Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2009: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:47, 9 June 2009 editKaranacs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,644 edits archive 2← Previous edit Revision as of 00:28, 14 June 2009 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits archive 7Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
== June 2009 == == June 2009 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Albert Einstein/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Twitter/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Norton Internet Security/archive2}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1995 European Grand Prix/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mariano Rivera/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Necrid/archive3}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Necrid/archive3}}

Revision as of 00:28, 14 June 2009

June 2009

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 SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Albert Einstein

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Although I have not been an active contributor to this article thusfar I am nominating this for featured article because this article was previously delisted from Featured article status and all of the identified errors appear to have been fixed. Additionally, a lot of additional information has been added and inline citations have been included. Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. You were not a major editor. The whole article looks disorganized. The lede should not have that large list of contributions. I see a lot of unsourced statements. His personal life history seems rather cluttered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose There are large swaths of unreferenced text. Also, the religious views section on Einstein is incomplete and incorrect in places. Einstein had a religious view and believed in God see this source . At page 48 of this source . Also, religious views of Einstein are a contentious subject. In matters like this, you need to have every sentence referenced and make sure that you include all viewpoints by using words identify the source making the claim. NancyHeise 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem I will address those issues over the next couple days. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. Beside the points raised above, there are issues with the spacing of inline citations (make sure they go directly after the punctuation with no space in between). Single sentences should either be expanded on or incorporated into other paragraphs to improve the flow of the article. What was found as a result of "Before the cremation, Princeton Hospital pathologist Thomas Stoltz Harvey removed Einstein's brain for preservation, without the permission of his family, in hope that the neuroscience of the future would be able to discover what made Einstein so intelligent."? I believe I read something recently that stated he had a larger brain function than the average person. Can the Honors section be converted to prose with some explanation for what each item is? Hopefully these suggestions help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have gone out and made some changes to the flow of the article, alignment and order of images and removed some info. I also split the honors section into 2 sections. One section for awards and 1 for honors and I am in the process of restructuring it to prose vice bullets. Over the weekend I will work on inline citations and expanding the existing references into formatted references vice the oneline bracketted links and I will expand the lead. I think realistically I should be able to get this article up to snuff by middle of next week provided all goes well. Please let me know if you see anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a couple more images, a couple new references and added some data to expand some of the paragraphs. I also did some more adjustment of images. I still need to expand the lead and some more work on the inline citations and citation expantion.--Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed most of the major problems mentioned above. I still need to fix a couple references and expand the references listed under the external links section but please take a look at the article now and let me know if I need to make any other changes.--Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -
  • Mixed citation styles. Some are footnotes, some are parentheticals and there are lots and lots of unsourced infromation.
Not sure what you mean here can you explain this a little more.--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Overlinking: Catholic school, speech difficulties, compass, models, mechanical devices, rote learning, Italy, military service, slowing down, The Times, etc.
  • Easter egg linking: citizenship in the German Kingdom of Wurttemberg goes to German nationality law, why the sky is blue links to Diffuse sky radiation
  • Unsourced quotations in the Religious views section
  • See also section contains lots of links to articles linked in the text
Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Newspaper titles in the refs need to be italics.
  • Lots of websites in the references lack publishers and last access dates.
Done. I took most out of the External links section because they didn't add value to the article,wheren't notible or where already in the article.--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Two cite error tags in the references.
Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I find this article needs a lot of work, and probably a rethinking of the sources used, thus the oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 13 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Twitter

Nominator(s): Greg Tyler 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that together, we as the Misplaced Pages community have turned it into a well-written, useful article of high quality. I also want to see some critical commentary, after the changes to our recent peer review were made and the article breezed through its Good article nomination with no problems being raised. Thanks! Greg Tyler 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • This section requires citation. —Anonymous Dissident 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, that had passed me by. I decided to remove the section for two reasons. Firstly, sources are a nightmare because, although there are plenty of examples of "The best 200 Twitter Apps" and such, there is no-one out there who wants to actually discuss the existence of such things in a reliable source. Secondly, the section didn't really stand on its own except as a build-up to the main article on the subject. At first, that guiltily felt like an easy way out, but I now reckon it's for the best. Greg Tyler 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For an article that is not fully cited, has MoS issues, and has ce issues apparent to "breeze through its Good article nomination with no problems raised" is not a good thing. Please review WP:DASH, the article is not fully cited, I found a ce error in the first paragraph I read, and "When asked about how he was going to use the additional investment funds in an interview, Williams said:", did he really plan to use the funds in an interview? How? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you define "ce" please? And give any further examples of specific areas that need more citations? Thank you. Hopefully I've cleared up the investment funds comment, I can understand how that was misleading. Greg Tyler 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit. —Anonymous Dissident 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I did a huge amount of MOS cleanup: (I did not rewrite that paragraph). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
{{Support}}I love twitter--75.60.27.102 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I'm thankful for your support, it's not a question of liking Twitter but of considering the article of high quality. Apologies if that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure you understood the system Greg Tyler 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs an independent copy-edit. Here are a few random examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny, technically:
    • Opening: "Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them (known as followers)".—More comfortable with a comma after "updates"? "Them" could back-refer to any preceding plural (I see four possibilities). "known as followers" might be better adjacent to its referent (... other users—known as "followers"—who have subscribed to those posts).
  • "allow anybody to access them"; or "allow open access."? See what you think.
  • use ... using. Why not remove "to use"?
  • Remove "extensive" ... I mean, how extensive is "wordlwide"? "in that the site" -->"because"?
  • Another "using ... users"; please audit throughout for such repetitions.
  • "(after Facebook and ...)".
  • Are they annual growth rates at the end of the lead? There are months hanging around. Tony (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made the suggested changes, and cleaned up some other over-uses of "user" and "using". However, I left the part saying "them" in the lead, as I believe it is now fairly obvious that the tweets are the subject:
"Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the author's profile page and delivered to other users - known as followers - who have subscribed to them."
I've also requested some copyedit input from related WikiProjects. Thank you very much for the feedback. Greg Tyler 16:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Greg asked my project. We are unfortunately probably going to be unable to assist much, but I will personally give it a good look next week (I am busy this week). Computerjoe's talk 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
TechCrunch is a reliable source. It's worth hundreds of thousands and is the primary blog of Web 2.0. Also, Compete take data and analyse; this is reliable too imo. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
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 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Reuters are using their information here , Forbes here , the Wall Street Journal describes TechCrunch's founder as a 'a power broker' due to the site and the San Francisco Chronice calls him 'Mr. Web 2.0'; TechCrunch has no fewer than 3410 Google News hits in the past month alone . In my opinion, this demonstrates how they are treated as a reliable source. I am really tired of people treating blogs as automatically unreliable; TechCrunch is probably more reliable and has a bigger circulation than many newspapers! Computerjoe's talk 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As for Compete, they're merely reporting their observations. Like how Alexa would. Compete.com has 114 GNews hits in the past month . Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 11 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Jovan Vladimir

Nominator(s): Vojvodaeist 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it reach gfeatured article criteria. It is well organized, illustrated and referenced.Vojvodaeist 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - Has VVVladimir (talk · contribs) been told about this nomination? Apart from adding a category, the nominator does not seem to have made any edits to this article. Graham Colm 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't work on this article but I can answer if you have some question or comment (or to improve some section).--Vojvodaeist 15:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to let this run only because none of the significant contributors have been active on Wiki recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what I see, this appears to be a translation of a featured article from the Serbian Misplaced Pages. Although at least one sentence have been taken directly from the English source cited:

In a situation reminiscent of earlier Serbian rulers, he is pressed by Bulgarian expansion, while being courted by the Byzantine emperor.

From a quick check of the sources, I could not see how Note 3. supports the facts given, although the book is by the respected historian Vladimir Ćorović. The article requires further copy-editing from a native English speaker, and I think the best way to proceed is Peer Review. Graham Colm 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest to add some more precise reference?--Vojvodae 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily, I can only read Russian, so I might have missed the salient points. In general sources in English are preferred—but are not mandatory. You could explain here how the sources supports the statements. Graham Colm 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I put link to specific chapter in electronic edition of Ćorović's history. The point is that territory of Jovan Vladimir's state was previously part of the Časlav Klonimirović's state. After Časlav death his country was divided in several parts and, in one of them, Jovan Vladimir rise to power. (8th chapter from the top).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Needs a thorough independent copy-edit. Here are examples from only the lead. The whole text needs work.

  • So if you've got a link to the Eastern Orthodox "May 22", why is the item linked to the standard May 22? How does that pass the relevance test that is now—after overwhelming community support—stated at MOSNUM? Same for "1016", which is a threadbare collection of factoids that seem to have little to do with this topic; if any of them does have relevance, why not include it in the main text?
  • "fell in love with the captive"—oh, I get a bit wobbly when I see a reference to oxytocin levels in the guy's brain at a certain time. How could we ever trust the evidence WRT something so subjective and vulnerable to cross-cultural distortion? Will you consider weakening the claim? ("may have") or otherwise recasting?
  • "finally"—yep, being beheaded sounds pretty final to me. Do we need "finally"?
  • Jovan Vladimir was buried in Prespa, and shortly after his death he was recognized as a martyr and saint, and is celebrated on May 22; he is the first Serbian saint. Two or three years after the burial he was reburied in Duklja, but in ca. 1215 his remains were ..."—spot the triple redundancy somewhere after the first comma. There are quite a few problems here: "Jovan Vladimir was buried in Prespa, and shortly after was recognized as a martyr and the first Serbian saint, his sainthood celebrated on May 22;. Two or three years later he was reburied in Duklja, but in about 1215 his remains were ...".
  • Is his "feast day" this day of celebration already mentioned? Please make it clear to those who aren't familiar, even if it seems obvious to you.
  • Are his remains a "relic"? Unsure. And "of the saint" would be neater, if it's not obvious from the context already.
  • "cross that"—you could dispense with "that".
  • Comma after "hand" could go for greater smoothness?Tony (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Corrected per Tony's suggestions. As for the whole text, fresh eyes would be very welcome to copy-edit it for smooth running - especially an expert in editing like Tony. VVVladimir (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. VVVladimir (talk)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to see other opinions. I will fix all these problems in next few days. I also ask for one help: can somenative english speaker read article and fix language mistakes? I also plan to put some more reliable sources (printed especially).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The first link is used as a reference for some well-known and undisputed historical facts. It can be easily replaced by book(s) of prominent historians, if needed. The second link is a translation of a part of Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. So the text on that page is not a historical work in itself - it is just a translation of that historical document relevant for Jovan Vladimir. There is no reason to dispute the correctness of that translation. The third link is on the site of the Russian Orthodox Church in England, and it is used as a reference for a religious title of St. J. Vladimir, not for any historical facts. The fourth link is of a prominent expert for Albania, and is used as a reference for the facts in the article connected with Albania. The text on the fifth link cites the aforementioned chronicle and John V A Fine Jr., a prominent historian of medieval Balkans. VVVladimir (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reluctantly. This is an interesting and engaging article that has been on my mind for a week or so. Sadly problems still remain; it needs a thorough copy-edit and more citations. There are too many statements that lack attribution to reliable sources. I do not think that Ealdgyth's concerns have been adequately addressed. Graham Colm 22:06, 14 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Norton Internet Security

Nominator(s): Tyw7


I am nominating this for featured article because Norton Internet Security is a popular software made by the world's leading security companySymantec. I think this article have all it takes to be a feature article. It is long, informative, contains good grammar, and is a Good Article. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 10:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Contacting TechOutsider. Can you list the other contributors below. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Other notable contributors include User:TechOutsider and User:Ched Davis. The edit count tool is extremely useful in determining the major contributors. TechOutsider (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure this is ready yet jimfbleak (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • refs are not formatted correctly, random capitalisation, bare urls etc
    • It is unclear to me why refs like Softpedia, Dave Taylor, or the Amazon review by David Jardine are reliable
  • Proposition I think we (the members of WikiProject Software) should make a body of formatting experts, who will go-through the proposed Featuring Article & then contact the major contributors to finalize. And after their confirmation the real nomination should take place (so, even if the article was not been selected, it will go through a thorough formatting, thus increasing the overall quality). Tell me guyz, what you all think about it (I know its a very bad place to discuss this - but not too bad to initiate discussion, later we will create a page for it).
  • Comment,
Well I have no problem with selecting Norton Internet Security for Featuring but jimfbleak does have points.
Tyw7 and all active contributors & leaders - feel free to vandalize my talk page (hey, no! seriously :P ) its getting summer hibernation & I'm going dumb. Poke me with your 'Ideas' - always welcome. I'm tired of mechanical editing :( . – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest discussing this at the Wikiproject Software talkpage - you'll reach more people than by posting here. Wikiproject:Military History (MILHIST) has a similar peer review process, you might like to take hints from that. Note that messing around with things with the intention of getting it to FA and not involving the major editors isn't really an option. Ironholds (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In regards to "FBI cooperation", the only source I see is a response to a hypothetical question. None of the sources are an independent report on whether Symantec detects Magic Lantern or not. If that is the only information there is, it should be more clear. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies from User:TechOutsider

  • HamburgerRadio, I will be looking into that section. Are you questioning if Symantec really whitelisted ML or not? TechOutsider (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, and also 1) Any product developer that recognizes specific software must have to make several decisions a day about whether to detect possibly misusable tools. Is there a wider perspective that can be provided? Do they usually comply with developers who request that their software not be detected? 2) Is the article for a product, that did not exist at the time the original statement about Magic Lantern was made, the best place to discuss this? Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought the version list was complete. It appears NIS did exist at the time the statement was made. Although I still wonder if a wider perspective than just NIS is appropriate. Also, that means a more complete history of NIS is needed in the article. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    Reply I will be looking to see if I can find information about earlier editions of Norton Internet Security prior to 2006. Yes, other vendors also whitelisted ML, and I will be adding a broader perspective. TechOutsider (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a version of NIS earlier than 2006. NIS produced every year with the earliest version in 2000, so that's NIS 2000. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source to confirm that? Because right now a press release from Symantec seems to imply there were even earlier versions. See here; it says NIS00' continues to best competitors. TechOutsider (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
At least that was the earliest NIS I could find. NIS 1999 or NIS 1998 brought up no result. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive advice. I will be looking into the issues. TechOutsider (talk) 11:47, 7 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Midshipman

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating Midshipman for featured article because the article recently passed the Military History project's A class review, and I think its an important military rank. I welcome your comments and suggestions! Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: there is a significant number of missing publishers throughout the footnotes; please address these before Ealdgyth has to review them (and when Maralia gets to this, she'll surely note that it's a disappointment that MilHist A-class review passed an article lacking publishers). Also, the templates at the bottom of the page do not conform with WP:LAYOUT; these two items together suggest that a thorough MOS review may be in order (which Maralia is likely to do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Publishers - added to the web citations that didn't have them, assuming that's what you meant.
    • US and UK Officer rank templates - these were here before I started expanding the article & were created by someone else. I reviewed WP:LAYOUT, and while I can see why they don't conform, I think they convey information well. I moved them to the bottom above the categories for now. Thanks for the suggestions! Kirk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The citations need language icons for non-English articles: I did one as a sample (the guardiamarina citations go nowhere, btw). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I added the rest of the language icons. The Oxford Language Dictionary links for Guardiamarina must require you to login first, that's why they don't work. Should I just use a book citation? Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Reliable sources
    • The Cobbe_RN reference has copious sources, mostly from the Public Records Office of the National Archives (UK), and it specifically references the Lieutenants passing certificates code ADM 107 which, unfortunately, aren't digitized. Update Removed ref- its duplicated by the Lavery Ref anyways. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Connexions is a UK governmental information, advice, guidance and support service for young people.
    • Dutch submarines is iffy, since I can't find the Royal Netherlands Navy for the rank insignia of Adelborst online, although you can see the insignia in photographs which matches this site. I'll see what else I can find, along with the abbreviations.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Just for future reference, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not going to revert and then readd the strike out on the cobb ref, though, as I would have done it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It looks like the MOS issues Sandy pointed out above have largely been taken care of, but I see a fair amount of problems in the prose.

  • "The word derives from the location of ship, amidships, where they were berthed." - "derives from the location of ship" is ungrammatical; suggest "The word derives from the nautical term amidships, referring to the portion of the ship in which they were berthed."
  • "Today, a midshipman is the term for an officer cadet in the U.S. Navy." - "a midshipman is an officer cadet" or "midshipman is the term for an officer cadet".
  • "The first published use of the term midshipman was in 1662, and from 1677 all candidates for commissioned rank in the Royal Navy required previous service as a midshipman." - these appear unrelated; it's unclear why they have been joined.
  • "At the height of the Age of Sail during the Napoleonic era (1793 - 1815)" - a year range should be indicated with an endash, not a hyphen.
  • "The regulations in the Royal Navy demanded that no-one 'be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea'." - this quote should be in double quote marks, and the ending punctuation should be outside the quotes.
  • "A notable example was Thomas Cochrane, whose uncle had him entered at the age of 5, and his name was carried on various ships until he was 18 and received his commission." - this should be "at the age of 5; his name..."
  • "Another way was through the Royal Naval Academy, (renamed the Royal Naval College in 1806), in Portsmouth." - two problems: beginning a paragraph with a vague reference to something from the prior paragraph ("another way") is poor form, and parentheses should never be surrounded by commas.
  • "Midshipmen in the Age of Sail came from a wide social background." - surely the intent is "varied social backgrounds"?
  • "Here is an example of a question from around 1790:" - breaking the fourth wall by speaking directly to the reader should be avoided.
  • "The actual exam questions varied quite considerably" - "actual" and "quite" are both unnecessary here.
  • "In navigation he had to keep a reckoning of the ship's way by plane sailing and on Mercator projection maps, by observing the sun or stars he should be able to determine course and position and understand the variation of the compass." - this string of requirements is not properly joined into a cohesive sentence.
  • "During a time of war, with a large number of ships and battle took its toll on officers, the wait might be a year or two." - something went wrong in the middle of the sentence there.
  • "Career opportunities in the navy, c. 1810" - this image caption needs to identify which navy's promotion scheme it describes.

These examples are from the lead and the Apprentice officers section; a cursory review of the rest of the article evidences similar prose concerns. This needs a thorough copyedit. It would also benefit from additional attention to the insignia images; the great white gaps in the subsections of Modern usage and in the table on Comparative ranks and insignia could surely be reduced if the images were of smaller and more uniform size. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    • A lot of the copy edit problems stem from the sources which are in 'Academic Historian British English from the 1930's', and I've stared at this too long to do a good job of translating that into brilliant, readable, English prose. I've had a copy edit request out for a couple of months, any volunteers? Kirk (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Update I expanded the abbreviations and added Maralia's copy edit suggestions. Thank you for your comments. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Insignia are smaller & more uniform size now. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 19:06, 9 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

1995 European Grand Prix

Nominator(s): D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article as I feel the article matches the current FA-criterion. Although the article recently failed a GA-nomination (due to misunderstandings between me and the reviewer), I have improved the article further based on peer review comments by Apterygial (talk · contribs). I believe the article meets the sources and images criterion within the FA-criteria. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – First off, I'm surprised to see an article that recently failed GAN make such a quick appearance at FAC. I don't see what's wrong with the photos (free images from a 1995 race are unlikely at best now), but I do think the lead should be beefed up as the reviewer suggested to ensure that it covers the entire article. The issue concerning coverage of the track selection seems to have been mostly addressed, although I'm interested to know where the event was held in 1994. Please check that the references use things such as en dashes for page ranges (ref 44) and italics for printed publications (Autosport; with the work parameter in use, they need to be forced). Will try to do a prose/MoS review later, but it looks like I'm about to be swamped for a while. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment Giants. I personally think that the lead is an OK size, it gives a brief summary of the article without going into excessive detail - if you go into excessive detail you may go into detail that is not really relevant to the lead as a whole. One of the comments in the GAN stated that bits in the Background/P&Q section should be in the lead, but I'm not sure what without repeating myself.
  • I'll try and put a bit about where the event was using reliable sources. Done the bit about ref 44, but "italics for printer publications" - the Autosport ones are from their website, so I don't understand what you're saying? D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Prose review:

  • "but was held up in lapped traffic with Schumacher overtaking him two laps before the end of the race." → "but was held up in lapped traffic and overtaken by Schumacher two laps before the end of the race." Better structure this way.
  • "Schumacher's win kept him at the top of the Drivers' Championship, 27 points ahead of Hill, the German only needing a further three points to secure the title." Awkward sentence to read. Consider splitting it.
  • Report: Schumacher is linked twice in three sentences here.
  • "However Meanwhile, Coulthard's prospective replacement".
  • Practice and qualifying: "of whom only Berger and Brundle had raced at Nurburgring in an Formula One car before". Should be "a Formula One car before".
  • "Both sessions on Friday and Saturday were rain interrupted, leading to not much action on the track." → "Both sessions on Friday and Saturday were interrupted by rain, which led to little action on the track."
  • "The former driver's crash was caused by a stuck throttle; the resulting damage to the car forcing him to switch to the team's spare monocoque." Either change the semi-colon to a comma or switch "forcing" to "forced".

I'll look at the race summary later. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Before the race began, Coulthard on his reconnaissance lap out of the pit lane, spun off the track." Awkward sentence from start to finish.
  • "whilst" → "while" in second paragraph of Race. Look around for these elsewhere too.
  • "an incorrectly-pressured set of tyres...". No hyphen after -ly words.
  • I see both "repassed" and "re-passed" in this section. Pick one and stick to it.
  • "As a result, he had had to pit to replace the damaged wing".
  • "while driving round the track with his damaged car...". Is it all right to have "round" instead of "around"?
  • "with pundits feeling that he had not been 'forceful' enough in his battle with Schumacher." Another of these with + -ings that are in every FAC I look at. The real prose gurus here don't like these (no, I'm not one of them). Giants2008 (17-14) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The GA fail should not be held against the article. Grand Prix articles make decent articles as they have a discrete and defined place and time, and a workable structure. This was another decent Grand Prix article, apart from the issues with the lead and coverage of the track selection. The fail was simply down to the issues not being dealt with. I see the issues are now being addressed, so the reasons for the GA fail are being dealt with. SilkTork * 12:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1a. It is pretty good, but there are lots of oddities around that could easily be smoothed out by an uninvolved copyeditor. Strange preposition use, vague connectors, and so on. Suggest getting someone new to go through it looking for items such as these:
    • "Coulthard was fastest on a time of 1:38.378" I don't get the "on a time" construction.. how is someone on a time? Wouldn't it be more elegant to say "Coulthard had the fastest time of 1:38.378" or similar?
    • "A total of approximately 90,000 spectators attended the circuit on race day." What is "a total of" doing?
    • "Before the race began, Coulthard on his reconnaissance lap, spun off the track." This is quite ungainly and requires rewriting.
      • I've reworded it and merged it into the next sentence: "Coulthard was forced to use his spare car, a standard FW17 chassis, for the race itself after he spun off the track during his reconnaissance lap." - hope this is OK. D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "resulting in the start being aborted with a new start time of 14:05 CEST." Aborted with... no. Aborted in favor of, maybe. But simpler: "... resulting in the start being aborted. A new start time of 14:05 CEST was planned."
    • "Irvine also got past Hill, but was repassed by the Williams driver during the course of the first lap." Not sure "by the Williams driver" or even "the course of" are needed.
    • "due to an electronic failure on his Footwork car" Why on his car? Surely, in?
    • "The McLaren cars and the Ferrari of Berger slipped back in the early laps of the race, with both McLaren cars overtaken by the Pacific and Forti cars as they dropped down the order." The "with" connector is so clumsy and imprecise. Better: "while both McLaren cars were overtaken by the Pacific and Forti cars as they dropped down the order."
      • Not sure about that. "while" suggests to me that event A was happening at the same time as event B, whereas "with" is an extension of the opening point. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
These are just samples of article-wide problems at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - I've fixed what you've noted above which hopefully is OK. I don't think there are too many problems with the article... D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 11 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 .

