Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 6 June 2009

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:16, 24 June 2009 .

Benzodiazepine

Nominator(s): Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the article has finally reached the criteria for featured article. It is indepth and comprehensive, makes extensive use of high quality recent sources, written clearly and consisely. I also believe that the article has the right balance where both professional and layman can derive a great deal of knowledge and understanding from the article subject. Of course there may be some suggestions made before it is promoted to featured article and I am open to constructive criticism or suggestions for improvements but I do believe the article is ready for featured article nomination for review and hopefully promotion.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Restart, old nom; images and reliability of sources checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sourcing is not to a professional standard: too many citations per fact; too many old papers cited; non-relevant-focus papers cited; inconsistency between sources used for the lead and the body; primary research papers cited without good reason; sources of narrow scope used where wider scope required. The article is apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) but not discriminatory enough in the facts it chooses to present. The prose isn't consistently at FA standard and needs a copy edit (but don't advise one at this stage due to other problems). Two prose examples: there are a number of single-sentence paragraphs and paragraphs beginning with "They". The "Mechanism of action" section is utterly impenetrable to anyone without a pharmacy degree, which isn't acceptable. We must attempt to explain to the general reader how benzos work in the brain and achieve the effects they do. Why do they make you less anxious? Why do they make you sleepy? Why do they relax muscles? Why do they stop seizures?

Since sources are the foundation upon which an article is built, I don't believe these problems can be fixed quickly. The article shows some evidence of having random fact laid upon fact rather than being planned, executed and refined. The editors need to go through each section, selecting a small set of high quality and focussed sources, and build the text from what those sources say and the weight the sources afford to the facts. As an example of this practice, the seizure section was reduced from thirteen sources to three. I don't suggest this FAC be withdrawn despite my opinion that it can't be rescued in time: I hope we can get reviews by editors with expertise in English and in Medicine. Here are some (but by no means exhaustive) examples of specific problems found:

1. The first three sentences of the third paragraph in the lead are cited to three separate papers. But the text is standard stuff that surely could be cited to one review? All threeTwo of those are written by Lader and one paper is ten years old.
2. The next sentence on long term use cites three sources, two of which are old (20 and 18 years) and are focussed on withdrawal rather than long term use.
3. The two sentences on pregnancy in the lead are sourced completely differently to those in the body text. The lead uses sources that are 11 and 15 years old. UPDATE: Those two sources have been appended to the citations in the pregnancy body section. But couldn't the existing ref in the body section (PMID 18378767) have done for the lead? It is up-to-date, unlike the lead sources. Colin° 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The lead text on the elderly and on drug overdose is cited to different sources than the body text.
5. The statement on the general properties of benzodiazepam is cited to a primary research paper on genetically modified mice.
6. The statement in "Therapeutic uses" on the various administration routes is sourced to a primary research paper from 1978 on five newborn infants with convulsions.
7. Source PMID 7388368 is just the sort of paper we should be citing, except it is 30 years old. Surely there is a more up-to-date version?
8. The lead statement on their properties and uses in veterinary practice is sourced to two papers: A review from 1975 on restraint methods in swine (which mentions diazepam for minor procedures) and a Bulgarian-language research paper from 1984 on the effects of powdered diazepam on various animals. Surely a vet textbook could be used, and be more clinically relevant and up-to-date. BTW: there doesn't seem to be any justification for citing non-English sources for this article.
9. The statement "Midazolam can also be used along with other drugs in the sedation and capture of wild animals." is sourced to a primary research paper that captured nine aardvarks with ketamine combined with one of five other test drugs, one of which was midazolam.
10. The (vet) statment "They are used before surgery as premedication for muscular relaxation" is sourced to a 20 year old primary research paper on five dogs undergoing anaesthesia. This doesn't tell us about modern vet practice. Indeed, none of the sources in the vet section could be used to document how benzos are currently used in vet practice.
11. The statement "Benzodiazepines are also used to treat the acute panic caused by hallucinogen intoxication" is sourced to a 20-year old paper on hallucinogenic intoxication, the abstract of which says "Panic reactions may require treatment with a benzodiazepine or haloperidol." Benzos have well-known anti-anxiety properties so of course they will be used for severe panic attacks. Is this really notable, or something random a PubMed search found?
12. The drug related crime section contains a long paragraph sourced to a single primary research study on Australian police detainees. My gut feeling is that the some of the results here may be particular to Australia during the period studied, and give different results for other countries or different demographics. Much reduced.
13. The statement "Eclampsia also responds to them but benzodiazepines are not as effective as intravenous magnesium." is included in the "Other indications" section, but is sourced to a review of diazepam (only, so not "them") vs magnesium. The use of diazepam here is no different to its use in treating any prolonged seizure, so this isn't an "other indications". In fact, much of the "other indications" deals with anxiety situations, and we have an axiety section. And where's the muscle-relaxant indications (only tetanus and stiff person syndrome are mentioned, but "muscle spasm of varied aetiology" are an indication for diazepam)?
14. There are far too many cases where three, four and even five citations are strung together, sometimes just to source a single sentence. I'm not sure what the cause of this is, but it isn't necessary for a subject like this. We are dealing with an mature class of drugs for which there is an abundance of high quality literature. Occasionally, a sentence or paragraph may require multiple sources when combining distinct facts, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know whether the editors are trying to strengthen an argument by citing multiple sources but that isn't necessary on WP. The other possibility, and more worrying, is that multiple sources are being combined to produce a statement that may transgress WP:OR. I'm particularly concerned about the various places side-effects/symptoms are mentioned. It is not the job of Wikipedians to pool the side effects (or withdrawal symptoms) of the various benzos and come up with a list of notable ones.

(BTW: Please can you respond below my signature rather than within the above text, to avoid breaking it up. Thanks.) Colin° 21:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and making these recommendations. I have responded below.

Point 1. I did actually try to resolve that by locating review papers on pubmed but was unsucessful. I could resolve it but would need to use multiple secondary sources. Actually an idea has popped into my head, I have a text book on benzodiazepines, a reliable one. It is written by Roche pharmaceuticals (I think). The entire book is about benzodiazepines, it is bound to cover these issues in the first paragraph, I just hope that I can locate them easily without having to read the whole book LOL. I shall see what I can do. Got mixed up when half asleep, thought you were talking about the first ref. Anyway I shall see what I can do about this over the coming days. I think that it can be resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I have removed the old 1999 review.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Point 2. I can get more recent citations for long term effects but unfortunately they would be primary sources I think. Very little research money is given to study long term effects of benzos, much of the research was carried out back in the 90's. I would be of the opinion that the citations should stay if they cannot be replaced with more recent secondary sources. Perhaps we could remove it from the lead though and just discuss it briefly in the article body somewhere?

Point 3. Done. Resolved, sources now cited in article body. Improvements have been made in finding more recent sources but as discussed this is not always possible for certain aspects of this article.

Point 4. Done. Resolved this issue.

Point 5. Done. I have replaced citation with a citation to the British national Formulary.

Point 6. Done. Deleted the primary source.

Point 7. Done, I deleted it. I am not aware of any update to the guidance of 1980 by the MHRA or related bodies, well there was actually a small update in 1988. The problem is these regulatory bodies only do updates if they believe the evidence base has changed or their views have changed and need to be revised. If they don't think policy needs changing they just leave things as they were. How do we resolve things like if current national guidelines are based on old reviews? I say they are current because the BNF, Department of Health still use these guidelines so they are current in that they are still functional review and guidance but only because it hasn't been updated. I think that we should stick with that until it is updated by the MHRA.

Point 8. I know very little about veterinary medicine and am not much more than a layman. I also do not have access to any vet books. Is there a wiki vet project that we could contact? Otherwise I think that improving these issues is not going to be very fruitful. perhaps we should delete the vet section. I dunno if I want to do that but if it is not possible to resolve it and the section is holding the FA back, oh well maybe it will have to be deleted. Done. (by somone else).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Point 9. Done. Resolved by someone else.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Point 10. Done. Resolved by someone else.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Point 11. Done. I deleted the hallucinogenic intoxication ref.

Point 12. The problem with citing crime data is that these types of data are compiled usually by or on behalf of governments rather than clinical researchers so review papers are hard if not impossible to track down. Done. Resolved by drastic shortening of section to a single sentence to remove undue weight issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Point 13. Partially resolved. Deleted the ref. Other point regarding use as muscle spasm of various causes can be treated with diazepam is a good point. Should we use the BNF as a citation for this?

Point 14. I do have to admit that I sometimes add 2 or 3 sources together. The reason is because is sometimes people challenge single refs as being "only the opinion" of one book, one author or group of authors etc. So sometimes I think that it is necessary if covering an area not widely known or even perhaps controversial or as noted earlier just to make the sentence or paragraph more comprehensive by including additional data, due care though needs to be taken not to do OR of course. Oh and another reason (perhaps bad habit or is it good?) is I tend not to edit articles by putting refs in middle of sentences like after a comma and prefer to add them both to the end of the sentence.

Part of the reason the side effects is full of citations is actually because of this review process as there were disputes over sources and which ones were the best etc. Although there were several refs used even before the FA review but they have doubled since it I think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

All valid points Colin. I agree with you that we really don't need to use primary sources for the article but I am not sure if we can achieve 100% no primary sources in the article without article content suffering. There are certain aspects of benzos which are not regularly reviewed or even extensively researched or regularly updated and thus finding recent reviews for certain aspects of benzos is not always possible in my opinion. The crime stats is the first thing that jumps to my mind as something which is rather difficult to find review articles as it is mostly gov reports and stuff and not discussed or reviewed or undergo meta-analysis in the literature for a number of reasons which I can explain if necessary. I do think that primary sources though should be debated and almost always if not always removed if a more review paper exists for that aspect of a subject and if agreed on talk page. I have deleted a couple already that you have suggested and more will probably deleted.

Ok those are my opinions which may be a bit blurred as I am half asleep. I will look forward to other's comments on the FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Colin's comments. Except for two points. First, as he himself noticed "we are dealing with an mature class of drugs for which there is an abundance of high quality literature.". However, that means that the reviews tend to be older, and a 10-15-year-old review on benzodiazepines is often as fresh as it gets. If it is hard to find a review, WP policies do allow the judicious use of primary sources to improve the article. Second, the problems he noted are relatively easy to fix so, IMHO, they do not kill the nomination. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out I think that I got mixed up and thought Colin's point 1 was talking about the first ref. I did warn that I was half asleep when I wrote the above though! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten parts of my responses to Colin with a more awake mind as well as updated some of the problems raised as resolved/done. So if you read my half aasleep response, please reread the updated "awake" response to Colin. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response, Literaturegeek. Wrt the use of primary research papers: they are not absolutely forbidden but they should be used (if at all) to describe what that research found, or aspects of the study, not because of some fact they mention in their introductions, or to say "this is current clinical practice" when actually it was the particular circumstances set up for the study.

The vet section has been rewritten with appropriate sources.

I appreciate your problem that some research is no longer being conducted, so the studies and the reviews of those studies might be ageing. I'm no subject-expert here so I'm pointing out these are alarm bells when reviewing sources, but you may well have justification for having to use older papers. Some sources like Cochrane reviews or government/professional-body clinical guidelines are regularly renewed so even if the evidence and conclusions and text hasn't changed, the review/guideline might indicate that it has been recently checked as current. Other sources like academic monographs and professional textbooks are often regularly re-issued in new editions: these could be used more in this article I'm sure they would cover the subject to sufficient depth for this article's purpose. You might need to find a collaborator with access to a university library, if you don't yourself.

Wrt 3/4/5 citations strung together: it is not the job of the Misplaced Pages article page to prove the fact to the reader. For a given fact, cite the best source we can find. If someone queries the source, discuss this on the talk page and if necessary, replace the source. But don't keep adding in the hope it makes the argument stronger. Also, citing several authors to make the point that "X is widely held to be true" is verging on WP:OR. Instead, find a source that says that many/most authorities believe X to be true.

The "mechanism of action" section is improving but hasn't reached the level of clarity and accessibility I would hope to find in an FA. The lead sentence's "GABA_A receptor" "modulation" is likely to kill a lay reader's confidence that they will be able to follow this section. Start with an overview sentence or two that says in complete layman's terms what these drugs do (look up some websites, charity sites, patient info leaflets ). Then introduce the reader to sufficient brain anatomy/chemistry that they can understand how GABA/benzos affect neuron firing. Then explain how this affects anxiety/seizures/muscles/etc. If there are aspects of "how they work" that science doesn't know, then say so (sourced, of course). Why are some benzos better at one property than some others? Why does diazepam relax muscles when other sedative/hypnotics do not? Why might some people get a "paradoxical" reaction? Colin° 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome Colin. Agree with the need for caution when using primary sources. Here is the 1988 ref by the CSM. There hasn't been any update for the benzodiazepine drug class that I know of. Of course there are publications all the tiime debating this and that particular aspect of benzos back and forth but as far as national guidelines by the likes of the MHRA I am not aware of any update since 1988. I did research their site using keyword benzodiazepines and all I found after 1988 was a few sentences recommending an update to product/patient information leaflet for indivudal drugs regarding drowsiness and driving increase road traffic accidents or something like that. Individual patient information leaflets are regularly updated though. I understand what you are saying that it is not the job of[REDACTED] to prove poinnts to the reader and agree. What about other reason? One thing about review papers is often they only briefly skim over the aspect that you want to cite. What about using 2 or even 3 refs if you want to make the wiki article more comprehensive for the reader? What if article content suffers by only using one source for a paragraph?

Regarding how benzodiazepines work/mechanism of action who boghog seems to be enthusiastically improving :). I think Prof Ashton did a pretty good job in The Ashton Manual of writing about how benzos work in easy to understand terminology but whilst also describing it from a professional perspective. Read this to get an idea of tone and wording.. Dunno if this will help give a few ideas of how to make the mechanism of action section both informative to the professional but also informative to the lay person.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One other point is that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the benzos at least not the 1,4 benzos. Most if not all commonly prescribed benzos will relax muscles, act as hypnotics, anxiolytics etc. If someone was convulsing and spasming and a doctor only had temazepam available, administering it would alleviate or reduce seizures, spasming for example and would also relieve anxiety. Prescribing indications are primarily motivated on pharmacokinetics and potency of the benzodiazepines and potency of available doses but also by what the manufacturers decide to market the drug on as. Speed of crossing the blood brain barrier as well is important for emergency situations. I don't think that it is worth discussing subtle differences between benzos unless it is just such as speed of crossing the blood brain barrier and also potency of benzos. There are some benzos which are metabolised into partial agonists and also atypical benzos eg clobazam which are more selective for certain receptors but think this info if it can be located would really be more relevant for the individual drug pages unless we find a good review paper which says that these differences are relevant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Stringing citations. Sometimes one thing is discussed in one review, and second in another, and first and third things in the third review. You have a sentence that talks about things 1,2 and 3. It is easier and more readable to put all three references at the end of the sentence. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This article and its sources have improved greatly. I've struck many criticisms and most of those that remain are significantly reduced, possibly to the point of not being a barrier. I'm left with three weaknesses.

1. There are areas where the important facts are lost among the lesser. This probably occurs with a desire to be comprehensive and please everyone; laying fact upon fact is good for building an article -- but eventually you need to revise and refine. An example is the indications section where it is not always clear what indications are evidence based, what are common for good or bad reasons, what are uncommon due to rarity, what are uncommon due to being second or last choice, etc.
2. The prose still needs a good going over. I've tweaked a little but I'm an amateur. There are sentence structures that seem awkward or illformed to me but I'm not able to confidently revise. I suggest you find someone with good writing skills and collaborate with them (for you may have to correct their factual mistakes, or supply alternative wording based on sources only you have access to).
3. The Pharmacology section is still a level too advanced for WP. Helping the reader understand this may bloat the section to the point that a daughter article could be required, leaving this section less detailed.

Colin° 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The indications listed I think do have an evidence base and are licensed indications for benzodiazepines. As far as first line and second line, I dunno if we start going into that much detail we will end up describing the treatment of anxiety, treatment of mixed anxiety and depression and treatment of insomnia. Is this not more relevant to anxiety disorder pages or insomnia page (which I have contributed a little to anyway in this regard on those pages). I think we risk going too much off-topic if we start discussing too much detail on what should be tried first for each indication.

I have just done some work has been done on the prose so hopefully this has been resolved? I am not sure what else needs to be done.

