so I can provide full MLA citations easily enough. The only difficult to cite sections are the ones about later usages of the Sheppard story. It's really shadowy, which plays ran when and for how long and didn't run, etc., and especially the film probjects. I will go through and try to add/note/support what's there presently. This article is a companion to the well-loved Jonathan Wild article, and I originally got involved only because what had been present had been wrong and come from some wide-eyed sources. Geogre 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Geogre - any additional notes that you can add will be gratefully received. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object - the narrow range of sources is worrying. Is it not possible to cite from contemporary newspaper articles, published legal proceedings etc for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PocklingtonDan (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 February 2007
    • But the primary sources have been recycled by the secondary sources, so Moore would have effectively cited and covered them. Misplaced Pages articles in general rely on good secondary sources, not primary ones. However, this is an easy objection to meet, and I could quite easily sprinkle some quotes from contemporary newspapers and pamphlets into the article and plump out the references, if you like, though it wouldn't alter the substance. I'll have a go at doing such a thing later on today, if ALoan doesn't mind, since I'd be upset if this article failed FA on counts of window dressing. qp10qp 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, was away again unexpectedly. Thanks for adding some more choice quotes. The article is based on sources which are themselves based on the primary sources anyway (Defoe's "History" and "Narrative" and the newspaper account, already linked, for example). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There was no real need for the additions, of course, because the secondary sources already covered the primary sources. It's just rearranging the deckchairs, and opening a few out. I've been enjoying myself, though; the History is a lovely read, is it not? And Linebaugh is much better than I expected from the garbled, pretentious version of his views we had here. I'd be surprised if the article failed to make FA: it seems to me admirably reliable for the documented events (I challenge anyone to read one of the primary sources and find anything in it that substantially contradicts the present account). Very well done. qp10qp 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Blush, well, thanks. I would not bet my pension on 100% accuracy (particularly given the nature of some of the original sources) but I trust the ensemble is reasonably reliable. The sermon is at the end of the first external link too, by the way ("mount the chimney of hope, take from hence the bar of good resolution, break through the stone wall of despair and all the strong holds in the dark entry of the valley of the shadow of death ... fix the blanket of faith with the spike of the church; let yourselves down to the turner's house of resignation and descend the stairs of humility"(!)) . -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I quoted the extract through Mackay and removed the word "pulpit" because he suggests the sermon was remembered from a street preacher. I don't know if Mackay was right, or if there were other sermons (the plural may here stand for the exemplary singular). I've no idea how official the street preachers were in those days; these days they strike me as decidedly manic. qp10qp 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a really good article on a fairly obscure subject. It doesn't surprise me that it leans heavily on one or two secondary sources. That can't be avoided with some subjects. Well done. — Brian (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I thought I'd supported a couple of days ago with exactly the sentiment Brian expressed above, but I obviously wandered off after hitting "Preview", sorry. Yomangani 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Nothing other than to wait--sometimes it takes me a little while to make up my mind! I've switched to support now. It's an excellent article, and everyone who's worked on it has done a great job. I hope there are no hard feelings as a result of my original opposition... I think it's improved by leaps and bounds since it was nominated. MLilburne 10:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Lovely - thanks :) No, no hard feelings - I agree that the article has improved substantially since it was nominated, which is largely due to contributions by other supporters here, for which also my thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional; if you'll expand your websources (IMDB and Trial summary) to reflect full biblio info—including last access date— I'll support. Also, wondering why you reduced size on Notes twice—to pick on people with poor eyesight? <grin> Would you mind just replacing all of that "stuff" in Notes with {{reflist|2}}, which accomplishes the double column, single size reduction more efficiently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re references, I just usually add <references/> - I am not too concerned at how is displays as long as the information is there - but have switched to {{reflist|2}} on your suggestion. I have also switched to the {{imdb title}} template and added "retrieved" dates - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't usually !vote on FACs, but I stumbled across this article and was impressed by its quality, then spotted the link on the discussion page. Seems to be an excellent piece of work. -Hit bull, win steak 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Nick Drake

Self nom, with help from numerous IPs watching my back on spelling. Article tells quite a sad story, though it's enlivened by insightful commentry from Joe Boyd, Drake's sister Gabrielle, and a few others. Previous nom here, withdrawn at my request until I tought it ready. I think it ready now, though I might live to regret this. + Ceoil 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Support -great article which qualifies all criteria. I think it qualifies WRT teh hardest which is good and exciting prose. The only minor point is in the lead's last sentence: "...within one month Drake had sold more records than he had in the previous thirty" - maybe replacing thirty with 2½ years? Cas Liber 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - comprehensive, well-researched and well written. An excellent resource. Vaughan 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's generally very good, but the prose could do with some work. Examples from just looking at the lead and first subsection:
  • Drake's primary instrument was the guitar, but he was also proficient at piano, clarinet, and saxophone. - the second half doesn't contradict the first so "but" isn't really necessary.
  • Inconsistent use of "though" and "although"; I'd stick to the latter throughout.
  • However, none sold more than five thousand copies... - again, this isn't a contradiction of anything before. The fact he recorded albums doesn't imply that they sold well.
  • mid 1970s - I think this should have a hyphen.
  • of 'doomed romantic' musician - is "doomed romantic" a direct quote from somewhere? It should have double-quotes at any rate.
  • had all previously attended - I think previously is implied.
  • He developed an interest in sport, became an accomplished sprinter, and was captain of the school's rugby team for a period - bit messy, and not really suited to a triad as the first part leads on to the second two. Better would be "He developed an interest in sport, becoming an accomplished sprinter and captain of the school's rugby team for a period".
  • Drake played piano in the school orchestra, and also learned clarinet and saxophone - "also" is redundant as it's not being used additively. Also a bit vague: did he learn clarinet and saxophone in school; if not, why is it being linked to the school orchestra?
It's very close, but I think it needs a final polish. Trebor 11:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is very helpful feedback, I've taken care of most of your specific comments, weeding out similar issues later in the text. The words 'though' and 'although' are overused throughout, replacing with synonyms. + Ceoil 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few more points, but being interested in the subject I'm gonna run through it myself (with the added advantage that I only have myself to blame for any remaining mistakes); I've done half, and I'll finish when I'm more awake. Out of interest, is there a particular reason for the American spelling? I don't mind; it just seemed slightly odd for an article on an English artist. Trebor 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm Irish myself, if US spelling has slipped in, blame microsoft's spell checker! I would appreciate if you could help on the prose, nice work so far. + Ceoil 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yay, I'll change it. Because when I said I didn't mind, I of course meant I loathe American spelling with a passion as an awful bastardisation of our fair tongue...or something similar. I must get a CD by this guy sometime, he sounds great. Trebor 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
With a pinch of salt, I have this linked on my user page. I have no problem with the US, their spelling, or whatever' just like the comment, so typical of the rotten Sun. + Ceoil 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:D Brilliant! Anyway, I should probably try to stay on topic. Will finish my editing (and then almost certainly support) tomorrow; poke me if I forget. Trebor 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Support now. Meets the criteria in my eyes, good work. Trebor 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, this is a fine article, but it still needs a little bit more tweaking. For example, in the intro: "...his reluctance to perform live or to be interviewed contributed to his lack of commercial success" is quite clunky. The middle 'to' isn't needed, and it could probably be reworded even more tightly.
  • In the early life section, we learn that his father worked for the East India Trading Company. This currently redirects to the British East India Company, an organisation that was dismantled long before Drake was born. An obvious error. A citation is needed to establish what job his father actually did. It would be a good to know what his mother did as well, particularly as she seems to have been an influence on Drake. I would suggest dropping the 'colonial', and changing the 'immigrated' to the more neutral 'moved'.--Nydas 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Nydas, have neutralised and corrected that section. There's some nice detail in the sources re their romance (eg Rodney was 9 years older, and had to wait until she turned 21 before her parents would let them marry), but maybe that would be straying a bit. Molly was an influence; she wrote songs herself, and both her voice and the mood of her pieces are remarkably similar to her son's work. I'll add that. + Ceoil 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:"his lack of commercial success", I've tracked down some insight into this, will restate. + Ceoil 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great additions, I now Support this being a featured article.--Nydas 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (haven't read the article yet) - very nice referencing work, Ceoil. Can you please make the appendices at the bottom of the article conform with WP:GTL? I believe Wikiquotes belongs in External links, and the Resources heading is extraneous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Taken care of. + Ceoil 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A generally well and clearly written, researched, and referenced article on (allow me to be frank) one of the best songwriters and guitarists—his voice wasn't bad, either—I've ever heard. A thousand bravos, Ceoil, for your excellent work. —Saposcat 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Chaco Culture National Historical Park‎

Self-nomination. No peer review. Viriditas and WBardwin have also made substantial contributions. Looking forward to comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, etc. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, very nice - I did see one statement that looks speculative ("may") and could use attribution ("may" according to whom) and a cite:
    • Two miles down the canyon is Penasco Blanco ("White Bluff"), an arc-shaped compound built atop the canyon's southern rim in five distinct stages between 900 AD and 1125 AD. A cliff painting (the "Supernova Platograph") nearby may record the sighting of a supernova in July of 1054 AD.
  • and a few missing retrieval dates on websources in References.
  • Also, a runthrough for diacritics and ñ might be order (for example, I get an "ouch" when reading Peñasco as Penasco - two very different pronunciations). I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages addresses this anywhere in WP:MOS; if it doesn't we should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy. Thanks for the critique. I uploaded some changes per your comments (). Even after looking through this, I was unable to find guidance regarding diacritics; at any rate, I agree that we should use them in the Spanish terms here. Thanks. Saravask 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally it is not addressed b/c it is the subject of great controversy. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No reason, except to use available space give readers extra views of Chaco. I've done the same thing in several other FA's I've written. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Comment. I'm close to support. Here are some observations:
    • Am surprised at the lack of a section on flora and fauna.
    • I find a slight over-use of semicolons: e.g. "Chaco Canyon experiences four distinct season; rainfall is most likely between July and September; May and June are the driest months."
    • I believe the equivalency between "Ancestral Puebloan" and "Anasazi" should be made earlier than the last section (Usage).
    • The information in the last major section (Ruins) seems to come too late. As an example, the article refers to "kiva" eleven times before the thorough treatment of "kiva" in the last section. As one of the most interesting aspects of the park, I think it should come earlier.
  • A good, interesting, article. (I am going to make some minor edits now, which I mention lest someone see my name in the history and think I'm "associated" with the article.) –Outriggr § 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. See this (). I don't agree with point four (see a question of mine and this response), though I'm willing to discuss it further. I also need to get more comments on the quality of writing—e.g., is it turgid and boring? Do semicolons contribute to this? Other areas in need of improvement? These are not rhetorical questions. Thanks. Saravask 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support here's another drawing - dvdrw 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I find the prose to be compelling and the current use of semicolons to be appropriate.
    • I don't care for some uses of passive voice, such as "The sites are considered sacred ancestral homelands of the Hopi, Navajo, and Pueblo people..." Considered by whom? Also, "The ruins of Chaco Canyon were first written about by...", etc.
    • I believe "Geology" and "Climate" should be subheadings of "Geography" - see Chicago, Washington, D.C., etc.
    • I'm not crazy about "Excavation and protection" being organized under History. The archaeological and anthropological issues should probably be in their own section. History, to me, should be the history of the sites' use when they were populated.
    • Good work! --Mus Musculus 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I need to think about some of your suggestions for a day or two before implementing them. Most of your advice sounds good, though, and I'll be making the improvements soon. Thanks. Saravask 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've added cites for the "The sites are considered ..." statement and recast the second sentence in active voice. Unfortunately, I disagree with your proposed rearrangement of sections: I think it's important to keep all history-related content under the same heading, and AFAIK that is how most geo FAs do it. Regarding "Geology" and "Climate", I think it's a matter of individual preference, not hard rules. As a comparable example, see Antarctica and Yellowstone National Park. Other than that, I'll try to hunt down more passive-voice sentences. Thanks for the input. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is beautifully illustrated, interesting, and informs people of a priceless public resource. The only problem I can see is that the article currently does not address the modern-day operations of the national park - hours, usage fees, budget, number of visitors and so on. In one sense this is irrelevant to what it is, a piece of history, but in the other sense it is relevant to what it is, a national historical park. If you think it belongs, add it; otherwise, it still looks good to me. Mike Serfas 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. We have a sister project with a nice article on travel details related to Chaco. I don't think we should replicate their content, and if you have current info on fares, hours, etc., that is the place to add it. In the infobox, we do list the number of visitors. Thanks for your comments. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no section on the management of the park; this appears in several of the other featured US parks. Any reason for the omission? --Peta 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Climate of Minnesota

Self nomination First time nominating this article. It's currently rated at GA status and has gone through a peer review. I feel that it is comprehensive on the subject & accurate. I'll be happy to answer questions or address any issues. Gopher backer 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Could you move the picture of the train so it's under the info box? It's just that it squashes the text and pictures generally shouldn't be put on the left. Also avoid using contractions like: aren't, doesn't spell it 'does not', and when doing conversions, use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km, and pounds -> lb. M3tal H3ad 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Thanks, I think I took care of everything (let me know if I missed any). There are a couple gray areas where I would like some clarification though... In the chart, I left the titles spelled out as Fahrenheit and Celsius since I'm defening what's being listed, and for some units of measurement I left it in the full form when there was not a number in front of it. i.e. - "snow cover of greater than an inch". Is that correct, or should it be changed to in as well? Gopher backer 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't even think the weather navbox belongs in the article, since the Climate of Minnesota article isn't part of the series on weather. I decided to be bold and remove the infobox, and to move the picture of the train. Also, the fall picture at Lebanon Hills Regional Park has some odd color fringing on the trees on the left and right. I probably have a fall picture that I can contribute. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: No problem, thanks for pointing that out. When I added that particular item I'd searched all around for different infoboxes on weather and that's the only thing I could find that was even remotely close so I just threw it in there. There are ongoing discussions at WikiProject Meteorology to create info boxes specifically for "Climate of Place" articles but to my knowledge none have actually been finished yet. Gopher backer 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually really liked the navbox and believe it fits perfectly fine with this article, since there is no other weather navbox. -Ravedave 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I thought it was ugly since it was so long and it forced the photo to the left side. Gzkn 09:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The wikitables on the right were in contact with text to their left so I added margin-left. There may be a better margin rule for these cases and feel free to revert if it didn't help. -Susanlesch 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What jumped out at me was the lack of anything about Minnesota weather in culture. Hear me out, the Midwest is known and portrayed for its weather extremes, particularly the long winters, and Minnesota is really seen as the most extreme in terms of Climate. I recall the makers of the film Fargo describing Minnesota as "Siberia with family restaurants" , and that movie was probably the most famous modern depiction of Minnesota culture, and the climate played a big role in it. I just think that if this is going to be a well-rounded article, it should go beyond just scientific nuts and bolts and put what all of this means in context. In this particular article, that means explaining that the climate of Minnesota contributes to the state's reputation as a cold, bleak place at times with hardy residents. I'm not supporting or opposing, because I don't like to thrust such a writing assignment on someone, but to me all this article is really lacking for featured status is such coverage, even if it's just 2-3 paragraphs. --W.marsh 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We actually discussed something like this at one point... It was brought up a while ago was whether to include ice in/out dates because Minnesota is known for ice fishing. This is something that we ended up leaving out because it was was less of a meteorlogical issue as opposed to a Minnesota culture thing. If we included that, then we should also include other things like fall colors, Saint Paul Winter Carnival, its ice castles, etc. And then there are industries based on winter that are huge in Minnesota, like making hockey sticks, snowmobiles and snow throwers. In thinking about it at the time it seemed that could grow into enough where we could end up with a seperate article just on that topic. I'm not totally opposed to doing something along these lines though so I'd be curious to hear what other have to say. Gopher backer 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it is a fine line and easy to drift off topic here, but for me an interesting aspect of this specific topic (the climate of Minnesota) is how it is one of the things people most closely associate with the state, non-residents at least. I just think the article should communicate this to constitute "our best coverage" of this topic, right now it doesn't seem to do that. Just my two cents though. --W.marsh 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Initially, I was going to comment that the lead section is too long, but it might be appropriate given the length of the article. Excellent article, comprehensive and a good read. --Mus Musculus 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportRlevse 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportSumoeagle179 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support my concern has been addressed. --W.marsh 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak object The "In popular culture" has nothing to do with popular culture. "Minnesota winters have produced skiers who have competed in the Winter Olympics(Who? Any medal wins?), pioneers who invented the snowmobile(Who?), The state is also known for enthusiastic ice hockey players, both at the amateur and professional levels(again what professional players?) This sentence is randomly added in "Summer sports are also popular" also what type of summer sports. The In popular culture makes no references to films, tv, radio, games and books basically what popular culture is, it tells us some famous sport stars, a palace that was built, "King Boreas", some people commenting on the climate. I suggest renaming the section or merging it with the rest of the article, first would be more suitable. M3tal H3ad 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • We've added some information on movies and T.V. specifically that should improve this to make it fit better under the heading. As for the rest of your reply, I think it gets back to the issue of what we were discussing above... How much information and detail of this type should be included in an article on climate? We could get really in-depth and address all your concerns, but by the time we do that it seems as if we're on our way to writing Culture of Minnesota instead. Thoughts? Gopher backer 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Sean 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Aaron Sorkin

Self-nomination: I believe this article to be a complete biography of Aaron Sorkin's life. My goal was to chronicle his rise as a Screenwriter and to figure out how to write the life of a Screenwriter at Misplaced Pages. I believe if Aaron Sorkin's article reaches featured article status it will be the first featured article about a Screenwriter. A definite plus for Misplaced Pages. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.