Mariano Rivera

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... it became a Misplaced Pages:Good article and received a peer review, and suggested changes were accordingly made to the article. It is well-sourced and well-written, covers the person's life in career in detail but is general enough for a casual reader to enjoy. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments. A lot of them are just suggestions... stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix myself.
  • "he was converted to closer" - is there any way to avoid passive voice here? For example did Joe Torre decide to convert him to a closer? Passive voice in the first paragraph just jumps out at me.
  • Related to the above item, you might avoid using technical terms like setup pitcher and closer in the intro? This will appear on the main page and most readers won't know what those terms mean. I don't see any convenient way around this though so I don't expect it to be addressed unless someone has a good idea.
  • Does the intro have to have so many inline citations? I was under the impression that citations were not needed in the intro if the claims were cited in the main body of the article. Currently it's a bit distracting, they are quite densely present.
  • Other than the use of technical terms, the intro's wording is very good and does just what an intro needs to do in a FA.
  • "In 1990, a 20-year-old Rivera, then a shortstop, volunteered to pitch for his Panamá Oeste team" - I follow baseball and even I don't know what is meant by "his Panamá Oeste team". Can this be clarified?
  • "Yankees' management reportedly made a trade offer of Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for Randy Johnson, but the Mariners rejected the deal" - The way this is worded might suggest the Yankees were very down on Rivera and just wanted to get rid of him, it might be a good idea to clarify that Randy Johnson at this time was a premier pitcher to be trading for?
  • "There were concerns that the disappointment of the previous season's end would affect Rivera's performance in the future" - too vague, a FA should probably define who was concerned. Yankees management, fans, sportwriters, all of the above?
  • "Rivera won his third consecutive World Series title" - is it proper to say he won his WS title when the WS is a team championship? "helped the Yankees win their third..." sounds better to me, but I'm not sure.
  • "Rivera signed a two-year contract extension" - missing details, shouldn't this give the dollar value of the extension?
  • "began their historic comeback" - this doesn't explain why the comeback was historic. It was because no team had ever come back from 0-3, right?
  • The 2007-2008 section is a bit problematic. First of all, these years were not quite as notable as his earlier years, but this section is the longest of any - suggesting issues with recentism. Second, despite the length, it doesn't mention his 2007 postseason performance. Some trivia like "Rivera also became the first pitcher since 1975 to successfully convert his first 22 save opportunities without allowing any runs in those outings" could probably go. Recentism is a major problem in sports articles... Misplaced Pages didn't exist or at least wasn't very popular in Rivera's best years, but that doesn't mean we should have longer sections for his more recent years simply because people wrote more content about Rivera in those years.
  • Other than recentism, my biggest concern is that many terms and phrases used in this article ("Moved him into the bullpen", "blew three of his first six save opportunities") will render much of this article baffling to non-baseball fans. I imagine a non-fan reviewer will be along to address that though, so just wait for them... I can't be unbiased about baseball.
All in all it's a good baseball biography article. Fixing the recentism issues might require removing some sentences, but I think it will result in a better article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try and tackle your suggestions one at a time as I can get to them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if converting him to closer was Joe Torre's decision alone - it seems as though mangement decided to let Wetteland walk because they saw a star reliever in Rivera. I thought rather than get too specific in the lead, it would be better to take the emphasis off of who made the decision to move him to a different role. I'll try and look into if any one particular "actor" had the ultimate decision. Sounds like management purposely did not sign Wetteland because they wanted Rivera as closer. This has been fixed.
  • I thought as long as you Wikilinked it, you could include unfamiliar terms. In any case, setup man is something that could be removed if people disagree with it - I included it to differentiate his 1996 and 1997 years as a reliever. However, I definitely think the term "closer" needs to be kept in the lead, since I would think someone can infer the meaning of the word, not to mention his name is used in certain context to infer someone can "close" or "get the job done" (e.g. "he's the Mariano Rivera of the golf world"). I kept the words "closer" and "setup man" Wikilinked, but I also expanded what innings they had Rivera pitching.
  • I didn't know what the guidelines were for citations in leads, but I found them: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Looks like we can vet individual citations and see if they are necessary or not. Citations for less challengeable material have been removed.
  • I think Panama Oeste (Spanish for West) was just the name of his team. I can fix that to be a little clearer. Reworded
  • I can reword the trade offer to point out Big Unit's significance, but I think mentioning a trade offer will still retain the "down on Rivera" sentiment no matter how you word it. Reworded
  • Will try to reword who was concerned based on what I see in the citation. The coaching staff was concerned. I've fixed this.
  • Will try to reword ownership of the World Series title. I reworded to say the 2000 title was the team's 3rd consecutive, but I had to use a possessive pronoun for Rivera to explain it was his 4th championship.
  • Dollar value was around $20 million for the 2 years - I'll get a citation for it. Was actually $21 million, but fixed.
  • The significance of the Red Sox comeback was mentioned before, but somewhere along the line, it was removed for concerns of POV or concentrating too much on the series outcome. But you're right, the reason the comeback was historic should be explained. Fixed
  • I'll have to take a step back and try and weed out stuff in 2007-2008 that isn't significant enough. Did a little bit of revising - let me know how it looks.
  • Back to my earlier explanation - does Wikilinking unfamiliar terms make their inclusion OK? I tried to explain that moving to the bullpen meant Rivera was becoming a full-time reliever. Blown saves are a real baseball statistic, and you can kind of infer the meaning - it would more wordy to say it a different way. Any other ones?

Thanks for the feedback - I'll try and fix some of the immediate things you just brought up. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment on tables You have different table srtyles in different sections. Consistency would be more aesthetic. In particular, however, the tables in the Career Stats section actually kinda make my eyes hurt (I'm not being a smart aleck; I'm serious). There's no visual separation between them.. no borders, no whitespace.. and it's a bit difficult for me to separate them. Could you do something about these format issues, please? tks. Ling.Nut 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Career Statistics table? I'm not sure what's wrong with it, or what "them" is referring to. The columns? The rows? Maybe you could mock something up in a sandbox page to show me what you would do with it? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, upon further inspection, I think I see what you meant - can you give the Career Statistics table another look? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by TonyTheTiger
My response to TonyTheTiger's comments:
  • Linked scout (sports)
  • Mentioned the leagues for all minor league affiliates.
  • Mentioned the level of all minor league affiliates.
  • Added 3x Major League saves leader (both times he led the AL, he led the Majors).
  • Added a few minor league stats. Let me know if this is still insufficient.
  • I do not know if he was a minor-league All-Star - I've never seen it mentioned in all the sources I've read through.
  • I had already mentioned the long-form of the Division and Championship series before using the acronyms, but just be on the safe side, I've removed all usage of the acronyms.
  • All citations follow a period, comma, or semi-colon.
  • Added a citation to ESPN game recap for him being carried on his teammates shoulders.
Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My response to Ealdgyth's comments:
  • Removed the citation and used a combination of 3 refs already in use to show a different speeds being cited.
  • I don't have the physical copy of the book available, so I don't know the page number. But the actual Epilogue is freely available on ESPN.com, and it's linked to in the reference.
Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There you go! All done. Have fun at FAC in the future! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Reference 8 (from Birth of a Dynasty) is also from a book, and should be handled similarly to the Olney cite. If a page number is needed for either of these books, please let me know because I happen to have both of them. Also, reference 76 needs an access date. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The season summaries are pretty good and give a decent narrative of his career, but there is a lack of material tying his entire career together and putting it in perspective amongst other closers. The legacy section quotes several people that have named him the best closer of all time, but the article does not demonstrate how his statistics in that role measure up to both his contemporaries and other relief pitchers throughout baseball history. The accomplishments section does this a little bit in list form, but it does not go far enough and should probably be partially integrated into the prose as well. Without some of this big picture analysis, the article is not comprehensive. Indrian (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a good point - I may have missed out on the "big picture" by trying to tone down the positive language in the Legacy section. I've updated it and tried to put his career into perspective. Please review it and give me your feedback. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That is much better. I will have to do a comprehensive readthrough of the article tomorrow to make sure I have no other problems before I change my vote, but this satisfies the objection above. Indrian (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment This article has come a long way thanks to some dedicated editors. Not quite ready to throw my support behind it yet, but I don't want to block it with an oppose either. Indrian (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – I'm a Yankees fan, so I can't possibly be objective with this one. After reading the article again following my participation in the peer review, one thing stuck out at me: there is really nothing on how important Rivera was during the team's run of three consecutive World Series championships from 1998 to 2000. Many in the media have argued that he was the most important factor in the Yankees' success. That is an important part of his legacy, and perhaps deserves some mention in the appropriate season summaries. Other than that, I still think the article could use a copy-edit to improve the writing and clean up all the baseball jargon. Good luck with the FAC, as it's nice to see something here that brings back fond memories from when I was growing up. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I tried to address this in the season summaries, but I ended up putting the most important information in the "Legacy" section. The 1997-2001 season summary goes into some details about this postseason success with the Yankees, while the "Legacy" section tries to tie a bow around his career as a whole. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me now. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking over the article again, another issue comes to mind. For Rivera's early adult baseball career, we come in at what appears to be the middle; his volunteering to move from shortstop to pitcher for Panama Oeste. There is no material linking the receipt of his first real glove at 12, the last piece of baseball information given, to that moment. Was Panama Oeste an amateur team? Was it affilitated with a league, business, or other organization? When did Rivera begin playing organized ball as opposed to his game of milk cartons and sticks? This hole should really be filled if possible. Indrian (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a. It's not bad, but it needs work. I found lots of prose problems just in the first couple sections, along with MoS problems that indicate the article has never been audited for MoS compliance. These are prerequisites for FAC. I've listed some sample issues below; please get a fresh copyeditor to go through the entire text and look for more.
--Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

  • File:Rivera2.jpg: as stated by the templates, a local admin should check the local file's history on what license the image was first supplied with.

Other Images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Too many issues at the moment.

Resolved issues from BUC (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Major League Baseball's (MLB) New York Yankees" makes it sound like MLB own the Yankees.
  • "After a breakout year" reader may not know what a "breakout year" is.
  • Refer to him as either just "Mariano" or just "Rivera" thoughout the article, not both.
  • "Rivera pitched 26 consecutive scoreless innings, including 15 consecutive hitless innings." reader may not quite understand this. If they were consecutive, does that mean he pitched them all at once in the same game?
  • This should be pretty clear from context clues, since this fact is prefaced by "From April 15-May 21" and it has been explained in the article that Rivera only pitches the late innings of games. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "and finished with a 1.91 ERA, and clinched the Yankees' victory in the World Series" remove the first "and".
  • "a historic 125-win season" why was it historic?
  • "Metallica's song "Enter Sandman"...suggested Rivera was entering to put hitters to sleep." Did someone actually said this was the reason for the song or is it just a general assumption?
    This is how the song is interpreted - there is no evidence to say that is specifically why it was chosen. Rephrased to say "features lyrics about an evil entity giving children nightmares and precedes Rivera's jog from the bullpen to the pitchers mound". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "35 postseason innings for a 0.51 ERA, qualifying himself for the Major League's record for lowest career postseason ERA" "qualifying himself"?
  • Well, you can't just pitch one scoreless inning and have a record-setting 0.00 ERA - he passed the 30 inning minimum for the record's eligibility. Rephrased to say "a 0.51 ERA. This qualified him for the Major League's record for lowest career postseason ERA by reaching the 30 inning minimum for eligiblity; he still holds this record." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Fans at Yankee Stadium booed him" I don't think "booed" needs to be linked.
  • "he struck out in his first career regular season at-bat" a bit trivial.
  • "39 saves in 40 chances" you were saying "opportunities" before, be consistent.
  • "the best "out pitch" in baseball" reader may not know what an out pitch is.
  • "the best ever, no doubt..." why the periods?
  • "he was a considered a "fringe prospect" at best" by who?
  • "Rivera had begun to throw at 95–96 MPH in the minors" reader may not know what "MPH" means.
  • The first time the word "miles-per-hour" is used in the article (throwing 87-88 miles-per-hour), it is wikilinked, not abbreviated, and followed by the abbreviation, thus making it unnecessary to spell the phrase out in every subsequent instance (such as the one above). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • One instence of spelling it out isn't really enough.
  • Yes it is according to basic rules of grammar and style, which state that once one spells out an abbreviation once, one does not have to do so again in the work. Otherwise, there would be no point to abbreviating at all. Also, the article is not written for a three-year-old, so really if someone cannot figure out what MPH means from the clues already given in the article it is not really our problem. In other news, some of our readers may not know what the word "professional" or the word "success" in the first paragraph of the article means as well. Maybe we should include links to dictionary entires for every word in the article? Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "essentially shortening the games for their opponents by three innings" sounds a little POV
  • But that is what they did, isn't it? For readers that don't know what the importance of having a shutdown bullpen is, this should get the point across. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't literally shorten the game so some people may find this confusing.
  • Right, it does not litreally shorten games, it essentially shortens games, which is exactly what the article says, backed up by evidence in the article that the team lost only 3 games in which they led after six innings. Give the readers of[REDACTED] articles some credit. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The sub setions for the "Major leagues" section seem a bit odd. 2 years, 5 years, 3 years, 2 years, 2 years and less than a year. Whats the logic behind them?
  • Trying to keep each section balanced in the amount of prose it has. I can divide up the years a little more evenly, though, if that is not important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've alway felt with team sports players, the only time a new section in needed is when they change teams.
  • While I agree with you that sorting by years is arbitrary, your suggested solution clearly does not work for a player that has spent fifteen years with the same team. The FA style rules clearly demand breaking an article into more subheadings than that. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "They subsequently installed Rivera in the role of the Yankees' closer for the 1997 season." link "closer".
  • "Eventually, Rivera settled into his new duties" how?
  • "one of the league's premier starting pitchers" this is POV.
  • How is it POV to call Randy Johnson, 4x Cy Young winner and one of the greatest pitchers ever, a premier starting pitcher? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You think he's "a premier starting pitcher" others may not.
  • Wow, this comment is so ridiculous it is almost hard to respond to, but I will give it a shot. Misplaced Pages policy on POV states that[REDACTED] must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Now, do you really think that there is a sinlge source that meets that criteria that does not think Randy Johnson is a premier pitcher. Go ahead, bring one here. Find a significant viewpoint, one that has gained scholarly support from a distinguished group of experts, that says Randy Johnson was an overrated or non-premire pitcher. I'll wait right here. Oh, what, you could not find one? Yeah, that's what I thought. Seriously, NPOV does not mean one avoids using superlatives when they have been earned. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "but he soon put any such concerns to rest." needs a ref.
  • Not much on the 2001 season considering he went to the world series that year.
  • "2005 season turned out to be, at that point in Rivera's career, his greatest year" how exactly?, he didn't win the world series. Best in terms of stats maybe, but greatest?
  • "Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillén announced in advance that he would use Rivera to close the 2006 All-Star Game" reader might wonder why the Chicago White Sox manager is using him when he plays for the Yankees.
  • It is not really the job of this article to explain the intricacies of the All Star game. If the reader is curious about the issue you raised, he can go to the page on the all star game himself. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Despite struggles in non-save situations" what struggles exactly?
  • "Rivera threw the final pitch in the venue's history, retiring the Baltimore Orioles' Brian Roberts on a ground-out." I don't mind this being mentioned, but I think that's a bit too much detail for what is basicly triva.
  • The historical value of this piece of info is too great to shorten, though. In the thousands of games and tens of thousands of innings of baseball that took place at Yankee Stadium, Rivera was the last pitcher to record the last out in a game in the venue. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "with perhaps the best season of his career" why "perhaps"?
  • Not all his stats from 2008 were better than 2005 (e.g. innings pitched, ERA). Even though I think it was his best year, I can't make a judgment call for this article and say 2008 was definitely his best. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "sports writers and baseball experts anticipate Rivera will be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, once he retires." Do they say why?
  • Some of the stats in the "Career highlights" section do not have refs.
  • Not all career highlights need references, as some of them have Wikilinks that take you to a separate article with the highlight already listed (e.g. World Series MVP - an article is already dedicated to the history of this award). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if it has a ref in another article it still needs a ref in this one.
  • No refs in "Career statistics" section.
  • There seems to be a bit of a neglect to non-baseball fans throughout this article, such as the large use of abbreviation. I would get someone who know nothing about the sport to proof read it.
  • Unfamiliar baseball terms are all Wikilinked in their first mention, and the importance of certain awards is explained. Furthermore, I went to great lengths to explain Rivera's place and history and the importance of his statistical rankings in the "Legacy" section. You should point specific portions of the article that need fixing. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm a baseball fan so I can't do the proof reading for you. You will have to fing someone else. With baseball terms, a link in the first instance isn't really enough, also, if you can, you want to keep the reader on the same page, rarther than forcing them to go elsewhere, they may not come back.

BUC (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I appreciate BUC taking the time to look through this article and discovering several areas that still needed improving to get it up to FA status, but at the same time I am disheartened by other points that are listed here that would actually hurt the article if they were implemented. I am unsure why BUC feels that a three-year-old with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is the target audience for this article and therefore wants to remove all sophistication from it by needlessly sidetracking to define every last word or concept in the article and therefore completely bog it down with tangents. I may be a baseball fan, but I have read baseball books and articles intended for all age levels and all levels of knowledge of the game, and most of them use just as many abbreviations as this one because concepts like American League (AL), earned run average (ERA), and most valuable player (MVP) are relatively simple and, once defined, need not be spelled out every time they are used to needlessly lengthen the article. This is just good writing, period. I have addressed certain other specific points above. I feel it really would be a shame if an article that has steadily grown in quality over the last month had to take a small step backwards at the whims of a single user to gain the featured status it is close to deserving. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 9 June 2009 .

Brad Pitt

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


The article has been brought to Good article status and two peer review processes. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. Note: Reference 80 is not a dead link. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Quick observations at a glance. No page number for reference 43. Ref 37 needs more details - is it the film, a documentary, sleeve notes, etc? Ref 58 - no author listed, but page 3 of the link gives several names. Some links in the references have the word 'review' added to the title, yet ref 78 and 80, both reviews, do not. Ref 81 - no author. Ref 125 - no author. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the source from the Fight Club film article. Also, I've replaced Ref. 37, added an author for Ref. 58. The 'review' thing is not mentioned in the titles to both refs. 78 and 80, and the rest do have the word 'review'. I also added authors for refs. 81 and 125. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the title of ref 78 is "Movie Review - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - Good, Bad or Ugly: A Legend Shrouded in Gunsmoke Remains Hazy - NYTimes.com". I see you're using the title of the page rather than each article. You may want to check the consistency of that format. I appreciate this instance is however a long title. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by TonyTheTiger
Leaning toward Oppose Support-All issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The awards field in the infobox was recently removed after discussion at WP:ACTOR. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me to that discussion. I would like to see how it applies in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
See here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please review the "publisher" fields in the references; many refer to the owner, rather than the publisher (e.g. The Guardian is published by Guardian News & Media, which is owned by the Guardian Media Group, and guardian.co.uk is just the website, not the publisher). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC

I removed guardian.co.uk from the refs. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning to support: A very informative and generally well-written article. With over 10,000 hits a day on average it is very high profile, and needs all its wrinkles ironed out. Personally, I favour the internal organisation of the article away from strict chronology; it helps us to assess Pitt's professional career better when the private life distractions are left until later. One thing I might do, however, is make it clear that Pitt and Aniston were married at the time of his guest appearance on Friends.
In many ways the form of the article resembles that of the recently promoted Kirsten Dunst, though I think this is probably the better article. One fault I found when reviewing the Dunst article is to an extent repeated here – a tendency to over-rely on verbatim quotations, of which there are a couple of dozen or more in the Pitt article. I recommend trying to reduce these with some appropriate paraphrasing.
I'll try to work on those. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: Would this work ---> "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable, but added that "there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss". In conclusion, Variety reiterated that Pitt does not seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the actors in the film" for the review for Interview with the Vampire? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that sort of thing would work well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I added that to the Critical success section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise I have a number of minor issues that should be resolved quite easily:-
  • "The following year he appeared in two contrasting, critically acclaimed starring roles, in the crime thriller Seven (1995) and the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), for which he won a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earned an Academy Award nomination." First, it was his performances, rather than the roles themselves, that were critically acclaimed, and you need to clarify which of the two roles won him a Golden Globe award and an Oscar nomination. Suggestion: "The following year he gave critically acclaimed performances in two starring roles; in the crime thriller Seven (1995), and in the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), the latter winning him a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earning him an Academy Award nomination."
    • Done.
    • "Since his relationship with Jolie..." makes it sound as if it's over. Perhaps "Since beginning his relationship with Jolie..."
      • Done.
  • Early life section
    • "In a review for the film, Entertainment Weekly, wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." Entertaimnent Weekly didn't write anything, its reviewer did, so suggest rephrase: Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." etc
      • Done.
    • Wikilinks within quotes should be avoided, per WP:BTW
      • Done.
  • 1999–2003
    • "The character is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." Whose desciption of the character is this?
    • You say Fight Club received "polarized" reactions. From the source, the reviews don't seem at all "polarized", i.e. at two extremes. The source shows a range of review reactions, but heavily slanted towards favourable. Even the old standby of "mixed reviews" seems inappropriate.
  • 2004–present
    • "...the film is the most commercially successful of his career." This needs a date qualification – it may not always be his gratest commercial success
      • Done.
  • Other projects
    • "Aniston and Grey are no longer partners." Well, we need to be told first that they were partners before being told that they are no longer. This could be done by fixing the previous sentence: "Pitt, along with Jennifer Aniston and her partner, Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, founded the film production company Plan B Entertainment in 2002."
      • Done.
    • I'm not sure that it's a good idea discussing film projects and humanitarian projects under an undifferentiated "Other projects" heading. I would suggest that this section be divided into two subsections: "Film projects" and "Humanitarian projects" (or similar titles)
      • The thing is that the article is 86 kilobytes long. I don't want to make the article much larger than what it is.
        • I'm not suggesting you should add more text, merely that the first two paragraphs of this section could be subheaded "Film and television work" and the remaining paragraphs subheaded "Humanitarian causes" or some such. This would highlight Pitt's commitment to humanitarian causes in the article's list of contents. If you're not comfortable with this suggestion, ignore it – it's not a sticking point for me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Personal life
    • "In the late 1980s and the 1990s, Pitt was involved in relationships with several of his co-stars..." You had better qualify this as "a series of relationships", otherwise Brad might get cross.
      • Done.
    • "a knowledgeable fan of architecture" – whose description? It's a pretty dumb-down phrase, so if someone said it, it should be in quotes and specifically attributed. Otherwise it should be rephrased, e.g. "He also has a knowledgeable interest in architecture."
  • Children
    • "The couple sold the first pictures of Shiloh through the distributor Getty Images themselves, rather than allowing paparazzi to make these valuable photographs." The second part of the sentence reads as an editorial opinion. I would end the sentence after "Getty Images"
      • Done.