The chemistry section is always going to be technical if someone doesn't understand molecular chemistry. I don't believe that can be simplified. The mechanism of action section has an introductory paragraph which I feel the lay person will understand the basic gist of how benzos work, i.e. they help "calm" the nervous system. I don't think that it does any harm to then explain some of the technical details which the reader can skip if they wish although they may be able to get the general gist of what is being said from the intro parragraph. I think having some technical details gives the article a bit of credibility making it professional.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Sandy. After the restart of the nomination, do the two previous "support" votes count? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a new, clean slate: just like a new nomination. If you want to bring forward any unresolved issues from the previous nom, it might be better to take them to article talk so that this page won't become so unwieldy again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Concerning Colin's statement that 'the "Mechanism of action" section is utterly impenetrable', I have added a somewhat less technical introduction to the subject which I hope makes the section more accessible to the general reader. The general mechanism is known (benzodiazepine → GABA_A receptor → increased GABA binding → increased chloride current → increased membrane potential → inhibition of neuronal firing). Furthermore I think it is rather intuitive that inhibition of neuronal firing in the brain would lead to the constellation effects that benzodiazepine possess. However it has not been entirely worked out which specific GABA_A receptor subtypes control which specific neurons in which specific parts of the brain to mediate the anxiolytic vs. sedation/hypnotic vs. muscle relaxant vs. anticonvulsant effects of benzodiazepines. Hence it is not possible to pinpoint the exact mechanism of sedation for example, even though the general mechanism of benzodiazepine's pharmacological action has been worked out. Boghog2 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments not addressed in previous nomination. Right now I am close to supporting:--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Introductions summarizing content in sections with multiple subsections usually make articles much more accesible for lay readers. I believe they should be added in the sections that do not have them (Special populations and pharmacology).: (I have finally done it myself)
2. Lolk 2006 article is in danish: I am sure there are plenty of reviews on benzos in elderly in english.
3. The article is probably overlinked: MOS states that words should only be linked the first time they appear.

I did add intro type sentences too some of the sections as requested but they ended up getting deleted as being redundancy. A problem I am finding which is probably unavoidable is that each reviewer is going to have at least slightly different and conflicting views on what the article needs done to it to reach featured article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Lolk review, it was unnecessary anyway as another review said the same thing pretty much. I did not know foreign language papers were not acceptable for featured articles. Sorry about that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I will when I get a chance go over the wiki links to remove any overlinkage.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

4 Comments

• Colin's great re-write of the therapeutic use in seizures mentions all the main anti-seizure benzodiazepines in the body of the article. That means that the list on the right with Main anticonvulsant benzodiazepines is not needed and can be deleted. The challenge now is to get rid of the two other unsightly items -- Main anxiolytic benzodiazepines and Main hypnotic benzodiazepines -- by working 3-4 of the most often used into the body of the corresponding chapters.
• Epidemiology/Utilization section/paragraph is still needed
• Drug misuse section still has to be copyedited
• I wonder if FV knows where to find or maybe can draw a 3D picture of the GABA-a receptor. It is pretty and would be a nice illustration. Unfortunately, all the pictures I saw were copyrighted.

The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiology is going to be rather difficult to get because governments don't track benzo prescribing figures. They know how many prescriptions are issued each year and some people have made rough guesstimates of how many are long term users. A popular figure is between 1.2 million and 1.5 million in the UK are on benzos long term based on like s survey of an "average sized GP practice" multiplied by total of GP practices in the UK. That is how it is calculated. Not very accurate. Figures for short term users would be even more difficult if not impossible to get. Then you run into t he problem of people claiming article not being a world view of the subject matter and wanting stats for their countries included etc etc which aren't available. I can see utilisation causing more problems than it would solve. If national govs tracked number of people taking benzos it would be a great idea.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two 3D schematic representations of the GABA_A receptor in the GABA_A receptor article. If you would like either of these specifically modified for the benzodiazepine article, let me know. I am open to suggestions. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the 2-D representation seems to be most instructive . What do you think about adding it to the article? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion and therefore I have inserted the 2D figure. Boghog2 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: In line with Sceptical chymist I think that lists of main xxx benzodiazepines are not appropiate. They are unesthetical, probably unencyclopedic (I doubt any reader has an interest in knowing all of them) and also at this point original research, since no reference is provided to support that they are the main ones used for each problem. I feel that not much would be lost if they are simply eliminated (although it would be even better to integrate them in text). I also want to say that I feel that great improvements are being attained and to thank the effort of the main editor and several reviewers in this line.--Garrondo (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the tables. I agree with the original research problems of the tables. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: All my concerns have been solved.--Garrondo (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—The prose needs a good going through, entirely, by an unfamiliar copy-editor.

• Don't professionals commonly refer to them as "benzos"? I'd be inclined to put this in as a common term in parentheses at the opening.
• "Elimination half-life"—Bizarre term, since elimination is normally considered to occur at something like four or five times the half-life. Half is eliminated ... hmmm ... hard. But if it's standard, what can we say?
• "... being categorized as either short-acting, intermediate-acting or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia. Longer-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of anxiety." Can't we make it neater, like this? "being categorized as either short-, intermediate- or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia; longer-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of anxiety." Note the semicolon. You've used the reverse ellipsis anyway in the second sentence. Problem for me in "long-acting" and then "longER acting"; are you referring to the same characteristic?
• Remove "now"?
• "in the short term" (last two words are not a double adjective, so no hyphen—"term" is the noun). But then the reverse problem: "long-term use"; please pipe it, because the linked article was wrongly named (now redirected to an article where the hyphen IS there). Please see , if you wish.
• This is a bombsite, I'm afraid: "uncertainty remains whether they cause major malformations in a small number of babies". First, we need "as to". Second, is the uncertainty about the proportion of babies that suffer malformation for this reason? Maybe you mean ... well, I'm unsure what you mean. "The role of benzodiazepines in the major m in a s n of b is uncertain"?
• "The first of its kind"—"The first benzodiazepine"?.
• "Taken during gestation can however, cause neonatal withdrawal effects." Nope. What is being taken? Two commas required around "however" in mid-sentence, but better to start with H.,".
• "such as alcohol or opiates": you're overusing "or", when you mean "and" in a simple list ("or" in English is very exclusive). Greatly ... particularly —a bit marked. Tony (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with benzos being included, it is a very widely used terms in the general public but even sometimes amongst professionals. If you take away the word elimination, a lay person is going to think "what is a half life?" but with the word elimination half life they are more likely to figure out that it is to do with metabbolism. Maybe we could change it to metabolic half life but maybe that is a bit of a, as we say in the UK, "dodgy" term? Some great suggestions for the lead Tony.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Colin's point about sources is a good one. I've tried to catalog the extent of the problem in Talk:Benzodiazepine #Catalog of sources. Briefly: most sources are quite good. However, there are 19 primary studies, many old; there are 30 reviews more than ten years old; and 1 confidential document and 1 letter to the editor are not needed. Eubulides (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also searched for more-recent reviews that are not cited in Benzodiazepine, and created a partial list of them in Talk:Benzodiazepine#Recent reviews that may be worth citing. Eubulides (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That is really thorough and useful list. Thank you The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. That must have taken some time and is immensely valuable. Thanks very much. Colin° 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. All but one of the primary sources have now been removed and the remaining source, Loxley 2007 (PDF), is arguably OK and in any case is carefully summarized. As far as sources go, the remaining problem, as I see it, is citation of too many old reviews, dating back to 1981. Anybody care to take a crack at that? Talk:Benzodiazepine #Recent reviews that may be worth citing lists some good recent reviews, many of them freely readable. Eubulides (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article is not ideal but deserves to be promoted. Most of the concerns have been addressed, and the article has made huge progress since it was first nominated. It does represent the finest of the Misplaced Pages work. For example, a comparison of Benzodiazepine with its closest peers -- the only two featured articles on a class of drugs -- is very much in favor of Benzodiazepine. One such article, the FA Antioxidants is long, lacks internal logic, is all over the place, and full of unnecessary details and specialist jargon. Another one, the FA Anabolic steroid has multiple tags and does not follow guidelines -- it even does not have the Indications chapter. In contrast, Benzodiazepine follows guidelines, is properly referenced, is not overly long, avoids jargon (except where appropriate), is written reasonably well, and addresses the most important things first before specialist chapters like Pharmacology. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. Oppose. Unfortunately, after I gave the article my support, the nominator re-introduced the POV issues related to the side effects of benzodiazepines. The particular issue is the controversy regarding benzodiazepine tolerance and long-term effects. A significant number of psychiatrists (it may even be a majority) believes that the long-term effects of benzodiazepines are relatively mild and tolerance to their main therapeutic anxiolytic action may not develop. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article is much improved and would like to see it promoted to FA but can't vote due to a large amount of work done to the article prior to FA review. I believe it has reached FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have updated my list of points in response to Colin's points. I believe that I and others have resolved Colin's points although if any point has not been resolved satisfactorily let me (us) know. :)

Thank you everyone for your hard work on rreviewing this article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting Garrondo and Sceptical. Hopefully Colin will also support the article now or if not will let us know what else is remaining.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, more improvements have been made to the article. I think all issues have been addressed effectively. Can I ask who supports and who opposes the article going to FA status? Thank you again everyone for all of your hard work on this article. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved opposes still from Tony1 and Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin's items 2,3 and 7 regarding the age of the references have been discussed extensively here and on the Talk page. The bottom line: research on old drugs is sluggish, the most relevant and detailed references tend to be old because there is nothing to update them with. The newer reviews often simply regurgitate the conclusions of the older reviews. In such circumstances the demands for fresh reviews are onerous and unrealistic. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Many (or maybe even all) of Tony's opposes have been addressed. I think he just have not visited this page recently to cross them. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A large number of the old reviews were updated but some were not changed as newer sources were not available. I believe Colin was satisfied but has raised some additional points which I am going to address today. A number of Tony's problems have been addressed but will try and address the unaddressed ones today as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support. I supported this article in the original go-round, and it has improved in many ways since then. However, there is still at least one significant POV and summarization issue, with no resolution despite my repeated attempts (see Talk:Benzodiazepine #Paton 2002), and I cannot support it yet. I've tagged the relevant section, until we can resolve the disagreement. Also, Colin's and Tony1's comments weigh heavily with me: the article has changed quite a bit and clearly needs a copy-edit, but before that, the sourcing needs to be improved. In terms of sourcing older and/or primary sources, I fear that the article has gone downhill since I last cataloged the sources (in Talk:Benzodiazepine#Catalog). Eubulides (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Previous problems have been fixed. A further copy-edit would help (where's Tony1 when you need him?), but the article is already of FA quality. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"the sourcing needs to be improved" and "In terms of sourcing older and/or primary sources, I fear that the article has gone downhill since I last cataloged the sources". What??? I see that you and Sceptical ended up getting into a fight on article talk page. You are now claiming that this article has sourcing problems when it is 99% secondary sources with most old reviews wherever possible replaced with new ones which in turn led you to supporting the article. I am concerned that because you had a falling out with Sceptical over the paradoxical section that you are now wrongly claiming (perhaps in temper) the article has "gone downhill" in terms of primary sources and older reviews when in reality all but one primary source has been removed and the majority of the older reviews have wherever possible been replaced with newer sources and you were happy to support it.

I don't think either you or Sceptical were interpreting things accurately. I edited the paradoxical section and believe that I have resolved the dispute. I would appreciate it if you would retract your statement that implies that the issue of use of primary sources and older reviews has gotten worse when you know that that issue has been resolved. Why did you make this statement above?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate all of your work in categorising all of the sources according to year of publication and whether they are primary sources or review articles. Please try to appreciate that when I spend hours upon hours upon hours resolving these issues to then see because you and another editor had a fight over a couple of sentences you claiming inaccurately perhaps in temper that this issue hasn't been resolved but has got worse when you know it is resolved is very frustrating.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The dispute was resolved after I made my comments about sourcing and POV. I've now struck those comments and changed the "comment" to a "support". Thanks for all the work you've done on the article. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Eubulides for clarifying and clearing this up. Much appreciated. I just didn't want other reviewers to get the wrong impressions of the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All issues resolved