Anyways, please help by vetting what I've done. Experimental sections such as 'Writing style and habits' could be debated. I think the section is important but how it's done could use a discussion. It will set a precedent for other articles about Screenwriters (such as the David Mamet article).-BiancaOfHell 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment On the whole it looks like a very good article, and seems comprehensive and well-referenced. I personally like the 'Writing style and habits' section. There are, however, a few problems with writing style. Just taking a look at the lead:
Thanks. I appreciate your help, and any more comments would be most welcome.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "In the late 1990s he began his television career starting with the creation of the television series Sports Night for the ABC network that ran for two seasons from 1998-2000." Run-on sentence.
Done. Reworded this.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The revision is still a run-on: "In 1998 he began his television career, creating the television series Sports Night for the ABC network, running for two seasons". MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I broke it up into 2 sentences and clarified that Sports Night is a comedy. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "His most recent feature film screenplay is Charlie Wilson's War with the film set to open in theaters on Christmas day 2007." Not sure about the use of "with the film" to connect the clauses.
Done. connected the clauses with a comma.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years and is currently clean." The tenses are a bit confused here. "and is currently clean" seems tacked-on to the end of the sentence.
Redid sentences, to clarify that he sought treatment and recuperated. You're right, badly worded and it's hard to say he is clean without the results of a recent drug test.-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's looking better but I'm not sure whether "recuperated" really fits the context. MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried "recovered" and "rehabilitated" but one sounds like he's fine now (and addictions normally continue to nag addicts for life?) and the other sounds like he was a prisoner. What do you think of "sought treatment, and rid himself of the dependence". I could specify "drug dependence" but I think it's implied.-BiancaOfHell 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see you cited the "he is currently clean." sentence. I hate that one too. I really can't prove that he hasn't been secretly using drugs, or had relapses hidden from the media. Does it require a conspiratorial sounding sentence like "He has remained clean as far as the media know?" Any ideas? Basically, he went to rehab, got better, and never had any press on the matter since.-BiancaOfHell 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "often hogging the writing credit". "hogging" doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic in tone.
Nope, it doesn't but does the new 'He is known for being an overly controlling writer, reluctant to share the writing credit with his staff.' sound any better?-BiancaOfHell 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got time to read through the rest of the article, but you might see whether you can find someone to take a look at the prose. MLilburne 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: Should I be consistent in my use of theater/theatre, and which one should I use? Does this escalate to an issue of using either British or American verbiage, cuz I don't even know myself whether I prefer 'ize' or 'ise'.-BiancaOfHell 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is an American, so American style must be maintained throughout. Andrew Levine 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll correct as such. Which means using 'theater' and correct usage of 'ize'. I'll get back to you when this change has been made.-BiancaOfHell 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
DONE. I changed all "theatre" mentions to "theater" and have been generally using American language, because the Firefox 2 spell checker corrects as such. So that is all good. BUT, I now wonder if perhaps European theaters such as the Abbey and the Theater Royal Haymarket should use "theatre" because it is a place name and not American but UK. Though in all these instances both versions are used interchangeably. American theaters would stay "theater". Does this matter? Probably, best to stick to "theater", huh?-BiancaOfHell 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's part of the building's name, then it should be "Theatre" - spelling conventions don't trump actual designations. Cheers. --Ckatzspy 07:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Saved you the trouble - I've changed the word "theater" to "theatre" where appropriate. (As it turns out, several of the New York places use "re".) --Ckatzspy 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, here's a relevant section from the Manual of Style: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling)#Different spellings – different meanings --Ckatzspy 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That link muddies the debate a little saying that 'Theatre tends to refer to the art, theater to the building' leading me to ask the question if 'theatre' shouldn't be used as well when mentioning his studies and his parents bringing him to the theater at an early age. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Bianca - your last response is correct. In correct terminology "re" refers to the art of live theatrical performance, "er" refers to the physical structure. This is very confused by constant misuse of both spellings. However, if you'd like to be technically correct - both spellings should be used.LACameraman 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, what I'm going to do is leave the place names the way they are as corrected by Ckatz, and use "theater" in movie theater, and "theatre" for the art of live theatrical performance.-BiancaOfHell 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll get on this, though I'm not aware of any. Could you point to maybe one source and I'll follow up from there. Generally he has been lauded for his writing style, both dialogue and plot elements are quite original. But certainly I want this criticism in there. So if you can lead me to some of the source of this criticism. Maybe an episode in particular?-BiancaOfHell 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I put in the criticism prior to Studio 60's days. I don't want to go where all the Studio 60 criticism is going, cuz it's early, and those detractors are mainly attacking the show, and not Sorkin's long writing history. End of season 1 could be a whole different story. So check out what I did. And because I do lean pro-Sorkin it would be great to have another voice take part in that section.-BiancaOfHell 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the "lack of criticism" has been wholly rectified. Thank you for pointing it out. I would appreciate it if you could strike out your opposition.-BiancaOfHell 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is the West Wing section good? Should I elaborate or leave that to the actual West Wing TV series article? I doubt people want to see too much on The West Wing but that's my opinion. Others thoughts most welcome. Thanks for the help so far.-BiancaOfHell 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: Does the first section after the lead section sound too "dead"? It's factual, but isn't brilliant prose, yet is it acceptable?-BiancaOfHell 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the presumably limited amount of material that's available about his early life, I don't think that taking a purely factual approach is really problematic. It's hard to write brilliant prose when you have so little material to go on. I detected a few little writing glitches here too, although some of them may be personal preference.
  • It seems more encyclopedic to say "mother" and "father" rather than "mom" and "dad"
Done.-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Before he was even a teenager..." This reads oddly. I would say either "Even before he was a teenager..." or just "Before he was a teenager, his parents started taking him..."
Okay, I too found that sentence odd, and I couldn't quite fix it, but I think I got it now. This sounds crisper:"He grew up with an older sister and brother who both went on to become lawyers. Sorkin's interests were in acting. When he was young, before he even reached his teen years, his parents habitually took him to the theater to see shows such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. He didn't always comprehend the plot of the plays but he enjoyed the sound of the dialogue."-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "...although he didn't understand the plot points he enjoyed the sound of dialogue." This is perfectly grammatical but I had to think about it when reading because it's a rather odd statement. Also having looked at the reference, I think the phrasing parallels the source a little too closely. So you should rephrase it. MLilburne 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea is basically summed up in one sentence from the article. If I reword it too much it could take on another meaning. I think I generally bettered the Early years section, but let me know. It would be great if there was more information on his early years but there really isn't. The Yahoo contributed biography is anonymous so I'm reluctant to trust it, but it has some interesting information (hard to believe though) about what he did as an actor while at Syracuse University. A top-pyramid acrobat for Carnival. As I said, hard to believe. I've been cross-checking facts I take from it (and discussed a bit of this in the Sorkin discussion page). Okay, thanks for the review. Let me know what you think of the changes.-BiancaOfHell 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's looking a bit better. I may take a stab at improving the prose myself, if that's all right. I wouldn't worry too much about the thinness of the information on his early years. I got Glynn Lunney through the FAC process with even less info in that part of the article. It's all in how you make it flow. MLilburne 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the copyedit. Yeah, if there isn't much to say about his early years then there's nothing that can be done about it. I see that Glynn Lunney has even less on his early years than the Sorkin article, but it starts off well and grabs you. That's kind of what I meant by the first section sounding "dead". Currently in the Talk page there's a discussion about including a new section in Controversy about Sorkin's fan interaction, but other than that the article is settling down.-BiancaOfHell 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

COPYEDIT QUESTION: I have many instances in the article where I'll write "In 2004, this happened..." but I sometimes write it as "In 2004 this happened..." without the comma. Should there be a comma after, or not?-BiancaOfHell 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that both are acceptable, but you should settle on one or the other. MLilburne 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the commas after the year to stick to one style.-BiancaOfHell 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - will consider supporting if these are remedied Support, editor made good faith effort to remedy my concerns, although we don't agree on the FU images. --Mus Musculus 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to go over the article. I will see what I can do.-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There are way too many fair use images in the article. The article should include a free photo of him, not a screen capture or other fair use image. The use of movie posters in this article are probably stretching the bounds of fair use - they are not necessary to illustrate anything about Sorkin.
The only fair use image I personally chose was the A Few Good Men the stageplay one. All the others have been chosen by other users (and most recently by user Bwith and I believe quite competently). If another user could help out here it would be a great help because I don't know much about fair use images.-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter who put them there. According to the FA criteria, all images have to have acceptable copyright status. If you read WP:FU, it clearly states that using copyrighted images (the photo of Sorkin) when it is possible to find a free alternative (which it is since he is alive) is unacceptable. For the movie posters and such, their Fair Use rationales only allow them to be used where it is necessary to illustrate them. That means their respective articles, not other articles that link to it. Those should all be removed. --Mus Musculus 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The photo of Sorkin is a snapshot of a TV show. It falls under that fair use rationale. All the movie posters are for his biggest movies, with his greatest involvement, and fall into the fair use rationale. The use of the images follows the fair use rationale. There is no overuse of images and as I said someone far more familiar with fair use rationale added them. I haven't found a free use image (if that's what it's called) and Sorkin is known as a bit of a dictator over taking pictures of him, demanding picture approval at all times and a free use image has yet to be found. All the images stand.-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. You won't convince me that the images in this article are acceptable under WP:FU, so I will continue to oppose on those grounds. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave WP:FU a close read. Heavy stuff. As far as I can tell all the images meet the fair use rationale. There are no free use pictures of Sorkin, or the West Wing, or Sports Night, or Studio 60, so the only choice is fair use. These articles are already used in other articles on his works at Misplaced Pages. There is no excessive use of the images. They do not negate the product value of the image, and in fact aid the product value of the image (you know what I mean). All these images are essential to the article, and do not have equivalents out there. After all Sorkin's works are his products, so having images of his most important works, those that changed the course of his life, is a necessity. If I were to stalk Sorkin and snap a few photos would that be legal? Would those photos be considered free use after I licensed them? Lastly, all these images are promotional images, and I'm sure NBC or whomever owns them would happily have them on display. They help me, Misplaced Pages, Sorkin, and all other players involved. It's a win-win situation.-BiancaOfHell 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Many users have already copyedited the article so far to help improve it. Could you give one or two examples of some of the prose that has problems?-BiancaOfHell 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many sentences where the object is unclear because of the construction of the sentence. For example, "He found his passion in writing plays however, which established him as a young, promising playwright." What established him? His passion? His plays? Both?
I myself have done this to other people's lead sections. You can nitpick everything to pieces and get into a frame of mind where a sentence sounds weird. That sentence was a copyedit, and I get it, it works.-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're asking for nitpicking by nominating an article for FA. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There are also many long awkward sentences with multiple phrases that really should be at least two distinct sentences, such as, "He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years, but sought treatment and rid himself of the dependence." and "In television, Sorkin is known as an overcontrolling writer, who rarely shares the job of penning the teleplays with his writing staff, who are more likely to do research and come up with stories for him to tell." Those are just from the lead section. So, it needs more editing to make it the "compelling" or "brilliant" prose required for FA status. --Mus Musculus 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Those sentences sum up perfectly what is later on discussed. The lead section has been fiddled with by "many users" and I really see no further need to touch it. Have you find prose that needs polish in the rest of the article?-BiancaOfHell 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I made an edit on February 3rd called "yet another modification to the lead section" that hopefully remedies any problems with the lead section. Please revert it if it sounds foul, or awkward or incoherent. I'm more worried about the rest of the article which has had far less criticism than the lead section.-BiancaOfHell 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Reads much better now. As a side note, focusing on the lead section of an article is incredibly useful and relevant, as many readers gauge the quality of the entire article by the lead. --Mus Musculus 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It's true, but at a certain point you begin to lose it when you're copyediting the lead section to death, along with others as well. As long as it all works out in the end it's worth it.-BiancaOfHell 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment* I wanted to support but there are few issues that I think should be addressed first. I'm really confused about "Point of view" section. It looks rather inconsistent in TOC. What should it mean? Sorkin's political views? Should it be listed in Controversies? Should it be droped from the article? Should it be merged into West Wing section? I don't know but something should be done.--Pethr 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's simply Sorkin's POV. It's not a controversy to have one. Almost everyone does. It doesn't belong in The West Wing section because that's about the TV series. It was formerly called Political view, but Point of View is a much more neutral section heading. It also encompasses more. It could possibly encompass at a later date his thoughts on the internet/amateurs, etc... which aren't necessarily political. The controversy section is strictly controversial stuff that don't necessarily have anything to do with his POV.-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are other issues like drug problem appearing in West Wing and controversies sections which leads me to recommendation to remove criticism section and place the ctitique to the text where is appropriate. NPOV doesn't mean isolate negative in one section but rather give balanced image throughout the article. I hope you find some of those comments helpful. Good luck.--Pethr 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The drug problem is mentioned briefly in The West Wing section because it became an issue after 2 seasons. But Sorkin's drug problem has spanned decades, so it has it's own section. I put it together in a section about his 'Personal life' under Controversies.-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I note that you also modified the lead section. I tweaked it a little more, that one sentence to this: 'In 2006, after a three year hiatus, he returned to television with a dramedy called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, about the backstage drama at a late night sketch comedy show, once again for the NBC network.'. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think that the Aaron Sorkin article has done very well for itself. It started out as just a mere bio but I believe it now meets the outline of a FA. I think the addition of the Studio 60 articles have really helped it along quite a bit. I've read the article several times and can't think of anything that would serve as a basis for opposition. Ganfon 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has ten fair use images which is not acceptable. On top of that the lead image is currently in a fair use dispute and will almost certainly be deleted, considering the current fair use policy. Jaqu 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Jaqu, excessive fair use; the movie posters in particular are just there as decoration.--Peta 11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Alright, where can we go from here? If it's only an issue of fair use images then let's work this out. I've brought up the issue over at WP:Fair Use. How many can stay? Can the "publicity photo" of Sorkin at the top stay? It is a screenshot from a documentary about Sorkin himself and his writing.
The first image that could go would be the Malice poster. After that the pictures are pretty important. This is a matter of pushing the limits of "fair use" in order to get the best possible article on Aaron Sorkin. I don't want to compromise to the point where the article suffers. The important thing to remember is that Sorkin is known to us because of his movies/TV shows, so inevitably there are going to have to be images of his most important products in shaping his life. This isn't an article about Mother Theresa.-BiancaOfHell 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Jogaila

As I have been working on the article myself, this is technically a self-nomination; but really it is User:Halibutt's work, and all it needed from me was a copy-edit, though I couldn't resist meddling with it on my own account. Since Halibutt is largely on a wiki-break, I decided to focus the references to give the English-language sources more prominence, in case I have to answer FAC questions and requests myself. I am confident that the article covers all major aspects of the reign and is thoroughly referenced. qp10qp 08:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's great to finally figure out who that statue in Central Park, NYC is supposed to represent. I'm leaning towards supporting this article as I find it well-written, well-referenced, and a rather comprehensive treatment of the subject. I applaud the use of google books for many of the older source materials. My only conditions to obtain my support are to make the article more aesthetically balanced. The placement of images in this article causes balance issues, some stacking problems and white space depending on what combination of monitor/resolution settings and user preferences people use. Also, I don't like the heirarchy of sections in for biographical information. I think a section entitled "Biography" should section off the biographical content from the genealogical/references/etc. That (making biographical sections into "subsections") might also help in addressing the whitespace issue. In any event, the fact that some biographical sections are tiny while others are humungous causes a significant lack of balance to the sectioning of the article. Please do let me know when the image issue is adequately addressed so that I can change my statement to one of support. —ExplorerCDT 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've restructured the sectioning, with more subsections.
    • Images are something I don't know much about (as you noticed), particularly as everything always looks fine and dandy on my screen. I've gone through the images and reduced them all to standard stubs, which I believe is the way to make them manageable by all screens. I did try that before, but I always find the results confusing: for example, on my screen, the maps are now too small to read without clicking them, something I didn't want to be the case, as they were designed to be glanced at while reading; and the coat of arms is now much bigger than the picture of the battle of Grunwald on my screen, which is not quite the way round I would have chosen. I don't quite understand how the standard thumb sizes are arrived at or how they can be adjusted without interfering with peoples' screens.
    • By the way, about that statue in Central Park. Does anyone know why it was put there? qp10qp 08:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. 'I applaud the use of google books for many of the older source materials.' Those book urls have ids or sigs or something on them... You're asked to log in to your gmail account when you don't need to. Might want to fix that.-BiancaOfHell 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not necessarily fixable. I've never edited an article with Google Books links before, and I had to make the choice whether to delink them or continue with them on the grounds that something is better than nothing. I haven't actually been able to work out their mysteries: some days one will give me the page, another day the gmail thingie; sometimes they only give me the book cover; sometimes they tell me pages are locked that before were available, or that I've used up the number of pages I'm allowed to read. I went through them all the other day and delinked those that weren't playing ball then; but clearly they are volatile from day to day and from user to user. Any opinions about what to do? qp10qp 09:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget about it then. I thought maybe it was a simple thing to do, but it's not worth your time to fiddle with. It's good enough that those urls are there at all.-BiancaOfHell 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That was exactly my reasoning: I would use the books anyway, but since some people might be able to use the links - fine. If not - the reference is still valid, then why not have the link. //Halibutt 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The article appears impeccable in its current state, but I can't speak for the facts. It's very well cited with good notes. It will take someone familiar with this piece of history to do any further vetting.-BiancaOfHell 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for reading the article and responding: genuinely appreciated. The Google Books thing worries me, because my hope was that even people who don't know much about the subject would be able to check a reasonable proportion of the facts quite easily. I've just gone through all the links again and I must say they are all as they were when I last checked them—but that's just for me. Of the links in the notes, only one (Delbrǔck) brought up the gmail box, but with one more click the required page came up. In the references section there are two books (Rowell and the New Cambridge VI) that come up with gmail boxes (as I knew), but a click gives you the cover (I can't link to specific pages in those books—used to be able to: they've gone play-hard-to-get on me—but for the references section (as opposed to the notes section) I don't think that matters, since the list is only a general reference. Oddly, the Delbrǔck came up in the references link without a gmail box.