After your responses to the issues I will be pleased to change to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the quotes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please ping my talkpage when you have have worked on the quotes to your satisfaction and I'll look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be sure to do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd drop this in after reading the conversation above. I note that "polarized reactions" has been changed to the more wishy-washy "a variety of reactions", based on the Metacritic source. For a variety of boring reasons I won't go into here, the Film Wikiproject considers sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes less reliable when aggregating scores for slightly older films such as this one. The film did indeed polarise critics at the time, but neither of these two sites reflects that. A pair of different sources could be used. After the film's appearance at the Venice International Film Festival, The Ottawa Citizen reported of Fight Club that "Many loved and hated it in equal measure". (Gritten, David (September 14, 1999). "Premiere of Fight Club leaves critics slugging it out in Venice". The Ottawa Citizen. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). I think this could be used to support the "polarized reaction" assertion. The Citizen piece goes on to say that concerns were expressed that the film would incite copycat behavior akin to that which greeted A Clockwork Orange's debut in Britain. The Australian picked up this theme (Goodwin, Christopher (September 24, 1999). "The beaten generation". The Australian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) in an article that cites filmmakers' calling Fight Club "an accurate portrayal of men in the 1990s", contrasting with some critics who called it "irresponsible and appalling". It goes on to say, "After only one screening in Venice, Fight Club is shaping up to be the most contentious mainstream Hollywood meditation on violence since Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange." Some, none or all of this may be useful; I leave it here for your reference only. All the best, Steve 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I copyedited some of this article before it was nominated for Featured Article status, but I see that any other tweaks it needed have been ironed out, with only maybe a few needed tweaks left. You guys have been doing an excellent job on further improving this article, and it really reads well. I cannot see at all why it should not be promoted to Featured Article status. I am also in agreement with ThinkBlue about the chronological order of sections (mixed in with personal life) suggestion. I do have to suggest, though, that we do not literally state things such as "Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote...," LOL. I mean, Entertainment Weekly has a lot of film reviewers. If we are not going to say a magazine said this or that, then we should name the reviewer's name. However, sometimes with reports such as from the Associated Press, there actually is not an author of the article you can name, and it may be best to say "the Associated Press said..." or "the Associated Press reported..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sometimes someone reviews something, but there's no name; Ex: Seven review was written by a staff member. Also, in regards of not including the reviewers name, I've been told that there's no need to add the reviewer, unless he or she is particularly a notable author. (Ex: Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Janet Maslin of New York Times, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, etc.) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know where you've been told that, but the reviewer does not require independent notability to be named. In cases where the author of an independent opinion piece (e.g. a film review) is specified, he or she should be named. Only when appearing in a journal or newspaper's official editorial might it be appropriate to omit the author information from the article text. Steve 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • User:EnemyOfTheState told me that. He has it modeled that way in Angelina Jolie's article, which is a Featured article. I mean, I have no problem re-adding the reviewers name in the article, is just that there's one that might cause a fuzz; the Seven review doesn't say who wrote the article, just that it's by a "staff member". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I suggested to only include notable reviewers, because I think mentioning the names of unknown film critics has no relevance for the article's subject, plus it offers no information or useful insight for the reader. To me, its only function is to increase the word count of the text. I think it's clear that film reviews are usually not written in an editorial fashion, therefore if only the publication is named in text that clearly isn't meant to represents the opinion of the entire staff. EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues with the images, they are verifiably licensed or in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Inconsistencies between "Early work" section and "Filmography":

  • In the latter, you list some of his television work but not all of the shows mentioned in "Early work" (including 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains). Either list all of his TV work in "Filmography" or create a separate chart for it. In the "Filmography", you give the name of the Friends episode he appears in; that's not necessary for the other TV series, but do list how many episodes of each he appeared in.
    • There's no need to create another chart, the filmography is plenty. See Kirsten Dunst as an example. I think you listed all his TV work with "TV work". The Friends episode earned him an Emmy nomination, I think it warrants to stay. If you want, I'll list the names of the episodes, that's if I can find the names of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point. The "Fimography" appears to show all of his TV work. It does not. There are many ways to deal with it, but leaving it as is is unacceptable. So...(1) You can include all of his TV work. (2) You can create a different chart exclusively devoted to his TV work, which includes all of it. (3) You can retitle this chart "Films and selected TV work".DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." The "Filmography" lists four feature film appearances in 1987.
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Déjà vu!) The "Filmography" lists it as a 1997 film.
  • For the "FIlmography", if he appeared in six episodes of Glory Days, surely you can find out the name of his character somewhere.DocKino (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Generally Support. I did some work on this article during the peer reviews. Some minor issues:
    • Paragraphs were changed since the article's peer review. Paragraph two (about his tv work) and three (about his first film work) in the career section were combined, while the text on Fight Club was split into two paragraphs. The original formating made much more sense to me.
    • Successive paragraphs starting with "In , Pitt ..." don't look like "brilliant prose" to me, they should be avoided I think.
    • It's probably better to call Troy his 'highest grossing film', not his 'most commercially successful' - with a considerably smaller budget, Mr. & Mrs. Smith made a higher net profit than Troy.
    • Was Brad Grey really only Jennifer Aniston's partner? The source doesn't support that. Why not just "along with Jennifer Aniston and Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, ..."?
    • His appearances on the Time 100 in 2009 and the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2008 should be updated.
    • Regarding the discussion above how to expand on his relationship with Paltrow, I think the most interesting fact missing is for how long they were actually engaged.
    • I still think the succession boxes are unnecessary. However, if other people feel they are useful, that's fine with me.

EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • In the lead section, it is fine to bend the chronology a bit to mention the Ocean's sequels right after Ocean's Eleven, but what is the rationale of having a chronological structure and then totally breaking it at the end of the paragraph, by unnecessarily putting Benjamin Button (2008) before Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)? It makes for a sloppy read.DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments : I really like this article. I think you've discussed his film career without congratulating him, and you've discussed the hoopla surrounding his personal life without becoming part of the circus. The tone and balance throughout the article are just right, it flows very well in most parts, and I wish there were more articles like this. Some minor comments:

  • Agree with User:DocKino's comment above, regarding the placement of Benjamin Button before Troy" and "The Smiths. It is awkward.
  • "with late renowned acting coach Roy London." - using "late" is a problem. It means checking the article constantly over the next 50 years and adding "the late" as people die.  ;-) Is it important that London was "renowned" - by this I mean is it a reflection on Pitt that as a newcomer someone notable saw his potential? Or is a comment about London himself. If the point relates to Pitt, that's fine, but otherwise London's renown should be left for his own article. I'm not sure what is intended here.
  • "His love scene with Davis, which showed Pitt shirtless and wearing a cowboy hat, has been often cited as the moment that defined Pitt as a sex symbol." - I think it's true that this scene is "often cited" as a milestone in Pitt's career, but the source doesn't seem to support the "often". Is it necessary to say it is often cited, when other roles are described with the milder "has been described as". It's hard to quantify, and is it even necessary? Maybe just "has been cited" - and with a more compelling source, would be better.
  • "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable..." - this doesn't read as paraphrasing because it says they wrote, and "handsome and personable" are too specific. I think it would be better to just quote Variety rather than break their comment into three seperate pieces. Saying "in conclusion" suggests Variety discussed Pitt at some length and that we're condensing it, but that's not the case. This paragraph could and should be simplified to more accurately portray what Variety wrote or it could supplemented by comments from a second review to give it depth. It looks a little like padding, as it currently reads, especially when comparing it to the source website.
  • "but many critics enjoyed Pitt's performance." - it then goes on to quote from two of them. "Many" is a problem. Maybe something like "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics, but Pitt received some positive reviews" (or something)
  • "Pitt garnered his first Golden Globe Award nomination in the category for Best Actor, but lost to Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump." I have a bit of a problem with people "losing" awards. They don't lose the award, they just don't win them. You could almost read between the lines as saying Pitt was robbed, you know. It's the only nomination where the winner is spotlighted. There's no real connection between Hanks and Pitt, so it's not completely relevant.
  • "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden. The character is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." A bit awkward and stilted. How about : "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden, a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club."  ?
  • "Pitt's character, an Irish Gypsy boxer, speaks in a barely intelligible accent. Pitt's delivery of the accent drew criticism and praise." Two short sentences spoil the flow, and this could be one sentence. Maybe "Pitt's performance as a Irish Gypsy boxer, and his delivery of a barely intelligible Irish accent, drew criticism and praise."
  • "Stephen Hunter of The Washington Times commented that in a role that requires larger-than-life dimensions, noted that he is pretty terrific." Grammatically, the sentence is wrong and needs to be rewritten. If this is a quote it needs to be cited a quote, within quotation marks, otherwise it looks like Misplaced Pages paraphrasing Stephen Hunter. "Pretty terrific" is OK for a reviewer, but it's doesn't look good if it appears like we're saying it.
  • " Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews." This begs the question "why?" This is quite enigmatic and could suggest something more than is there. Certainly the interview used to source this, gives no clue. If it's relevant enough to mention, it needs to be clarified. If not, it's not relevant. (and I tend to think it's the latter)
    • If you read the source, and I quote, "Take his production company, Plan B. Much of the publicity surrounding it has had to do with Pitt's split with Jennifer Aniston, former principal Brad Grey's divestment when he moved to Paramount as chair-CEO and the company's shift from Warner Bros. to the Paramount lot. Pitt hasn't granted many interviews about Plan B, especially since a tumultuous 2005. That year saw Grey (longtime chairman of Pitt's management company, Brillstein-Grey) take the Paramount job, Pitt and Aniston split, 'Mr. & Mrs. Smith' usher in Brangelina tabloid fever, and the company get dragged into the fallout generated by James Frey's controversial megaseller 'A Million Little Pieces', for which Plan B owns the films rights", it reasons why he doesn't discuss Plan B. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, my mistake. The source gives a lot of information but it also speculates. Going back to the article it reads "Pitt was credited onscreen as a producer. However, only Graham King was ruled eligible for the Oscar win. Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews." The first thing I thought when I read that was that he has a conflict or ill-feeling with Graham King over the Oscar thing, because the two points are presented together. The way it's written in the article, unless it directly connects to King, it's a random fact that reads as being connected to the preceding sentence. I think it's fair to refer to an external link to find out more about a statement made in an article, but for me, the paragraph is unclear and to make sense of it, I have to read through the source material. It needs to be presented with enough context and clarity to give a basic understanding, and reading further into the source material should be optional. "Due to..... whatever reasons..... Pitt is reluctant to discuss the company" Sorry, but the whole paragraph isn't very clear. Maybe it's just me. I'll read it again tomorrow with a clearer head. Rossrs (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mixed reviews" or "mixed reception" are somewhat overused. At least some of them need to be replaced if for nothing more than to make the writing more varied and engaging. I'm not sure what some suitable alternative would be, maybe variations like "critics were divided in the comments" or something similar, but the repetition of these two terms within the space of a few paragraphs, is problematic. Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Thoroughly informative and truly well written . I think it fulfils all the featured article criteria and shall be made a FA.

Princeaditya (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Fails 1a, in ways that also make its 1b case weak. There are glaring problems with the prose. A selection garnered from an examination of just the first 20% of the article (and a comparison of its content with the "Filmography"):

  • The central paragraph of the lead establishes a chronological structure, then insensibly breaks it at the very end.
  • In "Early work", we find a description of Pitt's film appearances in uncredited parts. The very next sentence informs us that he "began his acting career" afterward.
  • No Man's Land and Less Than Zero are mentioned, but not the film in which Pitt actually made his onscreen debut: No Way Out.
  • His featured role on Dallas is described. Subsequently, we are told, "Later in 1988, he acted in his first featured role in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Yes, one's a featured role on TV, the other in a motion picture. FA-quality writing handles that switch. This doesn't.)
  • Three sentences are devoted to Dark Side of the Sun, which was not released until 1997. But the first film in which Pitt played a featured role to actually be released, Cutting Class, is not mentioned at all.
  • In back-to-back sentences we find grammatical error--"His portrayal of the character has been described a 'career-making' performance"--and writing of obviously low quality--"In discussion of the film, Pitt admitted he felt a 'bit of pressure' when making the film."
  • We have a section called "Filmography" that includes some but not all of the actor's television work. It includes The Image, which is not mentioned in the main text, but not 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains, which are.
  • Cutting Class is listed as a 1987 film in the "Filmography". That's a significant error, as it was the first film with Pitt in a featured role to be released. It's a 1989 film. DocKino (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "In December 1987, Pitt starred in television guest appearances, which included a role on the CBS primetime soap opera Dallas." Oh, so he made other television guest appearances in December 1987? What were they? And did he really "star" in them?
  • "Following this, Pitt appeared in an episode of the police drama 21 Jump Street in 1988, with additional appearances on the situation comedies Head of the Class and Growing Pains the next year." Run-on. Ungrammatical. Opens with unnecessary phrase.
  • As noted above, text indicates that he first appeared on Growing Pains in 1989. But the first of the two episodes of that series named in the "Filmography" actually aired in 1987. November 1987, in fact, before we were led to believe he made his television debut on Dallas.
  • "The movie was later released in 1997." See the problem?
  • Cutting Class has been added. Good. Now, can you explain why three times as much space is devoted to The Dark Side of The Sun, a film no one saw for nine years? Do you think the balance here is appropriate?
  • "In this same year, he appeared in a supporting role in the HBO television movie The Image (1990)." See the problem?
  • "Soon after the film, Pitt attracted broader public attention with a supporting role in the 1991 road film Thelma & Louise." "Soon after the film"? How about "Pitt soon attracted..." DocKino (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited the subsection to address the couple of issues raised above that remained unresolved and a couple of additional ones. I trimmed a bit of the detail about the fate Dark Side of the Sun--that detail's not too significant in the context of an article about Pitt. I also added the mention of a couple early TV guest appearances (steered to them by, yes lord help me, IMDb). If you see no problem with them, we can add them to the Filmography. I also changed the number of Dallas episodes to four; it didn't appear as if you had a source for the claim of five episodes. If you have reason to believe it is five, let's try to nail this down with good sourcing.

An issue with images: I believe I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm afraid it doesn't look too professional to have an image related to 1995 and 2000 (which I see is from 2007) in a section that covers 1987-93 and an image identified as from 2001 in a section that covers 1994–98. If nothing else, at least the captions should be changed. DocKino (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the change. He appeared in five episodes. . I see nothing wrong with the images. If the images are there, I don't see how they shouldn't be there. Why should the captions be changed? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a fair amount of WP:V-standard sourcing for four episodes. Here's a few:
  • Scotland on Sunday
  • Daily Record
  • Movie City News
  • Dallas Morning News (though it is the "MetroBlog")
  • My sense is that the right number probably is four; of course, you could rephrase the text to say "several" episodes.
  • The first source listed above, the Scotland on Sunday article/interview is very interesting--it may have some material that could be useful to you.
  • You "see nothing wrong with the images"? Let me try once again. The article has a chronological structure. In the section that covers 1987–93, the image relates to 1995/2000. In the section that covers 1994–98, the image relates to 2001. If you truly see nothing wrong with that, I'm not surprised that the article continues to fail 1a. DocKino (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • People magazine is a more reliable source. Also, I've fixed the image settings. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, for sure, People magazine is a very reliable source. However, your source is not People magazine. It's a "Celebrity Central" timeline on People.com. According to our policy, that's a less reliable source (electronic media) than an article that was published in the print edition of Scotland's leading Sunday newspaper (mainstream newspaper). In addition, you have offered one source; I have offered three (or four, if we accept the Dallas Morning News blog).
      • In terms of the images, now the image that relates to 1995/2000 is in the subsection that covers 2004–present; furthermore, it appears after two images that relate to 2001. Bizarre. Suggestion: Retitle the "Critical success" subsection "1994–1998", which brings it into line with the chronological titling of the other "Career" subsections. Then move the 1995/2000 image into the newly renamed "1994–1998" subsection. Problem resolved.
        • No, I will not change the "Critical success" title to "1994-1998". He earned Critical success with Interview with the Vampire, along with the other film's mentioned, thus it warrants the title there. It was your suggestion to move the images that didn't correspond within the year. I did exactly that. Now, the two images from the 1999–2003 section indeed correspond there, since they are from 2001. But, now because of this change, I've removed the image from there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Truly bizarre. Here is the Variety review of Interview with the Vampire excerpted in the article: "Brad Pitt's Louis is handsome and personable, but there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss. He also doesn't seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the other actors". Is that what you mean when you say he "earned Critical success" with the film?
          • Also, exactly how do you imagine that I'd support moving an image that relates to 1995/2000 from a section that covers 1987–93 to a section that covers 2004–present? Why do you insist on placing the image in a section to which it does not chronologically relate? Look, you've got a section, whatever you want to call it, that covers the period 1994–98. With the caption "Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People in 1995 and 2000", the image in question relates to that period. Why exactly will you not move it to that section? DocKino (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, on the article's 1a problems, I have pointed out twice the issue with the lead section's central paragraph, in which the chronology is needlessly broken by placing Benjamin Button before Troy and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. I attempted to correct this once directly, and you reverted. Rossrs, above, has concurred with my view. You have never explained your resistance to this change. What's the problem here? DocKino (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Has DocKino been asked to return to the article? I am having trouble determining whether his objection has been satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he has not. But, I've gotten his concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the nominator has not "gotten my concerns". Prose quality (1a) is an issue throughout the article. Aside from tortuously dealing with the many issues that I specifically noted were merely from the article's first fifth, no effort has been made on the rest since my objection. (And even in that first fifth, we are left with a subsection, "Critical success," whose title breaks the chronological rationale employed for the surrounding subsection titles and that begins with the discussion of a performance that was critically panned.) The article needs a tip-to-toe copyedit, and it clearly needs it from someone whom the nominator is more comfortable working with than he is with me. I believe the article is within striking range of meeting the standard, but the nominator does need to enlist a good copyeditor to deal with things throughout such as:
  • "The film failed to meet expectations at the box office, and received polarized reactions from film critics." (Nonidiomatic: critical "reactions" aren't "received".)
  • They're not?
  • "The film was well-received by critics and a prominent success at the box office". (Nonidiomatic: "prominent success".)
  • Fixed.
  • "The movie earned $478 million worldwide, one of the biggest hits of 2005." (Ungrammatical.)
  • Fixed.
  • "In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award, as well as seven Golden Globe Award nominations." (Confusing. Poor construction gives appearance of grammatical error.)
  • Fixed.
And so forth. DocKino (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The article has been copy-edited. Believe me, I wouldn't have nominated the article if someone didn't copy-edit the article. Also, I'd like to point out that I am not a "he", but a she. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wobbly on 1a. I looked at the the lead only. This nomination has sucked in reviewing resources for 26 days. Please prepare future nominations to a higher standard before launching them; that would be fairer to other nominators and to our hard-pressed reviewers. Convince us that the rest is better than the lead:

    • Opening: "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer. He has been cited as one of the world's most attractive men and his off-screen life is widely reported. Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and has won one Golden Globe Award out of four nominations." Does the second sentence sit there logically, and in terms of its importance? Do the two ideas in the second sentence, linked by "and" combine comfortably?
      • It does have importance.
    • "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven, a major international hit, and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)." Chain of ands. Just two dashes might help: "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven – a major international hit – and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)."
  • Pitt, Pitt, Pitt (start of three successive sentences).
    • Done.
  • Remove comma after Jolie?
    • Done.
  • "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced, among other films, the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed." Could be ordered more neatly: "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed, among other films." Tony (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I worked on this article in the early days and it's good to see a lot that I wrote remains!! I think this article has come on leaps and bounds since passing GA noticeably in terms of the reviews of his performances which were missing as well as citations. It now looks like a featured article, a solid, well written, structured article. Maybe it could still use some minor copy editing in places to avoid short sentences but well done to the developer. This guys name seems to pop up in a huge number of articles so a featured article is excellent progress. Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • But you have not convinced anyone, as I asked, that the rest of the prose is worth it. Taking a few random spot-checks:
    • "Pitt's film career broadened after being cast as vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac"—So his career was cast as a character?
      • Re-wrote sentence.
    • Same grammatical glitch: "Reception for the movie was mixed, but grossed over $165 million worldwide."—The reception grossed that amount?
      • Fixed.
    • "in order to"—spot two redundant words.
      • Where is this at?
    • "Despite the mixed reviews, Pitt's performance was favored by critics." We haven't heard about those mixed reviews yet ... why "the"?
      • Fixed.
    • he ... he ... he: "Pitt had a cameo role in George Clooney's 2002 directorial debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and he appeared in an episode of MTV's Jackass, where he and several ...". Remove the second one (a technique used in the subsequent sentence).
      • Fixed.
    • What is the "present"? 2009? 2012?
      • What do you think?

Needs fine sifting to remove these infelicities. Someone new to it is needed; anyone at the TV or film WikiProjects a good copy-editor? It's not a big job, so why not finish it off.