I have done extensive work trying to resolve all issues raised here. I believe that they are all resolved or where I or others disagreed was explained why. I have resolved the issues raised by Eubulides, Colin and Tony1. If you feel issues still have not been resolved and could be please type below so that they can be resolved or else discussed. Please also cross out resolved issues in any comments that you have made. If you do not support the article please explain why. Thank you again for everyones hard work.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I concede I was a little hasty in supporting first time around, but the article has improved significantly, so I am happy to be wrong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Prose needs improving further to reduce possible ambiguities and misunderstandings. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, I have read through this a couple of times - alot of it is quit technical I agree. Can you please give some examples and we can try and fix? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem is the prose and not the technical nature of the subject matter. Looking at one section on "Alcohol withdrawal": Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The difference between a planned controlled reduction of alcohol in motivated outpatients, which should probably be called "detox" (or alcohol detoxification) and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome" are confused. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I thought that clordiaxepoxide was in fashion in preference to diazepam in detoxification, because clordiazepoxide is less addictive. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Their long half-life makes withdrawal smoother and rebound symptoms less likely to occur." I would have put something like; "The benzodiazepines with a longer half life make detoxification more tolerable and dangerous alcohol withdrawal effects less likely to occur." Perhaps adding something about benzodiazepines being addictive themselves, and the historical use of the chlormethiazole. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "They are thus not recommended for outpatient detoxification." This statement should be more clearly linked to the shorter half life benzodiazepines, as chlordiazepoxide is use for out-patient alcohol detoxification and taken orally four times per day. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Rebound effects are more likely with short-acting benzodiazepines, especially if they are not tapered after alcohol detoxification." This does not specify if the "rebound effects" are of alcohol withdrawal or benzodiazepine withdrawal. The term "alcohol detoxification" is used for the first time in this paragraph and pops up at the end of the sentence, which adds to the confusion about what this section is about - "alcohol detoxification" or "alcohol withdrawal syndrome", or, if it is about both the two, they are confused. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the section on "Other indications": Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "severe pain". Not a notable use, I would have thought. Needs to put this is context of co-prescribing, or remove it. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "They bring about anxiety relief and also produce amnesia; which can be useful in this situation, as patients will not be able to remember any unpleasantness from the procedure." For most benzodiazepines the anxiety (should have said "amnesia" - corrected at 19:38, 18 June 2009 by Snowman) is not absolute, I would have thought. Medazolam may need a special mention, in its capacity to induce anmesia an as a premed for endoscopy (including gastroscopy) day cases, and other day case interventions. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Some examples include the treatment of tetanus and stiff person syndrome which is a neurological disorder characterized by severe muscle stiffness." Some uncommon or rare disorders here, and I do not think that you get many points for mentioning these before benzodiaepines in thyrotoxicosis. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have made some good points, I need to sleep, but there are quite a few interested in polishing this article up. It was always going to be a big one to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The section on "Elderly": Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Chronic effects of benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine dependence in the elderly can resemble dementia, depression or anxiety syndromes, which worsens over time." What worsens over time? Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• The image draws attention to the caption: "Adverse effects of benzodiazepines are increased in the elderly. These adverse effects are often mistaken for the effects of old age." Please specify which "adverse effects" are referred to and provide a reference. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the wicket favours critical reviewers. In summary I see problems with the prose almost everywhere I look, and my impression is that the article is nowhere near a FA grade. I suspect that everything will need to be copy edited again and again, word by word, and line by line. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that alcohol withdrawal and alcohol detoxification are confused. The reason that benzodiazepines are prescribed during alcohol detoxification is to manage alcohol withdrawal symptoms or syndrome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "alcohol withdrawl syndrome" and "alcohol detoxification" are confused. It might happen, but I would not normally expect a person undergoing elective "alcohol detoxification" as an to have a fit as part of "alcohol withdrawal syndrome" whilst on a therapeutic reducing schedule of chlordiaxepoxide tablets, as the medication should prevent this. Fits, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, and "alcohol detoxification" are all mixed up in the same paragraph. Could delirium be confused with "Korsakoff's syndrome"? - the treatment for that is thiamine. Would it be better to say "subdue delirium"? Again I would not normally expect someone undergoing elective outpatient or inpatient therapeutic "alcohol detoxification" to have much in the way of delirium. "Alcohol withdrawal syndrome" can be severe and the severe end has a mortality. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen people who have had delerium tremens in a hospital environment despite chlordiazepoxide therapy and was required lorazepam injections to partially relieve it although it is not a typical scenario. Are you saying that you want the terms alcohol withdrawal deleted and replaced with "alcohol detoxification" or just the title of the section changed to alcohol detoxification? I am still not sure that I am following you. Perhaps you should edit the problematic terminology of this section?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have copy edited that section. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chlordiazepoxide is more commonly prescribed for alcohol withdrawal at least in the UK and USA (not sure about other countries). Diazepam is however, a better anticonvulsant so may be preferred by some clinicians for managing alcohol withdrawal. I have referenced that chlordiazepoxide is the most commonly prescribed benzo for alcohol withdrawal.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I had a niggling doubt wondering what might be used all over the world. Anyway, both diazepam and chlordiazepoxide are reasonably cheep drugs in the west it seems. I suppose "non phamacology" is used most for mild problem drinkers giving a verbal warning about the bad effects of alcohol and advice drinking less. I think drugs would be used at the more severe end of drinking problems. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have resolved next point, reworded sentence using your preferred wording and I also added about the risks of dependence. I am not sure it is worth mentioning about chlormethiazole. It is so very rarely used today, I think it is going too off-topic unnecessarily. I think that it might be relevant to the alcohol related articles though. I started to add about chlormethiazole but then realised I needed to explain to the reader that it wasn't a benzo and then make it relevant to the reader and it really would bring up undue weight and irrelevance to the article section I feel so would rather not add about chlormethiazole. It is certainly relevant from a historical perspective to the alcohol related wiki articles though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I only said "I would have put something like; ..." and wrote something that came to mind, and I expect my line could be written better, and I welcome any improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sure, chormethiazole might be off-topic. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have resolved your next point regarding the short acting benzos not being recommended in ouutpatient detoxification. It is now cleear to the reader that the sentence is only referring to short acting benzos.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I resolved the issue by just deleting the bit about rebound effects as it was confusing if it meant alcohol withdrawal or benzo rebound.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Severe pain was deleted so this issue is resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what your complaint is regarding anxiety not being absolute etc. Some patients are anxious and some aren't, if they are anxious then a benzo often midazolam can help. If proceedure might be traumatic the amnesia effects help. I don't see what you are saying is wrong with that section or paragraph?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to say "amnesia" is not absolute. I have struck "anxiety" out and added "amnesia" afterwards. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think of my remarks as "helpful comments" which I hope can advance the discussion here and lead to improvements in the article, and not as complaints. Snowman (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I didn't mean to impply negativity by using the word "complaint". I didn't view your remarks as negative but as productive criticism and productive suggestions which are helping to improve the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have resolved the issues that you have raised regarding the elderly sections.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the side effect of amnesia (or therapeutic effect in this situation) could be achieved with all benzodiazepines if a high enough dose was given. Some benzos are lower potency pharmacodynamically speaking or else just marketed in low potency doses or both which can largely be overcome by giving/taking higher doses of the benzodiazepine. AAnyway have expanded that section using the British National Formulary as a ref.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not sure what premeds are given these days. But the article seems to suggest that when a benzodiazepine premed is given the patient immediately forgets everything. Amnesia might be achieved quite quickly with IV high does medazolam or lorazepam, but what if the aim of the premed was to reduce anxiety and it was given in a lower dose perhaps orally the evening before or prior to a ga. I think most patients normally remember going into anaesthetic room prior to g.a. surgery, but they might not remember much about a endogastroscopy (not g.a.) after iv benzodiaepine. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That would like you say depend on the dose and route given for the benzo. It would also depend on what were the desired effects that the treating clinician and patient wanted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted rare indications for benzodiazepines for muscle spams. I did a search for thyrotoxicosis and only found a single secondary source for benzos for this indication and it was from 1971 and had no abstract. i spoke to a doctor and enquired about what is usually used for chronic conditions with muscle spasms and was told that it was usually baclofen that is used. I assume that this is because tolerance does not occur with baclofen like it does with benzodiazepines and thus baclofen is a better treatment option long term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Mehta DK (2009). "4 Central Nervous System". British National Formulary (57th ed.). BMJ Group and RPS Publishing. pp. 183–264." The page range is much too large for quick verifiability, and I think this is unsatisfactory at FA, especially as the book is divided into smaller sections. I have the book and it would be easier to verify, if you put actual page numbers or smaller sections like "section 4.1.1." for each reference point. Why have you put "Mehta DK (2009)". I could not find this person in the long list of contributors, nor any attribution to chapter 4. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can resolve this issue but this means having several references to the same book and chapter but just with different pages. The BNF has a list in the back for tracking down info for alcohol withdrawal, hypnotics anxiolytics so it is not like regular books in that regard so don't think that verification is a problem for anyone who has access to the British National Formulary. Can you confirm that you are ok with having several refs to same book and chapter but just more specific pages? I am just concious of trying to resolve one minor problem but creating more problems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is worth doing otherwise it could take ages to verify parts of the text and provide proof for a correction. I can not be guessing at where the information came from anywhere from pages 183–264. Someone else asked for more information on this too. There is a way of listing more than one ref on different pages in a book with a "Cited texts" section, and just putting the book and page number in the list of notes. Look at another page where this is done before doing a lot of work on it. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When there are many references to the same book, each to a different page range, it's better to have just one full citation to the book (this can be done in Further reading), with the remaining citations being to pages within the book, saying only "BNF 2009" or something like that. Please see Daylight saving time for an example. This sort of thing is quite common in the humanities (see Samuel Johnson for an extreme example, not that I'm recommending that style here!) and it works fairly well. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean; I do not think that many articles use a "Further reading" section for "Cited texts". There is a whole log of MOS on this. "Philip Larkin" is a GA to refer too. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall check out the "cited texts", after I have resolved your other points. Looks like a good option. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Philip Larkin and looked at how they did their cites. They didn't use the citation templates and just manually typed between ref tags book title and page number. I know if I follow that suggestion it will get opposed based on consistency of refs. Inline citations using citation templates are an important part of GA and FA articles. I think we need a different solution.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One can use citation templates to implement that style. Please see Philitas of Cos for an example: it has three sources used in lots of places (in the References section), with inline citations to specific pages or chapters of each source (in the Notes section). For example, the citation {{cite book |author=Spanoudakis |title= Philitas of Cos |page=26}} generates "Spanoudakis. Philitas of Cos. p. 26." in Notes, with the full citation appearing in References. Citations to other sources are given in full, and appear in Notes. All citations use citation templates. In other words, whether one uses citation templates is independent of whether one factors out full citations to books. This is a relatively minor point, and doesn't affect FA status, so perhaps I'll simply implement it if I find the time. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional comment: on the positive side I think that the section on fits is quite good. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but Colin was responsible for most of the work improving that section. I helped a bit to though. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we close?

I believe that I have resolved almost all of the problems raised by snowmanradio. I am still not completely clear on the problems in the alcohol sections (see discussion above). The other problem was the recommendation of using "cited texts" with in a single reference. I was unable to find any instructions on how to do this. Can anyone provide me with a wiki page which describes this? Are we close to going to FA status? If not, then what remains to be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copy edited the alcohol withdrawal section. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the new referenced caption for the image of the old lady is good. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Being a medical article I feel that ambiguities need to be minimised. I have concentrated on four fairly randomly selected sections, to discover what state the article is in overall. My comments were not meant to be a complete list of problems in the article. Also, a reviewer above said that his list was not meant to be an exhaustive list of problems. One section I looked at was good, two sections have been tidied up a bit, and one has been almost completely rewritten. What about the rest of the article which I have not commented on? I think that the article needs a lot of improvements before it is near FA. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree on the importance on removing ambiguities. The other sections though I feel are in a lot better shape than the ones you reviewed. I have requested the help of an experienced copy-editor (Matissee) who thank God has kindly agreed to help out with this article, as I am finding resolving the final issues very stressful. Hopefully she can help nudge the article forward towards a featured article status. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about asking Matissee to help out too. I am glad that she has done some copy editing because I think she is very good with English grammar. I feel more relaxed already. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved

Matisse appears to have finished copyediting the article, this I felt was the final issue that needed to be resolved. I feel that I have resolved the issues raised by reviewers. I really think that the article is up to FA standard and infact believe the article is of a higher standard than a lot of other FA articles (but I have a little bias hehe). I would kindly request reviewers to give the article a final review and either support the nomination or point out what remains to be done. I do appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into this article, reviewing it, making constructive criticisms and editing the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• BNF page numbers have only just become available today, so I expect people will be checking them over the next few days. Could diazepam and chlordiazepoxide be included in the "Pharmacokinetics" section? Much is made of the half-lives of these drugs in the rest of the page, so it would seem reasonable to give them a mention in this section. Could the reference points be placed more directly with the text in this section to indicate where the information has come from? Snowman (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The four links to disambiguation pages have now been fixed (one of the links was to Z-drugs which was IMHO misclassified as a disambiguation page. I have therefore removed the {{disambiguation}} template from this article. Boghog2 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Spot-checks on return. I've withdrawn my oppose, but there are still glitches. Further copy-editing, if this is promoted, would be welcome—there's not a lot to do, but it requires careful eyes to pick out the occasional ambiguities and looseness in the expression. I've made a few light copy-edits at the top.

• "The first benzodiazepine, chlordiazepoxide (Librium), discovered accidentally by Leo Sternbach, was marketed from 1960 by Hoffmann–La Roche, who also marketed diazepam (Valium) from 1963." Can you insert "in "? I think I winkled 1955 out of the text below; seems kind of important (and an amazingly short R&D track). "who" --> "which", if you're referrring to Roche and not Sternbach.
• There's a rule concerning "the": when there's an "of" on the right, use a "the" on the left. It's not incontrovertible, but it's the default. "Therapeutic properties of benzodiazepines are mediated by enhancing the effect of the inhibitory neurotransmitter ..."; needs to start with "The thera...": presumably you're referring to all of them, or at least all of the ones we commonly know about.
• Are these equative or exclusive "or"s? "cognitive impairments or paradoxical effects such as occasional aggression or behavioral disinhibition occasionally occur." If the former, please use parentheses: "cognitive impairments (paradoxical effects) such as ...". I suspect the second occurrence is exclusive; if not, please use "and". "Or" is dangerous in English, I tell non-natives and natives alike. Another problem: do you mean they might "occasionally occur" in most or every patient? Probably not; if you want to convey that these are relatively rare, you might consider saying "occasional c. i. have been recorded/observed", or something like that. Sorry to be fussy. Tony (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS After conferring with User:Noetica, I think the best is: "Benzodiazepines are generally safe and effective in the short term, although cognitive impairments, or paradoxical effects such as aggression or behavioral disinhibition, occasionally occur." Still the issue of the last two words, though. Tony (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "It has been argued that long term use of hypnotics and over prescribing of these drugs represents an unjustifiable risk to the individual and to public health in general, especially in the elderly." This seems to be an imbalanced comment. Who is arguing this? Presumably there is a counter argument. Are there exceptions and for who? How is over prescribing quantified? What is the unjustifiable risk to an individual? What is the unjustifiable risk to public health? Snowman (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Much is made of the half-lives of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam in the article, but they are not included in the "Pharmacokinetics" section. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There really is no argument that hypnotics lose their benefits after a matter of days or weeks. Not even the drug companies argue that they remain effective because it is proven via EEG studies and the risks such as increased motor vehicle accidents and next day sedation aren't really disputed either. So really anyone advocating chronic benzo hypnotics would be arguing we should give these drugs even though they do not work and they would have to argue they are completely without any adverse risks. I will try and track down the full text of that article to get the more finer details of the unjustifiable risks. I would imagine it would be cognitive impairment, road traffic accidents and dependence. It is a bit like drinking a couple of pints and getting behind teh wheel would be a risk to public health.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I support Snowmanradio's observations above and have added my own comments on the talk page. I think this article is near FA, but it seems to promote global, generalized statements that are accepted by the establishment but unsupported by the research literature on the long term risk/benefits of benzodiazepine use. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Drama

I am finding the editing environment intolerable. I feel like I am under attack by medically illiterate people. For example I explained to Sceptical that CT scans don't measure neuron function but only measure brain structure changes. He either thought I was mistaken or ignored me and continued edit warring and denouncing refs based on his lack of understanding of what a CT scan is. Then Mattissa is attacking me with her original research for example, saying things like there is no way benzos could cause convulsions from abrupt high dose withdrawal and I am biased for even suggesting this, she had a "fit" when I mentioned this doesn't happen with opiates. Her evidence, things like well it is Schedule IV so therefore withdrawal has to be mild. I spent 5 or 6 hours refuting all of her original research with refs. She denounced National Statistics of drug related deaths as propaganda, implying some government conspiracy involving hundred of coroners faking lots of dead people and lab results. Furthermore a lot of these arguments were totally off-topic as I was not challenging the article content such as overdose section so it was a pointless argument. I feel under attack by scientifically illiterate people who have gotten ideas in their head. Today really is the final straw when Sceptical bombarded me with various[REDACTED] policies which really denounced his actions. He deleted a reffed sentence which I can actually add half a dozen or more refs to back it up if necessary so that only the view of tolerance doesn't happen when I had both views cited. He only wanted his one which was uncontrolled questionaire based trials. I can't work in this environment unless someone with some basic medical knowledge can come along to refute all of this gibberish like accusing me of bias for saying convulsions can occur from abrupt withdrawal. I wouldn't jump onto an article on a subject matter I didn't understand and start stating what is factual and what is not. Are there any doctors who can come on the talk page and just start responding to some of this stuff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The environment has been like this really from the beginning of FA review, have tried dispute resolution, trying to reason with people, compromise, nothing works. It has now escalated as I now have two people with very little knowledge of addiction medicine or medicine in general edit warring with me or bombarding me on the talk page with original research POV stuff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think like I have always thought that this FA should be closed and abandoned.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They have made some helpful comments and edits to the article but it is all canceled out with the above problems whcih paralyse me from improving the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved

Today seemed a bit drama free and was able to find the time addressing the issues raised. I believe that I have resolved the remaining issues of this article. I think that the article is ready for FA promotion now. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I need intervention from this community

Extensive vandalism of this article with NO intervention from any editors. I am left to defend the article against SEVERE trolling from Sceptical Chymist. I am battling vandalism where systematic review article keeps getting deleted and replaced with weak uncontrolled studies ONLY allowed by OWNERSHIP trolling Sceptical Chymist. He has throughout this pretty much ignored any points and just replies with propaganda such as bombarding me with wiki policies which don't even apply to my editing but to his VANDALISING editing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for weeks and is immune from politeness, compromising, discussion (I get ignored) or anything. Just obsessive distorting the evidence base using weaker sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I also had issues with Mattisse but she stopped when I challenged her so I am forgive and forget but issue with Sceptical is I have an obsessive guy who has some "idea in his head" that he must defend to the death with weaker sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I intervened and supported Literaturegeek originally by copy editing and clarifying the text and removing {{pov}} and a {{clarifyme}} tags, and others eg . I maintain my position that statements made need to be supported by recent peer-reviewed articles, and where uncertainty exists over facts because sufficient relevant research has not been done, that needs to be acknowledged in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That was done Mattiesse. You just claimed using original research to claim that really this or that should happen. You are welcome to find secondary sources which say xyz. We can't go doing original research to make article say xyz or go deleting systematic reviews, faking refs using weak reviews which quote a single 1980 source to then go deleting systematic reviews. This destroys an article, distorts hard evidence and Sceptical's original research and edit warring and failure to discuss points is indefensibly and I stand by that. Please don't use original research to continue to criticise me or the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose promotion. Apart from the huge time scale of this candidature, the article has now descended into an edit war between User:Literaturegeek and User:The Sceptical Chymist. Take note anyone who still believes that WP:FAC helps to improve articles, or who doesn't believe that it promotes misplaced ideas of OWNership. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno what you meant by last sentence. I agree with your oppose and tried to close this FA down early on as I knew I was being trolled. I know the difference between content dispute and being trolled and disruptive editors. I submit there is no choice but to close this FA. Based on the lack of community intervention there is no point reopening it for FA candidate as it will be trolled again. I can't devote 6 hours per day fighting against vandalism and trolling, I haven't the time and don't want to get an edit war block.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Mattisse she did try to intervene intially and I do appreciate her doing that and also the copy editing. She did tread on my toes when she kept criticising edits based her perceived view of the suubject matter, I feel she got sucked in by Sceptical Chymist being not medically trained or knowledgable on the subject matter and thought I was misrepresenting the evidence by saying abrupt withdrawal can cause seizures and similar complaints. I am happy to give Mattisse the benefit of the doubt and accept that her actions were well intentioned. Nobody is perfect, I myself lost my temper and have been uncivil but feel who wouldn't after weeks of trolling by Sceptical Chymist. The sooner this FA is closed down the better I feel. Trust me I don't want this to be the case but admins don't take trolling seriously, always label it a content dispute and so forth or even side with the troll and sockpuppet based on past experiences. This article should not be renominated for FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to fight back against all the smears of this troll, any reviewer here or checking FA archive history can see how many times I compromised, deleting Crime section, deleting the data on one third of people becoming suicidal after abrupt withdrawal in pregnancy and on and on. I deleted statement after statement, compromised and compromised some more, trying to get this article to FA status. I believe my efforts have been honorable and NPOV and followed MEDRS and so forth. I may have come across POV at times but that was because I was in a battle with a troll and was in "defense" mode fighting original research, faked references and so forth, trying to defend the article and get it to FA. Anyway I have said my piece, just close this FA down.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, clearly an unstable article. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose as well. I support closing, so agree with Physchim62 and Stifle. I warned people early on about the problems with Sceptical, which was why I tried to close it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unless you want to hang about for a week or 2 for dispute resolution. I can't revert anymore (or I will be blocked for 3rr) against what I regard as original research and misrepresenting refs, deleting systematic reviews because an editor doesn't like them, debunking clinical guidelines as being extremist by abusing refs and making them say what they don't say and so on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 .