One way of verifying quoted notes (this is why I've put quite a few quotes in there) would be to type the quotes, or part of them, into Google Books, or even Amazon Search Inside, and then read them in context. Even if you can't get the page up, you might still see enough of the context in the search results to know the quote's not spurious. (The above comments are addressed not to Bianca, who's tried enough, but to anyone else wanting to check refs).qp10qp 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the occasional GMail pop-up on Google Books is a built-in annoyance, one more click gets you to the right place. Yomangani 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Because of real life copyright paranoia the extremly useful Google Books links are not stable. I have many times found that weeks or months after I added a GB link, it is obsolete :( Nonetheless as long as they work, they are a very useful tool allowing quick verification and 'further reading'; my suggestion is to leave them until they are confirmed expired (pages are no longer available for browsing). PS. Getting a Google account is free and very easy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting and well written. The coverage of the Council of Constance could do with another sentence or two though (hostilities break out...called off...turning point...all covered in two short sentences at the moment). I love this bit: His pleasures included hunting and music, especially Ruthenian fiddlers. - that's why you don't see many Ruthenian fiddlers nowadays. Yomangani 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support of course, qp10qp did a great job and it's great I could help. As to what Piotrus mentioned above, indeed, the current title was chosen by a single person against any consensus or WP:RM rules and would most likely be changed back to the original one. //Halibutt 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism :

  • At the beginning need background about state policy, what situation was then we access to the throne etc.
  • For the sake of simplicity this article uses this is not very encyclopedic formulation
  • Jogaila was the last pagan ruler of medieval Lithuania, the second to adopt Christianity (after King Of Lithuania Mindaugas), and the first to establish it on a lasting basis, and a holder of the title Didysis Kunigaikštis . Adopt should be changed to converted. And the formulation is still would be not correct, there was and Vaišvilkas.
  • Elaborate Foot note - Translated as high king (perceived as king over lesser rulers) in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works either as What is this modern Lithuanian studies, is other works is modern too? Title it self translated not only in modern studies…
  • His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń, Impossible, victory was not his alone at all.
  • The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne . Does Britannica referring part - Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne? Because now formulation implementing that contemporary name was after baptism was Władysław II Jagiełło.
  • Early life - Kulikovo events, which provided the key character of young ruler is not discus at all! Probably solving this issue google books would not fit here.
  • Death of Grand Duke Kęstutis should be explained in main text not in notes, no need to expand here only key moments.
  • In 1384, Vytautas offered more concessions – needs proving.
  • but then he switched sides and joined Jogaila in attacking and pillaging several Prussian towns – explain why he switch sides and what role played Jogaila. BTW, did he pillaged towns or castles, a?
  • The most problematic part of article - Baptism and marriage, I will tag it if issues would not be solved during this process:
  • Jogaila decided the only way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order was to convert to Christianity, - so he wake up in the morning and thought - Oh, good day for baptism?
  • Jogaila chose therefore to accept a remarkable Polish proposal that he become a Catholic and marry the eleven-year-old Queen Jadwiga of Poland. First remarkable is common only to the author disclaimer needed - X thinks, but such style will spoil whole article style. "Remarkable" - not encyclopedic approach.
  • There are no words why some Polish noblemen decided to invite a pagan ruler. why?? And there were several whys– Germanisation, Habsburgs, territorial claims etc. There is no hint that not all Polish noblemen agreed on this affair.
  • Jogaila signed a formal act of union with Poland - Jogaila did not sign act with "Poland". Second to call document as Union represents only one part of scholarly opinion.
  • and to incorporate Lithuania into Poland. – simple absurd. Applicare is not the same as incorporare, presented interpretation in article is one sided!
  • Just comment - taking the Christian name Władysław. There are some elements who trying to push that they call "authentic names" or names that the "guy refer himself" (with original research of course), wondering how these elements did not spot this "little" inaccuracy.
  • as well as mass baptisms in Lithuanian and Polish rivers – needs checking because I did not find in provided ref, any hint on Polish rivers
  • About law and legal tradition – already Gediminas referred the rights of civil law of the city of Riga. There is suggestion that even in Mindaugas times German law was applied etc. and the most important is missed - one of the Jogailas’ edicts started discrimination among Orthodox and Catholics.
  • In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who made another bid for power, provoking a civil war. Nothing is explained why the fight renewed, and this is key issue.
  • Correct Nowogródek to Navahrudak.
  • There followed Poland's first war for 77 years. – prove needed.
  • Władysław won a victory so overwhelming that the Teutonic Order’s army was virtually annihilated. Nope, all glory to one person can not be placed.
  • but for some reason Władysław hesitated to pursue his advantage. Present, at least in notes section, more interpretation why it was delayed.
  • When quoting (for instance; for so called historian Dlugosz) use {{cquote}}
  • In 1415, they produced Samogitian witnesses. Strange interpretation, was produced ? Second Samogitians arrived into Constance by the order of Vytautas, who approx one year before Samogitian arrival started propaganda war there. So that Poles produced Samogitian witnesses not balanced interpretation.
  • In 1420, Sigismund decreed that all lands in dispute between Poland and the Knights be granted in perpetuity to the Order, including Pomerelia, Dobrzyń Land, Pomerania, and Samogitia. Source needed to check formulation correctness.
  • offered the Bohemian crown after the death of King Wenceslas of Bohemia in 1419, not to meddle in Bohemian affairs. Explain why Jogaila did not agreed on holding the new crown.
  • Explain Sigismund attempts to intervene in relations with Vytautas and Jogaila.
  • whom he ordered to restore the union by force. Prove needed, also explain Jogaila’s role in land dispute on Podolia etc.
  • and Lithuania to his younger, Casimir, both still minors at the time. Not exactly correct Lithuania was ruled by Žygimatas at the moment, and Casimir would show in Lithuania`s throne a bit later, breaking personal union.
  • Starnge family try – there was no Władysław II Jagiełło then he was born…
  • infobox – no hint about Grand Duke period at all.
  • succession box - Supreme Prince was applied and to Algirdas alongside with Emperor.
  • map – Image:Polish and Lithuanian Conflict with Prussia. 1377-1435..png do we follow historical tradition by naming conflict with Prussia?
  • Comment why these all images placed in so small resolution in article?
  • Images: Tomb effigy of Jogaila, why nobody produced better image of tomb it is one of the most well known tomb in Poland after all! Second why there is no contemporary or close to contemporary Jogaila’s images like in Wawel or Liublin churches?

General opinion: After rereading article I made an impression that all battles, border changes were solved because of Jogaila; Pro-Polish interpretation of events also too strong; etc. I did not have time to go step by step through all references and dates, probably there are more inaccuracies. But thank you Qp10qp for impressive input, especially for deleting those silly headlines like – cold war turns hot etc. :) M.K. 11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't address these points for the moment (have to go out), but when I do, be patient, it will take me several days, and I'll go through one by one. I think all the objections can be addressed by either adjusting the text or quoting sources. Thanks for your thorough reading of the article. qp10qp 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No need to rush! When all issues will be solved, I will gladly change my initial position. Take care, M.K. 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I will address these points further down the page. qp10qp 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Btw, the naming stability argument was discussed before on article's talk page. Personally I'd like us to solve the naming issue before FAC, but since it's too late for this, I suggest we reach a consensus on the name and FA the article - as long as there are no move wars like in the past, the stability of a single (and even that a non certain) future move is not an issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The text of the article is excellent, but with the name itself still being unstable (especially considering that an RfM was just launched), I can't signoff on having this article Featured yet. After there's a solid consensus on a name though, I think this would be a great candidate. --Elonka 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1e, RfM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do you cite 1(e)? ("Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.) The article seems to me very stable, from my experience of working on it. I can't remember one revert or edit disagreement.qp10qp 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The article was subject to a series of very heated move wars in 2006, because of disagreements about how it should be titled (check the talk archive for details, specifically Talk:Jogaila/Archive 7#Poll result and the following discussions/polls). Granted, the page hasn't been subjected to wars recently, but that's because all parties agreed (or were strongly encouraged/forced) to a "cooling off" period of a few months. To everyone's credit, they've abided by the request to give it some time -- but that doesn't mean that the issue is resolved (as is evidenced by the mediation). I am very optimistic though that with everyone's good faith efforts in the mediation, we will come out the other side with a stable name, and then we can try again for Featurability at that point. --Elonka 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • None of that offends 1(e), though. I wouldn't have brought the article here if I didn't think it met the criteria. Apart from a single POV revert in October, the last non-vandal revert in this article was in July 2006. Six months is a long time in Misplaced Pages. qp10qp 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this article meets FA criteria. Kyriakos 10:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose until the article has a stable, undisputed name and that request for mediation is over. (On second thought, as it seems the renaming process is just a discussion, so I'm switching to Conditional support if you guys promise to have a consensus about the name as soon as possible.) Also, there are some minor things to be fixed, like the unnecessary "Biography" heading (subsections should be sections) and some title case subheadings have to be converted to sentence case ("Final Years", "Last Conflicts". Strangely, the article uses ===== for "Challenges" after === ("Ruler of Lithuania and Poland"). Truly impressive list of main references, though, and the article looks very thorough and comprehensive. Todor→Bozhinov 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I added The "Biography" heading and extra headings just recently in response to User:Explorer's suggestions above. I'll ask him what he thinks now. My own preference is for no "Biography" heading or sub-headings, as it was before. A thing like that can be changed in an instant because the article, in my opinion, has a logical structure that does not necessarily need sub-headings.
As for the request for mediation, no one has yet taken it up: there seems no urgency. And in fact, this is more or less the same mediation requested by a very few people at the beginning of November, which was not taken up then either. Since this FAC is in progress and the mediation is not, should not this process take precedence? After all, it's actually about the article? qp10qp 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as I can see, the article name and the mediation are a non-issues. The article has a stable name and hasn't been moved in months. If it is moved, it will be following mediation and consensus-building (rather than another evil vote). I would support this if I hadn't done some copyediting on it earlier. It largely meets the FA criteria. The current article name, for what it's worth, is what Norman Davies used for the chapter on this monarch in his widely read history God's Playground: there's nothing strange about calling the article Jogaila, it's just that some editors believe it should be called something else. The gmail/google books thing Bianca mentions is only an issue, so far as I can tell, if you link to the exact page. Using the vid and id parameters alone send the reader to the main page for the book and that seems to work fine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let me first praise the contributors for the time and effort they have given to this article's content. The name stability is not an issue. This argument is just silly. IMHO, if an article in FA quality, i should get FA status. Only content instability would make this a problem, and content stability is not a problem. Don't like opposing this article, but there are several issues too important for me to see my way past for a support vote. For instance, the article ignores Jogaila's earlier apparent conversion to Orthodox christianity. For instance, the great Orthodox scholar and Byzantinist John Meyendorff writes "In 1377, Olgerd of Lithuania died, leaving the Grand-Principality to his son Jagiello, an Orthodox christian with whom Cyprian, "Metropolitan of Kiev and the Lithuanians" entertained close connections" (JM, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, p. 205), and although Jogaila may have went back to being "officially" a pagan in Lithuania, writing of the Catholic conversion Meyendorff writes "on the 15th, although an orthodox christian, Jacob-Jagiello was rebatized..." (p. 243). Discussion of this is absence in the article in entirely absent; what are there arguments for or against ... ? When it comes to issues of this important, an FA quality article would be expected to cover them. Balancing is needed, even if that means Halibutt or someone else will need to do more research. Moreover, statements such as Lithuania "began adopting western legal traditions" after Jogaila's takeover of Poland is just is misleading; Lithuania already had a long history of borrowing "western legal tradition", Gediminas for instance had western friars settled in his capital drawing up western style legal documents earlier in the century. Frequent blanket statements of this kind in the article give me an impression of naivety about how medieval history actually works; statements I've already mentioned give the impression that we have more knowledge than we actually do; other judgmental assertions like "where Lithuanian overlordship was tolerated in return for protection against the Golden Horde" have no place here. The article makes out that Jogaila took the decision to convert to "Christianity" primarily to combat the Teutonic Order. In fact, besides ignoring all other plausible reasons, that is just speculation and assumes a threat level of the Order that many historians would doubt it posed. Polish nationalism also creeps in, not just in the articles focus and perspective, but also in names. The Rus'ian-Lithuanian town of Novgorodok is spelled, both in the text and in the map, "Nowogródek", the modern Polish way, despite the fact that the town had no connection to Poland (other than eventually sharing the same Rus-Lithuanian ruler). The good things going for the article is its basic survey of wars and political events following Jogaila's marital conquest of the Polish kingdom. It is also well written, something difficult to achieve, esp. for non-native Anglophone contributors. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, these are interesting objections, and I'm sure they can all be addressed. Before I trot off to the books, let me just say that it was an innocent decision to use the name Nowogródek in the map (though perhaps it was instinctively named that way in the article by a Polish editor): the more people who can contribute to things like that the better. The choice given in the Misplaced Pages article for that town is: "Navahrudak (Belarusian: Навагру́дак; Russian: Novogrudok; Polish: Nowogródek; Lithuanian: Naugardukas". (You say Novgorodok: is that a variant spelling of Novogrudok?)
On whether Jogaila was already Orthodox, this is the first source I've heard of on the matter. Clearly his mother was, and I always get the impression he retained paganism as a bargaining point. As you have given a reference, the point can easily be added, though I need to go and look at some books to remind myself where that and the other points you mention were sourced from. qp10qp 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started by adding your Meyendorff quote to the notes; as you request the reflection of a discussion on the point (I'm not aware of any historians discussing Meyendorff's assertion), I've combined it with a quote to the contrary by a primary source; this way:

"The historian John Meyendorff suggests that Jogaila may already have been an Orthodox Christian: "In 1377, Olgerd of Lithuania died, leaving the Grand Principality to his son Jagiello, an Orthodox Christian...". Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 205; Dmitri, however, made it a condition of the marriage that Jogaila "should be baptized in the Orthodox faith and that he should proclaim his Christianity to all men". Document quoted by Dvornik, 221."

One technicality: I've added the book to the references, but it may be a different edition to the one you quote, and so I'd be grateful for the full details.

I've also changed some of the phrasing that you disliked: "overlordship was tolerated" is now "overlordship was accepted"; "began adopting western legal traditions" is now "began adopting Polish legal traditions"; and so that less impression of "primarily" is given, I've changed the phrasing in question to "Jogaila decided that a way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order would be to convert..." What do you think of these modifications?

I'll respond more bit by bit, but I'm going slowly at the moment because I'm listening to football. qp10qp 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Meyendorff is a great historian and I doubt it would be a good idea to assume he doesn't no what he's talking about. I think the implication is that Jogaila was Orthodox before he became ruler of Lithuania, nominally reconverted to paganaism, then rereconverted the Catholic church. These responses are good btw. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I see no reason for this article not to be promoted as soon as the RfM is resolved, and I'd like to encourage Raul to put this nomination on hold until it is resolved (since there is nothing significant otherwise wrong). The article is well-written and well-sourced. —Cuiviénen 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. I do appreciate Halibutt's work and detailed qp10qp's analysis. The text is convincing and well documented. One may enjoy the result. While I'm not happy with the title, I guess the stability of the article is not in danger. As far as I can tell, nobody opposed to the present title is willing to rename it without consensus building (as it was the case of the previous move from the original title to this one...). --Beaumont (@) 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Let me address the following section of Calgacus's objection:

The article makes out that Jogaila took the decision to convert to "Christianity" primarily to combat the Teutonic Order. In fact, besides ignoring all other plausible reasons, that is just speculation and assumes a threat level of the Order that many historians would doubt it posed.

The new wording should remove any impression of "primarily", though that word wasn't used. However, I've not yet read a historian who downplays either that motivation or the threat posed by the Order. The following are extracts from some of the sources used (see the article for book details):

I have, and I'm just gonna take my memory for it. Getting an extra kingdom by itself is any motivation to marry and convert, rather than fearing some fantastical destruction by the Teutonic Knights. Portraying all Jogaila's career as a run-up to the Battle of Tannenburg is completely distoring history. 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "...for Lithuania a conversion to the Greek Orthodox Church would hardly have withdrawn the pretext for the attacks of the Crusaders, Rome considered the Eastern Churches to be semi-pagan." (Bojtár, 181)
  • "When Jagiello…ordered his armed followers, his ‘'boyari sive armigeri’', to convert to Catholicism, he aimed to deny the Knights any further justification for their onslaught on his homeland…" (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34)
  • "In 1386, it was the Teutonic Knights who menaced the existence of Lithuania. Only three years before, they had capped over a century of bloody, unremitting effort by sacking much of the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and destroying the great stronghold of Trakai…The union with Poland and the acceptance of Latin Christianity were a desperate gamble by Jogaila to avert a seemingly inevitable subjugation." (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 33).
  • "Jagiello’s decision was influenced by the fact that the Teutonic Order menaced not only Poland but also Lithuania…Only a reconciliation between the two cousins, initiated by Jagiello himself (1384), saved Lithuania from becoming the order’s vassal. It was probably this experience with the order which stimulated Jagiello’s decision to reject Moscow’s proposal and accept Poland’s offer.” (Dvornik, 222)
  • I would argue, and I'm sure so would others, that that statement is complete nonsense. Jogaila needed the superior Poles to save him from conquest from the Order? Polish nationalist myth. Funny how Lithuania had done alright before and had grown to five times larger than Poland. I dunno, maybe Jogaila didn't mind getting another kingdom to crush the Order and expand his own power, but to imply Lithuania faced desperation ... would like to see how these historians sustain that argument. If anything, fear of continued isolation, being surrounded by christian states, may have played some role in his decision, but most of Jogaila's lands lay out of reach of TO campaigns. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If this is your reply when asked for sources, I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "The attacks of the Order devastated both Lithuania and Poland." (Vanda Sruogenė–Sruoga, Lituanus article)
  • "Between 1345 and 1382 the knights encroached into Lithuanian territory precisely one hundred times, which warranted forty counter-expeditions." (Bojtár, 180)

I hope these quotes show that the information objected to is backed by the sources and isn't speculation. qp10qp 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania had faced almost annual TO raids since the TO was created, but during that time the kingdom was formed and grew to the largest European state west of the Horde. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like now to respond to this part of Calgacus's objection:

Moreover, statements such as Lithuania "began adopting western legal traditions" after Jogaila's takeover of Poland is just is misleading; Lithuania already had a long history of borrowing "western legal tradition", Gediminas for instance had western friars settled in his capital drawing up western style legal documents earlier in the century.

As noted above, I've changed the word "western" to "Polish" here, in case there is a misunderstanding. But the succeeding sentence, in referring to the Magdeburg Laws, indicated what was meant. "Western" in that context was intended the way Dvornik intends it in the following:

  • "The Lithuanian magnates were more attracted by the Catholic faith and Western culture, represented by the Poles, than by the old Kievan civilisation…In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Lithuanian cities followed the example of Polish burghers in accepting the Law of Magdeburg, while feudal institutions were introduced under the influence emanating from the state of the Teutonic Order and from Poland, binding the population to military service in return for lands granted to them by the sovereign. The first important step in this process of assimilation was made at the Union of Horodlo in 1413." (Dvornik, p 343)

I disagree that this had already begun with Gediminas. I have read Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-central Europe, 1295-1345 by S.C.Rowell, which goes into great detail about the reigns of Gediminas and Algirdas in particular, and so I am familiar with the sophistication of Gediminas, his close contact with the Catholic world, and his use of Catholic documentation styles and Catholic scribes; but I have seen no evidence that this amounted to a state legal system of the type which began establishing itself in Lithuania after the unions. qp10qp 03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but since you already acknowledge that western legal tradtions had played a role in Lithuania before Jogaila, how can you defend "began adopting western legal traditions" rather than "began adopting more western legal traditions"?. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to this objection:

Other judgmental assertions like "where Lithuanian overlordship was tolerated in return for protection against the Golden Horde" have no place here.

I was not sure what was objected to, the word "tolerated" or the reference to the "Golden Horde". So I've now altered this further to: "Jogaila at first governed only south and eastern Lithuania, including territories of former Kievan Rus', where Lithuanian overlordship prevailed." I hope that will fully meet the objection.

Bojtár, a fairly innocuous historian, says: "Under Gediminas the city states of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and some others sought Lithuania’s protection against Moscow, and the Tartars in particular". (Bojtár, 180)

Rowell says: "In return the Slavs enjoyed the pax lithuanica which protected their trade routes to the Hansa and defended them from the depredations of the grand dukes of Moscow. They were not freed from Tatar tribute"… And of the grand dukes' guarantee of the status quo in the Rus' polities, he says, "This is not the mark of a primitive regime but a sophisticated recognition of how best to exploit alien subjects." (Rowell, 116)

Hopefully, by watering down the sentence objected to, I have made it inoffensive. The truth is that the relations between the Lithuanians and the Rus' principalities under their overlordship were not only complex and diverse but are shrouded in mystery due to the lack of sources (both Rowell and Plokhy, who do their best to investigate that area, admit as much). qp10qp 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rowell is explaining a role the Lithuanians had earlier in the century. In the cases of Novgorod, Tver, and Pskov, the Lithuanians served as mercenaries. In Lithuanian Rus'ia, Lithuanians were their rulers, who spoke the same language and worshipped the same religion. "Tolerated" implies Lithuanian Rus'ia was engulfed by a underlying hotbed of seething discontent and resentment against Lithuanian rule put up with for fear of the Horde. MK has some more points, and the Meyendorff thing needs to be dealt with (although, I too have not found out more about this argument), but as far as everything else, I've removed by oppose vote in light of your efforts and commitment to raising the quality of the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
MK's notes

Making a start with addressing MK's objections, from further up the page:

MK:"For the sake of simplicity this article uses" this is not very encyclopedic formulation

OK, I cut the following from the notes: "For the sake of simplicity this article uses the Lithuanian form Jogaila for the early period of his life and the Polish form Władysław for the period following his accession to the Polish throne."

I expect that was added to the notes because the name can be quite an issue. It's not encyclopedic, but nor are footnotes, on the whole, and it's OK for a footnote, in my opinion. But we can just as well do without it, I'm sure. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

very good, M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK: "the second to adopt Christianity (after King Of Lithuania Mindaugas), and the first to establish it on a lasting basis", Adopt should be changed to converted. And the formulation is still would be not correct, there was and Vaišvilkas.