Again, it is disturbing that professional reviewers have had to weigh in to this extent; the process is not meant to work this way. Please take note for the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm keeping a cool head here, and will ignore this criticism that is being given to my part. I was debating this issue as well, whether or not to nominate the article to FAC. I received several feedbacks from very generous users, as well as an excellent copy-edit from a kind user. If neither of that would have occurred, my name wouldn't show up here. But, that did happen and now I'm here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry I cannot add my support. The prose is not of FA standard; it lacks flow and is choppy and repetitive. The word "mixed" is used over and over to describe critics' reviews and Pitt always seems to be acting "alongside" someone. Redundancy remains, here for example, In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations and here Pitt stated his reasons for the stance. "Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," he said. The dull prose becomes strikingly apparent after reading an engaging well-phrased quotation. The article needs some more work. PS. Are the Interview with the Vampire links back to front? Graham Colm 14:13, 7 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 9 June 2009 .

Necrid

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article for a third time after tackling any and all issues mentioned in the previous nominations. The prose should now hopefully be up to snuff, and the content of the article sufficient for a FA status article. All resources have been exhausted and so forth, all sources checked for reliability, and all images meet fair-use rationale. As usual any issues come up, mention them and I'll tackle them.Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - The article is much improved since its previous FAC, and as the prose was the main problem last time I am pleased to support this nomination now. Graham Colm 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, my opinion hasn't changed from the last nomination. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just copyedited the article, and am leaning towards supporting, but this confused me: "A physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, that is controlled through the jewel on his chest." Does "that" refer to "Maleficus" from the preceding sentence? —TKD  23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Combined it with the previous sentence, does it flow better?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a missing "and". Now it works. —TKD  12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Check that; I ended up breaking up the sentence again and repeating "Maleficus" in order to avoid ambiguity. —TKD  13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • And reworked again, along with the rest of the article, for flow. The one image in the article has a proper description page and meets the NFCC as increasing the user's understanding of the character's visual appearance. I'd prefer that the references consistently use the cite templates, but that's, in my view, a minor detail. The article appears well-researched and neutral to me, so support. —TKD  02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support; I supported it last time and it's even better now. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • Grammar and punctuation errors further copy edit needed. Ling.Nut 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Given that three different copyeditors have been over the text in the last 24 hours, examples would be helpful. —TKD  12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • These are from this morning; may already have been fixed. Sorry too busy to do more:
  • "While there, his body and mind were warped until he escaped." Warping causes escape?
    • That sentence is rather hard to confuse, but expanded it to try and make it clearer.
  • "it was the result a collaboration"
    • adding missing "of"
  • "built on—and completed—the design" Purpose of the dashes?
    • Removed the dashes.
  • "that the sword's spirit Inferno" punct.
    • Added commas.
  • "A physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, that is controlled through the jewel on his chest." Not a sentence.
    • This was fixed by TKD
  • manila bulletin? Is this a common source for game reviews? If not, then it makes you look kinda desperate for a source that offers praise...
  • Ling.Nut 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose:
  • 1a, needs a great deal of rewriting.
    • After this many copyedits this sounds...rather odd. But pointing out any issues might help readily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I had a couple simple goofs that I corrected (I'm not the master of cutting and pasting text around in an edit window), and I found a few more redundancies and odd grammatical constructions. —TKD  05:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are the promotion and critical reception sections under a subheading "cultural impact"? This game character's cultural impact is not significantly different from zero, and none of the text in those two sections asserts otherwise.
    • This would be the first time I've heard of any complaint regarding it, though I'm not sure how becoming synonymous with "shit" for a time amongst people couldn't be considered cultural impact. The section is used without qualm under the same name by several other articles, include FA character article Cortana.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Critical reception is info directly related to the game, not "culture" in general. That someone happened to call the character "shitty" obviously doesn't mean that it's directly associated with feces. Same deal with promo and merchandise. It's all about commercial depictions of the character in its original context as a video game character. Trying to call that "cultural impact" is merely misleading. Peter 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is 1UP.com mentioned in the lede but not the body? Ling.Nut 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's mentioned there through Retronauts, which is a part of 1UP.com (which is also pointed out in the prose by describing them as "1UP.com's Retronauts".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • I sincerely hope that I don't have to go plowing through every single cited source. I found a couple clunkers after a moment's search... For example, "Soul Calibur II Updated Impressions" at GameSpot is cited for two assertions. The first is that "McFarlane received sole credit for ". However, this is never mentioned at the linked subpage of Gamespot. The second is "GameSpot shared the sentiment in their review of the game" What sentiment? The nearest one is that Necrid is "filler", and that is clearly not mentioned in GameSpot... are there more of these problems?
  • "Necrid, the other McFarlane character", that line is pretty blatant and that paragraph follows the one on Spawn. Retronaut's statements might've been a better citation (they referred to it up front as him "polluting" all three versions with his design), but most of the references cited cite him as the sole creator without noting it was actually a collaboration.
  • "His monstrous form makes him look somewhat out of place among Soul Calibur II's cast." That's the line being cited there, which was a similar sentiment to the previous one (that he looked out of place). Looking at it now though I've changed "the sentiment" to "similar sentiment". Just bad wording on my part, a lot of this was done in the wee hours of the morning one night.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Lotsa talk about how necrid was "unbalanced" but no real explanation of how or why. Unbalanced visually, or in terms of power or in terms of move-sets
  • I did a small amount of rewriting. Revert if you dislike. I think the whole thing needs more rewriting for flow etc. I saw grammatical errors as well. I fixed a couple, but I think others remain. Gotta work now. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Only changed hairless back to bald, seems to imply something different. Thank you for fixing the misquote, not sure if that was my fault or an old copyedit, just know it's been there for ages...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The bit about only McFarlane being credited is.. well, if it isn't WP:OR (and I think it may be), then it's certainly "on the warning track". The other problem I mentioned was not fixed by the "similar sentiment" hedging you employed. Similar to what? No one else mentioned "filler", and since that is the last clause before the cite, that's the sentiment that logic would suggest that others share. In general, great care/precision should be used when citing things; you run the risk of putting words in peoples' mouths. Of course, no game reviewer is gonna care. No Misplaced Pages reader is gonna care, either. I'm trying to holding you to academic standards, and perhaps I shouldn't be trying to do so... even so, parts of the article are still too vague, choppy etc. Forex, what does "out of instinct" mean? What instinct? Why does he have this instinct? It's far too vague. I saw one source somewhere that said that in his initially mentally altered state, Necrid perceived all other people as enemies (sorry, I didn't write it down!). If you're gonna try to mention some vague "out of instinct" idea, you need to explain it clearly, and you need to cite it very carefully. And so on. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1c. I posted some comments about the prose on the article Talk page after the last failed FAC. I'm unsure if these were addressed satisfactorily (there was no response) but I'd like to look at the research and sourcing. After considering Ling.Nut's concerns above, I decided to deep-dive into a sample section to examine the quality of research and accuracy of representation. I picked "Gameplay". Based on what I see, I'm going to oppose this nomination until a neutral party can audit the sources and make sure they've been accurately represented. If this section is any indication, a lot of work is needed. Examples:
    • "Using a fighting style Yotoriyama described as 'horrific splendor'" is a mischaracterization of what Yotoriyama says. He refers to Necrid's fighting skills, which is quite a different matter. You even wikilink "fighting style" which leaves the reader with the impression that the source said anything at all about fighting style.. which is a fair bit apart from fighting "skills". This is sloppy application of research that basically produces WP:OR.
    • "Through the jewel on his chest, he can control Maleficus" The source you list for this statement mentions neither jewels nor Maleficus.
      • I'm...actually not sure how that happened. The references must have gotten mixed up somehow. Fixing...
    • In fact, with statement like "creaming pants", it's a wonder Minkley is considering a good source or serious journalism at all.
      • He's a writer for Eurogamer as well, which the wikiproject notes as a reliable source too.
    • "The majority of Necrid's attacks are copies or derivatives of those used by other characters in the series." Original research, no source.
      • That's actually meant to be covered right here as a reference, though the IGN reference works better for it.
        • The only thing I see there even remotely close to what you write in the article is "His borrowing of certain moves and weapons" which is a huge leap. I hope you understand where I'm coming from here; this example is quite indicative of how liberally the sources have been interpreted throughout the article. It needs a lot of work to get up to an acceptable standard of research and sourcing. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "However, his weapon appears and disappears into his hands ..." I wasn't going to comment on prose, but...
    • As for the rest of the two paragraphs, sourced to game guides, which is probably fine for basic statements. But, what is GameNOW? A magazine? If so, page numbers, publisher, etc? A web site? URL?
--Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This nomination has sucked in reviewing resources for 26 days. Please prepare future nominations to a higher standard before launching them; that would be fairer to other nominators and to our hard-pressed reviewers. Tony (talk) 15:07, 5 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 .

Paul Reubens

Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone sufficient vetting and appears ready for Featured Article status. The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Removed dead link.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 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. Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Subsidiary of Gothamist; reliable.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Interview with Reel Video; Reel used to be in the same league as Amazon.com but bit the dust during the dot-com bubble.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a bit more showing reliablity here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Staff written subsidiary of Hollywood Video, their struggle as an online retailer is chronicled by the San Francisco Chronicle.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Removed. Changed source to staff-written Tv.com article - which is indexed by Google News.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Established film news site owned by AOL.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
But is it a staff written site or in other words, who writes the content? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Staff written.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Passes the Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb test.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
HOw does it pass? Generally, it should be used only for the most basic of facts ..Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case, IMDB's information came from WENN, an entertainment news wire service based in London.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Newsday article linked from Amarillo Globe-News--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Fixed and NBC's official corporate blog is a legit source.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref 84 is just a bare url, needs publisher, title, last access date at the very least.
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "As a child, Reubens would frequent the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, whose headquarters was in Sarasota during the winter. The circus' atmosphere sparked Reubens interest in entertainment and influenced his later work." This level of detail certainly does not match what the given source briefly touches on. Was there another source used here? BuddingJournalist 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Vanity Fair article has further details on this, added reference.--The lorax (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Otterathome (talk)
  1. Ref 67 is IMDB, not a very good source. Any other sources to use with it instead?
    It can be removed if need be. It appears to be referenced legitimately in regards to Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Isn't image:1991-07-30 NY post front page.jpg a bit too small? It's barely readable.
    I tried to hunt down an original copy of the cover unsuccessfully. I think the point was to show examples of tabloid saturation of the story.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    I looked for an original copy for ages, don't waste your time. The image is so small because its actually a scan of a scan, I got it from a magazine article.--Yamanbaiia 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Excess space at the end of the last sentence. and 'The Blues Brothers.'.
    Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. The infobox seems very small, can't more information be added to it?--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Please fill in as many of the Template:Infobox_actor as possible.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. "Since 2006" in lead, wouldn't From 2006 be better?
  7. Is he really known for the child pornography allegations that it belongs in the lead? On from that, is all the info in the child pornography section relevant and non-trivial?
  8. I'm still worried about the IMDB source as it is in the child pornography section and may be touching upon WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned about this passage: "Reubens remained in shock and feeling paranoid for the following months, with the arrest still haunting him during the following years. He refused to give interviews or appear in talk show, unlike other celebrities that got involved in "sex scandals" during the 1990s, like Hugh Grant or Robert Downey Jr., which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Aside from the awkward phrasing, I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid." Also, the source referenced by citation 15 doesn't say a single thing about "in talk show" (I suppose you mean "on talk shows"), "other celebrities", "sex scandals", Hugh Grant, or Robert Downey Jr.

Removed Ref 15, cited US Weekly interview (ref 55) where he says "I couldn't tell you a lot of what was going on when it all happened, because I was so in shock. I'm not sure I even knew the scope of it at that point. Because I really was in a kind of clinical shock - like your brain sort of lets you go somewhere else, and you're not, you know, 100 percent yourself. And I didn't realize that until maybe two months after it happened, when someone said, "Well, you're in shock." The source for refusing to go on talk shows is from Vanity Fair. (ref 38.)--The lorax (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Lovely, except I didn't say a word about the claim of "shock". Please allow me to quote myself:
I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid."
I still see absolutely no support for that claim, which is of a sensitive nature. DocKino (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Now on to this claim: "He refused to give interviews or appear on talk shows...which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Please check your source, the Vanity Fair article (more precisely, its second online section). Reubens nowhere makes this claim; "blacklisting" is raised by an unnamed source and by producer Phil Rosenthal. Also see Reubens's response to a question about "being blacklisted" in that US article you mentioned. Edit away. DocKino (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Changed for accuracy: "Some collaborators believe this made people start "blacklisting" him."--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I just added the ref for Hugh Grant and Downey and as for the paranoid thing, in the vanity fair interview's second page he says "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." That first month, he says, was the hardest. "I was so in shock, and I didn't realize that's what was going on with me. (...) I never contemplated anything like suicide. But I see how one could." I thought it was appropriate to summarize that with "paranoid". thoughts?--Yamanbaiia 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the cite. We need to be very careful about introducing words like "paranoid" on our own to describe a living person's mental state. If you wanted, you could do something like this:
In the immediate aftermath of the arrest, Reubens says, "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." He remained in a state of shock for weeks, and was haunted by the arrest for several years.
I've suggested "weeks", as the US article has him realizing he's in shock when someone tells him so "maybe two months after it happened". After that, he says, "it was like I'd had a diagnosis, and that made it easier," so I don't know if we can pull out his "shock" over a longer period. DocKino (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited IMDb material actually originates with WENN (World Entertainment News Network). It's a gossip news wire, bearing roughly the same relationship to the National Enquirer as the Associated Press does to the New York Times. Query: Do we regard the National Enquirer as a reliable source or not?DocKino (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This can be removed, but how contentious is the claim of the source? Does anyone dispute that Romano recast Reubens' part?--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My view is that we take a source like WENN on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing to suggest that this report is inaccurate in any way. Unless someone has a good policy-based rationale for excluding WENN entirely, I think it's fine to keep it. DocKino (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 .

Yukon Quest

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Jeez ... Jappalang's nomination spiel is a tough act to follow, so I'm not even going to try. This is the second FAC nomination for Yukon Quest. It failed about a month ago with two supports and one oppose. Since that time, I've added a few more photos, edited the article to meet the concerns of reviewers, added a couple citations, and stubbed most of the redlinks in the article. I felt this article was ready for FA the last time I submitted it, and I feel even more the same way now. If you have any questions or concerns outside of a normal review, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you'll review the article and find it worthy of FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - To be honest, I'm a little stymied about this repeat nomination so soon after the first (less than 30 days), especially since the article doesn't seem to have changed substantively (other than images and minor tweaks) since its last FAC was archived. I left off last time asking for a third-party copyedit, which hasn't been done. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you posted this comment, I finished my third copy edit on the article. I'd invite you to take another look. I don't intend to apply for a formal copy edit for two reasons:
  • I don't believe it's necessary — I don't think the article is perfect, but if you asked me if I think the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", I'd answer yes.
  • Looking at the writing holistically, I'd say that the article is as a whole well-written; that is, the flow is pretty good and there are no glaring errors. However, the blemishes on the clause level, as indicated by my examples below, need to be smoothed out for the writing to truly be "brilliant". To your credit, your articles are well-organized (in paragraphing and multi-sentence cohesiveness), which makes it much easier to find these problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Other articles need copy editing assistance more than this one, and I don't want to take up the limited time of the copy editors who already have an overwhelming demand for their services.
  • If you believe it's necessary, I'd encourage you to apply for one. It's not my article, and you certainly don't need my permission. I don't think another formal copy edit is necessary, but I don't want to discourage editors from going through the article and pointing out places where the explanation isn't clear to someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Thanks for your comment! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A big thank you goes out to Magicpiano for copy editing the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Not sure exactly what to make of this one. I supported before but am concerned there are flaws that I'm missing, considering the opposition from the last FAC. One thing I do see is that the lead has a couple of small paragraphs that would be better off merged elsewhere in the opening. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I think you're right about the lede ... I've shoved those two short paragraphs -- the ones about the route length and the 2010 race -- into the paragraph that separated them. Let me know if that makes the paragraph too long; it's the reason I didn't do that the first time around. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

map - would this be in order? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Last FAC, I was more focused on getting through the entire article rather than focusing on one area. On intense scrutiny, however, I find glitches:

  • "Owing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the dogs that participate in the race, many of the Quest's rules are geared toward ensuring animals' health." 1) I think we've established that the dogs that are referenced to are participants in the race—maybe "wing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the participating dogs"; 2) You go from "dogs" to "animals", I wasn't aware that other animals were directly involved in the race.
  • How about "their" for No. 2? I didn't want to repeat dogs, but maybe that would work.
  • "This process begins before the race, when all dogs are required to undergo a check by race veterinarians" Could be "This process begins before the race, when all dogs must be checked by race veterinarians" (I think that a better word could be used instead of "checked")
  • Instead of "checked," how about "examined"?
  • "who certify that the animals are in good enough health to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." Could be "who certify that the animals are healthy enough to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." (should "arctic" be capitalized"?)
  • I don't think "arctic" should be capitalized in this sense ... my copy of Webster's doesn't capitalize it, and in this case, the term could be referring to the temperature rather than the region. Given the possible meanings, I suggest leaving it lower case.
  • "must finish with no fewer than 6 dogs."-->must finish with more than 6 dogs.
  • They can finish with six dogs. Saying they have to finish with more than six means they can't finish with six.
  • "During the race, dogs are visually examined by veterinarians stationed at every checkpoint." Is there any other type of examination that could be done?
  • Blood work and chemical tests, which aren't done until after the race. During the race, they're mainly worried about exhaustion, frostbite, sores from running or friction from harnesses, that sort of thing.
  • You really emphasize the penalties assessed for dog mistreatment. Can you provide a concrete example? For example, what did "Donald Smidt" that earned him disqualification?
  • I haven't been able to find a reliable source that states what happened to him. I did run across a forum posting talking about sores on the dogs' feet, but I haven't found anything that's reliable.

Oppose—The writing is not good enough. Why is this here less than a month after the last attempt? And why has it sucked up our precious reviewing resources for a whole 24 days? This is not the venue for article improvement drives: they should occur before nomination. Sorry to talk plainly. I read only part of the lead, as an example of the whole text.

  • Tony, if you'll allow me to be equally frank, posting such a comment after reading only "part of the lead" of a 65k article is akin to reading three pages of a book, then writing a damning review. I appreciate your comments in regards to things I can fix in regards to the text, but your comments about how this review was submitted are irrelevant. FAC reviews the content of the article, not the content of the review. It was not my intent to use the FAC process as an article improvement method, except by what was needed to achieve the support of other editors. In the first review, the article received two supports and one oppose. The condition of the oppose — that it receive a thorough copy editing — has been resolved thanks to Magicpiano.
  • No metric conversion at the opening.
  • The official name does not require a conversion.
  • Few readers will know that Yukon is in Canada, directly to the east of Alaska.
  • That's why it's been wikilinked.
  • "harsh winter conditions"—It's summer in February in half the planet.
  • Good idea.
  • What is a musher?
  • Wikilink moved to first reference.
  • it is considered the "most difficult sled dog race in the world". It also has been called the "toughest race in the world".—Why two quotes, nearly the same? Can't one be used below?
  • They're two different categories, as I understand it. Forex, "toughest race in the world" would include things like marathons or the Dakar Rally. Sort of like someone saying she's not only the toughest human in the world, he's the toughest mammal in the world.
  • "Musher", I see, is linked on second, not first appearance. Shouldn't have to hit the link to learn in a phrase what it means.
  • See two comments above. As to the second part, I'm sorry, but I disagree. This is covered under the section of WP:LINK that deals with technical terms. I've written 10 previous FAs, many of which dealt with individual college football games. In no instance was I required to explain the rules of college football or what a down, touchdown, or extra point are.
  • Is Whitehorse in Yukon? I know that Fairbanks is in Alaska, but most won't.
  • Fairbanks, Alaska, and Whitehorse, Yukon are the terms used in the first sentence of the article.
  • Permitted and allowed? drops drops. "and" rather than "or"? "Racers are permitted to drop sled dogs at checkpoints or dog drops but are not allowed to replace the dogs." --> "Racers are permitted to leave sled dogs at checkpoints and dog drops, but not to replace the dogs." Then ... "They also cannot may neither replace their sleds without penalty, nor accept help from non-racers except when they reach Dawson City, the halfway mark of the race. Tony (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I see where you're going. The only part I'd contend with is the removal of the prepositional phrase identifying Dawson, since the article hasn't defined its importance to that point. Removing it would cause readers to ask the question "Why Dawson City and not some other point?" JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 6 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 .

Rob Pelinka

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high quality article of a sports agent. I don't think there are currently any sports agent FAs and he is as interesting as any, IMO. I also feel that he is an interesting example of what a Walter Byers Award winner might become. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Really not that happy with what I saw early in the article; hopefully it improves as it goes into his college years and career as an agent.

Please note that I make no promises about returning, as I have four or five new FACs that I'm interested in reviewing. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally was able to come back for some more.
  • College: "As a guard, he became the first athlete to reach three NCAA Tournament Final Fours during his Michigan Wolverines career." Is this only for Michigan athletes? I can think of many UCLA basketball players who have appeared in three Final Fours. That just confused me a bit.
  • Capitalize final four in the second sentence of the section.
  • "He did have an opportunity to take a 20-foot shot with five seconds left in what turned out to be a 76–74 loss to Texas on December 29, 1990. He missed the shot." Instead of having such a short sentence at the end, why not work it into the previous sentence?
  • Education: Notre Dame and North Carolina could be linked.
  • Typo: "he be came the home game color analyst...".

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) 1a and 2a problems. These are just examples from the top.

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 .