Charles Carroll the Settler

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this article's in good shape - just finished adding some more sources and clarifications. One note - the peer reviewer of the article suggested a legacy section, which I chose not to do simply because the legacy can be summed up in a sentence or two. If reviewers here disagree with that assessment, one could certainly be added in. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I switched the Citation template to cite encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't known not to mix them. Appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. How many founding fathers of Maryland are you aiming for? I have a number of Maryland ancestors which would be cool to see done well... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As many as I have time for. It helps being in relatively close proximity to the University of Maryland libraries for sources. Anyone in particular I should add to my list? Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty dashes in the page ranges in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request placed. Thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He just ran it. Thanks again for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good from a prose point of view. I can't speak as to comprehensiveness, but it seems like a useful resource. –Juliancolton |  03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Geraldk (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Early life and emigration:

• "whose family had lost much of their land" watch for redundancy and passive voice. Would be better without "had".
• Link Aghagurty?
• "Some of the family property near Aghagurty had been obtained by a friend" change "had been" to "was".
• "fostered out to" - better as "fostered to"?
• "and both civil and canon law" - "both" is unnecessary here. "May of 1685" another redundant word.
• Wikilink call members to the bar?

"who was at the time" is unnecessary

• James II is a disambig, as is James I and John Coode.
• "Maryland had been founded in the 1630s" had been->was again.
• Wikilink Protestant?
• You might like to wikilink Parliament to a more specific article.

• Career and rise to wealth in Maryland:

• "If he hoped to find a greater level of religious tolerance in Maryland than he had experienced in England, he was to be sorely disappointed" sounds a bit odd.
• No need to repeat wikilinks, such as James II and Glorious Revolution.
• "15 year old" hyphenate?

Overall: there were quite a few typos I fixed but may have missed some - please check through. Also, why was he called "the Settler"? When did that come about? Majorly talk 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've addressed all of the comments. Aghagurty is a red link, unfortunately, and I think it will remain so for a while. I desperately tried to find an alternate name that had a[REDACTED] article, but to no avail. The gaelic variant did a number of the search engine - it was kind of entertaining. I have added a little bit to the lead concerning the use of 'the Settler' after his name. The only explanation I found was in Hoffman, who claims it was used to differentiate him from his descendents of the same name. However, Hoffman does not mention whether Carroll himself used it in his own lifetime or when it began to be used. I did not specifically mention his son and grandson's name, because I think it would make that first sentence of the lead unwieldy. Let me know what you think on that. Will also do another thorough copy-edit in the next hour or two. Geraldk (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "English Catholics. was As a result" Could you double check whether this is just a typo left over from a cut and paste, or perhaps something else is wrong here?
  • "to an associate of his,an associate of Charles Calvert," here too. TwilligToves (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Yeah, those were both from cutting and pasting between Word and Wiki. Thanks for catching them. Here I try to fix a confusing paragraph and it ends up even more confusing... Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. The prose isn't bad on a sentence level, but the article suffers from a lack of clarity and organization in many places. It almost feels like things were chopped up and moved around at times without consideration for the surrounding text. "He and "his" are bandied about in confusing ways when multiple men are being discussed. This requires more than a surface copyedit—it needs substantial revision, probably by someone unfamiliar with the text. I became confused reading the text at times; for example:
  • The entire first paragraph in "Career and rise to wealth in Maryland" is a muddled mess. You say Carroll was to be disappointed with the tolerance for Catholics, then move into tensions, then the economy, then more tensions.. but you never actually get around to following up on the opening of the paragraph.
  • "During the rebellion, Carroll was recovering from the "hard seasoning" often experienced by immigrants to the new world whose bodies were acclimatizing to local conditions." This is kind of hanging out there with no obvious purpose. It doesn't seem related to anything else you've been discussing. Are you implying that he was unable to act against the rebellion because of his physical condition? This requires clarity.
  • "The money he accumulated through this and other means was used among other things to begin making loans, and after 1713 he became the largest mortgage lender in the colony, in addition to personal loans he made." Oof. This behemoth conveys many things, some of them more than once.
  • "His case may have been undermined as well when he came to the defense of his nephew, who had raised a toast to the Catholic James Stuart." The placement of this sentence is such that we have no idea who "he" is; the last "he" named was Hart, and he had taken a "case" to the legislature. Surely you don't mean Hart?
  • "His eldest son Henry had died a year before" Again, the last person you name is Hart. Hart's son died? But the following text confuses the issue even more.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment - Ref 11 is broken. ceranthor 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through again, and had a friend go through, to try to modify it for clarity. Take a look and let me know what you think. I paid special attention to those portions where multiple actors made it difficult to keep the he's straight. Thanks for your review and comments. Geraldk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think it's ready now. Good work on this! --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Geraldk (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I hope you don't mind, but instead of posting a list here, I took a swing at some prose tweaks myself. The intermediate edit summaries give rationales for each of those, by the way; feel free to disagree with any change I've made. I like the way this article is written, though I'm positive others would find it verbose. I'd normally be one of them, but the wordiness occassionally works to the article's advantage. It's probably still worth giving it a pass to eliminate some of the more flimsily-justifiable redundancies, but overall this is very nice work. All the best, Steve  22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the read-through, and for the support. I'll do a pass specifically looking for redundancy. 71.99.117.141 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns:

• File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg is an American painting. Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this. Accordingly, the painting comes under US law, which is primarily based on publication rather than life of author. Creation is not publishment. As far as I can tell, this painting was not published (i.e. no copies were sold or given to the public or for display), remaining in private collections until it ended up in the Maryland Historical Society. It was then published on p. 60 of Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland (1999), supplied by the courtesy of said society. Under the interpretations of Hirtle at Cornell, works published "From 1 March 1989 through 2002" and "Created before 1978 and first published in this period" are copyrighted for "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Unless proof of publishment is given, this work is still copyrighted under US law.

  Can anyone check if this painting appeared in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937 (Libraries holding this book)? If yes, on which page and is there a copyright notice in the front pages of the book? Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Benedict Calvert.jpg: a European painting with unclear authorship and date. Although put as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources. This might be public domain but we need to ascertain by what evidence and with what sort of license we can attribute this. Brought up at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg to clarify its status.

  There is a concensus that it is very likely this painting has lapsed into public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Other images are verifiably in the public domain. A note for all editors: please check on the background and information provided for the images before using them in the articles (the ones here were very lacking). Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue isn't that I didn't check but that you've gotten into public domain law that I was apparently unaware of. I will follow the discussion of the Benedict Calvert picture, and will look into the Charles Carroll picture. Please clarify for me on the Charles Carroll image - I've been under the impression for a couple years that any photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art was covered by the copyright of the original work, as it describes in the tag:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

Is this no longer true? Geraldk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The PD-Art tag applies to photographs and scans of public domain artwork. The position is that photos and scans (as reproductions) of paintings, which are in public domain, are effectively in public domain as well. Therefore, photographers or scanners cannot claim to have copyright over such reproductions. PD-Art does not apply to the paintings themselves. In effect, if a painting is not in public domain, photos and scans of it cannot be covered by PD-Art. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't an artwork enter the public domain 70 years after the death of its author? This painting is from the early 18th century, Kuhn was dead long before that 70 year limit. Geraldk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not for US works. US works are based primarily on publishing date. Most other countries follow a 50- or 70-year pma (after death of author). When a US work is first published after 2002 (or created after 1977), then it follows a 70 year pma. Ref: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But this was painted in the early 1700s. With paintings, aren't they 'published' when they are painted? So the copyright would have expired long, long ago. The fact that it was re-printed in a book should have no bearing on its copyright, since that reprinting is a copy of a two-dimensional work. Geraldk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Laws (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html),

• Creation: "A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."
• Publication: "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."

A painting that exists on its own is not published until "copies" of it are made available to the public. Creation is not publication. Note that the reprinting in books constitute "making copies available to the public"; hence publishing. Jappalang (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it defines copy as "“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's using the word copy not to refer to a xerox copy of it but to the original object. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The object itself is a copy of the work, but publications requires "copies of a work" (plural). Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Public domain: "Furthermore, the publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work." The artist has been dead for hundreds of years. There is no possibility that the author of the book got his approval before publication. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the publication of the image in Prince of Ireland, Planters of Maryland does not constitute publication under U.S. copyright law, and therefore that the work is considered unpublished and is in the public domain because its author died long before 1939? Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights of an author can be transferred, either through law or estates. In this case, the Maryland Historical Society has the copyrights (Kühn surrendered his to the Carroll family, who transferred it to the Society on donation), which is why the painting was published in Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland by the society's courtesy and permission. It would be more helpful to check if the painting was published in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am working on that, and have been communicating with the Maryland Historical Society to get permission as an alternative. I'm out of town, and have had limited access to computers, so it's going slowly. I am simply trying to understand your interpretation of the copyright law, which I believe to be a misinterpretation. It seems fundamentally ridiculous to me that a 300 year old painting could be under a current copyright, and worry that if your opposition on this nomination, and I assume opposition to other articles on similar grounds, is based on an overzealous interpretation of the law, it could be detrimental to my work and the work of other editors. Geraldk (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but Jappalang's statement that "Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this" is problematic from a historical perspective, which therefore makes me wonder about his follow-up statement that "Accordingly, the painting comes under US law." He may be entirely correct in his conclusion, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the painter was a British subject and never a US citizen, that there was no US for decades after his death, and that there was no such thing as being "naturalised as an American" at the time. These points may be irrelevant to the copyright status of the painting, but I mention them in case this information is helpful. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Geraldk, please take a look at Circular 15a (underlined portions for emphasis):

Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.

There is no misinterpretation. On Janurary 1, 1978, all works not published or copyrighted but created before then are given 25 years of copyright protection. Hence the 70-year pma ruling called forth by the 1976 law (which was supposed to take effect on January 1, 1978) is superseded for these works.

Kevin, I think you are correct in that there is no America at that time (hence "naturalised as an American" would be wrong), but as the painting is first published in the US, the US copyright laws apply here. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do painted copies of a painting count as publication? Geraldk (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, because[REDACTED] image policy is about as comprehensible as quantum physics, in what way should I ask the MHS to release the painting? Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Painted copies, as in reproductions like those sold on artnet? If those copies are legally authorised and are given to be exhibited or sold to anyone, then yes, the painting has been published in the year the first copy (excluding the original) was distributed. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, an affirmation that the painting has lapsed or they release it into the public domain and that anyone can freely make copies or derivative works of it for any purpose. Alternatively, as the copyright holders, they can license the work under Creative Commons by 3.0 or sharealike (meaning anyone can do the same as with the previous, but they have to attribute the copyright holder). Their intent to do so must be clear. Ref: commons:Commons:OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is certainly public domain. The rule for unpublished works is life of the author plus 70 years or 120 years after creation for anonymous works. Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as stated above, the pma rules apply post-2003. When the law came into effect on 1 January 1978, all unpublished works that have not been published at that time are copyrighted for 25 years and if published during 1978 and 2002 gains further copyright protection. It is on 1 January 2003 that we can use the 120 years for unpublished works guideline to gauge if works still unpublished from that date on are in public domain. Also take note that the Cornell site follows the law, "1978 to 1 March 1989/From 1 March 1989 through 2002" ... "Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period/Created before 1978 and first published in this period" ... "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang - are you really saying that 300 year old paintings are copyrighted in the US? I'm afraid I just can't take that at face value. As far as I can tell, any possible claim of copyright for the painting expired before 1855, and the paintings from before 1789 were never subject to US copyright law, because the US did not exist when they were created. From the circular 15a you previously quoted - "Works already in the public domain cannot be protected under the 1976 law or under the amendments of 1992 and 1998. The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason." Smallbones (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Works already in the public domain" applies to works published before 1923 and those published from 1923 to 1978 that did not follow copyright requirements; they have passed into the public domain before 1978 and are unaffected. Circular 15a applies to unpublished work before 1978: "all works in this category (Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection.) are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection." There is no lapse. US copyright law before 1978 considers first publishing not death of author. As such, on 1 January 1978, unpublished works are not considered to have lapsed into public domain yet just because their author died 70 years ago—they are given at least 25 years of protection. Jappalang (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiddle-faddle. You've already said that the consensus at Commons was that it is in the public domain. To repeat the Cornell website info:

"Type of Work Copyright Term What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2009

Unpublished works Life of the author + 70 years Works from authors who died before 1939"

I don't know what point you are trying to make here with your completely novel theory, but please take it to a forum on copyright questions. It is inappropriate here. Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say the concensus at Commons for this painting of Charles Carroll is in the public domain? You are mistaking laws as retroactive. 1978 laws would not apply to a time in 1945; otherwise there would be cries of complaint that a 1945 copyright registered work (whose author died in 1874) would be in public domain, which is not true. Again, Cornell's interpretation already abides by this law, otherwise there would not be their "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047" for works published between 1978 and 2002, which you have conveniently overlooked. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll start a question at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions where you can argue your completely novel theory that 300 year old paintings can be protected by US copyright laws. Let's please leave this FAC review out of it for the time being. If you can get agreement there (!) then you can always come back and ask for the FA on this (and on every other FA with 300 year old paintings in it) to be reviewed based on your theory. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the images are the holdup for this FAC to be closed. I've read the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions, which seems to be a rehash of the arguments already here. Would this image qualify for fair use (assuming it is not PD)? If so, the easiest way to resolve this problem may be to add a fair-use rationale. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:Media copyright questions seems to be over and settled. By my count only 2 editors supported the concept of a copyright on a 300 year old painting and 7 were against. A similar question was also settled at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg. Let's move on. Smallbones (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by number of !votes, however, especially when this concerns a legal matter. Karanacs (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is an acceptable solution, as a rationale of "identification of a long-deceased subject who is the focus of critical commentary and has no visual representation except for this portrait" (or such) would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead with fair use if you'd like, but I've asked User:Rlevse to make a note at commons that the issue has been discussed and File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg found to be in the public domain, as he did for File:Benedict Calvert.jpg - it's really the same issue, 300 year old copyrights are just not possible in practice. I think it's time to move on and accept that this will never be an issue for any 300 year old artwork. Smallbones (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It's now confirmed at Commons that this is public domain. Can we please move on? Smallbones (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• COI and thus moral Support - I am CoI'd from really participating even though this is a borederline but an interesting CoI of mine. Regardless, I would say that I would support it and make some minor suggestions, but I could not do so directly in clean conscience. I did want to say that I feel that the above image concerns are a false interpretation of law, especially with the law being based on death of the artist unlike UK law. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Well written prose, properly footnoted, good background material and well structured. And I hope nobody minds if I say that I like the pictures. Smallbones (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking issues et al.. But the prose looks generally OK.

• Why are "France" and "England" linked? See MOSLINK.
• the only Catholic signatory to, not signer of, I think.
• "he had moved to London"—unless London, Ontario is suddenly within the realms of possibility, "London" should not generally be linked.
• "George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore"—It's linked just above (although piped there, and I wonder why not the full term first, and no link second time). Tony (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 .