Some of that was added by an editor since the FAC began, and I've always wanted to cut this attempt to say whether he was the first, second, or umpteenth Christian ruler anyway. So I've cut it to: "Jogaila was the last pagan ruler of medieval Lithuania, and a holder of the title Didysis Kunigaikštis." qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, good desision M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK:Elaborate Foot note - "Translated as high king (perceived as king over lesser rulers) in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works either as" What is this modern Lithuanian studies, is other works is modern too? Title it self translated not only in modern studies…

I've cut "in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works", which was never referenced, though the definition seems accurate. I spent a long time chasing Didysis Kunigaikštis around and ended up making a whole extra article on the subject of titles and names: Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello): names and titles. (Some of that material might come into play when I address MK's points on supreme ducality, heirs etc.)

Good decision, yes definition is good, kunigas appears in Lithuania around 13c., kunigaikštis preservers it parts – kunigaikštis. In short very good cut :) M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK: "His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń," Impossible, victory was not his alone at all.

MK: "Władysław won a victory so overwhelming that the Teutonic Order’s army was virtually annihilated." Nope, all glory to one person can not be placed.

I've changed these to "allied" victories, though Władysław was the overall commander. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall commander standing on the hiltop :) M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK: "There followed Poland's first war for 77 years." – prove needed.

Will never be agreed, as definitions of war vary. I don't like this sort of thing anyway, which is slightly so-whattish, in my opinion. So, deleted. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Names and baptism:

MK: Just comment - taking the Christian name Władysław. There are some elements who trying to push that they call "authentic names" or names that the "guy refer himself" (with original research of course), wondering how these elements did not spot this "little" inaccuracy.

MK: "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne." Does Britannica referring part - Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne? Because now formulation implementing that contemporary name was after baptism was Władysław II Jagiełło.

MK: "Starnge family try – there was no Władysław II Jagiełło then he was born…

MK: "as well as mass baptisms in Lithuanian and Polish rivers" – needs checking because I did not find in provided ref, any hint on Polish rivers

By "little inaccuracy", I presume you mean that he would have actually been given a Latin name at the baptism ceremony rather than the Slavic one. To take that into account, I've removed the word "Christian" and the inference (unintended) that he was given the Slavic name at the actual ceremony, leaving "Jogaila was duly baptised at the Wawel Cathedral in Kraków on 15 February 1386 and from then on formally used the name Władysław or Latin versions of it": this wording leaves room for a number of possibilities as to what he called himself or was called in private and does not presume the actual name used at the baptism ceremony. The note provides readers with Lithuanian and Latin versions of the name.

References that 'Władysław' is a Slavic name are plenty: here (follow the link) or here. It may be useful to note the (now mostly forgotten) origin of the name (more or less 'glorious ruler').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Now I can change the rather clumsy wording in the footnote which says the name meant "the one who rules the fame" or "the one who praises power". "Glorious ruler"? Why did your mum not call you that, Piotrus? qp10qp 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No Władysław's in my family, I guess - although it is a not unpopular name in modern Poland (although don't expect many Mieszko's or Bolesławes, for some reason)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same in Britain—not many Æthelwolds or Egberts about. qp10qp 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the Encyclopedia Britannica was used to reference his Polish name in the lead; I don't like Encyclopedia Britannica references anyway, so I've removed that and also the inelegant subordinate clause, now leaving "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło extended..." To make sure readers quickly find out about the name change, I have added the following higher up:

"and was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło."

I've referenced that to Bojtár (p.182), as those are the words he uses.

I've changed the family tree to show that its subject had the name Jogaila as well as Władysław II Jagiełło.

I don't know if the editor who wrote about the baptisms had a reason for mentioning Polish rivers (certainly Jogaila's retinue were in Poland when he was baptised); but I only know of the mass baptisms in Vilnius, and so I have cut the mention of Polish rivers. qp10qp 10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Answering to the Bojtár (p.182) remark was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło , it is debatable among Historians is it possible by crowning use Baptizm name and his Polinized pagan name, but I would not press this further. M.K. 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For handiness, you can insert answers in my previuos points. I will review changes ASAP. M.K. 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I just think it can start to look a little muddled who's saying what. If I misquote your queries here, please say so; it's not intentional. :)


Death of Kęstutis/Delay after Grunwald:

MK: "but for some reason Władysław hesitated to pursue his advantage." Present, at least in notes section, more interpretation why it was delayed.

MK: Death of Grand Duke Kęstutis should be explained in main text not in notes, no need to expand here only key moments.

In both these cases, where the information is scant, I felt it was best if the article kept things cautious and simple.

The expression "for some reason" was used for the delay because that's pretty much how several historians talk about the Polish-Lithuanian hesitation in following up after Grunwald. In case that made it seem as if the article, rather than the sources, was weak on the point, I've now changed the wording to "for reasons the sources do not explain". In response to your request for more information in the notes, I've added the following there, based on Turnbull (but even he, who has written a whole book on the battle, can shed relatively little light on the matter):

"What we know about this delay, as Stephen Turnbull describes, is that with Marienburg less than sixty miles away, the Polish-Lithuanian army, perhaps due to casualties, waited for two days before marching on, and then only at a rate of nine miles a day. The delay, which Turnbull calls "perhaps understandable but fatal", allowed Heinrich von Plauen to reach Marienburg with around 2000 (some sources say 3000 men), evacuate the town, and dig in for a long siege. Turnbull, Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights, 73."

For what it's worth, my instinct is that "perhaps due to casualties" is indeed the most likely explanation. And I would guess that the slow march might be explained by caution, given that the Polish-Lithuanian army were now deep in the Order's territory. Their tactics leading up to the battle had been to divide the Order's forces with decoy attacks along the border, so they would have known that the Order had other troops at large than those defeated in the battle. The article sticks to what historians say, though, rather than my guesses.

With Kęstutis, I have changed "found dead" to "found dead, probably murdered", in case the wording appeared to suggest a weakness of the article rather than of the sources. The word "probably" might provide a nudge to the reader to look at the notes. And I believe the best place for a discussion of this matter is the notes, to save the readers from a diversion which could not provide them with any extra facts. However, I have expanded the notes to include the theory that the Germans had Kęstutis murdered. Most historians, however, seem to pass over this death with a hedging noise, which I suspect is the best approach.

The note now stands like this, in adequate relation, I believe, to the article text:

"Jogaila murdered the stubborn uncle in a quarrel at the end of 1382." Bojtár, 181. "Jogaila himself had come to power in 1382 with the murder of his uncle Kęstutis." Lukowski and Zawadzki, p 34. Vytautas, during his second Prussian refuge of 1390, was recorded as saying: "Jogaila captured our father and killed him; he also killed our mother and imprisoned me". Mickunaite, 157, from a Teutonic chancellery document titled dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln und skirgaln. Some historians dispute that Kęstutis was murdered by Jogaila. According to Sruogiene-Sruoga in Jogaila, the Lithuanian writer Maironis, in Kestuçio mirtis (The Death of Kestutis), suggests Kęstutis was murdered by servants commissioned by the Germans.

For full references see the article.

May I just say that in my opinion one of the trickiest challenges in writing an encyclopedia article is to despatch disputed and poorly sourced facts such as these—the delay after Grunwald and the death of Kęstutis—with the requisite brevity. The footnote facility at least means we can wave main-text readers through at such informationally barren moments.

qp10qp 12:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding murder of Kęstutis, Maironis probably should not be placed here :) Yes I believe such approach with death using nudge is possible solution. Regarding battle for Marienburg my aim was to draw attention on different approach towards why was delay, casualties is likely solution. If I not mistaken Jasienica wrote that commanders of allied armies did not want to finish TO finally due to several reasons. Nevertheless if you think that sufficient info amount is provided, I would not press further with this one. M.K. 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
applicare

MK: "and to incorporate Lithuania into Poland." – simple absurd. Applicare is not the same as incorporare, presented interpretation in article is one sided!

The point is covered by the following in the footnote:

"The term used for 'incorporate' in 1385—applicare—has given rise to much acrimonious discussion between Polish and Lithuanian historians, but the Poles had no doubt of what it meant at the time." Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34."

Endre Bojtár says: "In this matter the document applied the unfortunate term applicare, which carries the meaning of joining, unification, and merging." Bojtár, 182.

I don't think we should use our own knowledge of Latin here (personally, I would say applicare means "to attach"), because diplomats were just as capable of weasely formulations then as now, and there was probably some spin on the word which is lost to us. But the Polish historians aren't alone in their interpretation: Sruogiene-Sruoga says that the phrase Coronae Regni Polaniae applicare means "annexation of Lithuania to the Polish Kingdom" (Jogaila article in Lituanus).

Jogaila appears never to have believed a word of it, of course, and made no effort to put it into practice. So I suspect it was legal blarney.

qp10qp 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me start answering to your point from this part :) In 2002 was prepared publication regarding Act of Kreva, which uses this specific term > 1385 m. rugpjūčio 14 d. Krėvos aktas; 2002; ISBN 9986-34-080-2. Few names of authors: Edmundas Rimša, S. C. Rowell (yes the same who is quoted in this article already); Jūratė Kiaupienė etc. Lets look that they say about this word: <<The infamous word „applicare“ is a neutral term which has no limited meaning of „incorporation“ and it reflects the broad promises „neс eos aut coronam regni Polonie deserere“ made by Lithuanian princes in the wake of Jogaila's coronation or „adhaerere“ used in acts of fealty sworn by Jogaila and Jadwiga's Lithuanian vassals in chief. This vague but clear word, deliberately chosen for its broad sense, has given historians the opportunity to create a profession non-problem for themselves to argue over without real fruit. Incorporare appears for the first time in documents associated with Polish-Lithuanian relations in 1413 where its specificity (Lithuania is part of Poland and Poland is Catholic , Lithuania like Poland belongs to Jogaila ) suited internal and external political developments. In the mid-fifteenth century the now politically-literate and self-defending Lithuanian nobility objected not to applicare, but to incorporare. When he described the 1385 negotiations Długosz deliberately placed 1413 terminology in accounts of what happened and deliberately removed reference to Jogaila's requiring that his future mother-in-law adopt him as her son . Długosz was the first, but not the last historian to „age“ the Horodło terms.>> This part I took from Lithuanian Historic Institute web site - abstract from presented book; if you need specific pages of the book let me know. You see, qp10qp, now that is provided in article speaks only for one part of scholars who choose to use “incorporation” concept but ignores others, this why I wrote that presented interpretation is on sided (including and with stronger remark :) ) . Plus I also addressed issue using formulation of "Union". M.K. 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that page (book preview) before but dismissed it as inadmissable as a Misplaced Pages source, since it is not a book or scholarly article but a garbled summary of a book on a webpage which advertises the book. However, see my replies lower down under "Krėva", where I hope I have found a way of meeting your objections on this point. qp10qp 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
First summary of book is on Lithuanian Institute of History prepared by its scholars, second the summary do not advertises the book at all (all prominent books are listed in this web page, which are published by this Institute with summaries, content etc.), third I also noted that if you want direct pages from book, please say so, and I will provide, because these same formulation presented in web is in the book. In short I do not see any reason why presented research work of scholars is inadmissible. But I happy with your edits regarding sausage of applicare in main text, also you can add and English historian Rowell views of word interpretation. M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Union of Krewo, please see relavant article, footnotes, refs and discussion on the talk page. I strongly suggest that we use the mainstream most-popular version (i.e. Union of Krewo).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Law/discrimination

MK: About law and legal tradition – already Gediminas referred the rights of civil law of the city of Riga. There is suggestion that even in Mindaugas times German law was applied etc. and the most important is missed - one of the Jogailas’ edicts started discrimination among Orthodox and Catholics.

I responded to the legal question in answer to Calgacus, and I hope that the article no longer gives the impression of downplaying any previous legal developments in Lithuania. In response to your point about the discrimination, I have now added the following paragraph, which I hope addresses it. (I might add something more lower down when I address your point about Podolia.)

Could you please elaborate remark about Lithuania began adopting Polish legal traditions here? Magdeburg Law is Polish law?

"One effect of Władysław’s measures was to be the advancement of Catholics in Lithuania at the expense of Orthodox elements; in 1387 and 1413, for example, Lithuanian Catholic boyars were granted special judicial and political privileges denied the Orthodox boyars. (Magocsi, 134) As this process gained momentum, it was accompanied by the rise of both Rus' and Lithuanian identity in the fifteenth century. (Plokhy, 98)"

I am quite happy with improvement, some remarks, could you please explain here what you mean with 1413 event - Samogitia baptism? M.K. 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Krėva:

MK: "Jogaila signed a formal act of union with Poland" - Jogaila did not sign act with "Poland". Second to call document as Union represents only one part of scholarly opinion

He put his seal on it, which amounted to a formal signature. Some historians do use the word "signed", but I have removed it from the article to no ill effect. The word "Poland" was used because historians often use it in this context; for example:

Oh, no you a bit misinterpreted my words - my aim was to make difference between act which is sign with State as such and with scribes concurring your marriage agreement.M.K. 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"...the joining of Poland and Lithuania under a single ruler by the Union of Krewo." (Sedlar, 282)

and

"The act of union between the two polities concluded in 1385 at Kreva…listed only two parties to the agreement, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy." (Plokhy, 96)

As far as the name for it goes, the majority of books I have seen call it a "union", a fair number call it an "act", a few call it an "agreement" or a "treaty", and one calls it an "alliance". It seems to me that the most neutral of those terms is "agreement", and so I have adjusted the text to that effect, which I hope will meet your objection. I have made sure that the notes now cover the view that what happened at Krėva was not a union, as well as the view that it was. I have added the clause which includes "applicare" to the main text but removed any discussion of the word itself from the notes, making the points there more general. (If even historians can't agree on its translation, maybe it's best to avoid troubling the readers with that linguistic issue.)

Ok M.K.

MK: "Jogaila decided the only way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order was to convert to Christianity", - so he wake up in the morning and thought - Oh, good day for baptism?

I have rewritten the paragraph to avoid giving any impression of that nature.

Good. M.K.

"Jogaila chose therefore to accept a remarkable Polish proposal that he become a Catholic and marry the eleven-year-old Queen Jadwiga of Poland." First remarkable is common only to the author disclaimer needed - X thinks, but such style will spoil whole article style. "Remarkable" - not encyclopedic approach.

I used the word "remarkable" because two books used it, one of which I quoted using it in the notes, while others used similar expressions. Also because I felt, having studied medieval history at university, that the remarkability of a Catholic queen marrying a pagan king at that time was a fact and not an opinion—certainly, much of Europe was scandalised by it. However, "remarkable" is not an essential word, and so I have cut it, along with its reference.

Very good. M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK: There are no words why some Polish noblemen decided to invite a pagan ruler. why?? And there were several whys– Germanisation, Habsburgs, territorial claims etc. There is no hint that not all Polish noblemen agreed on this affair.

I have now added the following note, which covers the points you wish to be included:

"The nobles of Malopolska, not without suspicion from the nobles of Wielkopolska, made this offer to Jogaila for many reasons. For example, they were "concerned to neutralize the dangers from Lithuania itself and to secure the fertile territories of Halych-Rus’". Lukowski and Zawadzki, 42. Dvornik suggests that the Polish nobles saw the offer as an ”opportunity for increasing their privileges”. Dvornik, 129. They also wished to avoid Austrian influence, Jogaila agreeing to "pay off" Jadwiga's previous fiancé Wilhelm von Habsburg. Lukowski and Zawadzki, 37." qp10qp 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, maybe this info should go directly to the article? M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MK: "In 1415, they produced Samogitian witnesses." Strange interpretation, was produced ? Second Samogitians arrived into Constance by the order of Vytautas, who approx one year before Samogitian arrival started propaganda war there. So that Poles produced Samogitian witnesses not balanced interpretation.

I've now placed the mention of the Samogitians ahead of the mention of Polish envoys. And I've added Vytautas's involvement. I've dropped the word "produced", an idiom sometimes used with "witnesses" in English. qp10qp 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good explanation. Thank you, M.K. 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigismund:

MK: "offered the Bohemian crown after the death of King Wenceslas of Bohemia in 1419", "not to meddle in Bohemian affairs". Explain why Jogaila did not agreed on holding the new crown..

MK: "In 1420, Sigismund decreed that all lands in dispute between Poland and the Knights be granted in perpetuity to the Order, including Pomerelia, Dobrzyń Land, Pomerania, and Samogitia." Source needed to check formulation correctness.

MK: Explain Sigismund attempts to intervene in relations with Vytautas and Jogaila.

The middle one of these was only sourced to Polish historians, and as it doesn't seem to me very important (since it never came to pass) I've cut it. I've added the problem of the Bohemian Diet's stipulation that Władysław swear to the Four Articles of Prague; and in the notes I have now included information about Vytautas's election, Korybut's regency, and, on Sigismund's intervening, the offer of a crown to Vytautas in 1429. qp10qp 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with explanations, M.K. 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Podolia/last few years:

MK: "whom he ordered to restore the union by force". Prove needed, also explain Jogaila’s role in land dispute on Podolia etc.

So difficult is it to pin this down neatly that I have now rewritten this paragraph to be very tightly linked to the references, making no undue assumptions about Władysław's role. There are extraordinarily contradictory versions of what went on during this time, but the article now keeps things simple and cautious, I hope.

Władysław seems to me a shadowy presence in these events. In response to your specific question about his role, I have added the following note:

"How much influence the aged Władysław had on these events is not clear. Sruogiene-Sruoga says that he wished to restore Lithuanian independence and at one point instructed the leader of the Lithuanian army not to listen to Polish orders. Plokhy, on the other hand, says that he sided with the Poles over Podolia. Plokhy, 98."

One could use the sources to tell several different stories about these last few years of Władysław, but my strong impression is that the matter hasn't been researched fully yet.

qp10qp 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good decision to present different interpretations. Maybe just nudge needed, M.K. 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Vytautas:

MK: "In 1384, Vytautas offered more concessions" – needs proving.

MK: "but then he switched sides and joined Jogaila in attacking and pillaging several Prussian towns" – explain why he switch sides and what role played Jogaila. BTW, did he pillaged towns or castles, a?

MK: "In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who made another bid for power, provoking a civil war." Nothing is explained why the fight renewed, and this is key issue.

The word "more" referred to Vytautas's concession of part of Samogitia in return for the Order's support, as added to Jogaila's previously mentioned concessions (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 33). But you've put your finger on a piece of sloppy writing there (mea culpa) because I admit that the sentence on its own makes it look as if Vytautas made more concessions in 1384 on top of concessions already made by himself. As the reason for the switching of sides, I have added that he accepted assurances from Jogaila about his inheritance, referenced to Mickūnaitė.

Since the referenced source for pillaging mentions only castles and not towns, I have changed the text to castles. I expect the original editor here inferred that the settlements attached to the castles would also have been pillaged for booty, since other Lithuanian raids had "laid waste" to territories—in 1376, for example. (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34) However, I have now made sure the text echoes the reference precisely.