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article as part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1a. I'm sorry but this is a long way from ready. The level of preparedness here indicates that the article required a peer review at the very least. There are basic problems apparent just in the lead; where I started reading randomly throughout the text, I easily located issues. A thorough, substantive copyedit is needed. Some random issues follow:
  • I responded to each item line-by-line. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for, but I did and of course am willing to continue responding any other objections this way. As with the topic's previous two FAs, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought the GAN process would serve as an acceptable alternative, but if it's really so bad that it can't be fixed by the FAC process (which I hope isn't the case) I will put in for that. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "In this episode, the boys send money ..." This needs to mostly stand alone as an article. You don't have to list out "the boys" but at least include a link for people wanting context.
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself, where he learned activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself." Mixed tenses.
    • "The episode was written by ... writer Pam Brady." Written by a writer... you don't say.
    • "The episode simultaneously serves as a satire for both American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry itself." Mixing up tenses again; you've been writing about the episode in the past tense until now. Also, "both" is unnecessary.
    • "which was then about eight times the channel's average viewership." By now, I've forgotten it was Comedy Central, so it probably bears repeating.
    • "The episode reportedly offended Sally Struthers and made her cry." The last bit is not really of a proper tone. Later on, you could say it "affected her emotionally" or similar but let's not be this familiar. In the lead, cut it after her name.
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself"; "the humanitarianism industry itself"; "In addition to the Starvin' Marvin character himself" All these phrases, just from the lead, demonstrate a penchant for inserted pronouns of dubious value at the end of things. Remove all of them and you haven't changed the meaning.
      • I've removed all of these you pointed out and a few others from the article you didn't. I'll keep this advice in mind for my future writing in general as well
    • "McDaniels, however, thinks he is crazy and ridicule him behind his back."
    • "Despite this however, it was given a PG rating in the United Kingdom."
    • Inconsistency with logical quotation (see WP:LQ). The guideline is under discussion but you need to be consistent.
      • I only found three examples of inconsistency. For the most part I think it's OK (periods and commas outside the quotation marks for clauses, episodes, phrases; inside for full sentences). If you find any that I missed, please feel free to point them out or fix them yourself. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
--Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Hunter Kahn: Thank you so much for addressing these points quickly. I understand your reason for foregoing the peer review, but it seems clear that the GA review was woefully inadequate in this case. GAN should never be considered a substitute for peer review or a good copyedit, in my opinion, for this very reason. I do think it warrants a thorough copyedit, as I mentioned above. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 13 (Kuypers, Janet...) needs a page number.
  • Is current ref 28 (Williamson..) a newspaper? It seems to be lacking the title of the newspaper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. The prose is very poor and the are problems in almost every sentence. Here are some examples:

  • "In this episode, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan send money to an African charity to get a sports watch, but they are instead sent the Ethiopian child Starvin' Marvin." - hoping to get, or in return for?
  • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia, where he learns activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself" -why actually?
  • "The episode simultaneously served as a satire for American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry." - the expression is "satire on".
  • "the episode introduced recurring characters Gerald Broflovski (Kyle's father) and Kenny's family members Stuart, Carol and Kevin McCormick." - recurring characters?
  • "After seeing a commercial about starving children in Africa, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, not caring about the starving people there but rather wanting the free sports watch that comes with the sponsorship, send money to Sally Struthers' charity organization" - hopelessly convoluted.
  • "The boys take Marvin to an all-you-can-eat buffet, where he is shocked by how much food the townsfolk are consuming compared to his home country" - are we comparing a town with a country?
  • "Back at school, Mr. Garrison announces the food drive is a failure because students have brought in only a cans of creamed corn." - only a cans of creamed corn?
  • "the turkey DNA is growing so rapidly that they might take over the world if they cannot be stopped in South Park." - the DNA or the turkeys? Try "turkeys' DNA".
  • "Cartman, who had previously shown little care for the people living in poverty in Africa, is sent to Ethiopia and is unable to bear the lack of food and horrible conditions there." - but is unable, and horrible is much too vague.
  • "During a prayer to God says he is sorry he made fun of poor people." - Why on earth is God linked?
  • "Sally Struthers encourages viewers to donate money to provide food to starving children in Africa"- provide food for.
  • "The animators enjoyed creating the turkey battle scene, which was animated in widescreen aspect ratio while the rest of the episode was animated normally." I am sure it was not animated in widescreen aspect, it was probably filmed in it.

I could go on and on, but I am in danger of pasting the whole article here. The prose is the poorest I have ever seen at FAC. Graham Colm 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I guess I was too hasty in this nomination, and should have at the very least given it a thorough copy edit myself instead of depending on the GAN process. I'll definitely be putting it up for a peer review after I make the changes you guys have given. I do intend to bring it back after I do that, though, because I think the content is good, even though the prose needs work. Before this gets closed, do any of you guys have any feedback as far as the content? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the content is good, and most importantly, the sources seem reliable. Please point me to the PR when you are ready. I would like to help in return for your not shooting the messengers. Graham Colm 19:14, 4 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 .

No Jacket Required

Nominator(s): CarpetCrawler 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello, everyone! This is my first ever FAN, so my apologies if I misunderstand anything. I am nominating this article, because I feel that after giving it a huge expansion (This is what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) over the course of many many months, having received two peer reviews, numerous copyedits, as well as a ton of help from a lot of friends along the way, that this article is ready to be promoted as a featured article. The article has come a long way from what it used to look like, and I look forward to doing my best at addressing any concerns anyone may have over this article. Thank you, and I look forward to any comments! :) CarpetCrawler 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, looks good and meets the criteria. Just a few comments:
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, I can see that more than one reference is named 'NOR'.
Done, I didn't add those refs, so I assume the original editor accidentally copy and pasted incorrectly. Either way, they're fixed now! CarpetCrawler 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 65's retrieval date differs in format from the rest.
Done. Fixed that and properly formatted in. CarpetCrawler 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Disambiguation links are up to speed, according to the dab finder tool. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't believe this currently meets the 1a bar. Examples at random, all from lead:
    • The second sentence: "The album was named after an incident at The Pump Room in Chicago, where Collins was denied admittance to the establishment because of his attire." Weak use of the passive and problematic ambiguity of "after". Why not the simpler, tighter: "The name of the album refers to..."?
    • How exactly is something "based on improvisation"?
    • "Other songs, like "Long Long Way to Go", had a political message." Use of "other" suggests the two are mutually exclusive.
    • Cite your quotations.
    • "Rolling Stone reviewer David Fricke said that the album, "Like his '81 and '82 outings, Face Value and Hello ... I Must Be Going!, No Jacket Required is not an album that waits to be liked"." <-- ungrammatical
    • "went to number one in various parts of the world" Bland, elementary prose.
    • "The record has been certified diamond " Link? "being certified for 6x platinum." Is it certified or certified for?
    • "Many of the songs, including "Take Me Home", and "Long Long Way To Go," also appeared in various episodes of Miami Vice," Also?
    • "Collins embarked on The No Jacket Required World Tour concert in 1985 which was also successful." Another puzzling also. Which v. that (or comma). Why not just "embarked on a successful"?
    • "During the tour, Collins also recorded a song with" Good thing Tony hasn't reviewed this yet...
    • In general, the article suffers from simplistic prose. For example, take a look at how the article strives desperately to achieve narrative flow in the Production section (first sentences of each para):
      • "Some of the songs from the album were works that were originally improvised by Collins"
      • "Another song that Collins created mostly through improvisation was"
      • "Another song based partly off improvisation is "One More Night""
      • "Other songs were written with a more personal message."
      • "Doesn't Anybody Stay Together Anymore?" is another song in which Collins was making a personal message. "
      • "Take Me Home" is another song in which the meaning was originally very vague." (and who knows what "originally very vague" means)
    • This needs quite a bit of work before it meets FA criteria. Might want to withdraw this one. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the above, apart from the suggestion to withdraw. The article requires a thorough copy-edit, and I have made some suggestions. This contribution certainly lacks flow, and this is not helped by trivial sentences such as " The Phil Collins Big Band played this on tour", carelessly inserted into the article, and odd expressions like "collaborator of Live Aid". This is a pity, there is much interesting content here—but more work required.Graham Colm 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd withdraw, but I'd rather hear if anyone else has any comments. Honestly, about this needing a copyedit, I had quite a few people copyedit this article, and another user completely guided me through various stages... so I don't know what to say, really. Also, I apologize for the sloppy prose. I am not a good prose writer, which is why I had some many copyedits done in the first place, but oh well. I'd rather see what anyone else has to say before I withdraw this. CarpetCrawler 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So would I. When it comes to copyediting, it is often not quantity but quality that counts. Yes, let's see what others have to say. This is not the end of the world, but an opportunity to improve the article. And, most importantly, please no apology required. We are friends and collaborators working as volunteers on an important project. This article may or may not be promoted on this occasion, but given the content, and providing that the sources are reliable, it will eventually. Graham. Graham Colm 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 .

Loihi Seamount

Nominator(s): ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


This is my second shot. Since the first nominations, we've been tightening the article, and Mattaise has done a great go-over of the prose. Try, try again... ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on macro organisms had material that was copied without understanding and without quotation marks. Probably the article should be more carefully checked before some author finds their work as a featured article in[REDACTED] without their permission. It's also useful for the reader of the article if the material copied (although prefer it not copied, but rewritten and developed with proper attribution and expanded and placed in pointed context) is directly related to the article. Data in the table and lists were about species found in general by expeditions to primarily other seamounts, not this one, or were not found at the linked site, or were used in ways that did not show the relationship to this article and its unique sealife that is a function of its historical activity and location relative to the hotspot. Please check sources carefully. Also please read carefully to see if the article makes sense. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, article abstracts should never be used as references (that's where the disputed material came from), only the articles themselves. In any case, 69.226.103.13 offers excellent criticism and I hope it will improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not realize that editors were using just the abstract for the information. My corrections, however, are from the article, not the abstract, and if the reference as is means that only the abstract is used for this section it is incorrect. I will change this to the UH link to clear this up. The 213 species out of 250 taxa photographed, is, yes, for the entire series of dives mostly concentrated at Johnston and Cross and should probably remain deleted until additional information is included about the colonization of the seamount from the surrounding areas. For this last piece of information is an important aspect of the colonization of the seamount. The comment about lack of faunal zonation is also an important ecological description for a young volcano, and an attempt should be made to find the reference and include the information in this section. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Just one observation, if you're only using the abstract of an article as the source, you must make that clear in the referencing. I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't even begin to opine on whether that's good practice or not
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to check out the sources and links.
This particular abstract should not have been used as the source for information because the article was primarily about two other locations, not Loihi. This has been fixed in the Loihi article.
In general, for writing encyclopedia articles, scientific information should be well-established. If it is published as an abstract only, as in the case of a convention, the information may be too new and not as vetted as one would want for an article in a general encyclopedia. Most information should come, also, from within an article, rather than from its abstract, for the same reason: the abstract is the new information, the text contains discussion of well-established information. Within the article, the introduction, relating the basis of the experiment to prior information, and the discussion section, relating the results to prior information, are the most appropriate areas to find usable information for a derivative piece, such as a general encyclopedia article or a popular science or newspaper write-up. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Enough inaccuracies have been found to make me quite wary about this article. Examples include the macro-organism material mentioned above, the seamount's height (diff), and the issues around the 1996 eruption recently discussed on the article's talk page. As 69.226.103.33 suggests above, the article needs to be thoroughly checked against its sources. There is a lot of good work being put in, though, so I'm still hopeful. -- Avenue (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend closing this FAC, for the second time. It isn't ready. One thing I noticed early in the article development was some confusion caused by the reliance on HCV web sites. These sites were, for the most part, using data found in published sources. For example, the paper in the further reading section, "Researchers rapidly respond to submarine activity at Lōʻihi volcano, Hawaiʻi", supports much of the current article. Whenever possible, however, editors should try to review the published literature before using web sites which extract partial data for public consumption, and compare it to multiple sources to determine accuracy. Some of the initial editing of this article was rushed and copied haphazardly from web sites without careful attention to detail and comparative fact-checking from the original sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • I've gone through and made a quick round of changes based on things I picked out in the article. Let me know if any of the changes created problems as you see them.
  • Several of the changes I made include adding fact tags where I think a citation is needed.
  • The expression "the most recorded for any historical Hawaiian volcanic activity" in the lead is a bit awkward. Is there a way you could rephrase it to something like "This series included more earthquakes than any other swarm in Hawaiian history"?
  • I'm a little concerned that the fourth citation is used so heavily. For me, anything more than 10 uses indicates that more research could be needed. I'd strongly suggest finding additional citations to replace the multiple uses -- those new citations might reveal new facts about the seamount as well.
  • The caption for the bathymetric map of the seamount uses a period for an incomplete sentence. I didn't change it since there's another sentence there, and you could probably combine the two.
  • In the geology section dealing with Pele's Pit, there's a bit of redundancy and confusion. You mention that Pele's Pit is the youngest pit twice; I'm also not clear what Pele's Vent was -- there's no explanation; also, when you talk about the thick crater walls, is that referring to all the pits or just Pele's Pit.
  • Where are the other two pits located, and what's their structure? You mention so much detail about Pele's Pit, the absence of information about the other two was noticeable.
  • You mention how the rift zones create the "distinctive shape from which its Hawaiian name derives". The problem is that you don't mention what Loihi means until later in the article and in the infobox.
  • In the sentence "transported with the seafloor itself to its location in the Hawaiian Islands", you may need to mention crustal movement, since the natural question is to ask how a volcano can be transported.
  • I hesitate to offer this as a suggestion, since it would be a lot of work: Consider merging the exploration and activity sections into a "history" section and move it in front of Geology. I say this because the Geology section contains a lot of information that is tough to grasp unless you understand the history of the seamount. Forex, the article mentions about how until 1970, it was thought that Loihi was a defunct seamount moved into place by the moving crust and that scientists discovered in 1970 that it was an erupting volcano. You're using historical marks to discuss the geology, and that makes me wonder if it'd be better to move the history of exploration and eruptive history up. For examples of where this worked really well, check out the featured article Jupiter Trojan.
  • The summit depth in the infobox and the one given in the geology section don't match.
  • There are a lot of double and triple-spaced words in the article. I think I nailed most of them, but I'd suggest doing a find/replace for them.
  • In activity, you say the volcano was known to be active before recordkeeping began in 1959; that seems to contradict the assertion in the geology section that it was thought to be a dormant seamount prior to 1970.
  • I like the table of major events. It's a good idea and presents its information clearly.
  • In the activity section, the 1991–1992 earthquake lasted several months? Or did you mean eruption?
  • When you say a "low level" of activity, by what definition is it low?
  • The sentence "detected 10 times the amount of quakes that were to be found on the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) seismic network" leaves me more questions than answers. How many quakes were found by HVO? Is that a lot? What does HVO cover? How many volcanoes? How do those volcanoes compare to Loihi?
  • When you say the swarm was the "largest" recorded for any Hawaiian volcano, does that mean intensity or number?
  • You've got moment magnitude scale wikilinked twice in quick succession in the activity section and again later on in the article.
  • Why were scientists unable to study iron-oxidizing bacteria at any time other than the 1996 quake swarm?
  • What is a "significant" amount of shore-based research? It's not a very clear amount.
  • In the earthquake swarm section, you use the word "event" a lot. The problem is that it's often not clear whether you're talking about the swarm or the eruption that preceded it, especially in terms of the effects. I know there's probably no way to tell in some cases, but the formation of Pele's Pit was a result of the eruption, not the quakes, yes?
  • Calling the volcano "alive" might be a bit too much anthropomorphism. Same for the use of the word "born". Be cautious.
  • "temperatures exceeding 250 °C, a record" ... for Loihi, hydrothermal vents, underwater volcanoes, or something else?
  • In the last sentence of the swarm section, you say "the study" ... which study is this referring to: the quick one in August or the longer ones in September and October?
  • Is there any tsunami danger from Loihi quakes or eruptions? Any danger to human operations of any kind?
  • There's a lot of relative terms in the article: "ideal", "famous" and so on.
  • The iron-oxidizing bacteria information in the exploration section might be better sited in the ecology section.
  • Why is the first mention of Kapo's Vents in the microorganisms section? If it's a significant feature, I'd suggest putting it in the geology section. I'd also suggest moving discussion of the makeup of vent fluids in a similar fashion.

Well, I think that's about it. I don't claim that this is everything, but it should get you started, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 6 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 .

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

Nominator(s): Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because having recently received GAN, I feel that the article articulately and professionally explains the subject. The article has undergone four intensive reviews and multiple multi-party edits, and I feel meets all FA criterion.Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The pathophysiology section could be more in depth and involve a diagram of the process.
  • The section on epidemiology touches on the USA and Asia. Any data from the rest of the world?
  • In the history section it is mentioned that the rate has decreased in the western world with better treatment. What was the rate before and what has it decreased to?
  • It seems that there are 4 causes. I would be best if each cause had its own section rather than being numbered.
  • I have seen some gross anatomy images of these tumors as mentioned at the GA. People will often release images if you ask much like radiopedia did for the images of the hands.
  • It discusses x ray findings under signs and symptoms. Should be moved to diagnosis.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you removed it? Haha It was a placeholder until I replaced the info.
I didn't remove it. It's still there, current ref 39 "Engel..." Ealdgyth - Talk 11:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed reference: info substantiated in other two references at the conclusion of that sentence.Strombollii (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a cleanup/expand banner in one section.
That was inserted by Doc: I'm trying to find data to change that, but there really isn't anything available as far as I can tell.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw at least one one-sentence section that should be expanded, and noted several MOS issues in edit summaries. I'm concerned that some physicians should look at this article for 1b, comprehensive, as several sections are short and stubby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - and I hate doing this because the article is from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 that I was involved in. I have been watching this page hoping for comments from the medics, but they do not seem interested. There are many problems with the article. First, it reads as though the targeted readers are medical professionals, and, although this is often difficult to get round, no effort seems to have been made. The prose, although generally good, fails on occasions. Simple improvements such as quick redundancy checking for "as well as", "also" and more complex redundancy such as "which is a term used to refer to", would be a start. The deeper faults include:

  • Abnormalities affecting the parathyroid glands cause a surplus of PTH, which, in turn, increases the activity and frequency of such cells. - it is far from clear that "such cells" are osteoblasts and osteocytes.
  • Increased PTH triggers the release of stored calcium through the dissolution of old bone, as well as the conservation of said serum calcium through a cessation in the production of new bone. - "as well as" and "of said serum calcium" - need attention, particularly the latter, I do not understand the need for "of said"
  • Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass. - why would they be expected to diminish in mass?
  • Often the article seems more about hyperparathyroidism than OFC. This is particularly noticable in the History and Epidemiology sections, but occurs throughout the article; If muscular symptoms appear upon the onset of hyperparathyroidism, they are generally sluggish contraction and relaxation of the muscles.
  • What is deviation of the trachea?
  • The section on blood testing is very poor; there is not enough detail. What do the results of the tests mean, how should they be interpreted, what are their normal ranges, when should they be performed, are they reliable? These should all be explained.
  • There is a big difference between a sign and a symptom. The usage is wrong in the Radiology section, which again is not very good. X-rays may also be used to diagnose the disease - no they aid the diagnosis. Only humans diagnose.
    I respectfully disagree with this point. Humans use x-rays to diagnose the disease. Therefore x-rays are indeed used to diagnose the disease. Axl ¤ 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, brown tumors, especially when manifested on facial bones, can be misdiagnosed as neoplastic. - this sentence is targetted at medics.
  • skull x-rays may depict - skulls do not emit X-rays; we are writing for medics again.
  • Cysts may be lined by osteoclasts and sometimes blood pigments, which lend to the notion of "brown tumors." - where have these "cysts" come from all of a sudden, this is the first time they are mentioned. What are they, where are they and they important?
  • Fine needle aspiration can be used to biopsy bone lesions, - "biopsy" is not a verb.
    Actually it is used as a verb. Axl ¤ 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • delivered intravenously - writing for medics again, delivered intravenously, with medications - what medications?
  • is the recommended route of treatment - writing for medics.
  • the lesion healed and the autonomous material blended rapidly and seamlessly with the original bone. - does "autonomous material" mean "the transplanted bone?
  • The epidemiology section is about hyperparathyroidism and not OFC, as is the history section.

In summary, I think the article does not satisfy the FA criteria. Much more work is required, which I doubt can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Graham makes several good points. The image at the top right has bizarrely shaped arrows. Perhaps a standard shape of arrow could be used? The "References" need to be standardized. Please include volume and issue numbers if appropriate. It is preferable to use journal titles in full. The "Bibliography" section uses textbooks that only have a single page number referenced in the article. These books should use standard in-line citation. Axl ¤ 19:38, 6 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 .