House (TV series)

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article has really improved since its last (suddenly interrupted) FAC, thanks to various copy-edits. If you have comments about the cast image, see the previous FAC. I believe the article meets all the criteria now. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The character has similarities to Sherlock Holmes; both are forensic geniuses, musicians, drug users, aloof, and largely friendless." Colon, surely. In your list, where is the boundary between nouns and adjectives? Jerks the reader.
  • done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• It has been largely filmed. I find "Holmes uses a similar method" a little difficult, since it was so long ago. Unsure. Present for House and past for SH might be a good device ...?
  • Why has been? the show still films there. Holmes comment is fixed.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hate those fly-spots after every single "Dr". Oh well, it's your choice, I guess. While I usually ask for more constrained blue in links, via piping, here, it's odd that "Dr" is not included in all of those name-links.
  • What exactly do you want me to do?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. "Dr." included in blue links when title preceding name. (As our friend Tony knows, those "fly-spots" are good American English style.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Conception"—second, maybe third paras are stubby.
  • Maybe, but merging them is hard, do you have any suggestions?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merged third with fourth paragraph, eliminating some stubbiness. Given both the verifiable substance and the structural logic of the subsection, it looks like the second paragraph works best as is. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • We've taken care of that one as well now.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "doctors...check"—spaces (non-breaking, probably) either side of the ellipsis dots.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The others are linked, but The West Wing isn't.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Multi-clutter citation numbers: Is it possible to conflate each set into one? If they're not used elsewhere, I can't see why not: "Critics considered the series to be a bright spot amid FOX's schedule, largely filled with reality shows, and reacted positively to the character of Gregory House. Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him, "the most electrifying character to hit television in years". Critics have compared House to fictional detectives Adrian Monk, Hercule Poirot, Nero Wolfe, and Perry Cox. Laurie's performance in the role has been praised by critics.". So hard to read; so unattractive.
  • Yes, this is something of which all nominators should be aware. The simple merging of unique cites goes a long way toward making an article more readable. I'll take care of them here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Table: I'd always use just two closing digits, and here it will make the whole thing more manageable within the limited space: e.g., 2006–07. Remove "in" from "in millions". Do you need the #s? Distribution table: the countries (exotic and little known) are all linked? They don't even pipe to something more specific. Please ...
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ref list. Do you really like the ISO gobbly dates? Not good when you get strings such as "2008-01-29. No. 10, season 4." Trust me, most readers would love the month to be spelled out. But it's up to you.
  • Fixed by Dabomb87.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good as far as I can tell on a swift look through. But it could be polished up a bit. Tony (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I used a script to convert to MDY format. Revert if you don't like. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, this is looking in good shape. One significant exception: the episode citations are a complete mess.

• They all read House M.D. Obviously, they must all be changed to House.
  • Done.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The links to the episode articles appear to be nonfunctional (check 'em out).
  • That's a problem with the cite episode template. It is protected so I can't change it.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the citations list just the writer(s); some list David Shore and the writer(s); some (e.g., "Frozen", "Honeymoon") have no credits at all. These must be made completely consistent. If you choose to include Shore in all (as opposed to none), then he must be identified as "Creator" and the writer(s) as "Writer(s)" (in that case, for episodes written by Shore, he should be identified as "Creator/Writer").
  • All episode refs only include the writer.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing. It seems weird to learn about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron romances only in Critical reception. And there's no mention of the House-Cuddy...whatever it is...at all. All of these relationships should be mentioned either in Series overview or Cast or characters (where it does mention that Cameron "developed an affection for Chase"--that's fine, but insufficient.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work on that, however, the full fifth season hasn't been broadcasted in the Netherlands yet (that's where I edit from), so I can't fully describe the Thirteen-Foreman or Huddy relationship.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think all the romances could be mentioned in the main characters section since they are all between main characters. It might also be a good idea to mention House and Cameron's relationship. That could be fit in the first paragraph of the recurring characters section since it ties in with Vogler. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Information on relationships has been added to the main characters section. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Casting, then Cast and characters, with a template linking back to a section within the same article?? Have never seen such a layout, doesn't seem optimal. Also, there are collapsed templates in "Critics' top ten lists"; default should be show, not hide, for printability and mirrors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The casting section could be moved, but I think it casting has more to do with production than with the characters. Also, the reason why it links back to the same article is for people who are looking for casting info and might have skipped it.--Music26/11 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music here that the casting section in this article is probably more suited to be in the production section. After the production section you have the series overview and characters sections which are both in-universe, whereas the casting section is out of universe and probably fits better in production. This is possibly true of all TV show articles and putting casting in the characters section might not be the best way to go about it. A way to solve this issue for this article would be to rename the "Cast and characters" section simply "Characters" and delete the template for the casting note. I'm not sure if that really improves anything though, it's probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music and Marble on the basic structure. The same thought did occur to me about renaming "Cast and characters" simply "Characters". What do you think, Music? The template as well, though it certainly does no harm, is not necessary. If its elimination brings the article more into conformity with standard style, that's a valid argument for cutting it. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion ties into another situation I'm thinking about right now. I made some edits to the article today and one of them cut a mention of Laurie as an executive producer because the reference and other evidence doesn't back it up. However I'd like to add that reference back in somewhere as it mentions Laurie made around $400,000 per episode in season 5, which is pretty interesting information I think. I don't know where it would best fit in the article though. It doesn't exactly fit in casting because it's about a cast member but not the casting process, and it doesn't fit in with the cast and characters because that section is about in-universe characters, not how much money Laurie is making. So basically after thinking about this I think the best thing to do would be to just rename the section "Main characters" (or simply "Characters" if people prefer) and remove the casting note since there won't be any ambiguity anymore. I think I'll just do that now, if anyone disagrees or wants to modify it you can revert my change. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I changed the title of that section to "Characters and story arcs" which I think fits well. The comprehensiveness of this article looks good. One thing I think is missing though is a little more information about the story arcs. House getting shot which was the arc in the season 2 finale and beginning of season 3 is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes section but I think that could probably use a mention somewhere in the "Characters and story arcs" section too. In response to DCGeist's comments, relationships could be expanded a little in that section as well. There were a couple major events that happened in the season 5 finale, those could probably be mentioned somehow. I will finish looking over the article and references and see if I find anything else than can be improved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Renaming the section to "Characters and story arcs" was a good decision, I'll try to add some more info regarding relationships etc. to the section tomorrow (I don't have a lot of time right now). Oh, I didn't know where to put the salary info either that's why I left it out, also is Laurie really not an executive producer? I think I saw his name after the credits once. That's it, thanks.--Music26/11 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: With additions and copyediting by various hands, the article is looking increasingly strong. On a structural level, I have only one remaining, relatively minor, concern. Do we really need a subsection and highly detailed table for DVD releases? The table is pretty, but doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic. I argue for cutting the table and simply making the text of the subsection the last paragraph of the parent Distribution section.

Please note that I have already cut another pretty table from that section. As I explained in my edit summary, the table that gave the networks where the show airs in six selected countries was both (a) 100% redundant of the accompanying text and (b) wildly incomplete--implying that the show airs only in English-speaking countries. On that note, we should have a sentence or two on the show's presence in non-English-speaking countries; there must be something out there up to WP:V standard.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I searched quite a bit, and there doesn't seem to be any good sources for its overall global distribution. I was able to find good references for its popularity in a couple of non-English-speaking countries, and have added a sentence covering that.DocKino (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just found and added much more on foreign distribution from Variety.DocKino (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you on all points here pretty much. Most people are reluctant to remove tables like these because they are pretty, but they don't really add much. What I think we should do is move all the relevent date information and references to the table already at List of House episodes, that way the information is still being used. But it's not that necessary or helpful to this article, it doesn't matter much what specific date each season's DVD was released in each region. The distributions section could and probably should be expanded a little with any relevant information that was lost, but I think you're right that none of the tables there add that much. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree as well, there was a brief discussion regarding this just before the previous FAc (see this). You can remove it if you think it is redundant.--Music26/11 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Once the information on the main characters' relationships is added, I'm ready to support.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the info about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron relationships, and you guys did a good job cleaning the prose up and adding more references. I just added in info about House and Cuddy's relationship with some references. So I think this article might be ready for featured status. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question and comment (unrelated to above update): I'm pretty sure I solved the "mystery" of Hugh Laurie as executive producer. Firstly though I have a question: is Film.com, which is part of RealNetworks, a reliable enough source to be used for a featured article such as this one? At a glance at the site and looking at their FAQs, it doesn't appear to accept member-submitted info like TV.com or IMDb, but I might be wrong. I ask because Film.com lists all the writer, producer, director, etc. info for all House episodes, which could be used for a reference in the "production team" section for the info about who wrote and directed the most episodes. I also ask because I discovered that Hugh Laurie was credited as executive producer for episodes 2 and 3 of season 5: , . It appears those were the only 2 episodes he was given an executive producer credit and that would corroborate the reference that says he'll get a "producing credit", it was just for those 2 episodes. So I don't think he should be listed in the infobox under executive producers but it could be mentioned in the "production team" section he was for those 2 episodes. The question is if Film.com can be used as a reference. If it can't I found this Blogcritics reference that mentions Laurie as executive producer: , and Blogcritics appears to be deemed reliable since it's used in some other references in the article already. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Film.com looks like a good source. Everything I've been able to find out about it suggests that information-wise it is a completely professional site.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Terrific job, everyone. With a lot of hard work, you've turned this into a high-quality, comprehensive TV series article.—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I've been a contributor to this article for awhile now, but had for a time not edited this article much. Big credit to Music2611 for greatly expanding the article and adding in a lot of references and pushing the article's comprehensiveness and verifiability to featured quality. Previous FAC was dominated by discussion on the image in the characters section, but that has been resolved. All issues brought up on this FAC have been resolved. Big thanks to all the editors who have helped make the final push to make this article comprehensive and have sharp prose. This article has been greatly polished since the start of this FAC, and I think is featured article quality now. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support It's there. I just want to say that there are articles that first come to FAC needing less substantive work than this one did when it first appeared here five weeks ago--but quite a few of those never make it all the way because psychological issues ("ownership", defensiveness, etc.) turn the effort to achieve FA standards into a trial. This FAC process, on the other hand, has been a pleasure to participate in. Thanks to LonelyMarble for all the effort on the article over the past 17 months, and a timely reappearance here; to DCGeist for some superb copyediting; and, of course, to Music2611--it's not only the effort of the nominator that makes the difference, but also the attitude. Well done. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per DocKino. I see no problems at all (and I'm a fan of the series and would really love to see it on the main page). It meets all of the criteria without question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, leaning toward support. I have a number of relatively small issues with the article, but they unfortunately add up to an oppose. Several of them, you can just ignore if you disagree (I have labeled these as such). Added: I have found a number of sources that are misrepresented in the article or used as citations for statements that they do not justify. This is absolutely unacceptable in any article, much less a featured one.
  • "FOX officially credits Shore as creator." I think this might read better as "only Shore". That's really nitpicky. Ignore if you like.
    • I think it's fine the way it is, saying "only" is possibly misleading and inaccurate because I'm sure FOX acknowledges the contributions of all the initial executive producers. Shore had a more prominent role as he wrote the pilot, and this is explained in the conception section. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Best as is.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "House's diagnostic team originally consists of " Should this really be present tense? I could go either way, but "At the end of the third season, this team is disbanded." is in past tense so I think the other sentence should be as well for consistency.
    • Addressed with "disbands". (Please be aware, "is disbanded" is not past tense, but simple present tense in passive voice. The passive voice was used to suggest the team was acted upon, but as two of the three are agents of their own departure, the active voice is more appropriate.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, I quite glossed over the "is" the first time I read it and just saw "disbanded". I think disbands is the best anyway, though. Cool3 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rejoined by Foreman, House gradually selects three new team members: Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), and Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn)."
    • If the problem here is "Rejoined by Foreman", I don't think this is a problem. All prose about fictional storylines, as is the case in this article, should be in present tense, but qualifiers at the beginning of sentences like this one are fine I think. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In my very humble opinion, again feel free to ignore, Amber is sufficiently significant to merit a mention in the lead.
    • The lead is already fleshed out and is a nice summary, I don't think it should be any longer. Some of the other recurring characters had comparable airtime as Amber, I think it's probably best to not mention any recurring characters in the lead to avoid making it too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. There's a sufficient amount of in-universe information in the lead already.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " After three seasons among the top ten rated shows in the United States, it fell to nineteenth overall during the 2008–09 season. " Shouldn't some mention of the first season be made?
    • I was initially going to make clear somehow that seasons 2–4 were among the top 10, but I don't think it's necessary. The lead is supposed to be a succinct summary and this is explained further on in the reception section. The fact that season 5 was 19th overall probably doesn't have to be mentioned. I think it's probably mentioned to help make the article neutral and because it's the latest season so it's more relevant for most readers. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it would be better either to say something about the first season or drop the mention of Season 5. Although it is stated in the infobox, the number of seasons is not made clear anywhere in the lead. Mentioning 4 seasons makes it seem like there were 4 four seasons, not 5. Cool3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It was a little ambiguous but I changed it to make clear seasons 2, 3, and 4 were among the top 10. I don't really think a mention of season 1's ratings needs to be said because it would seem a bit awkward, whereas the latest season's ratings is more relevant. Plus, the final sentence of the lead already makes clear the show has aired for five seasons with a sixth scheduled for September 2009. I don't think there is any ambiguity here anymore. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " Gail Berman, made clear, "I want a medical show, but I don’t want to see white coats going down the hallway."" I think the quote needs better introduction than "made clear". I think it would be better to say something more like "told the creators"
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "of Berton Roueché, a staff writer for The New Yorker between 1944 and 1994 who specialized in features about unusual medical cases" another comma is needed after 1994.
    • Done. (Though arguable: the second comma is only necessary if he specialized on medical features for other publications in addition to The New Yorker.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added." "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." What's the connection between the two? Did Shore add the idea of the curmudgeonly character or did he come up with the concept in response to someone else's demand for such a character?
    • The teaching hospital experience was the main influence on the character's personality.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that still doesn't make things quite clear. The passive voice in "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added" leaves me wondering who added it. "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." seems to imply that the idea came from Shore, but the article leaves this point frustratingly unclear. Did Shore simply respond to someone else's idea for a curmudgeonly character by drawing on his experiences, or was it his idea to have a curmudgeonly character?
        • I have fully addressed this issue now I believe. I have the season 1 DVD and on one of the bonus features called "The Concept" Shore makes clear that he was the one who felt there should be an interesting lead character. So hopefully I have removed the ambiguity here. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Well done. I gave it a little copyedit tweak. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "but turned the opportunity down." Any idea why?
    • This is explained in the reference cited: . It could be mentioned why in the article text but it doesn't seem necessary, it doesn't really have that much to do with House. Here is the quote from the reference that explains it:

"Friend and Lerner have been writing as a duo for 13 years. When offered a place on the House writing team before for season one they turned down the offer. “We had just come off of the drama Boston Public.” They felt that House “was so good that it didn’t make sense to be on FOX;” it didn’t fit the network’s typical audience. And they were concerned that the network would cancel it without giving it enough of a chance. Instead, they went to work on LAX, which they thought was a “shoe-in” with Heather Locklear in the lead role (it wasn’t, and was soon cancelled). So they watched House’s season one “from afar,” seeing it really take off by mid-season. They were impressed (and astounded) that the series, as it unfolded, was as good as the pilot. Which, they noted, doesn’t often happen. “They didn’t have to change anything.” When lightning struck a second time and Katie Jacobs again offered the partners a spot on House, they jumped at the opportunity." LonelyMarble (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that necessarily needs to be in the article. Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "only Greg Yaitanes has directed as many as 10 episodes." Does this mean he has directed exactly ten episodes or more than 10?
    • Exactly 10.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "According to Shore, "three different doctors ... check everything we do"." Any idea who the other two are?
    • This quote is simply from the reference cited: . Here is the exact quote: "There are three different doctors who check everything we do and we have a medical consultant on staff all the time," Shore says. "The best thing we can get is our three doctors disagreeing, because as a writer that is the best thing, because you are wide open. If the doctors don't agree that means there is no right answer." Research into the doctors' actual names could be tried, but I doubt the information is readily available, and I don't think it really matters much. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The son of a doctor, Ran Laurie, he said he felt guilty for "being paid more to become a fake version of my own father."" the sentence switches from "he" to "my" the quote should probably be redone as "fake version of father."
    • Changed my to , done. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As well as the script for House, actor Robert Sean Leonard had received the script for the CBS show Numb3rs." I think this is an odd way of introducing Leonard. Would it be more appropriate to start the sentence with his name?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but that his lengthy friendship with Singer helped win him the part of Dr. Wilson." This sentence is also put together oddly, making it appear only incidental that he got the role. I'd suggest something more like "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but won the part of Dr. Wilson, a fact he credited at least in part to his lengthy friendship with Singer." I'm not married to that particular wording, but I think something along those lines would be good.
    • The current construction of the sentence is perfectly fine, and more terse than virtually any plausible alternative that conveys the same essential information. (For example, the proposal is six words longer, but conveys no additional information.)—DCGeist (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "ultimately, the decision was made to add three new regular cast members." Any idea why? Also, who made the decision?
    • The reference cited for this information does not contain an online link so I cannot immediately find the answers to your questions. The current reference is: Finn, Natalie (October 4, 2007). "Vatican Decries Golden Compass' Lost Soul". E!. The date of the reference corresponds to the beginning of season 4, so the reference seems to be for this information. Offline references are perfectly acceptable for featured articles so this is not really a problem. Perhaps more information about this specific decision can be found in online sources. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, after some searching, I've come across something rather troubling. That story is available online , but it was published in December not October (title and author the same, so I'm fairly sure that it is the same story) and it says absolutely nothing about House. This is a big problem. Cool3 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think I know what probably happened. When this reference was first posted it contained a link to a page on the site http://uk.eonline.com/. That link is now dead so someone must have just deleted the url from the reference. This is usually not a good idea as the Internet Archive can retrieve web pages of dead links, however it usually takes at least 6 months. I checked this dead link in the archive and it is not there yet. I think what happens on this E! site is they list a bunch of news stories, so the title of this reference was simply of the first news story perhaps and is thus mislabeled. This reference was initially put in by Music when he did the first major expansion so I'm sure there has just been a mix up over time. I and other editors have been checking all the references to make sure they back up what they are referencing. Thank you for discovering some that were incorrect, I doubt this is a big problem with the article though. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I have removed that bogus reference and replaced it with a reference that specifically backs up the fact that they originally were going to cast two new people, but decided on three. To answer your original questions, it was the producers who made the decision, which can already be extrapolated from the current sentence structure. The reference does not specifically say why but I'm sure the answer is probably just what is explained in this reference: , which is already referenced in the section. The fact that the producers fell in love with more characters than they thought they would. This can be quoted from Katie Jacobs in the section if you want. But I replaced the reference so this issue is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any more info on the style? That section feels a bit short.
    • Searched for it, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Maybe another editor comes across something, but I wouldn't count on it.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Addressed. I identified a couple more significant visual points in the Jacobs interview and added them to the section.—DCGeist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I like the additions. Anything else? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I've fleshed this out with observations from a couple of critics concerning the special effects. DocKino (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Added technical information on effects from extensive article on same.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The names are shown next to, or superimposed upon, old-fashioned anatomical drawings, X-ray images of the human body or graphic design images of body parts." and " with Morrison's name, but FOX disagreed. Instead, her title card shows an aerial shot of rowers on Princeton University's Lake Carnegie." There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The section "Series overview" is rife with the word "usually". Could you replace a few instances with a synonym?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Diagnoses range from relatively common to very rare diseases." This bit appears to be uncited.
    • Cited.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ""Everybody lies", or proclaims during the team's deliberations, "The patient is lying" or "The symptoms never lie"." This is phrased as if these are all three equivalent, but the last one has a totally different meaning, which I believe should be better drawn out in the surrounding text.
    • Done.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you don't mention Tritter in the overview? That whole saga would seem highly relevant to the paragraph on Vicodin.
    • The "Series overview" section is meant to explain what can be expected in any single episode, as most episodes of House can stand on their own for viewing purposes, regardless if the viewer is aware of what story arc is going on. Tritter is already fully mentioned in the recurring characters section and works better there in my opinion as he is a story arc. House's hallucinations are also a story arc, but I'm not really sure where a mention of him checking into the psychiatric hospital (which I think should be mentioned) would fit better than the paragraph on Vicodin in the overview, that's why that is mentioned there. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. Adding Tritter to the overview would disrupt the existing structure, which is logical and coherent.—DCGeist (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright, I see what you're trying to accomplish there. I think, though, that working along the same lines it would be best to move the stuff on the hallucinations and mental hospital to the recurring characters section under Amber (where some of it is already covered)
          • The problem with moving the mention of House's hallucinations and the psychiatric hospital to the recurring section is two-fold. Firstly House is not a recurring character and it would seem out of place there, whereas Tritter is and fits perfectly there. Secondly, the existing flow right now is House's hallucinations are explained at the end of series overview; in the main characters section one of the results of House's hallucination, he and Cuddy, is mentioned; in the recurring characters section another result of House's hallucinations, Amber, is mentioned. Everything flows and fits perfectly as it is, I don't think anything needs to be changed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, the current structure makes the most sense and should not be changed. From a copyediting perspective, if I saw the material on the hallucinations and the hospital introduced in the "Recurring characters" subsection, I'd move it right to where it is now. Please leave as is. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As of June 2009, there is no indication that a show featuring Douglas is under development." This is uncited, and in my opinion, borders on original research.
    • Well, this is one of those situations where common sense obliges us to flirt with what seems original research (what it actually represents, of course, is extensive research in search of any indication that a show is in development, the failure to find any, and the common sense conclusion that there is none). Without the sentence, the implication of the paragraph is that such a show is presently under development—an apparently false implication. There is no perfect solution to a case such as this, but the present solution is the one that best serves our readers. I'd oppose any change here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean, but I still see it as a problem. "No indication" carries an air of great authority. While Google search or LexisNexis searches may demonstrate no indication, perhaps an expert would know something that we don't (unless one of the editors here happens to be a TV producer). Is there anything you could possibly cite this to? Some TV columnist who has commented on the lack of any indication? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I just spent another solid chunk of time looking into this. There is simply no sign of anything happening on this and no authoritative source commenting on it since last fall. And I disagree that "'No indication' carries an air of great authority". It is merely and purely descriptive. If we flatly stated something like "Plans for the show have not progressed" that would be an overauthoritative claim. I think we're well within appropriate bounds here given the available information and lack thereof. DocKino (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The show has been nominated for various Golden Globe Awards" This would seem to imply that it received none. I would recommend adding "and received one". Also, how many total Golden Globe nominations has it received?
    • Rephrasing done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And total nominations added. Fully addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "For a charity action, American Apparel 100% cotton T-shirts bearing the phrase "Everybody Lies" were sold in limited numbers from April 23 to April 30, 2007." Any idea how many were sold? How much money was raised?
    • The ref doesn't say, info is unavailable.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • A reference did say they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the charity, so I have added this information in. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The following links in the citations section appear not to be working: 18, 19, 48, 65, 69, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113. Addendum, should the page be changed before these are addressed, the number refer to this version.
    • As described above—in response to my initial raising of the matter—that's a problem with the protected cite episode template. Once those in charge of the template resolve the issue, those links will be operable. There's no way to correct the problem on this end. We could eliminate the links entirely, but I think it's best to maintain them in faith that the template problem will be corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you just replace the spaces with underscores (_) the links will work properly. Cool3 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You are correct! Thank you. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In almost every episode, his investigatory method is to logically eliminate diagnoses as they are proved impossible; Holmes used a similar method." This is cited to the Hartford Courant. The actual article in that paper states the following and only the following: "House (Fox, 9 p.m.). Hugh Laurie is terrific as a bitter, brilliant doctor at a teaching college in Newark, N.J., who loves science but hates patients. With deductive abilities like those of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. House, who walks with a cane, is surrounded by three potential Watsons, who second-guess and follow the brilliant curmudgeon. Though it is marred by some of those useless into-the-bloodstream special effects, it's one of the smartest things on network TV. The main problem is that you'll have to wait nearly until Thanksgiving for this one. Nov. 16." Although it does mention Sherlock Holmes, it makes absolutely no mention of either House or Holmes logically eliminating anything.

• Sorry, sorry, sorry. I misread the deductive powers thing. I'm very very sorry. LonelyMarble found a ref to back it up. Again, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Source 34 is used to support the statement, "The pilot episode was filmed in Canada", the actual story from the Toronto Sun makes absolutely no reference to any such thing, although it does include the statement on the bin Laden tape (which is also cited to it)

• Removed.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Given that these three misrepresentations are the result of looking at just a few of the offline references, I can only assume that there may be other serious errors with the referencing, and I kindly ask other reviewers to help check the other refs. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The main patient in the pilot episode is named Rebecca Adler, after Irene Adler, a character in the first Holmes short story." is sourced to ref 16, which makes absolutely no mention of either Rebecca or Irene Adler, although there are some interesting comments on the House-Wilson/Holmes-Watson dynamic that might be worth including. Cool3 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, took the ref directly from the Pilot FA, with your database access you might be able to find a ref that does confirm this.--Music26/11 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cool3 did add a reference to back the Adler statement up, so this is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "House ultimately selects Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), a former plastic surgeon; Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn), a sports medicine specialist; and Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), an internist." This is undoubtedly true, but unsupported by the citation which says only "According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde and Peter Jacobson will be series regulars for the remainder of this "House" season. " Please supplement with another citation(s) containing the additional information.
    • Necessary supplements added. DocKino (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 124 refers to a story in the Daily Telegraph as having appeared on page N9. According to my sources, the article never appeared in print, but only the online edition. A link is available here.
    • Took care of this. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In Ref 133, the USA today story is misidentified. The correct name is "Note to 'House' fans : 'Things will never be the same' on the Fox series" (not drama as currently stated). The story also makes no reference to critics being "surprised" by the teams departure. (the story is available in the free preview here, the rest of the material is actually irrelevant under the subheading of "In other TV news"). The Hartford Courant story also doesn't say anyone was surprised. All that it really says is "'House' fans relax. True, the fourth season ended in May with the cantankerous doctor firing his staff or otherwise seeing it leave, followed by an announcement that many new faces would join the cast of the hit show when it returns this fall on Fox." with most of the rest devoted to news on the next season.Cool3 (talk)
    • And this as well. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for focusing in on this issue. I found a couple more cases in the "Critical reception" subsection. With one exception, I'll now vouch for all the sourcing from that section to the end of the article (that is, at the moment, citations 118 through 199 plus the few specific repeat appearances of citations introduced earlier in the article)--I did a lot of cleaning up of the lower sections in the past few weeks. The one exception is this, currently (20:29 EDT, June 17) citation 145: << "2006–07 primetime wrap". The Hollywood Reporter. Nielsen Business Media. May 25, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2008. (Subscription required) >>. The link is dead. I don't have any question about the data--it has been replicated in many sites that cloned the data from the Hollywood Reporter--but we do need a new authoritative source, unlesss we can verify the offline publication of this data. DocKino (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • I fixed the problem of the dead link for the Holly Reporter. The problem was the link in the article was going directly to the login page for subscribers, which was causing a problem. I replaced it with the link to the actual article and then the Hollywood Reporter site redirects you to the login page if you are not a subscriber, which solves the problem. This information is no doubt correct as there are plenty of mirrors and using references that require a subscription are perfectly fine, so I think the problem with this reference is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • All the reference problems identified by Cool3 have been corrected and resolved. All the rest of the questions and problems brought up by Cool3 have been addressed and (I think) resolved. The only thing left to do would be a final confirmation that all the references are correct. DocKino has already done this for a good chunk of the references. As it is right now, it appears all issues on this FAC page have been resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Has anyone conducted such a check yet? It appears that there are only about 100 left to verify, which while it might be a bit painstaking shouldn't take too long. Once someone is ready to vouch for those, I'm prepared to support. Cool3 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I will go through and check all the online sources for the references in the first part of the article that DocKino hasn't checked. I don't have immediate access to offline sources right now so I can't check those. You appear to have checked most of those already. If there are any others you could check that would be helpful. I can vouch for the two citations that reference the season 1 DVD. I have the DVD and have verified the information being referenced is mentioned and is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I have verified all of the offline refs except for those to books, and am prepared to vouch for them. Cool3 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can now vouch for all the references from the production section except for the last subsection Opening sequence (so currently I have checked references 1 - 62). I have to go for awhile, I only have 4 problems from my check, and there is only 1 reference I wasn't able to access at all: LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think the reference for this sentence backs it up: The resemblance is evident in House's reliance on psychology in problem-solving, even where it might not seem obviously applicable, and his reluctance to accept cases he finds uninteresting. The first part about psychology even when it is not obvious may be supported by this: "EVERYBODY LIES - House's mantra, based on his cynical yet usually accurate assumption that patients are always hiding something. Like the case of the lady with African sleeping sickness who swore she'd never been to Africa...while neglecting to mention she was cheating on her husband with someone who had been there." The other part isn't directly said but inferred, plus the fact that he only accepts cases he finds interesting doesn't really need a reference anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a reference at the end of the sentence for House not accepting cases he finds uninteresting. I also think the other reference backs up the psychology mention in the first part of the sentence, as it gives a good example of when a person's secrets are not always obvious. So this question is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reference I can't vouch for is the one after this line in the casting section: Leonard said that he had some familiarity with the medical profession, because his father-in-law was a doctor. (currently reference 41) The link wouldn't load in my browser, maybe someone else can have more success, that sentence can easily just be deleted if it can't be verified. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I've listened to the interview (the link takes you to an audio file). It's true that his father in law is a doctor, but the interview doesn't really back up what the article says. Here's the quote as best I can transcribe it: "But yea the writing is remarkable; my father in law is a doctor and he's really ... he said you know you guys you know ...we cheat on the time a little bit like when the medicine kicks in or how quickly someone gets better but the medicine and what's wrong with people and the diagnoses are all totally researched and backed up. It's totally remarkable what the writers come up with." The interview also has a few tidbits on the nurse who's there when they film that might be worth including: "Once we're on the set we have a nurse there named Bobbin(?) believe it or not who's great and she you know so far as when someone has to be intubated or given a shot or just stupid stuff she'll help us because we're all idiot actors we don't know what we're doing." (to get to where both of these are said skip to about 2/3 of the way through the interview). Cool3 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've cut the sentence about familiarity, given that it is weakly supported at best and not all that pertinent.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The info regarding Hugh's salary was a bit messed up. The reference to support the $100,000 per episode didn't quite do it because the figure was actually in pounds. I reworded the sentences so everything regarding this is resolved, but if anyone wants to research his past salaries some more go for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The locations section of the filming section was a bit messed up. The reference for the line stating shots of UCLA and USC are used for exterior shots of PPTH was not sufficient. The reference was only of one instance that the show shot at USC, I changed the wording to reflect this. The info right now is backed by the references, the only thing that could be done is add in a reference about the exterior shots of PPTH because that is unreferenced at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added in a reference for the PPTH aerial shots and also added in the info that the series' setting was because Singer's hometown is Princeton. So everything in this section is referenced and the refences check out. This paragraph has the potential for expansion but as it is now it's fine. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Working my way backwards, I can now vouch for all the citations from "Recurring characters" on down (104–203, at the moment). However, every single one of the sources cited for the occupations of the four eliminated audition finalists was irrelevant and had to be cut. An existing source gives Volakis's occupation, but I couldn't find anything up-to-standard online for Brennan, Cole, or Dobson. If we want to list their occupations, it looks like we'll have to give the appropriate episode cites. Is someone equipped to do that? DocKino (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Good work, looks like we're almost there. As for the occupations, this article form USA Today should be moderately helpful. It confirms Brennan as an epidemiologist. As for Dobson it says "In the last episode, he revealed he is not a physician but had learned by working for 30 years at a medical school," which probably isn't quite good enough and should be supplemented (though it does at least tell us where to look). Unfortunately, it has nothing on Cole's specialty. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for picking up on the Brennan info in the source. I provided an episode cite for Dobson--his background as a medical school admissions officer is unambiguously stated in the show. No good evidence has been found for the claim that Cole is a geneticist. LonelyMarble did a transcript search (as did I) and there is simply no in-universe indication that this is true. No Fox press release, official Fox online statement, or professionally published article supports the claim either. As a result, the "geneticist" claim has been cut. Referencing work now complete for citations 104 on down. DocKino (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Great work. Looks like the only references not double-checked and verified are references 63-103, only 40 more. I intend to do this sometime tomorrow as I should have a good chunk of time to devote to it. Anyone is free to start checking the references left in the meantime, but I intend to finish what's left of the references tomorrow when I have more time and am not as tired as I am right now. This was good that Cool3 brought this issue up. There weren't that many problems but there were enough mistakes and other problems that the article continues to really improve. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I just tackled "Main characters" (so now covering citations 85 on down). I can vouch for everything except one claim and the content of two refs:
        • The claim: "Dr. James Wilson...is the head of the Department of Oncology." There's lots of evidence that he's an oncologist, but I haven't been able to pin down a source for the claim that he's "the head of the Department of Oncology."
          • Wilson is definitely the department head like House. I'll find an episode site for this. I had also noticed Cameron's job description earlier and thought it was possibly a little off because I remember her being described as the "senior attending physician". I think however the way it works is there are a couple senior attendings in the ER and then one of those seniors is also the head. So I think the way you did it with the extra note is the best way. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I added an episode cite for Wilson, 1x07. Cuddy specifically calls House and Wilson "department heads". Wilson being the department head is seen in a lot of episodes, this episode may be the first time in the series it's clearly spelled out though. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The refs: The two offline ones: <<Kochman, David (August 8, 2007). "House The nasty docs tests his new victims...er, staffers". TV Guide. pp. 41–42.>> (currently #95) and <<"Spoiler Alert: House Selects Three Regulars". Virginian-Pilot. October 7, 2007. p. E2.>> (currently #99). DocKino (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for those two refs.--Music26/11 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have just gone through the Series overview section and I can vouch for all the references and information there being correct. The only thing is an offline reference to Playboy is cited 4 times and an offline reference to the book by Paul Challen is cited 5 times. The information cited by the offline references is just basic in-universe plot info. But can anyone vouch for the offline references in this section? If so, this section is all set. Also, is there anyone that can vouch for all the references to the Challen book that appear throughout the article? LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've double-checked almost all the Challen refs via Google Book Search. I'm happy to give them all another pass for final verification. DocKino (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• All Challen refs checked and appropriate edits made.
• One last issue, I have. LonelyMarble, great job expanding and refining the "Opening sequence" subsection. But it now strikes me as weird that we describe the images accompanying the names of four of the six featured actors, but not that of the lead. We need to make clear how Laurie's name is presented. Given that we would then be describing the presentation of six of the seven names featured in the sequence, it would seem odd to omit only Leonard. What do you think about completing the description by mentioning both of them? DocKino (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Terrific job, LM. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was already working on doing just that before you made the comment here (hence how I added it in 4 minutes later). So we were thinking along the same lines. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for the playboy ref.--Music26/11 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that Music2611's "vouch" for this ref is worthless, a remarkable thing at this point in the process. I tracked down the Playboy interview online--of the three specific claims it has been cited for, it does not support a single one. There is zero discussion of the "pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptom"; there is zero suggestion that the team's attempted treatments "often fail until the patient's condition is critical"; there is zero discussion of House's clinic duty, let alone that his "grudging fulfillment of this duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. And yet it was "vouched" for. Unbelievable. Please tell us why we should put any stock in the vouching for the TV Guide and Virginian-Pilot refs above.
• Luckily, I believe all of the claims relating to sources M2611 has "vouched for" can be covered with other sources. LM, you may be better equipped to do that than I am right now. I'm cutting the Playboy refs and waiting for...what would I trust?...faxes of the other two refs, which appear in the "Main characters" section. This article is in very, very strong shape now--it's unfortunate that we still have to contend with this last...situation. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I found the article online too, however, I own that particular playboy (yes, you can laugh at me for it but that's not the point right now), the printed version contains a "regular house episode", I can scan it if you want (although then I have to find out how the damn machine works). Anyhow, the other two sources can be traced back here (registration required) and here /.--Music26/11 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The other two refs turned out not to be necessary, and referring to the actual episodes actually improved the text of the "Main characters" section. As for the Playboy, maybe we can forego the scan. Can you explain in more detail what you mean when you say it contains a "regular house episode"? And could you give us the quotations upon which the three claims in question are based:
  • Most episodes revolve around the diagnosis of a primary patient and start with a pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptoms.
    • A reference explaining how the "cold open" works to back this sentence up is still needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I added an online reference to support this sentence. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • attempts often fail until the patient's condition is critical.
    • Found an online reference to back this, says they often almost kill the patient. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • His grudging fulfillment of this duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. .
    • Same online reference makes it clear this is a "weekly comedic subplot". LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. (Music2611, I apologize for overreacting. I should have checked with you to see if there was material in the print version--which, after all, is what you cited--that didn't appear in the online version.) DocKino (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• We've all been working really hard on this article, and looks like we finally may be pretty much "done". I could use a break to read that particular Playboy (just for Hugh Laurie's interview of course). LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are still 3 offline references in the series overview section (currently 74, 75, 78). 74 and 75 are newspapers and Cool3 has said he can vouch for all the offline references except the books. 78 is a book though. Any verification of this reference? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The book's text is accessible on Amazon. I did a word search on "clinic" and looked through the pages where it appeared. While the book (Leah Wilson, House Unauthorized) was useful on a few points, I did not find support for the passage for which it was being cited: "During clinic duty, House confounds patients with unwelcome observations into their personal lives, eccentric prescriptions, and unorthodox treatments. However, after seeming to be inattentive to their complaints, he regularly impresses them with rapid and accurate diagnoses." Maybe you might give it a look over to see if you can find sufficient evidence for that...or we may need to seek out another source...or, of course, reword or trim the passage. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Everything in these two sentences can be cited from the pilot episode. I can think of a bunch of examples in other early episodes as well, but I think a pilot cite is good enough. Plus for the second sentence I think I found a pretty good reference showing how he is able to make rapid and accurate diagnoses (while not actually even doing that much). Are there are any other reference problems, I think we may have finally finished. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a couple book refs to the surrounding passages, as well. Yes, I believe the entire article is properly and comprehensively ref'ed now. DocKino (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• As a die-hard fan of the show, I look forward to supporting once these are addressed :). Cool3 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Images comments:

• File:Robert Sean LeonardCrop.JPG is a flipped and cropped version of File:Robert_Sean_Leonard.jpg. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines ".
  • Image has been replaced.--Music26/11 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing how File:HouseCastSeason1.jpg adds much to the article. Two of the characters essentially look exactly the same in their free images, and the rest of the characters have their own articles. Considering there is little in the summaries about their appearance, costumes, et al that would warrant the images as subject of commentary, I'd remove the image (basically, analogous to image concerns in Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter.)
  • Sorry but I'm not going over this again, the previous FAc was dominated by this discussion and we eventually had more people supporting than opposing the image. If you would like to start this discussion again, please take it elsewhere, else we would have the same problem all over again.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images appropriately tagged and licensed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fuchs is correct that images of persons should not be flipped to meet a placement/facing guideline (or, really, for any other reason).
• As Music points out, the cast photo has been extensively discussed, and a final image selected that best serves our readers within the letter and the intention of our image policy. The ability to visualize the core cast of a TV series is essential information about the show, and goes to the heart of criterion 1b. The fact that there are separate articles on the characters is irrelevant—readers should not be obliged to move around to multiple articles to acquire this basic information about the show in question. House's cane is also referred to multiple times in the article—it and his posture relevant to it constitute significant visual information. Furthermore, the information I have added to the Filming style underscores the visual importance of Laurie's height. While I suppose a police-style lineup image might be ideal, the present image does explicate Laurie's stature relative to the rest of the cast, even with his stoop.—DCGeist (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then the fair use rationale needs to be expanded; right now it reads as "this illustrates something", which is always a poor reason for anything without elaboration. Also, that reminds me, we need the original location of the image; linking to the raw .jpg is nice, but for source the location it appears is more important. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right. I'll deal with the rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also want to point out that the image shows House's lack of a white coat compared to the other doctors, which is somewhat mentioned in the conception section. When the reader gets to the characters section they'll see a result of that conversation mentioned. DCGeist did a nice job with the fair-use rationale. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I recropped the image of Leonard without improperly flipping it; uploaded the new crop to Commons; and brought the properly oriented crop into the article.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if this screws up your work, but I replaced the image with an image of Edelstein. I think it fits better.--Music26/11 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up: Lonely Marble has substituted a still further improved (and properly oriented) crop.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Princeton Frist Campus Center back.jpg. The file says it was released under the CC-BY-3.0 license by the author, but the author is not the uploader. The file was uploaded to Commons by Commons user Kyro, but is credited to Jterrace here on en, and there's no indication on the description page that he actually has confirmed the license of the image. While there's about a 99.9% chance that everything is perfectly fine here, I think that in an FA we should have confirmation from Jterrace that he indeed took the picture and has agreed to license it in this fashion. Although Jterrace does not seem to be too active, he has the EMail use function enabled, so that's probably the best way for someone to get in touch with him. Cool3 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe Commons user Kyro should be contacted about this, he might know Jterrace personally. He seems to be a trusted and established user on Commons. If you think the licensing needs verification this should be brought up on Commons as that site is the one hosting the image and Commons does not host non-free images. If you brought this article up for deletion on Commons I suspect it would kept either by resolving the issue or on good faith of user Kyro. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I solved the issue. If you look at the history of revisions to the Commons page for the image you can see that the image was originally uploaded to Misplaced Pages and then deleted after it was moved to Commons. See the original version of the page: . Jterrace I'm assuming uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages. This can easily be confirmed by an admin by seeing the record of the deleted Misplaced Pages page for the image or a record of Jterrace's contributions. Jterrace originally posted the file to the Frist Campus Center Misplaced Pages page: . LonelyMarble (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not bringing this up, but the original copy (en.wp) was uploaded by JTerrace, which is why I didn't bring the issue up. Unfortunately bot migrations to commons often screw up the original info. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Is there anyone really against removing this image. I mean it doesn't really add anything to the article. If the decision is made this image could be placed in the article instead, since filming also takes place there.--Music26/11 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm against removing. The shot of Frist Campus Center for the hospital is shown in pretty much every episode and usually more than once. I don't know why you would want to remove a free image of PPTH and substitute it for an image of a building that is only going to be used for season 6. An aerial shot of the campus center would be the most ideal image but I think this free one is still good; perhaps the caption should be more clear that this is what PPTH looks like. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, does this mean that the above discussion is solved? Great work on the lead thing below by the way.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the problem was the image says the author is Jterrace but the user who uploaded it to Commons is Kyro. The image was originally uploaded to Misplaced Pages by Jterrace, so the original uploader and author are the same. This information just got a little lost when the image was transferred to Commons. David Fuchs is an admin so he can see the deleted records and he confirmed this. So everything is fine with this image, the license is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• My bad.--Music26/11 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Weak. Maybe good enough to be a Featured Article but I think it could be better. Intro too long. Please see comments on the House talk page for more details. (I'll elaborate later, I've written this comment more than once, previewed it, checked details but not actually submitted it. -- Horkana (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To quickly address my concerns with more brevity than I did on the talk page: Sherlock Holmes references are interesting but it is a comparison best explained in the main article, the mention in the lead is too long. The production details about who came up with what aspects of the show are interesting but the introduction should not go into detail behond mentioning David Shore who is listed in the credits as the producer. House is critically acclaimed and highly rated, no doubts there but isn't one example enough for the introduction if an example even needs to be provided in the lead. -- Horkana (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretations of WP:Lead section and WP:Article length are not correct. First of all, the most important thing to evaluate in regards to article length is readable prose. That article size number that you see in the history page or when you edit a page does not mean much because it includes all the references and other things that are not a part of readable prose. The current readable prose size of this article is about ~40 KB (read WP:Article length for a definition of readable prose). The guideline at WP:Article length states:

Readable prose size What to do

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division

The most important thing to note here is that the only thing that matters is readable prose and this article's readable prose size is about 40 KB, therefore the length of this article is pretty much perfect and is perfectly within limits to expand with more prose. The current total article size of House right now is 109 KB, but that number does not really matter. This article has almost 200 references, that is why the total article size is so large. Finally, the guideline at WP:Lead section states that an article with >32 KB of readable prose should have a lead section of 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article has 3 paragraphs that summarize all the major points of the article very well. The lead is a perfect length. I suggest you look at other featured articles to get an idea of how long leads should be, and also keep in mind that the most important thing when evaluating an article's size is readable prose. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a more accurate assessment of readable prose size and I'd say the current number is 37 KB. So more expansion with any new useful information, or for sections that seem a little short, or in the future for more information about the new seasons, is perfectly fine. The readable prose size is not that large. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have been hasty about the article length, admittedly there is a lot to cover. However the introduction could keep it short and sweet and stick to introducing the article and leave the rest to be explained later. You interpret a 3-4 paragraph length introduction like a target rather than an upper limit, I disagree. There is a temptation to write a long "summary" as the introduction. The fact the writers have made the deliberate to connections between House and Holmes can be made in a single short sentence, with the examples and references provided in the article. Again the fact that House has been critically praised can be expressed succinctly. Many editors seem okay with having articles with introductions the size of a small article, the featured articles I've seen seem to back that up. I would point you to The West Wing as an example of a good introduction and it is for a television series that ran longer then house and could potentially have a much longer introduction (but it doesn't need more to just introduce the article). There are many editors in love with their own words and who do not want to keep introductions short, even going forcing thing to grouping together things which don't belong in order to keep the paragraph count down. In the House article for example the not about House having run for 5 seasons and being renewed for a 6th is logically separate from the text before it and would benefit from being spaced further apart and not stuck so much on the proceeding text. It's only a weak oppose, this article will be no less sprawling than the many other articles which have been deemed adequate for featured article status. -- Horkana (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to guess if the lead was shortened to the length you want there would be many editors who would not support it as a featured article until the lead was expanded. The lead of this article is perfectly within featured article criteria and Misplaced Pages guidelines. The lead is not just an "introduction". It introduces the article by summarizing all the major points of the article so that the lead can stand alone on its own, so readers will have a basic knowledge of the topic. That is why the length of the lead directly depends on the length of the article. This article is sufficiently long enough to warrant a lead of the length it currently has. Regarding The West Wing, it is not a featured article and its lead is not even that well organized. Most people would probably say The West Wing's lead should even be expanded a bit. You either have an unusual interpretation of WP:Lead section or you are not reading that guideline carefully enough. If you simply have a different opinion and interpretation, there's not much else to say here. You have the right to oppose, but I don't know what the point of your oppose is except that you disagree with core Misplaced Pages style guidelines, which is a problem you should take up elsewhere, not here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To further address specific things you mentioned, Sherlock Holmes comparisons is mentioned because there is a full long section on the comparison. Also the Holmes mention doubles in usefulness because it also lets the reader know some key facts about the character of House. The fact that House has been critically praised is currently expressed succinctly, the reception paragraph in The West Wing is longer than this article's. Finally the mention of the show running for 5 seasons does not need its own paragraph and one sentence paragraphs are strongly discouraged for good reason. The sentence flows fine in that paragraph as the show's ratings specific to its seasons is mentioned earlier. If there is a big section about a topic in an article, it is usually warranted a sentence in the lead. That is how lead sections work. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Amazing work. The episode refs don't seem to have directors in it, which I would include, as well, TIME magazine recently reported House as being the most popular TV show due to it's ratings, which I don't see mentioned. Other than that, very good. The Flash 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the directors for all the episode references, so that is done. As for being the most popular TV show, it is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and in the Distribution section, that House was the most-watched program of 2008 in the world. House's specific ratings in the U.S. has its own subsection, and ratings in other countries are included in the Distribution section. So I'm not exactly sure what information you think is missing, but if you have a link to the Time magazine article you are referring to, any relevant information from it can be incorporated. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Flash appears to be referring to the "Pop Chart" in the current issue of Time. It's a compendium of pop culture factoids with one-liner joking commentary; the two sentences on House don't convey any worthwhile information that isn't already better articulated and sourced in our article. It's nothing that needs to be cited. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Great job LonelyMarble, DocKino and Music, and everyone else who contributed. With the resolution of the referencing problems, I think this is there. Cool3 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 .

Cheadle Hulme

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has pretty much been my baby for the past few months. It was made a GA at the beginning of May, and it has had a very detailed peer review. It's about as comprehensive a source as you can get on the town (or village, not sure which it is) anywhere really. As my history teacher used to say, I literally squeezed every source like a lemon to ensure it was as comprehensive as possible. It was even more detailed before, but this has been cut down significantly. Hopefully the prose is up to scratch, as that was the article's weakest point. I'd like to credit people from WP:GM who have been very helpful to me, giving me advice on all sorts of things. They know who they are - you are very much appreciated. Thanks for your comments, Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
• The article looks pretty good, not yet sure if its FA status but with help from Malleus and Nev1...
  • Evidence of Bronze Age, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon activity has been discovered locally. - Like what? Just because you are summarizing doesn't mean you can leave out major details such as this. :)

• Added examples. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is possible to get a more recent consensus number? Excuse me if England performs it like the US, every ten years.