In response to the third point above, I have added the reason why Vytautas rebelled again, supported by a reference to Mickūnaitė which includes Vytautas's own reasoning as recorded by a Teutonic scribe. As follows:

"In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who resented the power given to Skirgaila in Lithuania at the expense of his own patrimony."

qp10qp 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Review changes (if not missed something) main ideas are presented, just 10 and 32 notes a bit deteriorated M.K. 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Note deterioration sorted. (This is what comes from trying to edit and listen to football at the same time.) qp10qp 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Galaxy

This is a summary-style article on an important astronomy topic. It is on both the vital articles and the core topics listings, and has achieved GA status. This article now seems FA-worthy, but, if not, then please let me know what needs be done to take it to that level. Specific details would be much appreciated. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not any more Chrislintott 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object The first half of this article is very well-written, but it falls apart at section 5 "Formation and evolution". This section is incoherent and reads like a cut-and-paste job. Succeeding sections could use some work. --Ideogram 09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it was a cut-and-paste job, for the most part. :-/ I just performed a re-write of the Formation section to make it more coherent. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work so far. Please be sure to give the same attention to the succeeding sections. --Ideogram 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I also tried to refine the Evolution section a little more. I'm unclear about the issues with the following sections. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Remaining problems have been fixed. I am pleased to change my vote to Support. --Ideogram 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Campaign history of the Roman military‎

Reason for nomination: I split the old military history of ancient Rome article into 4 sections - campaign history (covering military campaigns), structural history (covering reforms of the army), political history (covering political changes in its command and use), and technological history (covering weapons development and use over is 1300 years of existence). My aim is to work through these one by one bringing them to featured article status. The first one I have worked on is the Campaign history of the Roman military. It has recently undergone a peer review and I have made several changes, primarily to layout rather than content, based upon the feedback from this peer review. To my mind the article is FA-ready and so I am self-nominating it as such, but I am happy to incorporate any requested changes. I am happy to answer any and all questions. - PocklingtonDan 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC archived here; needed for ArticleHistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Commentary copied from earlier FAC
  • Comment. Looks really good at first sight! Because I didn't check the whole page thoroughly, I won't support or oppose, but merely comment.
  1. Is it possible to emphasize in the introduction that the page deals only with the Western Roman Empire after the split? Not every reader will be informed about the split and even if they would: the Eastern part is also considered Roman, so it is confusing.
  • The term "Roman Empire" normally does include only the west after the split, the east normally being termed the "byzantine empire", but I will make this clearer in the introduction. updated in lead para now to make this clearer - PocklingtonDan 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

#It is at the hands of the Gallic Celts that Rome suffered a humiliating defeat that temporarily set back its advance and was to imprint itself upon the Roman consciousness. reads a bit narrative and unnecessary imo. (striked as it was a subjective and non-material comment)

  • Not sure I see a problem with that sentence, can you suggest an alternative?I was trying to build some narrative in to tie the sections together better and prevent the article appearing stubby - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. It is it possible to add more specific campaign info (the used strategies, the generals in command, the assumptions made, specifics of troops: infantry, cavalry, etc?) if they aren't (yet?) specific battles wiki-battlepages. E.g., How were the Celts driven off or bought off? Especially the "driven-off" seems to be an important part, as it includes campaigns/battles.
  • If I go into too much detail in every section the article will get far to lengthy - the idea is to cover every campaign briefly, and then the campaignboxes to the right provide links to more detailed articles on each campaign and battle. I'd really rather not have the article try and incorporate that kind of detail, with 1300 years of battles to cover there just isn't room for it at this level - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Is it possible to add in a line (or two) when Rome created legions. They are first mentioned in the Pyrrhic War - a bit out of the blue.
  • I'd rather not cover that, since that is the job of the companion article "Structural history of...". Instead I will try and parse the article and replace legion -> army. Especially given how "legion" meant so many different times during different periods, I think its use at all here is probably confusing, and should remains in the companion "Strucutral history of..." article - done now - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. The map of the Pyrrhic War can be improved. The geographic names are not in English (I think).
  1. Can it be added in a few words that Pyrrhus campaigned against Carthage - raises questions now.
  • I will look into this now I've added the very briefest of mentions of this now: although technically its not a Roman military campaign I see how it fits into the historical narrative - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Better remove the use of the term superpower as the meaning of that term does not correspond with the powers of that era. Use instead regional power or major power. Sijo Ripa 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have changed superpower->power, but for the record one of the source reference works on Rome's military is subtitled "Military History of the World's First Superpower", I believe the term does fit - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment References come after punctuation, example it's currently like this FInd a citation for the tag. Try remove weasel words like allege. Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), pretence (B) (American: pretense), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack). Avoid using contractions like wasn't spell it was not. Also remove, merge or expand the very short one-two sentence paragraphs. I also think the article is too big, and the above objection will be ignored as it isn't valid. M3tal H3ad 10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments:
  • References and punctuation - I corrected the incorrect footnote place with Gimmetrow's script - please see WP:FN and WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Citation - sorted
  • Weasel words - removed
  • Spelling - should now be standardised on British English but American spellings are so common in online materials my brain subconsciously accepts them now so its difficult for me to recognise them. Let me know if I've missed any
  • Contractions - think there was only instance, sorted
  • Article Size - I'm not sure what to do on the article size issue. I know it is large, but I'm not convinced its " too large" (too large for what?) since any contraction of the article would be at the cost of reduced comprehension of the events and an FA criterion is that the article must be "Comprehensive". I have already cut out as many names of non-esential figures etc as possible but its hard to see how to cut it down any further whilst still being able to give an accurate overview of 1300 years of warfare. This is a big topic and if the recent FA Alcibiades (a single individual) can have an (officially "too large") size of 89kb, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a 112kb article on the military campaigns of an empire over 1300 years. The only official FA criterion regarding size is that "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would arguse that the article size was appropriate for the massive scope of of te article, and that I have avoided unecessary details. I will have another go but I doubt I can reduce te article length substantially without simply losing information.
Thanks for your comments, please let me know if there's anything else you find that you think needs fixing PocklingtonDan 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

*Comment. Bibliography is long quanitity, but not especially impressive on quality, being dominated by general books rather than specific studies. Semperf 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Bibliography Quality I'm not sure how you judge the "quality" of the reference works but if references to Gibbon, Liddell Hart and Livy aren't good enough for you, I wonder what would be? I have several books that go into great detail on individual battles, wars and events, but since the article aims only to give a brief overview of these, they are redundant and add nothing that the summary works do not, in my opinion - PocklingtonDan 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

*Comment. An article like this is really a long list of details with little analysis of the history (what changed and why?). It is a better Featured List candidate than a Featured Article Candidate. Semperf 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Lack of analysis History is "the branch of knowledge dealing with past events", there is no necessity for it to provide analysis of every event. You are correct that there is little analysis, rather the article lays out a chronology with links to individual articles on individual wars, battles etc that one might expect to contain commentary and analysis. As explained above, the "what changed and why" matters will be informed in the sister articles "Structural history of...", "Political history of", and "Technological history of". I think the article's coverage is implicit in its title, ie it covers only campaign history. It is outside the remit of the article to consider the impact of campaign, especially as the article is already being judged as over-long even before the inclusion of this information. There is also no requirement for analysis in Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria - PocklingtonDan 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Bibliography has quantity, but not quality. Amyot-North is a translation of Plutarch from the 16th century and should not be used except as a link to Plutarch; Chaliand's The Art of War in World History is too general to be useful to a reader (references are for readers who want to do further research); Gibbon became a classic of English literature, but now is too old to be useful as a reference for history; Michael Grant is too general, as are Boris Johnson, Lane Fox, Matyszak; I don't know the Rogers, but any work that calls Rome the world's first superpower (Persia?!) can surely be improved upon; Rolfe is a translation of Sallust and therefore belongs in the primary source column; do Saggs, Trigger, and Wood really have much to offer? Also, lack of consistency in capitalization (either use capitals throughout or not) and naming of authors (Jones?), where sometimes it is full names, sometimes only initials, sometimes before surname, sometimes after. (Matyszak, by the way, is Philip; his friends call him 'Maty') Semperf 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bibliography quality I'm not aware of anything in WP guidelines that makes pronouncements on the quality of given sources, and I have confidence in the sources that I have used. If you believe that I have cited a fact that is reputed by, in your opinion, more reputable sources, the correct action would be to change "X is so" in the text to "Although A says X, B C D E and F say Y". Your point is academic unless you can cite an example of a cited fact that a more reputable source disagrees with.
Message left on user talk page asking him to respond to this point - PocklingtonDan 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lack of consistency with capitals Please feel free to copyedit to correct this or point out any examples you want me to correct
  • As per this edit, requesting editor is now happy with this, marking as done
  • Comments I haven't really focused on this article, but I just noticed that it has a massive number of footnotes for the simple reason that named refs haven't been employed - the footnotes would be FAR more readable if named refs were used consistently throughout to eliminate all the repeats. Also, the article doesn't currently conform with WP:GTL - External links are listed in Sources. Which are they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Article Size - I have already addressed this issue above. I have read the length guidlines wikilinked above and I think the article broadly complies with them. The hardest guidline given is that articles over 50kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". This is not a hard and fast rule (let's not forget that WP guidelines are just that - guidelines to which there are always exceptions, not laws) and I note that it has already been broken by several feature articles including the recent Alcibiades, which is well over this. I think its hard to argue that a single figure of ancient Greece is a topic that "has a topic that justifies the added reading time", but easy to argue this for 1300 years of military history. I do not believe that the article can be significantly reduced whilst still maintaing an authoratitive overview of 1300 years of ROme's military history. Some articles are by their nature bigger than others, even in traditional print encyclopedias. To addres the four concerns with size specifically:
  • technical issues, (e.g. browser limitations, upload speeds, cellular connections, etc.) - this seems a poor reason for reducing article size. The broswer limitations listed are noted in the guidelines as being largely legacy and redundant now and not an issue. Upload speeds, etc are increasing every day on both fixed and portable devices. It seems a shame to butcher an article to meet technical restrictions that are at best rare and may be irrelevant the same time next year due to technical progress anyway.
  • reader issues, (i.e. readability, organization, information saturation, attention spans, etc.) - I think very few people sit and read every word on many of the larger WP articles. The key point here is that article is presenting an overview, which then allows drill-down to more detailed articles on specific sections. I would not expect a casual reader to read throught he whole article in a single sitting, but an interested reader would do so.
  • editor issues, (e.g. talkpage tensions, arguments over trivial contributions) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article.
  • contribution issues, (i.e. articles stop growing significantly once they reach a certain size) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article - PocklingtonDan 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The writing is competent, but not brilliant; the sourcing can be improved is mostly to tertiary, obsolete, and non-authoritative works; the decision (described in the nomination) to divide up Roman military history by theme (campaigns, structure, politics, and technology) and then have one article covering 1300 years of Roman history for each is deeply flawed and results in an article that fails guidelines such as WP:LENGTH and gives so little analysis that it begins to look like a compilation of facts rather than an encyclopedia article that aims to explain. The article seems not to have gone through the good article process (I frankly do not think it should pass even there), and the wikiproject that it is part of seems to rate it only a 'B'. Semperf 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you are still firmly entrenched against this article despite me working hard to address your previous concerns as well as explaining to you (in some detail) the rationale for decisions taken with regard to the directin taken with and presentation of the article.
  • Writing quality - Am trying to arrange to have this article copyedited now- PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sourcing - I'm not sure that I understand your objection here. The article is comprehensively cited using over two dozen reference works. The article references primary, secondary and tertiary works, as is common. Primary works cannot be relied upon solely since they are often biased, and secondary sources that compile and correlate multiple primary sources seems like the most NPOV way of presenting facts. Are you saying that you think some of the facts presented are wrong? Or that they are correct, but you think the cites for the facts should come from elsewhere? If the former, please present examples of incorrect facts so that I can fix them. If the latter, your request is absurd. I'm particularly amused by the fact that you object to the fact that I'm not using solely primary sources, and at the same time call my secondary sources "obsolete". I think you'll find the primary sources, predating the secondary sources by, oooh, about 1500 years, are a good deal more "obsolete" still.
  • Further comment on sourcing. The difference between secondary and tertiary is important here (for a useful review of the principles, see WP:RS#Types_of_source_material). This article's bibliography is dominated by tertiary items, and the few sources that might be fairly described as "secondary" are not much used. Primary sources should be cited not by page number to a translation, but by book and chapter: e.g., not Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, p. 266, but Plutarch, Crassus, 54; etc., etc. Again, authors names have to be added to the references. Semperf 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thematic split decision - I'm sorry that you disagree with how I am choosing to tackle the subject, but I am unsure why you feel such an approach is flawed. It was suggested by other editors when the original "Military history of ancient Rome" article grew too large, and I think it is an excellent way of presenting the information.
  • Good article process - It is not mandatory for an article to go through a GA process before going for FA status. In fact, although you state you think GA would be more appropriate, the GA guidelines actually state "For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Misplaced Pages peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here", so I believe you are incorrect.
  • B rating - Article was rated as B several months ago before the majority of the work was done upon it. Why is this relevant to its current status now? - PocklingtonDan 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the basic complaints against this article have been addressed. This is not a simple topic to cover so completely and the 300+ notes is simply a testament to the thoroughness that must have gone into the development of this article. I disagree with the complaints made about the article's length as I don't think one can be thorough (an FA requirement) and brief (another FA ~requirement) about something like the military campaign history of Ancient Rome. There are many other FAs out there that are quite long as well and setting a limit on the size for all FA candidates doesn't allow for any mobility on the topic being covered. This is a long article, but it's not overlong for the topic. If I'm writing an article on the military campaign history of Fiji, clearly it's going to be shorter. I do have one question to the main editor, though, regarding the title: is this the common naming convention in the military history project? It seems like you might want to say, for instance, "Military campaign history of Ancient Rome" or something of the sort. Thanks, JHMM13  19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. For what is worth, I actually agree myself that the title should probably be changed as suggested to "Military campaign history of Ancient Rome", since this is in keeping with MILHIST naming conventions. I'm useless at[REDACTED] technical stuff, is it possible for this rename to go ahead during this FAC or is it best to wait until after it is closed? - PocklingtonDan 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's renamed, it should probably be to Military campaigns of ancient Rome, as the "history" is redundant in that case; but I'm not convinced this is actually a good idea. The title isn't wrong, per se, and it allows for a nice parallel naming scheme with the related articles.
  • (If you are going to move it, I'd suggest doing so before the FAC concludes, as there will be fewer archives that need to be moved that way.) Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your point about it fitting in with the naming scheme of the other articles is a good point that I hadn't considered. It's just a shame it doesn't seem to quite tie in with MILHIST naming conventions. I'm happy to move it or keep it as-is - PocklingtonDan 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand that there is a problem concerning the length. If this would be an obstacle, it is possible to let the article split at the Roman split in West and East. IMO, it isn't and shouldn't be obligatory, but it would shorten the article and give the opportunity to deepen certain aspects (if necessary). Sijo Ripa 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Splitting Article - If you look at the article on the Byzantine Empire, it is listed as 330 AD - 1453 AD (ie everything in the east after the split). If ancient Rome was not likewise considered to be everything up to the split and the west after the split (as is conventional) then the west after the split would be in a strange limbo of conceptual nothingness. I think it is best (and consistent with most texts) to consider the Roman empire to be that empire containing and being governed from Rome. ie after the split, the Byzantine Empire was founded in the east, and the Roman Empire lost half of its territory, despite that territory being populated by people previously citizens of the roman empire. I'm not sure any other treatment would be possible or consistent with other articles on[REDACTED] or with other sources/references. I would therefore be against splitting the article, which aims to give an overview of roman military campaigns from the city's foundation to its fall - PocklingtonDan 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I severely lack the knowledge necessary to judge this article for completeness or correctness, this is a very impressive article that Misplaced Pages and the editors of this article should be proud of. In any case, this article looks to be a real challenge to judge, so best of luck with this FAC. Cheers! Wickethewok 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this article because I think it meets all the FA criteria. It is wel citated and sourced and it gives and good descroption on a extremly hard topic. Kyriakos 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. Technically, the size should reflect the comparative coverage degree of an article (Campaign history..., being currently 113KB long, is only 1KB away from the United States for example). I suggest some heavy summarizing (to reduce the size to 70KB or lower) and adding further information templates to some sections. The general appearance is a bit tedious, consider adding at least one painting. The last to-do IMHO is unlinking the publishing houses names. A really cool work anyway. --Brand спойт 01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments:
  • Size - This seems to be a recurring complaint! I think it is a little bit of contemporary big-headedness to consider that the history of Rome's military campaigning shouldn't have a much greater article than that of the United States, the former covering a period of 1300 years, and the latter only just over 200. As before, I am heavily against shortening the article to the degree stated because it would impossible to maintain an authoratitive article on the topic in that length of space.
  • Further Informaiton templates - I have chosen not to use these, believeing that the campaignbox infoboxes to the right provide links to all the relevant pages.
  • Appearance and Paintings - I tend to not like to add paintings etc for the heck of it just to pretty up an article without adding informational content. It is a view I know is shared by a few other MILHIST editors. However, I realise it is not a widely-held view and a certain degree of beautification is necesssary. I have added 2 paintings now of a suitable martial nature!
  • Unlinking publishing houses - All deadlink publishing houses unlinked now - PocklingtonDan 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Terrific work, actually one of my dreams seems to become true very soon. My shaky preference is to narrow the first lead sentences (probably by merging) to achieve smoother transition to the subject. --Brand спойт 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the complete variation in map scale and style detracts something from the article. But, I don't think that's fully a reason to oppose--but if you could employ one of the better map makers to standardize these it would help the article tremendously. I do have some other, simpler issues which I think can be dealt with:
  • Most of your maps have no source data that can be used to verify that what they are portraying is correct. The UTexas maps are fine. Some like Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png really need source data since the link is to a world map that shows nothing about Roman Empire. Some are in between like Image:Caesar campaigns gaul.gif which states it's from a reliable source but gives no means to verify that; It needs either a web link or a proper citation so we could actually find the book.
  • "Rome from which we have inherited so much breeds the concept that" seems to me to be bad style. Footnote markers should cause minimal disruption. You can easily combine them into one footnote making it:
359 ^ The History of Rome, p. 1; Civilization Before Greece and Rome, p. 1; In Search of the First Civilizations, p. 176
instead of
359 ^ The History of Rome, p. 1
360 ^ Civilization Before Greece and Rome, p. 1
361 ^ In Search of the First Civilizations, p. 176
  • I am a little worried about the hide/show for foonotes since when you click on a reference before pressing show it will not take you to the list. If there was a way that we could make it automatically show if you click on a footnote marker that would solve the problem.
  • Image:España y Portugal.jpg doesn't seem to add anything to the article. A map showing maybe Roman settlements or, at least relating to Rome in some way I think is necessary to justify the image. Having a satellite picture and saying 'Rome took this over' isn't enough in my opinion.
  • That being said, this article is very impressive. gren グレン 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments:
  • Maps I agree with you actually, it would be wonderful to have a cohesive series of maps specifically drawn up for this article. I will look into this today and tomorrow.
  • Footnotes Hidden - Fixed now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Combining Footnotes - Is this standard[REDACTED] policy? I don't want to do this only to have to undo it - I've not seen anybody combining several cites in one like that before. I am happy to do this if there is consensus for it, but its not something I've seenbefore either on[REDACTED] or in print. Is this standard??
  • Thanks - PocklingtonDan 09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call it "combining" them. But, citing one statistic from three sources in one footnote is standard academic practice--whereas having three footnote links next to each other surely isn't. This won't make or break any nomination, though.
  • I think this would actually make the list of footnotes longer and is incompatible with the named references that I have already implemented at the request of other editors, so this is going to have to be a no I'm afraid - PocklingtonDan 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sourcing of Maps - Agree with you completely that all maps should be sourced, just as text. This might take some time to verify, but I will start looking into this. - PocklingtonDan 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What I am most concerned about is that the maps aren't all reliably sourced. They provide information like texts and we need not only copyright sources for them but verifiability sources too. In some cases they are the same (such as the UTexas ones) but for the self-made ones they are not veriable until we have an understanding of how the user drew the borders. So, I did make the point that "it would be wonderful to have a cohesive series of maps" but what really needs to be done before this becomes a featured article is make sure the maps are verifiable like the text. (Image:Etruscan civilization map.png is a perfect example. It looks nice, no copyright problems, but we need some source to check to make sure that creator User:NormanEinstein got the locations right. I cannot presume that he knows the borders of an ancient empire unless it is cited "made from Scholarly Etruscan Book by Famous Author." This is just like leaving article content unsourced.)
  • So, my second point is the one that really matters. The others are just tweaks I think would be nice. I should note: I will support if this is done. Otherwise, I will have to oppose since FAs shouldn't have unsourced material. gren グレン 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Splitting article - Thank you for your comments. However, I do not feel this is a good idea. One of my main criticisms with the coverage of Rome, and the Roman military in particular, on[REDACTED] is that when I arrived it seemed that[REDACTED] equated Roman Empire to Rome, and the Roman legion to the Roman army. I have been hard at work in numerous articles trying to dispel this idea and emphasise that the Roman state was active for hundreds of years prior to the Empire, and that the legions were only one part of Rome's military, and changed massively in form and scope. I would be afraid that "Military campaigns of the Roman Empire" would likewise be taken to mean the military campaigns of the entirety of rome's history. It would also entail the creation of yet another article at the current page to link to the two. It would also ignore the Roman Kingdom unless this was put into yet another article. And finally it would be difficult to classify certain periods of war near the end of the republic as falling definitievely into either republic or empire. As you might have guessed I'm still against shortening the article by splitting! - PocklingtonDan 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this page. I have read the page myself and have followed all comments made by other wikipedians. I cannot come up with any reason to object to FA status. I also want to compliment PocklingtonDan and other contributors because they were able to write a comprehensive well-references article about such a difficult topic. Sijo Ripa 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. There is exemplary work in this article, and I'm very glad to see the dropdowns eliminated from the text, but some things still to be addressed:
  • Why did the previous External links go away, rather then being listed in External links?
  • I just realised I explained this in my edit summary but not on this talk page - it was because all the external links were actually legacy links from before I (massively) rewrote the article and were now redundant and had no conenction to the article contents. I don't think I used any web sources in revising the article - PocklingtonDan 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are Wikis listed as sources ? If those Wikilinks are only intended as links to information about the books, the relevant info still needs to be included in this article. If Wikis were used to source the article, that wouldn't be good.
  • I think you've got confused on this point, I didn't use a wiki as source as such. All I have done is to link to the relevant reference works on wikisource where available to allow easier verification, but I worked from the print versions whose information is given after the wikisource link. The same is true of the texts available on Project Gutenberg. I have seen this method used on FA articles such as Alcibiades and liked the easy verification of cites - PocklingtonDan 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All websources used in the Bibliography need last access date
  • None of the works in the bibliography are normal external websites as such but Wikisource or Project Gutenberg. Is it conventional to add access dates even on these sources?
  • The footnote list is still longer than need be, and could be shortened via use of named refs - example,
  • ^ Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1, ch, 60
  • ^ Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1, ch, 60
  • Named Refs If you look at the wikicode I have already used named references widely. It appears that I might have missed a couple - they are after all difficult to keep track of. I will try and fix any missed ones now but please fix any others you see that I have missed - PocklingtonDan 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It might also be possible to consolidate further some of the refs (to shorten the size and list) by judiciously (where appropriate) combining very close range page numbers into one ref - example:
  • ^ Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, p. 6
  • ^ a b Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, p. 7
    • Could become one link to pp. 6-7
  • Not convinced its worth making the cites more vague for the skae of reducing the number of discrete footnotes - the idea of the footnotes is to provide as exact as a cite as possible for easy verification of facts - PocklingtonDan 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The readable prose size is still 73KB, with one of the largest overall sizes I can recall seeing on an FAC. This article will be simply inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have a fast connection, and I can't support an article which is double the recommended readable size per WP:LENGTH. This is fine work, and I hope the author will find a way to turn it into two or three shorter featured articles. I would normally register a very strong oppose on an article this length, but believe the quality of the work must be acknowledged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Article Size As I have already addressed at great length above, I believe the technical restrictions placed on larger articles are now outmoded and redundant, and I do not intend to decrease the size of the article since I do not beleve anyone has suggested a viable way of doing so to date. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There's the History of Lithuania approach. Also, there are more dialup users than you might think (not that I'm one of them).--Rmky87 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • History of Lithuania approach - I'm not sure what the good aspects of the History of Lithuania that you refer to are - which aspect of that article do you think should be incorporated in this one? - PocklingtonDan 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant the way they farmed out a space of six years to another article (I didn't know until I read the article that this was only done with one period of time!).--Rmky87 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article needs a lot of polish. For example – inline citations appearing before the punctuation;
There are many textual, punctuational, phrasing errors, examples from the first part of the article include:
“Relinquishing his army, of course, leave Caesar defenceless before his enemies.”
“This time the Romans had devised methods to deal with the war elephants, including the use of javelins, fire and, once source claims, simply hitting the elephants heavily on the head”
“Rome sought out land allies in Greece to fight a proxy war against Macdenon”
“Before the First Punic War in 264 BC there was no Roman navy to speak of as all previous Roman war had been fought in Italy.”
“However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philips' emissaries. . .”
“Although the Roman historian Livy's work. . .”
"In 224, the Parthian Empire was crushed not by the Romans but by the rebellious Persian vassal king Ardashir revolted. . ."
. . .and many, many more examples throughout.
The other problem is more subjective. The campaign boxes take up a lot of space and are wholly unecessary. Punic War campaign boxes belong in the Punic War article – the link has has been made in the text and that should be sufficient. Removing the clutter will improve the look of the article and reduce its size.
Where did this come from?
“To paraphrase Rupert Brooke, there must be many a corner of a foreign field throughout Europe, Asia and Africa that is, forever, Rome.”
Substituting 'Rome’ for ‘England’ from Brooke’s emotive poem about WW1 is not encyclopaedic. Raymond Palmer 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article, despite the size; and, for a topic like this, ignoring the normal suggested length seems justifiable. Even at this point, the article is, in many ways, just a skim through the millenum of Roman campaigning; condensing it further would significantly impair its actual usefulness to readers, I think. Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comments Fails 1a—I'm wondering how many reviewers have read this article? I just took a glance at the prose somewhere in the middle; the first sentence my eyes fell on is:
  • When a diplomatic dispute between Rome and the Greek colony of Tarentum erupted into open warfare in the naval Battle of Thurii, Tarentum appealed for aid to Pyrrhus, ruler of Epirus, for military aid.
  • Copyedit error Fixed. And I don't think you can fairly argue the entire article isn't well written because of one error in phrasing! - 81.174.157.135 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Editor reviews - It is somewhat out of my control to get others to proofread the article. I have scanned it several times myself and asked several others to do so, and I believe several people have. If you find a phrasing error in an article, the simplest thing to do surely is to fix it, rather than report it on the review page? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a ce error in the first random section, first sentence I happen to look at, either I was incredibly unlucky (in such a large article), or the entire article might benefit from a third party ce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Long, winding sentences and other problems, which make it a harder read than it should be. Here are random examples just from the lead. They indicate that the whole texts needs serious copy-editing. And it's too long for a summary article. Consider starting a few daughter articles to shift details out?
    • The first sentence is like Hannibal's elephant: "The history of Ancient Rome, originally a city-state of Italy, and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa, from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD, was often closely entwined with its military history." You could use em dashes and remove the unnecessary commas (and the questionable reference to Italy), I suppose: "The history of Ancient Rome—originally a city-state and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD—was often closely entwined with its military history." Or you could split it into two: "Ancient Rome was originally a city-state, and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa, from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD; its history was often closely entwined with its military campaigns." I'm unsure which solution is better.
    • "Despite the later Empire being based around ...". Ouch: ungrammatical and clumsy. Reword, avoiding "Despite the fact that ..." if you can. Perhaps "Despite the later Empire's base round the periphery of the mediterranean, naval battles were typically less significant to the military history of Rome ...". Again, it's up to you how to do it. "Less significant" than what?
    • "the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea"—"the Mediterranean coastline"?
    • "From the outset, Rome's military typified this pattern and the majority of Rome's campaigns were characterised by one of two types: the first is the territorial expansionist campaign, normally beginning as a counter-offensive, in which each victory brings subjugation of large areas of territory and allowed Rome to grow from a small town to the third largest empire in the ancient world, encompassing almost one quarter of the world's total population; and the second is the civil war of which examples plagued Rome right from its foundation to its eventual demise." This is a very long sentence, despite the use of a semicolon to break it up. Remove "and" after the semicolon. Change present tenses to past, for consistency?
    • "Roman armies were not, despite their formidable reputation and host of victories, invincible:"—Awkward word order; relocate "invincible" after "not".
    • Please consider not putting quotes in italic. Does the MoS say this? I think so.