Gulfton, Houston

Nominator(s): WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Since the first FA nomination, I have replaced old photos with new ones. Also User:Remotelysensed copyedited the article after I placed a copyedit request. With the errors indicated in the first FA nomination corrected, I would like to see how a second FA nomination would do. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed as many all caps as I could find. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Other references are lacking authors, publishers, last access dates, etc. (Check your houston chronicle articles, that's where I especially noted lacking authors, etc.)
  • Five deadlinks in the link checker tool.
  • This was noted in the previous FAC, but not everything needs to be italicised. Websites dont' need to be italicised, only newspaper and journal titles.
still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed more italics. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, the only things italicised should be newspaper titles, magazine titles, and book titles. The titles like City of Houston, Harris County, etc. don't need italics. (There are still more, but I'll strike this because it's much improved and will trust you'll get the rest) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A concern is that large chunks of the article are sourced to primary sources, such as the organizations, schools, etc. Other reviewers should check the article for inadvertant bias
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Some of the Houston Chronicle articles don't have authors indicated. What should I do in that case?
"Staff" works as an author. On the couple I spot checked, there were authors on the articles, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That works :) - Anyway, I'll look at the remaining references.
I improved some more refs. Are there any more that need attention? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Which ones are dead? I'll have to use web.archive.org to fix the dead links - For publishers, which references do not have publishers? Which ones don't have access dates? (Please use the numbers)
3. Many of the primary sources I used are to source school boundaries and stuff that isn't analytical. Even so, please feel free to look at the sources.
4. Should I un-italicize the websites in the references too, or just in the article body? EDIT: It is talking about sources, so I'll have to un-italicize non-newspaper source names.
Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Of the Chronicle citations, I caught one ("Afraid to be counted") that needed more info (author, date, access date) entered. There were two ("Mexican village" and "sports anchors") that needed an access date. There was a Houston Business Journal article that needed author info. There was a Chron article that needed an author info ("Hurricane Rita") - I also caught one all of the dead links with the link checker WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I de-italicized and filled in info for some sources with incomplete information. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this needs significant work on its prose (in particular, the organization of the prose) to meet the FA bar.
    • I find the first sentence problematic. In particular, the location of "including" at the very beginning bothers me. Are the apartment complexes the defining feature of Gulfton? The way the first sentence is structured now, Gulfton's location seems to be an afterthought; the focus is on these puzzling apartment complexes. Try perhaps "Gulfton is a community in southwestern Houston, Texas, United States that..."
    • I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?
    • The lead, which should summarize an article, seems a bit short.
    • "with new apartment complexes " missing a verb here.
    • "In the 1980s, the economy declined and the community became home to newly-arrived immigrants." Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here.
    • "and aspects of Latin American culture and recreation." Jarring after a long list of buildings...
    • "the Shenandoah subdivision was built," How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain.
    • "Rice Center" I assume this has something to do with Rice University. Link?
    • What impact did the young northerners have on the community?
    • "DRG Funding" What's this?
    • "Lantern Village" Italicized because?
    • "rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?
    • "pouring money down a perceived rat hole." Citation for quotation?
    • "Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters." Does not fit well with the rest of the paragraph.
    • "In July 1989, members of the Houston Resident Citizens Participation Council...did not like to see funds" Odd, awkward construct.
    • So the HRCPC did not want to see funds diverted...what actions did they actually take?
    • What's the implication of being designated a "Community Development Target"?
    • "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization, a 1997 article," If this is an article, it should not be italicized.
    • "Robert Fisher, a professor and chair of Political Social Work..." This paragraph seems rather out of place, and breaks up the chronological flow.
    • I stopped reading at the end of 1980 through 1992...I got really bogged down by the organization and flow of the prose. I think you'll need to rethink how you're using your sources to build a cohesive story. The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?
      • The jumping from description of the history to description of the sources used is particularly jarring. For example, "In that article, Gaines" <-- why do we need to know that Gaines said this in a particular news article? That's not the important or interesting part. You're using footnote citations...that's their purpose. I'd suggest, "According to Gaines, the complexes in Gulfton began to cater to illegal aliens, and landlords allowed renters to "double-up" housing, with several individuals and/or families sharing the same unit."
    • Cite your quotations.
    • Not really related to FA criteria, but the first two maps need some work. Both are zoomed out a bit far, and hard to make out what is important to note. The first one seems awfully busy. Think about your data-ink ratio... BuddingJournalist 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll look at the rest of these later, but for right now I'll start with these:
      • 1. You said: "I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?" - This particular complex is discussed in the history section of the article. It became well-known in television advertisements featuring Michael Pollack, who had an over-the-top advertising style. It is indicative of the economic troubles because this complex became bankrupt and foreclosed (it says so in the caption and in the main article). Is there a way to make this more obvious/clear to the reader?
      • 2. You said: "Cite your quotations." - The quotations I used come from the citation afterwards. I.E. the quote "double-up" is to citation #5, "conservative" is to citation #13, "lost its focal issue" is to citation #15. Each block of text has its citation at the end, with everything sourced from the citation. How should I modify the citation structure?
      • 3. The instance of the italicized Lantern Village was changed to quote marks
      • 4. Regarding "with new apartment complexes" - This is the full sentence: "Gulfton was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, in the midst of an oil boom, with new apartment complexes geared towards young singles from the Northeast and Midwest United States who came to work in the oil industry." - The verb is in the previous part of the sentence.
      • 5. You said: "Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here." - The sentence referred is from the lead of the article. Does the lead need more explanation taken from the body of the article? The body explains that, since the previous group of tenants left since there was the oil bust, the owners of the apartment complexes needed new tenants and attracted immigrants. - Since the lead needed more content, I decided to add an explanation.
      • 6. You said: "How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain" regarding Shenandoah - The later sections explain that Shenandoah became threatened by the deterioration of Gulfton and tried to block its streets; this connection is regarding events that take place at a later time (mid-1980s) than the beginning of the development of Shenandoah (1950s). Here's my question: What should I add to this sentence?
      • 7. Regarding Rice Center, the Kim Cobb article doesn't give any further explanation to what Rice Center is. Rice Center is a part of a name. (the point is that the person is from the "Jesse H. Jones Center for Economic and Demographic Forecasting at Rice Center") - Should I explain what the Jesse H. Jones Center is?
      • 8. You said: "The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?" - The 1950s through the mid-1980s was an economic boom time for Houston and there was a need for housing for the many white collar workers coming from the north. The apartment complexes were built to house these workers. The community of Gulfton did not begin until the apartments opened. Regarding "What impact did the young northerners have on the community? " - The young northerners were the Gulfton community. Of course Shenandoah, the adjacent subdivision, had no problem with them. It was only when the demographics changed in the 1980s when the Shenandoah subdivision began to react.
      • 9. Regarding the construct about the funds being diverted, I decided to alter the order of the sentences and explain what a "Community Development Target" is.
      • 10. You said: '**"rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?' - Neither statement conflicts with the other - One can reduce rent rates in X neighborhood, but people in Y neighborhood can reduce their rates at the same time.
      • 11. I explained what DRG Funding is. It is headquartered in Washington; I don't know which Washington the article is referring to.
      • 12. As for the maps, I got them from a U.S. Government website and pieced them together from screenshots. Do you know of any GNU or public domain map services I could use?
      • 13. Regarding the Goodner sentence not fitting; the whole sentence is "John Goodner, a Houston city council member representing a district including Gulfton at that time, said that more changes occurred in his district in the several years leading up to 1988 than in any other area of Houston; Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters" - What I am saying is that his city council area changed, and then he lobbied to serve the new population of the area.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. I read about half the article closely and skimmed the rest. Therefore, the comments listed below are not comprehensive; the whole article needs to be looked at from the perspective of these examples. Overall, I thought the article wavered between including too much trivial detail and not including enough relevant background information - I think it would be difficult for someone not familiar with the Houston area to understand all of the history section, for example. The prose is adequate but needs improvement to meet the FAC standards, and the sourcing could definitely be improved (although I was pleasantly surprised at how much you were able to find in journals and newspapers).

  • Lead issues:
    • Is the image of the apartment complex really the most suitable for the very top of the article? I would expect to see the map of the neighborhood's location, as people unfamiliar with Houston would likely be confused by just the text description.
    • Vagueness (example from the lead: the schools were increasingly overwhelmed; - what does that mean? overwhelmed by what?)
    • The chronology of the third paragraph in the lead is off. Why discuss 2000 information then go back to the 1980s? Some of the information in the third paragraph also seems much too detailed for the lead.
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. What about the government section?
  • History section
    • The focus seems off. The first paragraph is geared more towards the Shenandoah subdivision. Much of this information is probably useful, but it could be reworded to keep the focus on Gulfton rather than making it seem like we are backtracking into a different article.
    • The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?
    • Watch capitalization -- White people?
    • The history section never actually tells when the neighborhood of Gulfton was created - when did it gets its own name? Why wasn't it part of Shenandoah? Who was responsible for first developing the area? Did its boundaries always match what they are now? Who designed the "widely-spaced grid road pattern"? Was this done on purpose to attract apartment complexes (and if not, why use that type of road)? If it was always intended to be apartments, what did the Sheanndoah people think at the time - were there any protests or grumblings?
    • the development of apartment complexes was not well planned or coordinated, and there was often little interest in building a quality product. -- is this specific criticism directed at the apartments in Gulfton or is this more vague - apartment-building in general in this timeframe?
    • Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s.
    • Why include the trivia on the advertisements for the Colonial House Apartments? If they were only well-known through the Houston area, then this doesn't seem that important to the article, especially since Michael Pollack is not exactly a well-known name (I've never heard of him, and no wikilink).
    • Why such a focus on the Colonial House Apartments, that they get an entire paragraph? Is there a reason they are singled out over other apartments? Was this the largest complex?
    • Why didn't the new residents have easy access to government services? There needs to be a bit more background tieing this in together.
    • Did the Central American Refugee Center target its work at Gulfton, or was its reach much broader and it was just based in Gulfton? If the latter, it really isn't worth mentioning in this article - that is essentially more trivia.
    • I'm still not understanding why the merger of the GANO and the GAAC affected relations with the Shenadoah Civic Association. This needs more detail.
    • Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?
    • The paragraph on the Navarro killing needs to be totally redone. Lose the irrelevant details (do we care about the time?), and include more background - this paragraph does not tell someone who didn't follow the case what was actually going on and why this was a big deal.
  • Is it normal to have a history of elementary schools in a neighborhood article? This seems inappropriate to me. The information would be better placed in a school district history article.
  • Sourcing

Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

        • I'll explain more about some of these points in a sec. But first:
          • Regarding "the schools were increasingly overwhelmed" - Overwhelmed with excess students. I'm going to correct that now; it shouldn't be vague.
          • You said: "The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?" - That was from a suggestion by BuddingJournalist. I'm going to get the two of you to talk about that one, because to be it seems like what he suggested seems contradicts what you suggest (maybe I'm wrong, but what I wrote was a direct result of his comments).
          • The name - First, it didn't become a part of Shenandoah because Shenandoah is entirely made of single family homes and Shenandoah refers to the homes. "Gulfton" refers to the apartment complexes. The area simply got the name by the 1980s; there is no story involving one group suddenly deciding that this community needs the name "Gulfton"
          • Schools - On the contrary, the history of the elementary schools is very important to this neighborhood. The sudden filling of the area elementary schools is one of the main points of the development of the neighborhood. Also moving this info to the school district article would be worse because this would seem off topic. Remember that the Houston Independent School District is the largest in Texas and has many schools, so a specific history detailing individual schools would be very long and drawn out. What is here is specific to the neighborhood. Considering that many of its residents are children and that the filling of the schools has been detailed in newspapers, I feel that the section is vital and must be kept.
          • METRO: You said: "Why source info on the new Metro lines to the Metro website? - I know that has been widely covered in the Chronicle, and there is no reason to be going to the self-published Metro site instead. The Chronicle will at least give additional background and reactions" - The source "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization." mentions that a group lobbied for an increase in METRO lines. That is one thing. Two, the Houston Chronicle mentions people asking why Gulfton doesn't have a stop on the proposed University Line. For specific lines going through the neighborhood, I feel that primary sources are appropriate for this particular piece of information. I would like to check the archives of Houston Chronicle more regarding METRO specifically in Gulfton, though.
          • Regarding Rice, I'll have to see if there is a source that talks about Rice's headquarters. BTW the website source is used for the **address,** which confirms the location.
          • The primary sources are generally used to confirm basic details and not analytical details. The analyzing comes from reliable sources.
          • WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why addresses should be included in this article at all. That is overly detailed information. I also highly disagree that primary sources are satisfactory if secondary sources exist, and I still think the school chronology is overly detailed and out of place here. We don't need (and the majority of readers of this article won't care) that X school opened in Y year. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with removing addresses on the page. What I discussed above was using an address as a source. Anyway, I feel that the "X school opened in Y year" is actually very imporant in three places: When Gordon re-opened in the 1980s, Benavidez opened in 1992, and when Rodriguez opened in 2003, as they directly were responses to the results of the socioeconomic changes in the Gulfton neighborhood. On the other hand, the opening dates of Cunningham, Braeburn, Long, and Lee had little effect on the neighborhood. I could remove the opening dates of those schools. Also I could remove the opening dates of the charter schools. How does that sound?
You said: "Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?" - Stuff did happen between those years, but they are mainly mentioned in specific subsections. I would have to look at that source to see if it has any other information.
Regarding: http://www.escapesexpo.com/speakers.asp?id=1 - The only way in which this was used is to state what Rice Center is; Budding Journalist suggested that I explain what Rice Center is. For what it is being used for it should be reliable. An official website of an EXPO would take care to say the truth, no?
http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/uploads/gulfton1_english.pdf - Only being used to confirm that these three elementary schools were connected to Gulfton.
Regarding primary and secondary sources, Misplaced Pages:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." - So therefore one has to use the different sources in appropriate matters. I feel that simply using primary sources to state that these particular METRO routes go through the community would be a good usage of primary sources.
The information for the exclusion of Gulfton from the rail line was sourced to a source. I'll have to see when the Chronicle covered some basic details of the METRO new line and if any details need to be backed up.
I revised the Oregon paragraph. I'll have to see when the lawsuit concluded.
The press used the fate of the Colonial House as an example of what every Gulfton apartment was going through in the 1980s, so having Misplaced Pages repeat with using Colonial House as a fate, with sourcing directly from the Chronicle, would be appropriate. Also that is why I used the Colonial House image at the top, as it represents a typical Gulfton apartment complex.
So far I cannot find any press sources which describe the Rice Epicurean HQ as being "in Gulfton" - So far I only have the address, which puts it in the area. There was an article that described the Fox News Center, located in the same area as the Epicurean HQ, as in the Gulfton area.
The guidelines about primary sources do not say use them as little as possible - They say to use them properly. There is a difference. If you wish to contest primary sources, please state how the reference is not appropriate.
You said: "Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s. " - Sounds like a good idea. There is a wider oil bust that may even merit its own article. I could ask the people at the Houston WikiProject for help.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until my colleagues' issues are fixed, and it's generally better written. The sheer number of critical comments above indicates that this text has not undergone the appropriate level of copy-editing and scrutiny WRT the other criteria. This is unfair to other nominators and to our overworked reviewers.

  • Is the huge caption at the top all relevant to the pic? Can't some of it be in the main text?
  • 1950s–1979? 1980–92? Much neater.
  • 1992–present is a "quickly dating" problem. When is the present in two years' time? Delimit by stating 2009.
  • Why is "US dollars" linked? Is it exotic, like the Tibetan razu?
  • Parts of it are overcited. Here's a doozler: "The attendance boundaries of Benavidez Elementary School, Braeburn Elementary School, Cunningham Elementary School, and Rodriguez Elementary School cover sections of Gulfton.". Really contentious statement, that one. Can it be conflated into ONE ref. note?
  • Acres convert to hectares, please, not square metres.
  • For pity's sake, why is "English language" linked?
  • No hyphen after -ly adverbs. See MOS.
  • What a desert. Those pics make me depressed. (This is not part of my review.) Tony (talk) 17:13, 6 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 .

Norton 360

Nominator(s): Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. It is a software by one of the largest security software company Symantec. This product is widely used by many people worldwide. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose,
  1. missing publish dates some sources do not have publish dates, however are reliable
  2. incomplete titles for references did not find any problems
  3. missing author names no author mentioned sometimes
  4. ref 15/16 are duplicates done
  5. screenshot is of trial version true
  6. where's the reception/reviews/criticism section? incorporated in article; still need to expand
  7. version/date releases with source? Is that information likely to be contested?
  8. if it contains a number of security features, why is it classified as an Antivirus in the infobox? done
  9. browser dab link ?
  10. http://www. can be removed from address in infobox. done
  11. If it is so widely used then why isn't there more coverage information available?--Otterathome (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - it's good but i really need properly formatted references and maybe a release and reception. I.e. what did reviewers think were its best features, how many units were sold etc. --Thanks, Hadseys 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Working on the reception section and researching market share
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. You really should put the authors of the references first and not italicise them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Done
The suggestions are great

Replies from User:TechOutsider

I did not reach a consensus with User:Tyw7 before nominating this article for FAC; we never even discussed it at all. However, now that the article has been nominated, the pointers given are very useful. Thank you.

  • Some of the articles used do not have publish dates.
  • Comments – Change Version History section header to Version history, because "history" isn't a proper noun. Also, reference 25 has a linked date, which has been discouraged in the Manual of Style for some time. References shouldn't be in all capital letters, either. If this does end up not passing, I suggest another peer review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wish Tyw7 gave me some time to consider and improve the article beforehand. I don't really have the patience to sit down and do all this in one day, however it has to be done in a timely manner. Too bad Tyw7 is taking a wikibreak ... TechOutsider (talk) 12:47, 31 May 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 .

Jackie Robinson

Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because...

This article was nominated for FA status back in December 2008, unsuccessfully, but retained “Good Article” status. IMO that was itself probably a stretch at the time I noticed the article, in early April 2009. The following week I substantially reworked the article, which now has grown to a 850+ edit process. A summary:

I’ve inserted about 50 internet references, about 30 of them unique. The major sticking point at the last FA review was a lack of book reference sources, given the published information on Robinson. I’ve done a comprehensive review of all web-accessible books and added six new book sources as well as citations to the others already cited. Some non-web accessible books exist that are not cited. There were also some non-web-accessible books (particularly the Rampersad book) that were previously cited for a lot of claims. Instead of eliminating theses unverifiable citations, I’ve left them in place (except in one instance where there was a patent misquote of the Duberman book), and instead double-sourced and reworded the claims as necessary. I think there are only a couple vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web. Some of the web-accessibility book features scroll through pages occasionally, so it might take some time (or cache clearances) to see various pages of a book.

This article went through peer review which is now archived. I notified Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baseball and the prior FA nominator user:Peregrine Fisher and prior contributor user:RyanCross, although they are now wiki-retired and did not respond. Thanks to user:Killervogel5 and user:Timpcrk87 for substantive suggestions.

The FA nomination administrator might want to review the status of the article for WP:peacock claims, which have been hashed out by myself and user:Timpcrk87 during peer review. Also note the claim under the Pasadena Junior College sub-section about a prior run-in with police that may be overboard by user:Timpcrk87‘s standards.

A lot of content has been moved to Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson and Racial integration in baseball, so check there if you contributed any information. As a sidelight to this article I’ve substantially reworked those sections as well as added/improved a number of other articles including Bullet Rogan, Chet Brewer, Marques Haynes, Johnny Wright, and others.

BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger comments
OPPOSE for the unresolved issues below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made all these changes with the exception of the "Pasadena Star-News" reference. I agree that this is a teaser comment, but it was written by another contributer, and cited by reference to the Rampersad book, to which I do not have access. As such, it is one of the "vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web" to which I refer above. I have not deleted this because, although unverified, it is potentially useful information that hopefully some other contributor can flesh out during the review process. If it ultimately becomes a barrier to FA status I will remove it. BillTunell (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
DocKino comments
  • Comment This is a very good article. It requires some copyediting, which I'm happy to pitch in with when I can over the next week, and I'm sure we can get it to FA standard. One issue that leaps out at me at first glance is that the two photos in the "Negro Leagues" subsection severely crowd the text in virtually any screen size and configuration. I'm afraid one of them has to go. As the KC Royals picture already has a prominent home in the baseball Featured Article, I suggest dropping that and retaining the image of Robinson with Paige.DocKino (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • See the above discussion and let me know if the most recent work-around looks acceptable. I'll delete one of the photos if necessary, but between re-sizing and further staggering, I think there is no more left-right overlap. Not sure about all screen sizes, though. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Another thing, and this is important. In editing the "John Muir High School" subsection, I came across an instance of inadvertent plagiarism. Here is how the passage in question read before my edit:

His older brother, Matthew "Mack" Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

And here's the pertinent passage in the cited source:

Robinson's older brother, Matthew Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

Even with the citation, this is impermissible. Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. I'll hold off on further copyediting till you've done that.DocKino (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Understood. I've re-phrased tons of stuff in the article, but apparently missed a couple expamples. I've taken another comprehensive look, and made one additional paraphrase – at the end of the "Minor Legaues" subsection, to avoid plagiarizing note 10 (SportMag.com). Let me know if you see anything else. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I found another case in the first note I happened to look at (I was interested in a factual detail): note 73.DocKino (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I see the KC Royals image has moved down to the "Minor leagues" subsection. That takes care of the crowding problem, but now it's totally out of place (the Royals were not a minor league team) and out of time (the picture is from late '45; the text of the subsection begins in spring '46). It really is OK to lose the picture: (1) It depicts a very brief part of his career; (2) it appears prominently elsewhere on Misplaced Pages; and (3) there's clear pictures of his face in the article already from 1944 (Army photo), 1945 (Dodgers signing photo), and 1951 (comic book cover). See below for why I struck this a few minutes after writing it.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Doc? Regarding one of your comments, I requested a photo of the City Hall sculpture years ago. It's of monumental proportions and situated in a location of particular honor. For a city that has had many famous residents--not just Hollywood celebrities but also five Nobel Prize winners including Albert Einstein--it's noteworthy that they express this much civic pride in Robinson. Durova 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi, Durova. If there were no available free images to illustrate the section in question, I'd have no issue with the image's inclusion. But there are free images available. This image is undoubtedly superior in informative value to those free images, so if we could find a reliable source that says something along the lines of what you just said, that would resolve the issue. I imagine there are newspaper reports from when the sculpture was unveiled that could serve this purpose. DocKino (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've linked the Los Angeles Times article from the sculpture's unveiling. Let me know if that resolves your concerns.BillTunell (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Robinson's family's house no longer stands, although a (copyrighted) plaque exists at that location. So in terms of commemoration within the city where he grew up we're left with fair use images. Durova 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May 21