• Sadly not really possible. As in the US, the UK has a census every ten years. I'll be sure to update in 2011 :) PS I think the wikiculture has affected you when you typo census as "consensus" :) Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Valued at £20 - It would be really, really cool if you could use a source to find how much this cost has inflated.

• Could be difficult. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Inflation only goes back as far as 1264, and unfortunately I don't know of any reliable estimates for how much this would be today. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Danyers was rewarded for his efforts in the crusades through an annual payment from the king of 40 marks, as well as the gift of Lyme Hall. - In the Crusades article, the titular name is capitalized, it should be here, too.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • For many years Cheadle Hulme was rural countryside, consisting of woods, open land, and farms. - I think made up of would be a better word choice than consisting, it seems to fit better, IMO.

• Changed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Link corn mill.

• Done. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how fast you complete these, I have a couple more concerns before I support. ceranthor 13:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Turns out there weren't any actionable concerns, so I think this is ready. ceranthor 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (Specifically I noted UKBMD.org.uk and SMBC)

• Done - I changed UKBMD.org.uk to GENUKI (which is always referred to as such). Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 31 (Met Office ..) is lacking a last access date.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Decide and stick with one: either Stockport MBC (and explain it), SMBC (and explain it first usage) or Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council...

• Done, I opted for the last one. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

• Done. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.filmreference.com/film/55/Tim-McInnerny.html
    • I'm not sure what makes it unreliable - however the only other source that wasn't a copy of IMDB or Misplaced Pages seems to be this, which is published by Newsquest. I don't know if it would be more appropriate. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find anything on their site about their editorial processes, etc. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Me neither. This source is probably better. Majorly talk 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Definitely. I'll mark this resolved and you can change out the refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://shed-insider.net/index.php?title=WR_Series_1_Press_Pack_Lauren_Drummond_Interview

• Hmm, I know it's an unofficial website, but I don't know why they'd fake an interview they had with her. Otherwise I can't find any other sources (other than one hosted on freewebs) of this fact. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. A lot will depend on what's sourced to it (and since this is basically not something that's negative I'm assuming, it probalby is bearable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've decided to remove it. It is supposed to just be a selection, and not an exhaustive list anyway. Majorly talk 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.whydelilah.co.uk/

• It looks like a fan site, and I can't find any other reliable sources for him. I'll remove him from the list. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support with comments (none dealbreaking, but "weak" unless/until #3 is resolved)

1. The lead photo (of the road) is a bit "meh". There's nothing particularly distinctive about this road; would it make more sense to have either an "iconic" building, or something typical of the area? (See Altrincham, Sheerness or Westgate-on-Sea for the kind of things I mean.) Remember, most readers will never have heard of CH and their first reaction will be "It's got a road and a tree? So what?". I'd suggest this one of yours from Flickr – I'm sure Durova & co at WP:GL could "blueify" the washed-out sky – or this one looks quite scenic and less it's-grim-up-north.

   Thanks for the support. I have to agree with you, I really don't like the main picture. However, it really does represent the area quite well. The pic of Bramall Hall is all very well - but Bramall Hall is more connected with Bramhall than Cheadle Hulme. And the viaduct is a little out of the way of the main centre. The fact is, the pic there now represents the "district centre" of Cheadle Hulme. I could go out and take a better pic - in fact I believe I have quite a few pics of the area. But, Station Road is really the main part of Cheadle Hulme. How about I get one of the two railway bridges? They surely define it quite well. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Scratch that, the bridges are ugly as sin. The problem here is it's such a large and varied area, there's not one thing that would represent it well. Would a montage be appropriate? Majorly talk 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   How about "typical houses" or "parade of shops", or something like that? Even "ugly tower blocks" can work quite well – or if there's a hill or a tall building nearby, a view of the area can be quite good. Remember, the lead image is explicitly exempt from the MOSIMAGE Police's rulings on forced image widths, as long as you don't go over 300px in width, so you can get away with images that would be unusable at the low thumbnail size. – iridescent 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I went for a pic of the railway viaduct in the end, though not the one on flickr. Majorly talk 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The bit about "The modern-day Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College" sits a bit oddly in "Early history" – it would probably make more sense in "Education", with at most a footnote in the Early history section.

   Yes, I agree. I'll get moving it. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3. My usual post on urban geography articles; what was the impact on the area of the 19th century transport revolution? You mention urban growth in one section, and the railways in another, but in an urban-industrial area like modern Manchester the two are intimately connected (in the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation this phenomenon is particularly apparent – even now, the built-up areas follow the routes of often long-closed railway lines and canals). Was the rapid growth implied in the Modern history section a result of the 1842 station making CH a commuter town, or that the opening of a station meant that mills opened in CH itself and people moved there to work in them? You briefly touch on this in the "Economy" section, but only briefly – the history of the massive social, geographic and economic change in 19th century Britain is the history of transport (from railway-induced industrialisation, to the steam-powered gunboat, to cheap international bulk-shipping).

   I'll see to work on this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I've expanded this slightly, but there isn't all that much to go off when it comes to sources. The early 20th century population boost was due to people moving from Manchester to live in the area, with the car being more popular it was easier than ever to commute to work that way. It had little to do with the railway as such. The effect from 1845, when the current station opened is, I think, explained in the article sufficiently. Majorly talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

4. "Anciently" is a bit of an odd word. Would "formerly" or "historically" be usable?

   Yes, I'll change it to historically. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Changed. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

5. "A corn mill, which collapsed during the First World War" – is this expandable? And was the collapse linked to the war (either direct bombing or lack of maintenance with workers off fighting) – if not, it might be better to just say "in 1915" (or whenever).

   Hmm, I don't think there was anything else from the source I used. I expect it collapsed from lack of maintenance, but I'm not sure. I'll see if rewording it is better. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I reworded it slightly. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6. The transport section should probably give the travelling time to Manchester and at least a rough train frequency, to give non-Mancs some sense of CH's degree of isolation from the rest of Manchester; "trains run every 20 minutes" would make it clear that it's not an isolated outpost. Since there's no value judgement involved, I'd consider a timetable to be a RS for these purposes.

   Well, this is given in more detail in the railway station article, but I'll add something. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

7. "There are restaurants throughout the area that sell food in styles from all over the world, including Indian, Chinese, and Italian" could be describing pretty much any town center in Europe or North America. Anything particularly distinctive or unusual (award winners, first-in-the-northwest, waiters all dress as Elvis and sing while you eat, etc). Not saying this shouldn't be mentioned, but it just seems a bit of a so-what? way to end a section.

   It is a bit vague, and I don't believe there is anything particularly special (some famous people have eaten in the Chinese restaurants that I know of, but nothing really remarkable). Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Rearranged. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

8. I've no idea if it was or not, but if it was bombed in either war or subject to any significant IRA bombings, that probably warrants a mention.

   I don't think it was, not a single source I have mentions a bombing. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'll have to leave this one as "not done", but it's not really actionable. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

9. The separation of the "Notable residents" section into "Notable talented people" and "Notable people" reads quite oddly. I can kind of see why you've done it this way – to keep the Big Brother contestant separate from the Great Artists – but it's an arbitrary line (that Julian Turner is "talented" but Felicity Peake wasn't is surely debatable).

   I'll see what I can do with this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I merged them. It's more like one long sentence now. I don't know if that's worse or better than before. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I say, none are dealbreakers worth opposing over, but I think the transport history thing in particular could do with a polishing up. – iridescent 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll get working on them. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I could probably list a few dozen examples of minor MoS breaches and redundant words, but on the whole I think it's ready. FA by no means equates to perfection. –Juliancolton |  18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do list them, or fix them. Better to be better than worse. Majorly talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a couple fixes, but everything else seems to have been resolved already.

• Images look fine as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton |  17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Before this FAC I gave the article a run through. The article was (and of course still is) comprehensive and my only concern was some minor copyediting which was addressed very well by a peer review from Finetooth (talk · contribs). I would have supported the article at the start of its FAC and after further tweaks its even easier for me to declare my support. Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 .

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another of the 2008 race reports. Special thanks go to AlexJ for his peer review and Midgrid and Malleus Fatuorum for their respective copy edits. Fire away! Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't you mean "Gentlemen, start your engines"? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think the engines were already started, tyre warmers off, etc. ;) Apterygial 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool is showing a dead link, but it worked when I clicked through) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are websites listed in the sources in italics? See WP:ITALICS, they are used for periodicals, journals, newspapers. If those websites represent hard print sources, the name should be used; otherwise, they shouldn't be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Apterygial 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a minor point, but there are valid citation guides out there that use italics for titles (For example the Modern Humanities Research Association, a standard in many UK Universities) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "at the Circuit de Monaco, the sixth race of the 2008 Formula One season." The last part doesn't fit in well with the sentence as a whole. I recommend structuring it like 1995 European Grand Prix, another Grand Prix page currently at FAC. A similar change is needed later in the article.
• "was won by the season's eventual Driver's Champions Lewis Hamilton for the McLaren team." Commas before and after name?
• "with 12 races of the seasons remaining." → "with 12 races remaining in the season." Wonder if the last three words could be dropped.
  • This one wasn't changed. Do you want to leave it? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't notice this one. I think it is probably worth keeping it there for clarity's sake. I'm not really big on it, so I'll remove it if you feel it's necessary. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hyphens for "five place" and "second fastest"?
• "with only Piquet starting the race on the extreme wet." One of these awkward "with" and -ing structures. Try "; only Piquet started the race on the extreme wet."
• "but the damage to Sutil's rear suspension forced him to the pits and retirement." Eliminate a coule words and there would be "forced him to retirement." Needs a tweak.
• "resulting in his pass on Massa. Massa...". Please structure this so Massa's name is not used consecutively.
  • Found another one like this: "and he emerged 13 seconds ahead of Massa. Massa's...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "three-times" → "three-time".
• References 9 and 10 are identical and can be combined.
• The Times Online publisher needs italics. Also, make all autosport.com references into Autosport. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply. All done except for "second-fastest", which I do not think would be correct in the sentence: "Hamilton managed second fastest, ahead of Räikkönen, Rosberg, Kubica and Massa" as it is not being used as an adjective. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 10 should have been another Autosport article (I must have copied it and not changed the details), so I've fixed it. Apterygial 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Nothing about qualifying in the lead.
  • I felt that since qualifying is only there to determine grid positions, you might as well just say what grid position they started at when you describe the race. Seems fairly normal in F1 articles. The race is the important part, after all. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it shouldbe mention though. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What would you suggest? I've said Massa had pole and Hamilton started from third and passed Räikkönen for the lead... I can't see what more from qualifying would be relevant without becoming superfluous. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Felipe Massa was second with 28 points. McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was third, also on 28 points" so why wasn't Hamilton joint second?
  • The rules for ties are described here. Might be helpful to add a short bit explaining that he was third because of Massa's higher average finishing position or whatever though, I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Image captions need punctuation.
  • Image captions should be punctuated according to the Manual of Style, which they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • They need full stops.
      • Not if they are only sentence fragments, as outlined in the part of the MOS Malleus linked to. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why the image of Räikkönen in the "Background" section?
  • There were no decent pictures of him during the race, and I thought it would be good to see what he looks like. He's featured talking in the background section.
    • Give it a caption to justify this. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "deployed on lap 62 after Rosberg crashed at Piscine" comma after 62
  • Don't agree that the comma is even desirable, much less necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's necessary. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• With the Classification tables, does the ref need to be part of the table on it's own row. I think it looks a bit odd.
  • That was the best we could come up with, and it is a lot better than having it at every stat or like this, which are the next best options. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BUC (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this looks good. I made several fixes that more subjective, so feel free to revert me. For example, you have a slight penchant for anthropomorphisms ("Sunday morning saw...") that usually don't belong in professional prose. Good work. I am particularly pleased to see some of the things explained (like the confusing fuel situation after qualifying) that previously confounded me when I read race articles. It's good to see WikiProjects apparently absorbing feedback from past FACs and applying it to other articles they bring here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As Apterygial said in his/her nomination statement, I did some copyediting on this article, but there really wasn't that much to do, just a bit of tidying up. Like Laser brain, I was impressed at the efforts taken to explain the more arcane aspects of formula one racing, and I think this article deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I found this to be a great read, and the writing does seem superior to previous Grand Prix FAs. Jargon, a concern in past FACs, has been handled well, and the copy-editing helped a great deal. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Apterygial 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: per

Please do so for the Classification section. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this without contravening WP:F1 guidelines, used in almost 1000 articles. Is there any chance that these guidelines could overrule the MoS here? Note that I've started a conversation about it here. Apterygial 08:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an example given on the MOS page which points us to List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions. This example appears to use them in the style similar to the F1 tables. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nine-ball is using what the MOS states: name the country next to the flag (although it is using it throughout instead of the first list). This F1 article is simply printing the flags without naming the country. Jappalang (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not by my reading. It uses flag locations in the location table but with no regard to if that is the first use of the flag and not all flags present in the table are present in the location column (Canadian for example, which appears only as a flag icon). I'm one of the first to say that F1 articles overuse flags but when conveying a drivers nationality in a succint fashion in tables it can be useful. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? ' UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

←I've removed the flags, so they don't get in the way of this FAC, and in the meantime at WT:F1 we'll keep discussing a way which fulfils the MoS. The flags aren't important enough that they need to be there, after all. Apterygial 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments struck, continuing discussion at WT:F1 in the thread mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:01, 20 June 2009 .

On the Origin of Species

Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... A group of editors have been working on this article for several months in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time to be featured on the main page for the 150th anniversary of Origin's first publication on November 24th. We now believe it is ready for FAC. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there is a misuse of the {{main}} template (I raise this because I'm seeing it on a number of FACs). The main template is used when this article is a summary of the linked article. If the linked article isn't fully summarized here, then the seealso or further templates should be used instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with this, as the sections here include information which isn't necessarily in the "main" articles and are more focussed on the book than they are. If Rusty has no objections, will change to {{seealso}} throughout. . . dave souza, talk 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree also and it is done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as a significant contributor to the article before its nomination. In my view this gives concise, comprehensive and fully researched coverage of this significant publication, including the background development and publication of the book, the "one long argument" it puts forward, and its impact on science and society. Care has been taken to meet the style guidelines and incorporate suitable images. . dave souza, talk 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Darwin's book introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection". I'm troubled by the absence of the critical distinction between natural and sexual selection—a distinction Darwin himself made by sequestering his discussion of the latter into a 16-page chapter in this book. Some people believe sexual selection is but a subset of natural selection, but this is belied in the opening definition of natural selection, linked to in the first paragraph of this nomination:

Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

By contrast, sexual selection does not concern surviving "long enough to reproduce", but gaining access to the reproductive resources of the opposite sex, largely through the successful display of fitness indicators. In the celebrated example of the male peacock, these imperatives are at odds with each other. The subsection on Sexual selection in Natural selection starts thus:

It is useful to distinguish between "ecological selection" and the narrower term "sexual selection". Ecological selection covers any mechanism of selection as a result of the environment (including relatives, e.g. kin selection, competition, and infanticide), while "sexual selection" refers specifically to competition for mates.

I think the assertion that sexual selection is "narrower" than ecological selection is hard to defend, actually. The confusion continues:

Although a complete theory of evolution also requires an account of how genetic variation arises in the first place (such as by mutation and sexual reproduction) and includes other evolutionary mechanisms (such as gene flow), natural selection is still understood as a fundamental mechanism for evolution.

In the nomination, sexual selection gets a passing mention in a solitary sentence fragment—buried in the middle of the article—that appears to be out of step with its significance and, through omission, inaccurate.

Please comment. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the first edition, which is the main focus of this article, Sexual Selection is a section of Chapter IV: Natural Selection, and is covered on pages 87–90. The article covers it in a full sentence in the section on that chapter. In the sixth edition, it appears in the same Chapter IV: Natural Selection, on pages 69–70. The reduced number of pages probably reflects the small print of that edition rather than any drastic change. I think the coverage here is proportionate, and the more extended coverage you suggest belongs in the article on The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex where Darwin developed his ideas on the subject. Perhaps a mention of him having extended his ideas on the subject in that other book would be useful. . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your comments on the deficiencies of a linked article, and have boldly altered the opening definition of natural selection to read "Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population." as well as noting the importance of sexual selection in the lead to that article, and deleting "the narrower term" from the section on sexual selection. Doubtless that article needs further improvement by someone with more expertise on modern biology rather than the historical development which is my interest. . . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Tony (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Per a suggestion Dave made on my talk page, I have added another sentence to make it clear that Darwin's primary treatment of sexual selection was in his later work Descent of Man (1871). Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Minor comment The ISBN in the infobox is for the