It's clear that a lot of work has gone into this. That's why it's worth fixing up. Rintrah might agree to go through it ... Tony 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The map of Carthage is not right. The Ebro-treaty mentioned in old sources is considered wrong by modern researchers, instead it is the Iberus-treaty now and they argue where this Iberus was(most think it was south of Sagunt). Another mistake is the Punic power in the Maghreb. The kings were formally sovereign according to Livy and Polybius and most modern authors agree that they had some degree of independence. I will start to draw a map of Carthage prior to the war, but it will take some time. However, I would appreciate if this wrong and outdated map gets removed. Wandalstouring 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Carthage Map - Wandals, if you were able to produce a revised map (maps are completely beyond my skill to create) that shows Carthage's territory more accurately, I would greatly appreciate it - it would be of benefit not just to this article but to several others. I will leave the old map in place for the moment since it does at least provide a general indication of territory even if not, as you say, absolutely correct. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. Overall I would lean toward supporting over opposing; the article is very good.
    • The footnotes are broken by the collapsing references feature. This is a bigger problem than the size issue the collapsing section were designed to solve. I would suggest using a traditional reference section; with the small font size it will not be all that overwhelming.
    • The length seems appropriate for a survey article of this scope.
    • A copyedit is probably in order, per Tony and Sandy above. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Supernova

This important topic is on the Misplaced Pages vital articles page under the astronomy category. It is at GA status and has undergone a PR. It was also January's Science CotW. I believe it meets the FA criteria (although the page could easily be considerably longer, depending on the level of detail), so I'm nominating this page as a FAC. I'll try to address the issues that come up, but please be specific about the problems. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent, thorough, well-written. Good job. Mangojuice 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good, but are all those external links necessary? W3stfa11/ 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not, but it is difficult to decide which to cull. They all seem valid and of interest for additional reading. Any suggestions? I whittled down the list by merging some as references and moving a few to other pages, where appropriate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's confusing that the phrase the most distant Type Ia supernovae before explaining what "Type Ia" actually means. Perhaps wikilink the term to further down the page. And all but a couple of the wikilinks in "See also" are elsewhere in the article, so perhaps the section oculd be integrated and removed. Further readings should be below notes and references, per MoS. Some of the refs need accessdates. Looks pretty good in general. Trebor 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up the "See also" section redundant links, relocated "Further readings" and added in the access dates to all but one of the URL'd references. (I couldn't access one of the sites— it may be down temporarily so I'll check again later.) Thanks for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive article. It is also well-written and cited. ← ANAS 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object on the grounds that, whilst it is well researched and well cited, it does not do a good job of explaining itself to the average reader. From the intro: "produces an extremely luminous object made of plasma. A supernova may briefly out-shine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. It would take 10 billion years for the Sun to produce the energy output of an ordinary, Type II supernova. The explosion expels much or all of a star's material with great force, driving a shock wave into the surrounding space, forming a supernova remnant" What is plasma? What is a type two supernova? What is a supernova remnant? Can these things not be summaried in-line rather than having to switch to another article to find out before you've even got going? For most readers, the name plasma is less important than what plasma is. I would love to read an article on supernovas, but I am not a scientist and time and again whenr eading this article I was stumped by what wsa being presented. I think it is dying for greater in-line explanation of concepts to non-scientists, I feel it is enough to confuse and put-off non-scientists at resent - PocklingtonDan 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing objection - most of this has now been addressed, article is now a lot moer accessible for non-specialists - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Per your comment and the above comment from Trebor, I've removed the mentions of supernova type from before the section that talks about type. That early in the article, such information is a bit too detailed. However, I disagree with you about "plasma" -- the term should be well known to those with a reasonable interest in astronomy, and if it's not, there's still a wikilink to the article Plasma (physics), which explains it. A better case could be made for the term "redshift", but there we see the peril -- it would be a mistake to digress into what redshift is, because it's not particularly crucial to the topic of supernovas, and there's another article for that. As for supernova remnant, that sentence basically defines the term, and I've revised it so that it's more clear that that's a definition. Mangojuice 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm having difficulty relating this objection to the featured article criteria. Nowhere does it state the level of reader comprehension to be satisfied. (Compare, for example, to photon which is a far more technical article.) I agree with the removal of the "Type II". I'll try to add some clarification to the first paragraph, but in doing so it may become too wordy. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I quite disagree, "brilliant and compelling prose" assumes that the article is accessible to non-experts. Someone could write a truly comprehensive, sourced, well-structured article about charm quarks or spliceosomes, but without at least an attempt to introduce the reader to the overarching subject or the terms of art, I don't think I could support such an article as an FA. This article is not so badly-off, but this is a totally valid criticism.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So at what level of education should an article be written for the prose to be considered brilliant and compelling? Why do we have the simple english version? — RJH (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Simple English is intended for people who don't have a complete grasp of the language, not the subject matter. Look at Klein-Gordon equation. Would it be so difficult to include brief explanations of "relativistic," "spinless particles", and a quick overview of the Schrodinger equation? And that's just the lead! The ideal[REDACTED] article encourages people to look at wikilinks for more detail, it doesn't force them to do so just to get a basic grasp of the original article. We are not talking about "level of education" in a broad sense, meaning that a reader should be able to understand context clues and look up unfamiliar words; sometimes, articles are so field-specific that only someone with a great deal of training in the subject can really understand. Perhaps in advanced topics in quantum mechanics, this is just par for the course, but if an article is up for FA, there has to be a concession to readability. But again, I don't think this article is nearly as bad as all that.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay. Are there more specific examples that need some clarification? — RJH (talk)
        • Can I add, tangentially, that we shouldn't rely entirely on wikilinks to provide context in articles? A Misplaced Pages article in principle is written for the world, not for this website. Also, to the extent that context has to be derived from wikilinks, the educational value of an article falls off sharply. With technical articles, one can get into an endlessly recursive wikilink-following mess. (I am not referring to Supernova, which I haven't looked at yet.) –Outriggr § 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem then becomes how much should a relatively technical article be written as a stand alone piece? Does it start to snow-ball so that every technical term needs to be explained in detail, pushing up the article length tremendously? By ignoring the wikilink capability in that manner we lose one of the big advantages of even having a wiki. I think you have to assume a certain level of education for an article, then provide wikilinks for those who haven't reached that point yet. But where that level is I have no idea. Just what is average? Anyway that's just my opinion, of course. :-) — RJH (talk)
  • Support M&NCenarius 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Support- I would have thought mentioning the rarity of supernovas in this galaxy and how many there have been should have gone in the lead. I wonder whether calling it a exploding star rather than stellar explosion is just as accurate. cheers. Cas Liber 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, saying "exploding star" or "stellar explosion" is essentially the same. I seems like a matter of taste really; I just prefer the current form. You're right in that the article needs information about general supernova rates in all galaxies... which I just did. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, if they occur every 50 years how come we've only had 5 in 2000 years in the Milky Way - is this a typo?Cas Liber 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not a typo, but good observation. We only see part of the Milky Way due to the obscuring effect of the interstellar medium. So we're just viewing a sample of the total supernova explosions. The rate is derived from the amount of radioactive Aluminum-26 found, which is primarily produced by supernovae. (I added a final section to the History of supernova observation page to describe this.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and important topic. —dima/s-ko/ 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a well-written and exceptionally well-illustrated article on a complex subject. Regarding the accessibility question above, I didn't have undue difficulty understanding the specifics with the provided wikilinks, and I have no particular knowledge of the subject. Just a couple of very minor suggestions:
    • Since there's only a single note, can this be incorporated into the text, or is it just too specific to flow well?
      • I added the note in lieu of a reference, as it's a mathematical derivation. My feeling is that it's better as a note.
    • The table titled "Supernovae taxonomy" is a little awkward; sort of like "organisms classification" or "teeth brush". Would read better to me as "supernova taxonomy".
      • Okay I switched it back. But don't be surprised to see it changed to the way it was; people always seem to be word-smithing those little details. :-)
    • I'm always in the minority on this, but I like to see the "see also" section with several well-chosen links to key related topics, even if they have been linked in the text before. Not linking anything that appears in the text seems to be expecting everyone who hits the bottom of the article to have read the whole thing. But some people think the WP:MOS also comes in stone tablet form, so just take this as food for thought.
    • The external links section would be more useful organized with basic/introductory material at the top and papers at the bottom. Actually the papers should probably go in further reading; just because they're on the web doesn't require them to go in with the links. Opabinia regalis 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Organization needs improvement.