Oppose – Criterion 3. Normally I'm not an image reviewer, but I can't stay silent when I see five fair-use images in an article, and at least four have wholly inadequate rationales. What's puzzling is that we have free images of Robinson in the article, so why are these fair-use images even necessary? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Probably these images were submitted by me -- let me know the ones to which you refer, and why you think the rationales are bad. BillTunell (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Image review I've looked them over. Here's my appraisal:
      • The images of Robinson at UCLA and in the army are both of significant historical value and fully pertinent to the article's text, but need full rationales.
      • The photo with Satchel Paige should probably be cut. The rationale is inadequate, and there is another image in the article that is also representative of Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues that is both free and provides a much clearer view of his face.
      • The photo with Branch Rickey is a historic image, and fully justified per policy. But the current rationale is, indeed, wholly inadequate.
      • The image of the Pasadena sculpture fails our NFCC policy in the absence of discussion of that sculpture. In addition, the "Awards and recognition" section already includes two free images relating to posthumous recognition. The image should probably be cut.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks to Doc for the more detailed review. For more on writing acceptable fair-use rationales, please read Misplaced Pages:FCDW/September 22, 2008. While I'm here, there are still issues with referencing. The "staked a claim" bit sourced to reference 122 is a very close paraphrase (I happen to have the book), and some sources are shaky. Reference 29 is to Hoopedia (a wiki, which is unacceptable as a source), and I see other facts cited to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen (another wiki), his official website and Brittanica. No distinction is made in the citations between the Jackie and Sharon Robinson books (adding years to the citations would do it), and some references, such as numbers 43 and 45, need further formatting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
          • In response to both you and Doc, I'v done the following: (i) cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since does not illustrate the Negro Leagues), (ii) updated the fair use rationales/summaries on all the non-free picture pages, (iii) mentioned the pasadena sculpture in the Awards and recognition section, (iv) re-worded the claim behind (prior) reference 122, (v) elimianted the Hoopedia reference (which had also been a sticking point in peer review), (vi) double-sourced the baseball-reference.com wiki citation, (vii) added Jackie's first name in the autobiography template citation. I think I've also addressed your concerns about additional citation information, but let me know. I'm not sure why there is an objection to citing the official website or Brittanica, but let me know if I'm missing some policy or another. BillTunell (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Bill, I'm sorry but this response on the images falls short. As I'm sure many habitués of this page will confirm, I'm a strong defender of the proper and judicious inclusion of fair use images, but your explanations for the retention of the Satchel Paige image and the sculpture image are insufficient. What in the world, by the way, do you mean when you write that you "cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since it is the only one that illustrates the Negro Leagues)"?
            • Look, we have two images that represent Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues: one is free, one is not free. In addition, the free one offers a much clearer image of his face. While his time with the Monarchs is more significant than his brief tenure with the Royals, there is little question that per our policy the free image takes precedence--that's the image of Robinson alone, as a Royal, not the image of him and Paige as Monarchs.
            • As for the image of the Pasadena sculpture, how does this significantly help us understand who Robinson was and the depth of his significance? As I noted, the relevant section already contains two free images that, in different ways, depict the extent of his posthumous recognition (one shows the president of the United States!). On the basis of image glut alone, there's no need for a third image in this section, let alone one that is not free. Furthermore, that non-free image is of a public sculpture--it unquestionably falls into the category of "readily replaceable" by a free equivalent.
            • There is no way I can support the article while the sculpture image is included; unless you have a much better defense up your sleeve for the Monarchs image, I can't consider supporting while that's included either. The proper and judicious use of non-free images brings great value to our encyclopedia and its mission of excellence—this kind of injudicious, weakly defended use does that cause a disservice.DocKino (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
              • I think I misspoke before. The Kansas City Royals photo does not portray the Negro Leagues. I can't find a free Negro League image despite multiple efforts at finding one. as such, I care about the inclusion of the Monarchs image. By contrast, the Pasadena sculpture image is not one I care much about. But it's been there for going on three years, and was not a bone of contention in any other peer review or nomination in the past. I can't see any policy that prohibits its inclusion. If there is, please direct me to it -- I could easily be missing something. IMO your suggestion of an alternative "free" image isn't really possible in this case since, by nature, any such image would be a derivative work. BillTunell (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
                • The photo of the sculpture is a simpler matter, so I'll start there. First off, it's obviously irrelevant to our policy whether or not it's ever been "a bone of contention." Next, you are correct--under U.S. copyright law, any photo of the sculpture would be a derivative work and non-free. However, in the context of an article on Jackie Robinson, the photo pretty clearly fails criterion 8 of our policy on non-free-content: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The overall topic Is Jackie Robinson--I can't see a reasonable argument that an image of a posthumously created sculpture significantly increases our understanding of him. The specific topic is the recognition his life and career have received--the article already includes two free images that illustrate the topic; a third, non-free image can hardly be claimed to significantly add to our understanding of the recognition he's received. The photo would be acceptable in an article on the sculpture itself, and probably in an article on the artist who made it or on Public sculpture in Pasadena, but it is not acceptable here.
                  • I think I understand what you're saying now. I thought your objection was that the image itself was not free and you wanted soemone else to submit a non-free version. user:Amble had created the image and submitted it under the GNU license, so that didn't make sense to me. Assuming it still requires a fair use rationale because of the derivative work issue (which might be debatable, but user:Raul654 has expressed his opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_FAQ/Archive_1), I don't really have a problem with removing the image. But I'll let user:Amble know in advance, as a courtesy. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Whoa. There's no debate. Under U.S. copyright law, that image is unquestionably under copyright. It is not free. Our policy requires that it have a fair use rationale. Period. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Thanks for the notice. Yes, the sculpture itself is copyrighted, and only my part as photographer is freely licensed. I tagged it with the "Non-free 3D art" template to make this clear. User:Durova, who is an admin on Commons and very knowledgeable about image copyright issues, had requested the image here, so I trusted that it was probably valid fair use. You might ask Durova if she now believes it's justifiable. --Amble (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                • As for the Monarchs photo, I appreciate that you care about it. But you need to make a stronger case for it. From my reading of the literature, it strikes me that barnstorming squads such as the Kansas City Royals were considered part of the "Negro Leagues"; they were unquestionably part of the black side of the ledger of segregated baseball, which is what's most significant here, I believe. Why exactly is it so much more important to show Robinson in the uniform of the Monarchs--for whom he played only 47 games--than that of the Royals? Why is it so very much more important that its importance outweighs the fact that it is non-free, while the Royals image is free? If those questions can not be clearly and convincingly answered--not just in this venue, but also in a way that would work in the rationale on the image page--then the image fails criterion 1 of our policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"--or, more precisely, it fails the combination of criteria 1 and 8.
                  • BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)I respectfully disagree. The California Winter League is just not the same as the Negro Leagues. If it were, the whole integration issue would be moot, because white players participated in it. I think illustrating the Negro League era in the article is more than a mere nicety. That being said, I understand your point, and if the FAC administrator says otherwise, we'll lose the image. I will supplement the image page to more clearly state the no-free-image-alternative issue. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Okay. I certainly don't feel as if the inclusion of the image warrants an oppose on its own. I did a little research to see if the ways in which respected institutions in the field define "Negro Leagues" would include the Royals or not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association? Pretty clearly not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum? Probably yes. So, your position has an edge there. But, if you care about presenting your strongest case here, see my last observation below.
                    • Finally, you should be aware of how the process usually works here. It is very unlikely that the FA director is going to jump in with a thumbs up or down on this specific image. But silence, in this case, does not equal consent. Sandy and Karanacs will analyze the reviewer critiques you've received and your responses to them, and make a judgment based on that. While possible, it's still unlikely that either of them will engage in specific image review. In other words, as you craft that rationale (and I've already seen that it has a glaring error--"No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues"), I wouldn't sit around waiting to see if an administrator bothers to object. It's wise to keep your focus on bringing the issues raised in the review to a resolution--in the review. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • Please refrain from the argumentative claim that I've committed a "glaring error." If you want to submit a free Negro League image, please do so.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • Watch it, Bill. I have made no argumentative claim. You have made a glaring error. Period. In describing a non-free image, you have written, ""No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues." Do you see that "other" that you wrote, Bill? That "other erroneously indicates that the image under discussion is free. It is not. In the context of a rationale for an image that you profess to care deeply about, a rationale whose quality is crucial to the image's retention, that's not just an error, that's a glaring error. I gather that this is all too much trouble for you, so I'll simply register my opposition now and withdraw from further input until and unless I see all the problems with the article's images resolved. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • For your edification, here's a pretty hardcore (so to speak) fair use rationale I did: File:RotJonesMatCook.jpg. For yours, I would seriously consider citing the Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association link I provided above to support the position that the Kansas City Monarchs were the one and only Negro Leagues team Robinson played for. Also, here's a widely published and, I believe, superior fair use image of Robinson with the Monarchs: (and contextualized with info: ). DocKino (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                • A reminder: the inadvertent plagiarism associated with note 73 has still not been addressed. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I thought I had addressed that before, although the numbers may have changed. I've paraphrased what is now under note 73. In the future, please quote any offending language so there's no misunderstanding. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • It's interesting to note how your paraphrase reads: "In late September, he signed with Chet Brewer's Kansas City Royals, a post-season barnstorming team of the California Winter League, which competed against other Negro League teams..." You do realize that phrasing suggests that the Kansas City Royals were a Negro Leagues team, don't you? DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • Changed. At this point, however, I don't see that you are proceeding with the conversation civilly, so this will be my last commentary in the string.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • I fail to see what's uncivil about making sure you see how you're undercutting your own argument on a matter that you consider crucial, but so be it. I'll find it painless to devote my time elsewhere. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaning toward support

  • I'm very glad the quality of sourcing in this article is improved from its previous FAC. I believe the meat of the article is ready to support.
  • There are some MOS issues all through the article. The images are overlarge, and at least on my 1200 px wide browser, the article, aesthetically, is not pleasing. Try using the upright tag on the portrait-shaped images. I suggest merging the Post-military and Death sections into ones above or below them. Watch for overlinking: terms should ideally be linked at their first occurrence and not again. There are several ambiguous links and a dead ref link at UCLA today. She's not going to like it, but I'm going to suggest you ask User:Maralia for assistance in cleaning up some of the MOS issues. She's a stickler and much more accurate than I am. You know what works well with her? Whining. A lot. If there's one good I can do today on my time on Misplaced Pages, it's point users to her talk page to whine. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've taken out all the size-specfic tags on pics to reset them to default size, and put in |upright directors in the appropriate picture tags. Let me know how it looks. I've also invited user:Maralia What are the "ambiguous links" to which you refer? I'll consider merging the shorter subsections, althgouh I'm not sure how to deal wtith the "Post-military" section because it doesn't fit neatly anywhere else. Thanks BillTunell (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Fails criterion 3. Rationales for each of the five fair-use images remain wholly inadequate, with little or no attempt made to explain how they meet the NFCC #8 test. Rationales aside, the use of one image clearly fails policy, as described above. Another has a serious NFCC #1 challenge to handle--again, no serious attempt has been made in the rationale. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Plagiarism Changes

Since we've had a number of complaints of inadvertent plagiarism in the article, I did a comprehensive review over the long weekend, and changed the following (in the order they appear in the article) as a result:

  • Note 52 (Tygiel article): “black officer’s wife” and “believing that his companion was white”; in addition to being extended quotes, these statements contain subjective assessments, the racial identity of the woman is not verified by the source material, and the whole thing has little relevance.
  • Note 52: ‘including insubordination, disturbing the peace, drunkenness (despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked), conduct unbecoming an officer, insulting a civilian woman, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of a superior officer” the list is probably too long to be quoted in full.
  • Note 52: “the actual incident on the bus that had precipitated his prosecution was mentioned in neither the charges nor at trial” This is kind of redundant anyway.
  • Note 68: “Rickey wanted a man who could restrain himself from responding to the ugliness of the racial hatred that was certain to come” This direct quote is now re-written.
  • Note 4: “The nation was initially divided on whether Robinson should be allowed to play. Virtually all blacks and many whites applauded the decision as long overdue, but a large number of whites also objected, as did many major league players. Most newspapers supported the move. Robinson's integration and subsequent high level of play was a major blow to segregation and caused racial barriers to fall in other areas. Robinson criticized hotels that did not allow him to stay with his teammates, and a number of hotels and restaurants that the Dodgers frequented integrated as a result.” Part of this was an (unattributed) quote from the sportmag.com article, so I reworded and resourced the first phrase, and relocated the second phrase below to a more topic-appropriate location.
  • Note 88 (History Channel) “During his first season with the Dodgers, Robinson encountered racism from fans and players, including his own teammates” Reworded and moved to an adjoining paragraph for topical consistency.
  • Note 4: “He anticipated that some pitchers would aim pitches at his head and that other players would try to hit, tackle, and even try to push him off the basepaths” Reworded and placed in a different paragraph setting.
  • Note 98: “Asked by sportswriters what Greenberg had told him, Robinson said:’He gave me a few words of encouragement.’” Reworded.
  • Note 111: “although two studios turned the project down when the film's promoters refused to include a white man teaching Robinson how to be a great player” Reworded and clarified.
  • Note 114: “Robinson stood with hands on hips and watched Thomson's feet in case he failed to touch all of the bases” Close paraphrase of the source cited for the next sentence. Reworded.
  • Note 117: “That year, Robinson accused the Yankees of prejudice and challenged general manager George Weiss to prove him wrong” Close paraphrase; reworded and consolidated with later sentence.
  • Note 73: “but, according to the New York Post, Commissioner Happy Chandler withheld his approval, forcing Robinson to cancel his plans.” This one is my fault. Re-worded.
  • Note 120: “That year, he served as editor for ‘’Our Sports’‘ magazine, a short-lived periodical focusing on coverage of "famous Negro athletes in every field of endeavor" and "Negro athletes in your town among your own neighbors". Topics included "What White Big Leaguers Really Think of Negroes" and "My Toughest Fight", an article by boxer Joe Louis about golf course segregation.” Close paraphrase. Edited down.
  • Note 121: “He also succeeded in getting the five-star Chase Park Hotel in St. Louis integrated. He and Don Newcombe approached the hotel's manager and asked why blacks were not allowed. The manager said, "It's the swimming pool ... a place where everybody socializes." Newcombe explained that they were ballplayers, not swimmers, and the manager relented. That season black players had their meals delivered to their rooms and were not allowed to use the Chase's dining room, but the next season the dining room was fully integrated” A lot of issues here; the extended treatment of the Chase Hotel issue is kind of ancillary, anyway, so I’ve removed the extended discussion in favor of a brief mention of Chase Park Hotel and and secondary link in the prior section's treatment of the hotel issue.
  • Note 174: “Mets owner Fred Wilpon said that the club and Citigroup would work with the Jackie Robinson Foundation to create a Jackie Robinson Museum and Learning Center in lower Manhattan and would fund scholarships for ‘young people who live by and embody Jackie's ideals’.” The non-quoted part passage has been reworked.

This plagiarism check should be comprehensive. But if I've missed anything, let me know. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pasadena image resolution

Per User talk:Durova's opinion, the image of the Pasadena sculpture is defensible as fair use, provided there is a more substantial treatment of it in the "Awards and recognition" section. I've fleshed out this portion of the article, and moved it to proximity with the image. Thanks to user:Amble for contacting user:Durova. Let me know if anyone has any contrary opinions.

The source cited for the discussion of the Pasadena sculpture is We Heart Public Art. This is a personal blog and does not meet our sourcing standards. DocKino (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is double-referenced. The blog reference is there for image illustration purposes in case the image in the article gets removed. I'm still ambivalent about that issue, but since there's a difference of opinion I've left it as-is.BillTunell (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. As both of these are unique sources (i.e., only referenced once), they can be brought together into a single citation. This reduces visual clutter in the article. Placing the L.A. Times article first in such a merged citation should also help clarify that the primary source is of WP:V standard. DocKino (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Consolidating multiple references in a single footnote would be stylistically inconsistent with the rest of this article. But I have re-ordered the Pasadena sculpture-related footnotes so as to place the LA Times link first.BillTunell (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyedits

More than a few users have contributed copyedit help recently. Thanks to all, especially user:Maralia.BillTunell (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - The two deadlinks in the references need to be replaced (they're marked as such), and urls sourced should have accessdates as well. Wizardman 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the Congressional Gold Medal link with one from the House of Representatives Clerk. For both the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal, I've inserted archived webpages as sources, and tagged today's date as the access date (of the web.archive.org search result site). For all the other wesbite footnote references that didin't already list access dates, I've clicked on them this morning and added 2009-05-27 as the access date (no other web links are dead at this point). I haven't done that with any of the books – let me know if I should.BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If there's any more changes you want, let me know. To help summarize the above discussion for you, there's only four suggestions from reviewers that I haven't implemented (each of which has a rationale):
  • While I've inserted current-dollar templates in two places, I have not taken user:TonyTheTiger's suggestion of restating the resulting current-dollar amount from the first template in monthly terms (in order to facilitate comparison with the yearly salary referenced by the second current-dollar template later in the article);
  • I've not inserted any material from the Walter O'Malley article into the Jackie Robinson article – also a suggestion by user:TonyTheTiger (material would be duplicative, plus the underlying source for any of the unique clims about Robinson form the O'Malley article is a non-web-accessible book that I do not have);
  • I have not removed the image of the Robinson Pasadena Memorial statue, instead fleshing out the article's description thereof (conflicting opinion by reviewers as to whether this image qualifies for inclusion under WP:NFCC);
  • I have not removed the historical image of the Satchel Paige and Jackie Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs (I claim it meets WP:NFCC, over the objection of user:DocKino).
Everything else I've dealt with (or meant to and simply missed something). Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What you have missed is dealing with the primary basis for my !vote of oppose above. You have not gone into the source pages of the first four fair use images and made sure the rationales are of FA standard. (The rationale for the sculpture image is about as good as we can hope for.) I don't want to see this article promoted and then return to it in a few months to discover that it's been stripped of its fair use images for inadequate rationales. I offered you an example of a more rigorously presented rationale for a fair use image which comes from an article, like this, that also has several free images of the article's subject(s) and that, like you wish for this, is Featured. (There are other such examples out there, if you care to look for them.) This has been ignored.
Specifically, I do believe that the Paige–Robinson image can pass NFCC--like the others--if it is accompanied by a suitably strong rationale. I gave you specific advice on how to make it stronger, which has been ignored. Given the current conditions, it is easy to anticipate the following scenario: Someone comes along; finds the K.C. Royals picture somewhere; says, "Gee! Here's a free picture of Jackie in the Negro Leagues"; checks out the existing rationale for Paige–Robinson; says, "Oops! Guess they didn't know about the Royals pic"; and moves to delete your beloved image. Similarly, for the other images, none of the rationales deal with the problem that Giants 2008 originally raised--there are several fair use images in the article that show what Robinson looked like. So what's the particular value of also including these non-free images? Look: You believe they're valuable to the article. I believe they're valuable to the article. Now write rationales that will help keep them in the article. DocKino (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I read your comments, re-worked each of the fair use image pages accordingly, and told you of that fact. You simply don't like the extent of my edits. While that may be the basis for a criticism, that is not the same thing as saying that I have been unresponsive, or have ignored your suggestion. FWIW, I have looked at your Sex Pistols image example, and I can see that you go into more wordy detail in the template data cells. But I am using the same fair use template as you, and filled each of them out with all the substantive information I know. All of these images (for quick reference, the four we're talking about are: UCLA Track, Army uniform, Robinson with Satchel Paige, and Robinson with Branch Rickey) have survived the deletion hurdle for over a month. If there is some specific piece of information you want me to add for a particular image, please let me know. I am willing to do the work.BillTunell (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Bill, that's simply false. It's very easy to see from the record that you didn't do a single thing with the rationales in response to my previous round of advice. If you've done something now, someone else can spend their energy dealing with you about it. I'm through wasting my time on you. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The history pages for each of the four images clearly document my revisions of May 21 and 22, 2009, in response to the suggestions on those dates by yourself and user:Giants2008. I doubt anyone else cares, but in case they do, for the record here are the history pages for the four images:
If you do not like these changes, that is fine. But denying that they were made is a false and disparaging personal claim directed against me. I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith, and are instead deliberately attempting to subvert the FAC process for reasons ulterior to the article itself. For the life of me I can't figure out why, since I don't know you from Adam. But I think we can both agree that your further comment here is a waste of both our time.
FWIW, I updated these image pages again yesterday with supplemental information as a follow-up to your renewed suggestion. I do not want you to comment on whether these changes are satisfactory, but I remain open to discssing the issue with any other reviewer having a similar concern. BillTunell (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May 28, 2009 -- Reliable Source check

Per WP:RS, I've double-sourced using third-party sources (the Eig, Falkner, and Lamb books) for any potentially controversial claim previously attributable only to a (potentially biased first-party) Robinson family source. In doing so, I've decided to revise the substance of the text/footnote dealing with the reason Jackie left UCLA. The first-party citations also now follow the corresponding third-party citations, to indicate the third-party sources as primary (with only one exception to keep footnotes in numerical order). A couple of family sources were wholly replaced with a third-party source, both dealing with statistical issues. The only things left that are atributable solely to family sources should be relatively uncontroversial events like Jackie's marriage, early life, etc.. BillTunell (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to criteria 3 as follow:

  • File:JackieRobinson UCLA1941.jpg, File:Jackierobinson army.jpg: what parts of this photo cannot be readily imagined by any reader with just text itself? Is Robinson not readily identified by his free photo above?
    • File:Jackie robinson longjump.jpg: the possible significance of this photo is better than the previous, but not much better. "To illustrate his athletic career" is not needed with this image. However, the significance of the image can be enhanced by reporting on Robinson's athleticism at UCLA. Evaluations, reports, biographies, comments (coaches, trainers, reporters) that talk about Robinson's performance should be in the article (and should be to the effect of talking about how good Robinson's physical performance was). The photo could then be used to illustrate his performance that elicited such praise (which should be related to his long jump). As of now, there is no such commentary in the article (Robinson's UCLA stint is simply reported matter-of-factly). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The article is already over 100,000 bytes long, and is stretching the summary style barrier as-is. Rationalizing a photograph isn't really the purpose of a namespace page. We've done it with respect to the Robinson Memorial statue image, because of the specific WP:Non-free content requirement under Images" No. 8. But otherwise I'm loathe to put in more distracting text. In any event, I don't think any amount of words can demonstrate to a reader how high Robinson could jump.
      • Moreover, additional text wouldn't change the more basic dispute here, namely whether the image serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." As I understand it, you interpret the "topic" as Robinsons's UCLA long-jump career, which leaves no room for comparative historical photographs to have any useful basis. I interpret the "topic" as Jackie Robinson, an understanding of which is benfitted by representative phtographs of historical periods in his life. Whichever of us is right, the additional text you propose isn't going to change the resolution fo the matter, as I see it. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • File:Jackie robinson signature.jpg: as said earlier, a military career does not require illustration. Being in uniform serves nothing, unless it was a particarly defining issue for the subject. Creating an example, in a biography about an author who was a soldier, a sentence such as "Although non-descript in civilian attire, Ahdooday impressed many in his military uniform, projecting a steely aura and commanding presence." could warrant a photo of the man in uniform that inspire such praise (of course the smiley version would not qualify). Getting back to this photo, Robinson might be signing a piece of paper, but what does it serve to illustrate "the breaking of the baseball color barrier"? As mentioned earlier, a newspaper article that broke the news or a photo that shows a warm and hearty reception of Robinson by white fans (or the baseball club) would be better to illustrate such a moment. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • This is another point of departure for us. Nothing in any article "requires" illustration, if there is no limit to the narrative description allowed. But this is not possible in a summary style format. On the military/signature photo specifically, the fact that Robinson chose to memorialize the signature in his military uniform, which was not necessary, says a lot about the public-relations lengths he and the Dodgers had to go to to smooth over potential resistance to the signing. That goes to the heart of Robinson's historical significance. Again, this could be described narratively with a bunch of gratuitous unsourced commentary rather than an image, but which is more efficient and helpful to the reader? BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: what significance (if any) of this photo cannot be rendered with words?
    • At a minimum, the relative physical stature of Robinson. But again, the heart of the issue, as i see it, is whether the image, in contexxt with all the other images showing Robinson's aging, etc. gives a better understanding of Robinson in general, whci is the subject of the aticle. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Robinson-contract.jpg: I fail to see how a significance of inter-racial barriers is expressed with just this photo. If this was a scan of a newspaper article with a headline that screams "Major break: first black player" or something, then there would be some context to this photo, but as it is...
  • File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: it is just his head, how can that not be simply explained with words, especially since free pictures of his mug have been displayed twice. Is there something metaphysical or critical about his head that requires illustration? What is significant about this statue? For reference, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith for Ozzie Smith's statue.