Observation history and Discovery

    • "Observation history" and "Discovery" are not important enough to take up whole sections.
      • Both are important enough to be included in the article. They were merged at one point, but in the past I've received complaints about sections with only one sub-section. So I put them in separate sections. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Type Ia, Ib, and Ic

    • There is a large amount of info on Type Ia and then Type Ib and Ic are crammed into one subsection. This leaves me wondering why there is nothing to say about the Formation and Light curve of type Ib and Ic supernovae.
      • Type Ib and Ic are less common variants, rather than major supernovae models. The summary includes information on how they are believed to have formed. Details on detecting their light curves seemed excessive at this level, but I wouldn't mind seeing separate articles in the future. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are so similar that there is not much to say about them, they don't deserve a separate subsection. You should merge the info in with "Type Ia"; rename it to "Type I" with most of the discussion about what all three have in common and then some notes about how they differ. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we disagree again, and I don't believe they should be merged. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You really should give a reason. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You do seem to be a person who enjoys argument. Unfortunately I am of the opposite nature. I'm satisfied with the current taxonomic section arrangment. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are confident that consensus will support you, of course there is nothing more you have to say. --Ideogram 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypernovae

    • If Hypernovae are still theoretical, why are they placed in the Type II subsection?
None of these are sufficient reasons for including this material. I am advocating that the article have a tight focus on one subject; if we included everything that qualified under your reasons above the article would not be focused. They also don't answer my direct question, which is are Hypernovae really Type II? How do we know? --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And I'm arguing that the top level supernova article should provide a relatively comprehensive overview, with sub-topics better developed on other pages. For more information on Hypernova, I suggest reading (and perhaps even developing) that sub-topic. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I thought that was my position. Can you explain why the description of Hypernovae shouldn't be reduced to one sentence with a link to the other article? --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no criteria stating that a summary should be exactly one sentence. It should be as long as is needed to summarize the subject matter. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't state it should be exactly one sentence. I asked you why the summary needs to be longer than one sentence. --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Asymmetry

    • What is the subsection "Asymmetry" doing here? It seems like too much detail, and even if it belongs in the article, certainly not here.
      • To provide an explanation of the kick to the supernova remnants, and because it's been frequently mentioned in recent modeling results (and in Supernova articles). It also helps explain jets. Finally I just found it interesting. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't just include everything that you find interesting. You need to consider that the reader may not be interested in the same things. This is why we have links; they can hint at other related topics and the reader can click on them if they are interested.
This is an encyclopedia, not a newsmagazine. Whether a result is recent or not is completely irrelevant. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So again we disagree at a philosophical level. I haven't included everything I found interesting; but I do write about what I find interesting, otherwise this would be a pointless exercise. Obviously not all readers are going to be equally interesting in every section. I still firmly believe the topic is sufficiently important and relevant to include. — RJH (talk)
But why was this included and not other equally interesting material? You really have never answered that question. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What other equally interesting material are you suggesting we merge? Asymmetry is directly related to supernova models, and the observables. The need for inclusion seems clear to me. The fact that I also find it an interesting topic hopefully makes it enjoyable to other occasional readers. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am rejecting the notion that things should be included just because they are "interesting", I am pushing you to include things because they are important. Even if Asymmetry is important, is it important enough to require this much space? --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Type I vs Type II

    • "Type I versus Type II" probably should go in the introduction to the section.
      • 'IIRC, they were at one point and then were removed to keep the lead section free of excessive detail. I don't think the introduction suffers from their absence, so I left them out. Otherwise another paragraph would probably be needed in explanation. — RJH (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Impact on Earth

    • "Impact on Earth" doesn't belong in this article.
We can't put everything in here that is related and interesting. It's not hard to click on a link. --Ideogram 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • True, not "everything" can go in here. But these sections make the subject more compelling and the article an interesting read. They relate supernova events to people's lives, the history of the Earth and the whole reason why were here. So I remain strongly opposed to their removal. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be dry and factual. We are not here to make the subject exciting and relate it to people's lives. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Who said it wasn't dry and factual? FA's are supposed to make for compelling reading--I read that as making the topic interesting to the reader. It isn't necessary for the topic to be emotive and arousing for it to be enjoyable. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We aren't writing an article for a popular science magazine. Nobody casually looks up Supernova in an encyclopedia because the article mentions "the whole reason why we are here". They are here because they are already interested in Supernovae and we don't need to make some kind of sales pitch to convince them that Supernovae are related to their lives. --Ideogram 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

      • Sorry to say this but I really have deep philosophical differences with you on most of these issues. That is I disagree with everything except, possibly, the "Type I versus Type II" remark. (But even there I'm iffy, as it would require an expansion of the lead section in explanation.) If that means this article does not become FA, then, I'm sorry to say, so be it. Thank you for your feedback. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are several questions listed which can be answered without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. --Ideogram 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the "Impact on Earth" and "Milky Way Candidates" don't belong, and I disagree that "Observation history" and "Discovery" aren't important enough for the coverage they have. Inclusion of those sections is what makes this article so comprehensive, which is one of the Featured article requirements. Mangojuice 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying "Observation history" and "Discovery" should be removed, I'm saying they are too small and minor to be sections by themselves. They could be combined with "Naming convention" in a general introductory section.
There is a tension between comprehensiveness and coherence. You clearly cannot include everything related to supernovae, you have to decide what is important and relevant enough to include. We can disagree on what specifically belongs but a general appeal to comprehensiveness would imply everything belongs. --Ideogram 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. However, those sections are clearly about supernovae, and answer many of the kinds of questions a reader might have: What is the history of supernova discovery? How are supernovae found? What would happen to us if one happened nearby? Could one happen nearby? It seems to me that you must be saying that those parts of the subject aren't important enough to cover, but the extensive citations in those sections in academic venues prove that people are indeed very interested in such areas. I doubt a similar list of quality citations would be found for a really trivial section like "Supernovae in popular culture" or something. So... why do you think these are irrelevant, given that the scientific community seems to disagree? Mangojuice 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you limited the article to subjects for which extensive citations could be found, you would still have a bloated, unfocused article. There is nothing wrong with putting that valuable material in separate articles and linking to it. Especially here, where articles have to be short, each article needs to focus on one central aspect of the subject and link to other articles discussing related aspects. In this case, a quick glance at the table of contents reveals that the central aspect of supernovae being discussed is the classification system into Type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II and the behavior and models of those types. --Ideogram 11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the present subject headings suitable to the topic, and not at all "bloated".
I have to agree with the unsigned comment. Some of the subject headings are clearly suitable candidates for spinning off into their own articles for further expansion in detail, but they will still need to be summarized in some detail in the Supernova article. The discovery, naming convention, models, asymmetry, remnants and effects on us are all closely intertwined subject-matter. Type Ib and Ic are just less common variants of the two primary forms: Type Ia and Type II, so I'm not sure how much they could be developed without including masses of additional detail and adding to your "bloat". Hypernovae are the subject of much current research and are very likely closely related to Type II, so that is also quite worthy of inclusion in at least a brief mention. Asymmetry is at the core of how supernovae function, so it should absolutely not be excluded. I also find the sections on supernovae effects and their proximity to the Earth to be relevant and quite interesting to the subject matter. Sorry but I can't just can't see the article size be the overriding factor here. I would much rather see this article fail FA than be chopped into separate pieces as is suggested. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, anyone can see here that the unsigned comment was left by you. This little bit of misdirection makes you look very bad. --Ideogram 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my goof. I hadn't had my first cup of coffee. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, you are not answering my questions. These are questions anyone not expert on supernovae is likely to ask. Since I had them while reading the article, you need to clarify the issues I raised in the article.
I ask you to think clearly what your purpose is here. If all you want is the star, your article can probably pass without me. But if you want the article to truly represent the best that Misplaced Pages has to offer, you should try to work with me.
I have no interest in the star; it's just a vandal magnet and I would much rather not see this article appear on the front page—but that isn't an option for an FA. My primary interest was making this an interesting read that did not suffer from obvious errors. But I do find your hubris a little grating. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I am only stating my opinion. The validity of my objections will have to be determined by consensus among the other editors. --Ideogram 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem unwilling to discuss. If you can address my points and explain your vision of the article, it is possible I will agree with you. Even if I do not, your explanation may help the FA director decide to overrule my objections. --Ideogram 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram -- having looked over things again, I agree with you to a degree. The asymmetry section, as it stands in the article, does seem a bit out of context. I also think that the "observation history" and "discovery" sections should probably just be grouped into a single section called "Observation" or something similar; the distinction between the two seems needless, and there's no need to have two top-level sections be so short when others are so much longer. Similarly with the other sections you are complaining about. Where I suppose we differ is that I feel those sections should be tied in to the rest of the article more clearly, rather than removed. Perhaps the asymmetry section and some of the others could be grouped into a section on current research topics? I do find current research topics interesting and relevant, but the organization should probably not flip-flop between well-established core stuff and new research issues. Mangojuice 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Asymmetry is a core element of modern supernovae models and I don't believe it should be excluded. The article still needs to mention the kick to remnants and provide an explanation of some sort. This is the best we have. The "Discovery" section was separated from "Observation" due to past complaints about having sections with only one sub-section. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RJH, I generally agree with you here that comprehensiveness beats size every time, and the sections Ideogram has identified as excessive or extraneous are, in my view, crucial to comprehensiveness. But on this sub-point, I think that the discovery and observation sections can easily be merged; headers and subheaders are navigational tools, and conforming to the grade-school view of 'what an outline should be' (I remember learning the no-singleton-subsection rule too) is entirely unimportant. Opabinia regalis 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have no issue with a re-merger of the Discovery and Observation sections, as they were only split based on the precedent of this forum. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical differences

It appears we are at an impasse. My position is that the article needs to be focused on one topic and we can include links to other interesting and related topics. My understanding of RJH's position is that we should summarize many (to him) interesting topics, especially recent results. I'm sure RJH will correct me if I have misinterpreted him.

At this point it is up to the other editors, and the FA director, to decide which vision is more appropriate. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. However a number of the topics about which you've taken askance were contributed by other editors. It was not solely my interest that generated the subject matter. The "Impact on Earth" section was the result of a merge from a separate article. (See Talk:Supernova#Merge_Near-Earth_Supernova_into_Supernova.) Also I believe the sub-topics are at a sufficiently high level not to be relegated as minute details. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying "Yes" without a supporting reason is rather childish. As I noted already, this dispute is at an impasse and deciding who is right is up to consensus. If you really don't have anything to say, you don't have to say anything. --Ideogram 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose resorting to insults was the next step up the ladder. Your opinion is duly noted. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt that was an insult. --Ideogram 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine to me. As a former astronomer, I agree with RJH's approach entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't really see what your background as an astronomer has to do with it. I am a writer. --Ideogram 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Knowing a little about the topic (not my specific area of expertise, I hasten to add) I trust his judgement as to when something is important enough, or interesting enough, to be included in an overview article like this, and how much weight should be given to each element. I venture to add that further discussion of my background, or reasons for supporting, are rather tangential to this discussion - which is about whether this article should be featured or not. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You brought it up. As a writer my expertise is in structuring and presenting the knowledge other people possess. He may know the what but I wish to advise on the how. I am quite aware that he is familiar with the subject matter and I am not, which is why most of the time I am asking questions about what is really important and what is not. His response is to reject the notion of importance as a criterion, in favor of what is "interesting". I have reasons for my opinions but he doesn't want to discuss them. --Ideogram 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You don't seem to be listening to his answers - the things that he thinks are interesting are also important. Anyway, enough of this meta-discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed much explanation. Generally his answers are no more than "Yes it's important" with the implication that I am to take his word for it. He seems to personally dislike me for challenging him. Note the comment above about "hubris". --Ideogram 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't see a problem with the current structure of the article. To respond to Ideogram's queries -- sections like "discovery," "observational history," and "impact on Earth" seem to have transparent importance. The nature of the sources used satisfy any further concerns about the importance of the material in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note again that I am not suggesting "discovery" and "observational history" be removed. I am suggesting that they be merged with other sections since they are so short. Also, just because you can find sources for certain material doesn't mean it's important to the article. You can slap together a well sourced article that contains all kinds of important science that is still poorly organized and poorly focused. --Ideogram 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can you please try to make all your points in one edit that I can respond to? You are making multiple edits while I am composing my response which forces me to waste time dealing with edit conflicts. --Ideogram 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of how I ended up with my goofy unsigned comment--trying to respond while the page kept getting updated and ending up with edit locks. I can usually get in briefer replies without this issue arising. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C.

Another article in the Isabel series and another sponsored by the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, I just published it tonight to the standards of a featured article. Plenty of refs and local reports, as well as in depth info where it needs it. There's one thing I should mention. As a notice, the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that references are excluded from the lede, and in the body of the article they are used at the end of every block- that is, block A is three sentences long, and ends with ref A. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

Mutual Broadcasting System

Self-nomination. Stable article on one of the "Big Four" national networks of American radio's golden age. Corrects many errors prevalent online. Thanks to Eric O. Costello for helpful observations and PhantomS for source coding.—DCGeist 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. This is a well-written article which gives an excellent history of the network, from the Quality Network days up to dissolution in 1999. Misplaced Pages has so many Featured Articles on current pop culture topics; it is nice to see such detailed work on an oft-neglected topic from "the ole days". I believe the prose is well-written; it is hard to imagine this article more comprehensive; and the crosschecking between On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio and The Encyclopedia of American Radio leads me to believe this article is about as factually accurate as anyone will get. Appropriate images are salted through the article, and the lead appears to summarize the rest of the contents of the article very well. No objection here. Well done. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Firsfron. An enjoyable, engaging read. The level of research is very impressive. + Ceoil 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs a thorough copy-edit, preferably by a non-US editor. In the third sentence of the lead: "golden age of radio drama" doesn't represent a world-wide viewpoint. I suggest that you put "US" somewhere in there. Reworded.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Towards the end of the lead: "it introduced the country to Larry King" – surely this should read "it introduced Larry King to the country"? No. Current wording is proper and most natural idiomatic expression.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The sentence starting "What WLW brought was sheer power" doesn't read entirely correctly, probably due to punctuation. Punctuation corrected.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Throughout the article, it used "through <date>" – you should be aware that this is an American idiom (In the UK, "to <date>" or "until <date>" is used). For an international audience "through to <date>" is the preferred compromise – this occurs too frequently for me to mention every occurrance. Addressed below.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The phrase "five Midwestern stations: KSLG–St. Louis; KSO–Des Moines, Iowa; WMT–Cedar Rapids, Iowa; KOIL–Omaha, Neb.; and KFOR–Lincoln, Neb." – for one of the stations, you don't mention the state; for two of the stations, you mention the full name of the state; for two of the stations you give an abbreviation for the state. Please make these consistant. Adjusted. As short, vowel-filled word, Iowa is not commonly abbreviated, as Missouri and Nebraska are.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "The Texas Network soon added twenty-three more stations to the MBS affiliate roster" – this sentance doesn't flow well from the previous one. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "Within a few years, this new Ohio participant would become a vested member of MBS." – I don't believe that you have defined what a "vested" member is. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "By the end of 1938, Mutual had 74 exclusive affiliates; though the two leading networks discouraged dual hookups" – at this point, the user is complete confused with the station abbreviation, and isn't certain what the "two leading networks" are; I would suggest putting these in parentheses after their mention. Reworded. Two leading networrk companies, CBS and NBC, now mentioned both in cited sentence and two sentences later.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Heading title "1940s: Major-minor" should have an en-dash. No. It's not major vs. minor. A compound of two single-word terms, one modifying the other, properly takes a hyphen.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What caused the change in co-operative structure in 1940? The decision of the participants. Not clear on the confusion here.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The paragraph starting "Already by 1940," – I'm confused by the references to "the Blue" and "the Red". Again, not clear on the confusion here. NBC's Blue and Red networks are brought up in preceding section. Quote is immediately preceded by a clarifying phrase "the FCC, calling for NBC to divest one of its two networks." What else can we do here?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in context.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "William Shirer came over from CBS to do commentary" – commentary on what? Clarified.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the 1950s section, you say "Mutual was at this point by far the largest radio network in the United States", and justify this by quoting the number of affiliates. However, in the previous section, it was mentioned that Mutual affiliates tended to broadcast at lower power than its rivals, and the network therefore required a greater number of affiliates to cover the same geographic area. If the argument is equally true in the 1950s, then a much larger number of affiliates does not correspond to a much larger network; if the argument is not equally true in the 1950s, then the article should mention the fact. Quite right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "with ABC falling in between" – in between what? Eliminated. No hard data available for that year.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1960s: "had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "One of the few long-form programs" – what on earth is a "long-form" program? Right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Generally, there are too many "as well" statements throughout the article. Consider swapping some of these with equivalent terms, such as "also". OK. Down to five "as well"s (1 per section).—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Bluap 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply. Thanks for comments. Specific ce suggestions will be addressed. Article is on a U.S. topic, so U.S. idiomatic approach is proper per Misplaced Pages style; meaning of "through <date>" not obscure to any English speaker.—DCGeist 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up Specific ce suggestions addressed per commentary or, in a couple cases, queried for clarification.—DCGeist 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification
the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in context Comment Except that the article does not say that that Mutual was first – it simply gives the time lag between the bombing and the radio broadcast. Bluap 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction The line reads as it has: "Mutual flagship WOR interrupted a football game broadcast to make the initial mainland public announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Initial=first. The reason "first" isn't used in that sentence is to avoid an awkward echo with the following sentence: "The first bombs had dropped 63 minutes earlier."—DCGeist 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I interpreted "initial" to mean "the first announcement on Mutual", rather than "the first announcement on any radio network. Bluap 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up Got it. Edited.—DCGeist 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?
I don't know what else it might mean. The concept of have lots of local stations that are owned separately, but share a large proportion of their programming with each other is not world-wide, and is mainly US-centric. Many countries do not have a differentiation between the "network" and the "station", or if they do, it is not the same as in the US. Since this concept is a pre-requisite for a large proportion of the artilce, perhaps a small paragraph near the station summarising what a US Radio Network does would be sufficient. Bluap 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply Understood. I'll think of some way to clarify the meaning for non-U.S. readers earlyish in the article.—DCGeist 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up OK. Lead states the following: "For the first eighteen years of its existence, MBS was owned and operated as a cooperative, setting the network apart from its competitors: Mutual's members shared their own original programming, transmission and promotion expenses, and advertising revenues.... 1957, Mutual's ownership was largely disconnected from the stations it served, leading to a more conventional, top-down model of program production and distribution." There's also a lead link to radio network, which further details the concept.—DCGeist 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Further follow-up Consequent to responding to a comment of SandyGeorgia's, I edited the first couple sentences of the second graf of section 1 to further clarify the standard U.S. network style and Mutual's notable deviation.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For some reason the formatting of "Sources" looks a bit odd on my computer...the left column is much skinnier than the right column. Have you tried <div class="references-2column"></div>? Gzkn 06:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply Same with me. PhantomS took my old-school, single column biblio formatting and brought the sources into this mod format. It looked fine on my computer--equal-width columns--for a few days, but now I'm seeing the same thing you are and for no apparent reason. I don't really understand the coding issues here, so if you have an idea how to deal with it (as it seems), please go ahead and test. I don't know how to apply the coding sequence you suggest for maximum effect.—DCGeist 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I updated it to the "references-2column" class. Note that "references-2column" forces the columns to conform to the same height. Thus, depending on the width of your browser window, the last source in the left column may run over to the right column. Gzkn 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply Looks like the Leblebici entry and possibly the Lucier entry were confusing the column templates I was using. --PhantomS 06:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, if that's the case, and you'd rather use the previous column templates, feel free to revert. Gzkn 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The column templates I was using used tables. The extra long entries stretched the second column, which shrank the first column. Using the div is probably a better idea there, considering the entries would have to be played with otherwise. As for the height issues related to the addition of the references-2column div, they should be acceptable unless someone complains. --PhantomS 07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Thanks all. I'm simply out of my depth with the coding here.—DCGeist 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply I decided not to wait for any complaints about text running over and modified the templates I was using. It should appear correctly now. If it doesn't, please let me know. The big difference was the change out of col-break for col-2.--PhantomS 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up As of your latest edit, PhantomS, it appears as two-column perfection on my 12-inch Mac laptop!—DCGeist 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Query In what way is it used incorrectly? The MoS guideline I'm familiar with is Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout#Standard appendices. This suggests, relevantly:
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Misplaced Pages that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article.
Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent
That's what the See also section does here: (a) it lists internal links to other articles as a navigational aid, (b) it repeats no links already present in the article, (c) it groups the links into two subject areas--shows and individual people--for ease of navigation, and (d) it provides a brief explanatory or amplificatory bit of information with each link: (i) in the case of the shows (i.e., all the shows that ran on Mutual that I've been able to identify a Misplaced Pages article on and that are not discussed in the article), it gives their start and end dates, and (ii) in the case of the people, it identifies their primary profession.
How does that violate the guideline? And, given that the rosters are based--in See also fashion--on links to other articles in Misplaced Pages that are not referenced in the main text of the article, what would these two proposed Lists properly be called?—DCGeist 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object - 1a, 1c, 2 - most seriously, again, the use of websources which may not rise to the level of WP:RS.
    • Weasle words without cites ("It is often claimed", etc.);
  • Reply In the end, only a weasle word if not verifiable. Sentence mentioned now rigorously and extensively cited. You wrote "weasle words." I searched the entire article for the most common weasle word flags and didn't find any more examples of uncited, weasly phrasing. If you identified any others, please specify them so they can be cited, edited, or eliminated.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • snakes (Unlike the existing national networks of the time—NBC's Red and Blue networks (the latter of which would be sold and transform into ABC in 1943–44) and the Columbia Broadcasting System—the Mutual Broadcasting System was run as a true cooperative venture, with programming produced by and shared between the group's members.)
  • Reply Edited, and in such a way as to provide additional help to Bluap and others not familiar with the basic notion of a classic U.S.-style broadcasting network. You wrote "snakes." Opinions on what qualifies as a snake are in many cases subjective. I looked and didn't find any more. If you identified any others, please identify them so they can be edited.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • named refs should be employed to avoid repeat refs to the same source;
  • Reply No. "Repeat refs to the same source" is the preferred scholarly style, and is also much easier for general readers of Misplaced Pages to navigate. "Named refs" are acceptable and many Misplaced Pages editors find them efficient, but specific references are clearly preferable intellectually, from an academic perspective, and practically, from a readership perspective. At best, you are expressing a personal preference that does not relate to the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. And, if you had looked through the 100-plus notes before writing, you would have seen that name refs would have eliminated a grand total of two of them. It would be unusual to raise this in a Comment; it clearly has no place as part of an Objection. Please refamiliarize yourself with the Featured article criteria.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • publishers/authors not identified on all websources, some of which upon further examination appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS;
  • Reply The first part of the comment is simply incorrect. Publishers and/or authors, as applicable, are identified for every single websource, either in the link itself or following it. In one lone case (the note for Zero Hour), online information resources that are not used as sources for article text are presented in abbreviated fashion, simply as an aid to the interested reader. The second part of the comment states that "upon further examination appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS." In fact, every websource, whatever its producer, was (a) vetted for reliability, both generally and for the specific field encompassing the data cited and was used (b) only after extensive research established it as the best available source for the relevant information. A reading of the notes evidences this assertion, revealing detailed consideration of sources' reliability and caveats to readers as appropriate (including important warnings about sources that would easily pass a simplistic, policy-based test). Please specify what websources underwent this "further examination" you speak of and the particular reason for doubting the reliability of any as a source for the specific data in question.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • article text (lists of shows and personnel) included as See also, rather than incorporated into text as separate sections. Adding extra long image captions results in a very long article. (See also isn't counted by scripts calculating prose size; a manual check reveals 42KB of prose, indicating that Summary style should be considered to shorten the article per WP:LENGTH.)
  • Reply The contents of See also are not article text, as one would learn from reading either (a) my detailed response to your first comment on this issue or (b) the entire article, as is asked of all those who weigh in on FACs. The contents of See also are specifically not covered in the article. They are included as a navigational aid to Misplaced Pages readers, along with helpful amplificatory and explanatory information. Inclusion on each list is clearly based on Misplaced Pages's own resources, as is appropriate to a See also section. For such lists to have intellectual standing as article text sections, they would need to be comprehensive--i.e., listing every show that ever played on Mutual (adding in all the shows that are covered in the article text and the innumerable others not yet represented on Misplaced Pages) and every person significantly involved with the network (requiring an even vaster expansion). There is no authoritative source for the former. The latter is obviously (or, it appears, not so obviously) a fool's quest. Each image caption is intended to serve a pedagogical purpose, complementary and (in the longer cases) supplementary to the main text. If there are any captions you have a specific problem with, please identify them so they can be appropriately edited.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, Bluap's copyedit concerns: the issues Bluap raised are obscured by the strange formatting of replies, making it hard to sort out what has been addressed, but not all of those issues appear to have been addressed.
  • Reply I'm sorry you found the formatting of my replies to Bluap "strange" (Did you notice? Bluap never said they were strange...and had no problem finding my queries and responding to them.) I sought the most specific and respectful form of reply given the format in which Bluap brought forward the issues. Every single one of Bluap's issues has been addressed--in over 75% of the cases by a directly responsive edit; in two cases by a defense of U.S. idiom, in two cases by a defense on general intellectual grounds. Bluap has evidently acceded to the latter, and--as is evident from the ongoing colloquy between Bluap and me--would certainly be responded to respectfully if there were any lingering concern. Disregarding the productive exchange Bluap and I have had, you wrote "not all of those issues appear to have been addressed." Please specify what those issues are, so they can be.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think DC has answered those objections. If anyone is paying attention. Harvey100 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they haven't - DCGeist's verbosity in responding about his own particular views of Wiki guidelines doesn't equate to concerns addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up Sandy is, of course, free to label my responses "verbose," "long-winded," "logorrheic," or simply "precise and detailed," but each basis for the objection has been addressed with responsive edits or has been shown to be ill-founded. No basis for Sandy's objection remains. As Sandy's inability to reply on a single point reveals.—DCGeist 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For what it's worth, I feel that the vast majority of the points have been addressed, and that it shouldn't be actionable against the article being featured. Bluap 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Very good overall. Some minor points I that I think should be considered:
    • The sentence "Of the four national networks of American radio's classic era, for decades it had the largest number of affiliates but the least certain financial position" in the first paragraph is a little bit awkward. Rephrase or restructure.
Edited.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of the section headers such as "Starting out," "Major-minor," and "Narrowed focus, niche markets" come off as too informal. Headings like "formative years" and "declining markets" or similiar variations might work better.
Edited.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The list format of the 1940 MBS distribution of shares seems out-of-place amongst the body of prose. Consider transferring this into prose, or better yet, create a chart.
Chart created for info.—DCGeist 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • While cited, the sentence "Welles was brilliant in most regards, but he couldn't pull off the sinister chuckle" in the Orson Welles image box comes off as POV. Clarify who is making this statement.
Recast. Quote provided and cited.—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Though The Lone Ranger rode off to NBC Blue in May 1942 . . ." Cute pun, but we should probably ditch it.
Edited. (Aw...)—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "The Shadow finally gave up the ghost in December 1954 . . ." Same thing.
(...shucks.) Edited.—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "See also" can possibly be retitled "List of Mutual programs and personalities"
See replies to Sandy above. In sum: Shows and personalities are included under "See also" as navigational aids, based on current Misplaced Pages resources. There presently exists no authoritative source for a comprehensive or even near-comprehensive list of all Mutual series. If such a source is ever made available, the current show info in "See also" can be moved to a new list-article. A comprehensive list of all significant Mutual personalities is a practical impossibility. The rationale for inclusion does not come close to the necessary intellectual standard for a List; again, it is based in classsic "See also" fashion on existing Misplaced Pages articles not linked in the main text.—DCGeist 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A major consideration: You might possibly want to move some text around to create a separate section (or article even, with a summary-style section featuring a link to the main article) about the programming and the notable shows (The Shadow, Superman, game shows, etc.). This might increase readability and cut down on length, as right now the sections focus on the company as a whole for a number of paragraphs, then shift to detailed explanations of the shows.
New subsections focusing on programming established for all extensive sections (i.e., all sections except those covering launch and demise of network). Text and image placement adjusted accordingly.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WesleyDodds 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of my points have been sufficiently addressed. The chart does look better. My only concern now is the programming sections. What I was suggesting was more along the lines of a section covering the entire history of MBS' programming, separated from the main corporation history. However, I'm willing to defer to the thoughts of other editors on the matter if they're fine with the current layout. WesleyDodds 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you know, come to think of it Wesley that would be pretty awesome, I still support the current version though. But I think we're asking an awful lot of DC however as he is the only one really working on it. Harvey100 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As a listener to Mutual during the 1940s, it was a delight to read this terrific survey with so much info I had never previously encountered. I'm in favor of keeping it chronological (as per the rule of biographies: never insert a sentence that jumps ahead of the ongoing timeline). Lengthy captions also fine with me. Pepso 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Fulfills all of the qualities expected of an FA to the Nth degree in a uniquely giest style. Don't get too overzealous through or you'll have to break it into sub articles and make multiple FAs. (Not like that's a bad thing) Andman8 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a little concerned with the amount of copyrighted photos in the article. Each one seems to have the explanation of basically it's really important that I have this and it's needed here. Also none of them are actually scaled down in resolution from their source images, they are merely stated to be so. The infobox pic is 299 x 374 pixels in both the source image and the Misplaced Pages image. Quadzilla99 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Detailed fair use rationales provided for all images—specific relevance to article is explained for each according to highest Misplaced Pages standards. All images now used fall easily within well-established Misplaced Pages fair usage guidelines (corporate logo, ads, business promotional images). Sources referenced provide low-res images to begin with—no further scaling down required, though scaling down was performed in over 50% of the cases to achieve manageable bitsize. Not a single image in the article is of high enough resolution to be improperly exploited. Rationale for infobox logo updated; image of corporate logo unquestionably permissible per fair use.—DCGeist 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also the sources for all the images are not in the images description pages in a linkable format. The one for Fulton Lewis doesn't seem to be working either when it is cut and pasted to a url. Quadzilla99 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Source links updated.—DCGeist 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll still a little bit concerned about the number of copyrighted images, so I'm not going to support it or oppose it. There's an awful lot of them. If an admin looked the images over and determined they were all acceptable then I'd support it. Quadzilla99 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

Hurricane Erika (1997)

After working on this article a lot, I think it's up to par for featured status. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

History of Lithuania (1219–1295)

I believe this article meets all the criteria.

  1. It is extensively referenced, up to the point where almost every sentence has a reference attached.
  2. Almost all sources are printed books. I used only a couple of online sources (but they come from known historians anyway).
  3. It is comprehensive, and cut-off dates are carefully chosen.
  4. It is also illustrated with free images and useful maps.

Hope you will agree. Renata 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Very well written and balanced. I particularly like the photo of the monument of Mindaugas with the children ;-) Personally, I prefer alternate left-right placement of illustrations, but that's the matter of personal preferences and style of course. Well done! --Lysy 08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice work. Maybe just references should be split in two columns. M.K. 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support referenced and without a slightest weaselising. Good job.--Lokyz 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Well-written article, comprehensive, well-referenced. My only issue is that the image placement causes stacking issues and white-space problems in several combinations of user-preferences and monitor and resolution settings. Please remove the size/pixel parameters on the thumbnailed images to accommodate user-preferences. Once that is fixed, my conditional support becomes an enthusiastic support. —ExplorerCDT 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed 200px specification from regular images, but left 300px for maps because at thumb size they are way too small. Hope that solves... Renata 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • All of them need to go. Policy around here is to accommodate user preferences, and we do that by not constricting photos, maps, etc. in thumbnail format by any pixel parameters and let the user's chosen (or default) preference kick in. If they want to see a bigger map, they'll click on the map. —ExplorerCDT 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I must respectfully disagree. The article has 5 maps that at default thumb size are impossible to make out. I don't see any reason why a regular reader should be forced to click on 5 different maps just to get an idea what they are about... By accommodating the very few with special preferences, we would be unduly punishing the wast majority of users that use defaults settings. Renata 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Disagree all you want. I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not. The purpose of a thumbnail image format is to have reduce the size of a big image so it doesn't interfere with the article text but announce itself saying "click here if you want to see more". Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that by leaving this unchanged the article doesn't comply with the Featured Article Criteria...and that you're refusing to abide by Criteria No. 2 (complying with the WP:MOS, WP:IUP, policies etc.) with regard to accommodating user-preferences and the sizing of thumbnail images. Contining to refusal will make my potentially enthusiastic support turn to a strenuous objection until this article complies with the criteria and the relevant policies. Imposing your own personal pixel parameters limits the viewability of[REDACTED] for others, because your pixel parameters, personally set, cater to a special few who match your personal preferences. In order to make the article universal, for everyone that reads Misplaced Pages, the pixel parameters need to be removed. —ExplorerCDT 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • P.S. I'm removing the pixel parameters in order to comply with Misplaced Pages policy. If you reinstate them, I will object strenuously. There's no reason this article should fail just because you stubbornly refuse to comply with[REDACTED] policy. —ExplorerCDT 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
            • From WP:MOS: Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended... Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ... When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. Renata 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Read on a bit further. Taking one line that supports your position out of a half dozen that might not is problematic, and disingenuous. Continuing (after parenthetical): However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: (1) On images with extreme aspect ratios (2) When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts (3) When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. I find these images to be completely useable at even the minimal user preference...2/3 of the default size. You forget that they are "thumbnails". They do not have an extreme aspect ratio requiring a fixed parameter, and are not excessively "detailed" to demand a fixed paramater. Sure they're maps, but they're not the most detailed maps I've ever seen. If you're going to quote WP:MOS to someone who knows it rather fluently, don't ignore important parts just because one line (lacking the context of the whole) agrees with your position. That's bad form. —ExplorerCDT 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
                • First of all, the arcana of the MOS is one of the few times that i think WP:IAR applies. But more to the point, Renata3's reference to the relevant passage is fine, it is not taken out of context at all, and certainly is not cause for veiled accusations of deceitfulness.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • If you think that WP:IAR applies here, you shouldn't be trying to review FA candidates when MOS-compliance is one of the considerations in the criteria. Perhaps you should review the criteria before passing judgment. —ExplorerCDT 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support quality work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting with compelling writing.--Riurik 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment with all of the images on the right-hand side and the same size, there's a "photo-strip" effect that's awkward at any size, overruns the length of the text on my screen (admittedly unusual 1920x1200 resolution), and bunches the edit links. (Weirdly, they're also out of order, but I hope that's my browser's fault.) You could try putting some on the left, or using {{ImageStackRight}} perhaps. I don't want to turn this into a catch-22 situation, so I'll just say that the above "I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not" is just about the worst possible argument for any way of formatting the images. (Neither cited policy page mentions what anonymous users who don't have preferences to set will see for images without size parameters; I see them quite a bit larger logged out.) Opabinia regalis 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:IUP, a policy cited above you claim doesn't say anything about user preferences and sizes says clearly: In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences.. The relevant passage from WP:MOS, the other thing I cited which you claimed had no relevant text, is italicised above in a comment to nominator. You might want to read a little more carefully next time. I don't care if he thinks it's impossible to read (it isn't). It's policy. And policy should trump his "preference." And the criteria says as much. —ExplorerCDT 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Er, what? I said neither page mentions (as far as I see) what happens to anonymous users who don't have user preferences. You might want to read a little more carefully next time ;) Opabinia regalis 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Read again, default for users who don't set preferences and anons is 180px. It's not on WP:MOS regarding Images, but the main article entitled Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial. It's usually wise to read relevant pages discussed on MOS and other policies. And while Picture Tutorial tells you how to size photos, it's the policy that matters...which says not to include size parameters with thumbnail images unless specific reasons are met. The maps on this page do not meet those requirements based on my understanding of the images at question and the words of the policy strictly constructed. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see any explicit mention of anonymous users on any of those pages; I'd agree that it makes sense to assume that the defaults are used, but observation disagrees. I've never done a thing to my image preferences and I see the images differently sized when logged out. (Incidentally, I've never had to adjust my image preferences because editors helpfully clue my browser in with an image parameter ;) I would also expect a strict constructionist to be careful with terminology; WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and that WP:IUP punts to the MOS for size issues other than a rough maximum. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that I've had a chance to actually read the text, support; this is a very well-written and well-organized article. A general suggestion, only somewhat relevant to this article, would be to organize history of Lithuania and create a set of navigational templates that link the successive period articles. This would be very helpful for people like me who have no particular knowledge of the subject. Renata, on the matter of image positioning, can you take a look at this mockup for moving some of the correctly sized images to the left? I'm hesitant to do anything to the actual article because my layout is nonstandard, but any reasonably high resolution will see these images dangling way down into and past the references on the right-hand side. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't format images like this, with a right and left aligned at the same vertical position:
      • ] ] to the Livonian Order, marked with Mindaugas' seal. This is the only original document from Mindaugas' times surviving to this date.]]
    • It crunches the text to a very small column on anything but the most enormous monitors. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I said above that I am using an enormous monitor ;) See this screenshot for what it currently looks like to me - an entire screenful completely blank except for a tower of right-aligned images. Perhaps putting two images side-by-side in a right-justified table would help. Opabinia regalis 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ahh yes. One possibility is to add {{clear}} or {{-}} just before each section header. On a monitor like yours, this would leave a small (or at least smaller) amount of whitespace at the end of each section, but prevent the big whitespace at the end. It would also make sure that each section is together with its relevant images. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I give up on the image question. Do whatever you want. I don't own the article and you can edit it! :) On background note, I started the article in hopes to clean up history of Lithuania (at a very horrible state right now), but grew to become a project on its own. I plan to create more of such history articles and then clean up the main article with navigational templates and other stuff. Renata 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:Europein1328.png covers parts of the references in Firefox 2.0.0.1 Windows XP. Anyone else have this problem? gren グレン 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The images are perfect for me, running Firefox 2.0.0.1/Windows XP at 1024x768 on a 15-inch TFT LCD display. Fvasconcellos 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The image also covers part of the references on my screen, resolution 1280x800 with Firefox (screenshot here). At this resolution, all of the images on the right stack on each other and run longer than the article text. If some of the images were left aligned instead it might fix the problem. --Tntnnbltn 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

The Four Stages of Cruelty

Self nomination One of Hogarth's less pleasant series of engravings, but still an interesting look at London society in the 18th century. It's had a well-attended (by today's standards) and useful peer review and some helpful sources magically uncovered by ALoan. Yomangani 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent and interesting article, especially good on anatomising the many details in the prints. Good structure and balance, with a convenient interplay between the text and the pictures. A mild criticism: I felt the last paragraph of the lead and the first of the article proper overlapped rather joltingly. And an opinion: I don't find these prints exhibiting less humour than usual for Hogarth's prints—well, maybe the third one—the second one really made me laugh, with the fat lawyers' cart collapsing under them, the two people wobbling on a horse, and, in the distance, someone taking flight like a bird after being tossed by a bull. Thanks for reminding me of this wonderful work. (I'm sure if Hogarth were alive, he'd be drawing Jade Goody.) qp10qp 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. One can only applaud these valiant editors who conjure up such a fine collection of delightful prose. I especially liked the wonderful "His appearance is deliberately more pleasing than the scowling ugly ruffians that populate the rest of the picture". Bravo!
I might have a minor issue with the sentence "The other boys carry out equally barbaric acts...." The point I'm trying to make is this: whilst I'm a great supporter of abundant use of proper punctuation, one could raise the concern that employing the services of a (somewhat lonely) colon; a multitude of semicolons, nice and shiny; the odd comma; an em dash; and a pair of parentheses, all in the same sentence — but what a brilliant one it is! — might be construed as "being too much of a good thing." I'll leave it to the punctuational wisdom of the editors to see if any corrective action is warranted. --Plek 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok , thanks Johnbod 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2007: Difference between revisions Add topic