I was called to offer advice on this subject. Fair use images must comply with ten criteria. The first three images fail significance (8) and replaceability (1). Very little is gained from looking at Robinson going through wardrobe changes. If one wishes to illustrate his athleticism, surely a photo of him in action (ignoring significance for the moment) would be better than him standing around in track uniform. Does one need to see him in uniform to know that he was in the military service? Does one need to see him with Satchel Paige just to know he played with Paige? A photo of a person is signficant if it is highly publicised and has become representative of the subject, i.e. the person has become associated with that persona (portrayal) by the public (media). (Even so, a copyrighted photo might be disqualified on Misplaced Pages if it can be replaced by a free equivalent—debatable.) None of these photos qualifies on the signficance front: a general reader does not need those pictures to know what they show Robinson was doing. Note: for best use of the fair use rationales on the image pages, the "whys" of the image's significance and non-replaceability should be clear. Plain "identification of subject" is a straight fail unless it is the sole identification photo (Infobox/leading image) of a dead subject. Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I can understand the concern about mere wardrobe changes. I've done two things in response to your comments:
  • Replace the UCLA track photo with an "action shot" from the Bettmann archive, whic I agree is more informative than a posed shot.
  • Delete the miliary photo and the Rickey-Robinson signature photo and replaced this with another image, which portrays the follow-up contract signature from October 23, 1945 with Robinson in military uniform. The photo therefore comnsolidates two items of historical significance (his military career and breaking the color barrier). In addition, the reolcation of the image takes away a prior criticism related to the placement of the Robsinon-Rickey image within the article.
Since there is a difference of opinion about the statue photograph, I've left his as-is for now.
I've looked at a lot of other articles' commentary about NFCC#8 by now, and the only constant theme I can glean is that there is a subjectivity about the "significance" requirement that different contributors look on very differently. The changes above are meant as a reasonable accomodation. My take on a comprehensive life biography like this is that images teken throughout an entire subject's life aid significantly in the readers' understanding of the topic for many reasons. In this case, the images left (even though I've deleted a net one picture) portray sdeveral things: how a Robinson character aged, his relative physical statutre to otehr persons, his athletic performance, etc. I'd agree that NFCC#8 requries more than images to simply "spice up" the text. But in a case like this I think at least a few images are warranted. The converse, of ocurse, is that eliminating the images doesn't make free transmission of information any ess possible; it simply puts the onus for someone who wants to transmit the non-free images, in addition to the text, to make their own fair use decision.
I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible, because readers can always imagine the text being described. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this isssue, but I just have a different slant on it. As I've noted before, if an adminsitrator feels differently on the NFCC#8 issue, I understand. If the non-free image concern is the only thing holding up FA status, I'd appreciate the administrator pointing that out. If so, I don't think the article would be best served by FA status. BillTunell (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
"I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible,. because readers can always imagine the text being described." Please read Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper, and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward (Featured Articles with fair-use images) for an inkling of my "hard-core" interpretation of NFCC#8. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked through your previous submissions, which I actually enjoy reading. I'm learning more about these issues as we go along. Although I do not necessarily disagree with your take on NFCC#8, I do note that there has been quite a lot of give-and-take in the prior FACs you reference, and I just don't see that any one contributor's interpretation is authoritative. As a nominator, I feel the obligation to balance approaches, even if they aren't my own.
I've also noted that the Noel Coward article has a parallel to the Jackie Robinson article, in that it contains a freely-licensed but "derivative work"-image of a bust/sculpture of the subject. That should support, at least in part, the inclusion of the sculpture image in the Jackie Robinson article. That being said, I realize that FA elevation isn't necessarily a determination about any given image. BillTunell (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2

Thanks to everyone for their input. This nomination is headed for archive over the issue of inclusion of non-free images. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the article won't be elevated while there are any pending non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies. But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it. Thanks again for your input. BillTunell (talk) 18:09, 2 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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 .

Synthetic diamond

Nominator(s): NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an official web site of a scientific project started around 1997 or so.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And? It needs a publisher listed in the article, as do a few other references. Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
    • "is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes." First instance of "process" uses the preposition "in". Second instance uses "by". These should be consistent; my !vote is for "by".
      "Produced by a man/woman IN technological process" and "produced BY geological process" might not need unification. 3rd opinion needed. If unify, my vote is for "in".
    • "Synthetic diamonds should not be confused with" Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a diamond buyer's guide. This sentence should be reworded to avoid the abuse of the phrase "should not be confused with". I think the inclusion of enhanced diamonds is unnecessary at this point. I suggest that the section be reworded to emphasize the difference between synthetic diamond and diamond simulants.
      done Actually, I have deleted this part before, but some copyeditor restored it.
    • Throughout the article (including the lead), you switch between "synthetic diamond is" and "synthetic diamonds are", where the singular is used to describe the material and the plural is used to describe the gemstones. I realize that these are different, but in situations where you have a choice between the two (such as the very first sentence), consistency would be helpful for the readers. Although the plural seems more intuitive to me, I suppose it makes more sense to use the singular, as this makes it clear that the article is not limited to jewelry, but to the various applications of this material.
      done
      Striking for now. I'll let you know if I catch any other instances. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph of the lead begins with "Synthetic diamond is made using two major processes: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis." There are several instances in this paragraph in which there are apparently comparisons being made between the two processes without making it clear which ones you are talking about: "some synthetic diamonds" and "Certain synthetic diamonds". What is the point of introducing the two processes if they aren't included in the discussion? Conversely, what is the point of discussing the processes if it isn't made clear which one(s) you're discussing?
      done
      Erm, not really. Simply cutting out material and adding "(either HPHT or CVD)" doesn't quite cut it. I'm particularly concerned with the following statement: "Its properties depend on the details of the manufacturing processes, and can be inferior, similar or superior to those of natural diamond." I assume that the broad spectrum of possibilities is due primarily to the variety of ways in which synthetic diamond is produced. If this is the case, and if you are keen on keeping this somewhat useless sentence, you should elaborate upon which properties are better/worse for each process. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      Notes: mentioning those two major production processes is essential for the lead. However, the spectrum of possibilities does not hinge on the process (i.e. imagine one process does not exist - most applications would remain). Properties do depend on the process. The questioned sentence "Its properties depend .." is for introduction only. It is detailed by the next sentence. Comparing all properties of CVD and HPHT diamond is beyond the scope of the lead and the article. Please reconsider or explain what is needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      Perhaps I am being mislead by the fact that you've essentially lumped a summary of Manufacturing technologies with Properties. I suggest splitting this paragraph of the lead into multiple paragraphs. This would also allow you to expand the manufacturing technologies bit to include explosive detonation and ultrasound cavitation.
      I've reformulated the lead as requested. Please check. If style comments, please propose a sentence or rewrite yourself.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      I tend not to rewrite material unless I am certain that I fully understand it and that I won't change its meaning by rewriting it. When I am not certain, but have a good idea, I'll propose a replacement sentence. It is when I really don't understand the purpose of a sentence at all that I do neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Their advantages for electronic applications have been demonstrated." If I were a Spartan, and my wife begat this sentence, I would have left it on the hillside, as it appears to be entirely useless. "have been demonstrated" is ambiguous and WP:WEASELY. "Their advantages" is vague. That this sentence appears after the bit about heat sinks is also odd, as heat sinks are often used in electronics.
      done
      The replacement sentence is still (perhaps even more) awkward, and you response to my next point says that electronic applications don't exist yet. This has not been made clear in either version of the sentence. Also, heat sinks are used in electronics, aren't they? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, heat sinks are used in electronics, but not only. I feel this comments hinges on writing style and now tried to carefully separate "passive" and "active" electronic applications. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Detectors of UV light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond, are being applied at high-energy research facilities and are already available commercially." The use of "already" implies that the reader should, at this point in the article, be somewhat familiar with the timeline of synthetic diamond UV detectors, which won't be true for the vast majority of readers.
      "Already" leaned on the previous sentence, saying that electronic applications are not here yet, but detectors are already available. No slide to knowledge of detectors.
      See my response above; it is relevant to this issue as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      see response above and in the text.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      Perhaps instead of just saying "electronic applications", you should actually list some potential applications. This would be more useful for the reader and might make this section flow better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Because of a unique combination of thermal and chemical stability, low thermal expansion and high optical transparency in the wide spectral range, synthetic diamond is becoming the most popular material for optical windows in high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Why "the" wide spectral range? Shouldn't it be "a" wide spectral range? Also, avoid the use of the indirect "a" for "unique combination", as it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the unique combination belongs to synthetic diamond or to optical windows.
      done
    • "either clear white or colored yellow, brown, blue or even green or orange" This is a very poorly constructed list: It uses "either" despite there being more than two items in the list. It uses "or" three times. "Or even" is unnecessary unless you go on to explain why green and orange are unusual colors.
      done
      Not yet. Please reread the last sentence of my comment. It still applies to this version. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "This creates major concerns in the diamond trading business" What creates major concerns? The wide variety of colors? Or the mere fact that synthetic diamond can be cut into gems? Also, "creates" implies that these synthetic gemstones are a source of perpetual consternation for diamond traders, but the rest of the paragraph implies that these concerns have been taken care of by the "special" spectroscopic techniques.
      done "Techniques" were introduced to fight the problem; they did not take care of it. The problems is serious and remains.
    • A few little things: I'm fairly certain that "et al" is supposed to be italicized: et al. Non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and abbreviated units; see WP:NBSP. All ranges of numbers should use endashes, not hyphens; see WP:DASH. I've corrected a few instances of each of these problems in this diff.
      done
      Looks good for now, I'll keep my eye out for others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:LEAD states that the lead must summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, I don't see anything in the lead which pertains to the History section.
      done.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but none of them could be confirmed." If the attempts have been documented, why cant they be confirmed? Also, "could be confirmed" implies that the person who did the research (you) could not find the sources, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.
      I can't find a better word for "confirmed". "Reproduced" would mean diamond had been grown, which is not. Many claimants later retracted their own claims (e.g. ref. , C.H. Desch (1928)). Further, there was a series of investigations into success of those early attempts, analyzing the conditions and products. Trying to be as neutral as possible, they carefully selected respected and neutral scientists (talked to one of them). No single report could confirm the diamonds were produced (e.g. ref. K. Lonsdale (1962).NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      Ah, I see. I interpreted "none of them could be confirmed" to mean "none of the attempts could be confirmed by secondary sources", but what you meant was "non of them could be confirmed to have been successful." Suggestion to reduce ambiguity: "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but it is unclear if any of these attempts were successful." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      Oppose because every attempt was investigated later (unique history, demonstrating the power of diamond business world) and was found unsuccessful. I slightly rewrote. Please have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (former NIMSoffice - changed name)
      Valid. I also slightly rewrote for grammar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The first reproducible synthesis, by the HPHT and possibly CVD methods, was reported around 1953." The "possibly CVD methods" bit tells me that there may have been some discrepancy between the sources. Readers who are less familiar with research might misinterpret this. In any case, this piece of information isn't really critical to the lead. Suggested rewrite: "The first reproducible diamond synthesis was reported around 1953."
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "In this method" Which method? It would be helpful to include the name of the process.
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The fourth diamond synthesis varity" Uh... what?
      Typo. Should be variety. Has no name yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Caption:"Synthetic diamonds of various colors grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique, the diamond size is ~2 mm" Improper comma use. Either incorporate the diamond size into the sentence or split into two sentences. Also, what dimension does "diamond size" refer to? Height? Radius?
      Tried to fix, meaning the longest measure of the largest diamond in the picture. Please reformulate if needed. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      Hrm. On second thought, it might be better to simply include a scale in the image itself.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      Yikes, that's a pretty pathetic scale bar. The image should be able to exist on its own without requiring a caption to explain the purpose of the white smudge. I'd be happy to try to try making a scale bar myself in MS Paint, but you've brightened the original image. I'd like to preserve that change, so if you upload a brightened non-smudgebar version, I'll make a scale bar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Moving on to the History section: "many attempts were made to alter the cheaper forms of carbon" It's not entirely clear what the goal here is. What exactly does "alter" mean? Were people trying to make diamond exclusively, or were they trying to replicate the various allotropes of carbon?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Ruff claimed in 1917" The first instance of a person's name should include that person's first name(s). The person's profession is also helpful.
      Name added. A previous sentence said that Ruff was a scientist, not much more is known. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "were the result of seeding by well-intentioned co-workers" What is "seeding"? "well-intentioned" seems somewhat speculative and fanciful. Even without that bit, this seems to be an unusually specific conclusion. Surely the sources must present some other ideas, or at least a more general one.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      I'm glad that the sentence is clearer (although somewhat informal), but it is still fundamentally flawed. I read through Ref 6 (Lonsdale 1962), and there is no mention of the possibility of seeding by frustrated technicians, and with good reason: This is too specific a conclusion to make based on such old and unclear information. I don't have access to Ref 7 (O'Donoghue 2006), but I suspect that if it does indeed mention this idea, it treats it as just one possibility. Assuming this is the case, I suggest either rewording the sentence to make it clearer to the reader that it is speculative, or just deleting it entirely so as not to mislead the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ref 5 (Lonsdale 1962) is just a list of citations. Perhaps I can't see the whole article because I don't have access to the subscription-only database. Assuming that it is indeed just a list, I don't quite see the point of including it.
      Seeing only reference list universally means you don't have access to full text; the latter is available at http://67.50.46.175/paperspdf/lons-k1962.pdf (no, not my server, and I don't know how comes its free there. By far not the first case though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The most definitive duplication attempts were performed by Sir Charles Algernon Parsons" Suggest "replication" instead of "duplication". Also, approximately when did his work begin?
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "He devoted 30 years and a considerable part of his fortune" Not very neutral language. Suggest swapping out "devoted" with "spent". Suggest including some sort of numerical estimate like "over $300,000" instead of "a considerable part of his fortune."
      Swapped. No info on money spent. Parsons was a Knight and had a fortune from his steam turbine invention; might well be he never disclosed the amount (at least, he did not have to).Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "as well as those of Hannay" Who? Also, the note after this sentence, Ref 7 (Hannay 1879) is authored by Hannay. It seems to me that instead of using the ref to verify the statement, you are using it as an example of Hannay's work. While both uses of the citation system are acceptable, they should not be mixed. Separate lists should be used: one for "further information"-type notes, one for references.
      I'm glad to fix, but don't see a problem: the sentence in passing mentions another diamond synthesis attempt (by Hannay) and the reference supports the fact of that experiment (not the fact of its reproduction). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      That's not how I interpret it, and I seriously doubt any reader will see it that way either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      Hannay moved up with his ref, which is actually more fair for history and text, and should solve the problem.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "However in 1928 he authorized C.H. Desch" Who is C.H. Desch? A student of his? A journal editor?
      Dr. Desch. Scientist. No further information. Not assistant or student of Parsons. Unusual - yes, but so was the whole story. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "It was believed that on one occasion a diamond was produced, but since experiments could not be reproduced such claims could not be maintained" Several problems. "It was believed" is a weasel phrase. That section should be more definitive: Was anything published about this supposed diamond? Also, does "experiments could not be reproduced" mean that the experiments were attempted again but were unsuccessful? Or does it mean that, because of the inherent complexity of the apparatus, it was impossible to reproduce the experiment at all? Does "such claims could not be maintained" mean that the authors of the claim later retracted it?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      Better, but it still includes the weasel phrase. I suggest trying to incorporate "the team reported" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press" What is meant by "elegant"? Large? Energy efficient?
      Deleted (technical weasel). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C" It is unclear to which apparatus what you are comparing the belt press. The tungsten carbide anvils? The 1941 experiment?
      Explained. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press apparatus which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C, using a pyrophyllite container, and having the graphite dissolved within molten nickel, cobalt or iron, a "solvent-catalyst"." Once the specific issues are resolved, this entire sentence needs to be rewritten. It is unclear if the belt press, pyrophillite container, and dissolved graphite clauses are all specific components of the breakthrough or if they relate more directly to each other.
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      Better, but still a bit awkward: "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C as compared to hydraulic presses." It's clear that the pressure is being compared to the hydraulic presses, but it's unclear what the deal is with the temperature. It might be clearer to just drop the comparison altogether and give straight numbers: "which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 C."
      Indeed. Thanks. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "clearly unsuitable for jewelry" Another weasel word. Why "clearly"? Too big? Too small?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Hall was able to have co-workers replicate his work" This is oddly worded. Why not just "Hall's co-workers were able to replicate his work" ?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "He was the first person to grow a synthetic diamond according to a reproducible, verifiable and witnessed process and received a gold medal of the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work" Incorrect usage of "according to". How about "using"? Suggest changing "witnessed" to "well-documented". This is a long unbroken sentence. I suggest splitting it or adding some punctuation.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "and three years later developed a completely independent apparatus for the synthesis of diamond (the tetrahedral press with four anvils)" Not sure what you mean by "completely independent". Perhaps "entirely new" ? The explanation should not be preceded by "the", nor should it be in parentheses. These imply that the reader should already be familiar with the device.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Picture: The image of the belt press is clearly very modern. This may be misleading to the readers since the paragraphs next to it deal with the 40s and 50s. I suggest expanding the caption to more clearly indicate the era in which the photograph was taken.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Hall received a gold medal from the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work." Did Hall really receive a medal in 1972 for his work from 1954? Or was this sentence supposed to be at the end of the paragraph? In either case, it should probably be verified by another ref, one specific to the ACS.
      Indeed, the award did not specify which diamond work (I assumed 1954, BTW 18 yrs delay was usual in mat. science :). Fixed, with references.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced" Odd wording. Should probably be either "Another synthetic diamond was successfully produced" or "Another successful diamond synthesis was achieved."
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Sweden's major electrical manufacturing company" This would probably going to be a source of contention if any of ASEA's competitors read this article. I would suggest rewriting to a somewhat weaker statement: "one of Sweden's major electrical manufacturing companies." or some such.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "as part of a top-secret diamond-making project" The use of "top-secret" seems a bit childish. Is this really how the source described the project?
      No kidding. Nothing was known about Swedish project until 80s. (I see relation between diamond business and diamond synthesis as a modern version of the medieval church-to-astronomy history :) Even now, few sources document details of that project (names, dates, publication titles, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      Oh, I believe that it was a very secretive project. I'm just asking if the sources actually used the phrase "top-secret". If not (and perhaps even if they did), we could probably come up with a more encyclopedic alternative, such as "highly secretive" or "classified" or "clandestine". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      No, I actually copy-pasted the term from the reference book. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Baltzar von Platen (1898–1984) and Anders Kämpe (1928–1984)" Not sure why their lifespans are included, especially since none of the other scientists mentioned in this article are given this treatment. Indeed, the fact that they died in the same year may be confusing for some readers, as it implies that the design was completed in 1984 and that they had been working on it for a long time.
      Years deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "A few small crystals were produced, but not of gem quality or size." Crystals of diamond?
      Yes. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "a new competitor emerged in Korea named Iljin Diamond" When I first read this, I thought Iljin Diamond was someone's name. I was like "wow, that's convenient. He's working on synthetic diamond and his last name is Diamond?" Suggest rewording to make it clearer that that is the name of a company, though I'm not sure how you would go about doing that.
      Reformulated. (I know one good scientist with this last name, but not in the diamond field :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "followed later by hundreds of Chinese entrants" Entrants in what?
      Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished this" accomplished what?
      Diamond synthesis. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished diamond synthesis by misappropriating trade secrets from GE via a Korean former GE employee in 1988" This sentence is somewhat ambiguous. What happened in 1988, the synthesis or the misappropriation (or both)? Did Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplish diamond synthesis, or did he definitively accomplish diamond synthesis by means of an alleged misappropriation?
      Fixed. BTW, this was another display of power (of diamond business): not only that difficult, ("international") case was won, but the Korean government had to revise their laws, and GE managed to close down the diamond production at IIjin. The case entered law books as example of trade wars. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The Later developments section seems to be out of order. Why is there information about the 1980s before the information about the 1970s?
      I understand the concern, but please note the word gem-quality which is the key there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      Eh, I suppose it's not that critical that it be in chronological order. It does seem to flow more logically with the gem-quality diamonds coming after the rest of it. "Gem-quality" doesn't need to be italicized, though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Synthetic gem-quality diamond crystals were first produced in 1970 (reported in 1971) again by GE" The "again" is somewhat ambiguous. Had gem-quality diamonds been produced before, making this the second instance? Or does "again" refer to GE's consistent ability to provide breakthroughs in the field? In the latter case, I suggest removing "again" to avoid the confusion.
      "Again" removed. Yes, the latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Large crystals need to grow very slowly under tightly controlled conditions." This sentence disrupts the flow of the paragraph. The information it provides is not relevant until several sentences later.
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond and with the graphite feed material placed in the center, the metal solvent, nickel, was placed between the graphite and the seeds." This is a run-on sentence. I suggest reworking to split it up or otherwise make it flow better.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The container was heated and the pressure was raised to ~5.5 GPa" Scientists and mathematicians will know what the tilde represents, but many readers will not. I suggest replacing all instances with "approximately" or some variant thereof.
      ~ is replaced all through.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit, as there was almost no change in material volume so the process was easier to control." As this sentence is written, it is unclear what the causes and effects are. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do. If not, would you mind explaining it to me so we can figure a better wording?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      Better, but now you've introduced technical jargon. What are "morphology" and "crustal"? Suggest explaining, wikilinking, or avoiding.
      morphology→shape and crustal→crystal.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminum or titanium produced colorless "white" stones, and removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced blue ones. However, removing nitrogen slows the growth process and reduces the crystalline quality, so the process is normally run with nitrogen present" . The first sentence is written in the past tense, whereas the second sentence is written in the present.
      Converted to the more appropriate past tense.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "In terms of physical properties, the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones." I assume that this sentence is trying to convey the following: "Although the GE stones and natural diamonds are chemically identical, their physical properties were not the same." Yes?
      Yes, thank you. Placed in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The colorless stones produced strong short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively) under short-wavelength ultraviolet light but were inert under long-wave UV (among natural diamonds, only rare blue stones do this)" A couple of issues here. First, this rather long sentence can be shortened by removing "short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively)" with just "fluorescence and phosphorescence". Second, if you wish to use "UV" rather than spelling out the entire phrase again, you must put "(UV)" after the first instance of "ultraviolet". Finally, the second parenthetical remark would probably be clearer if it were set off into a separate sentence and expanded slightly: "Among natural diamonds, only the rarer blue gems exhibit these properties."
      Shortened. UV defined (my fault, in science literature some abbreviations should not be defined).Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      No worries. When in doubt, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "All the GE stones also showed strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays" While the previous sentence made a clear comparison between the GE stones and natural diamonds, this statement does not. I suggest either expanding or deleting.
      Could well be deleted, but I reformulated instead.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown, for research purposes only, stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g)." At this point, it is unclear what "since" refers to, as the last mention of a date was 1970. "for research purposes only" seems redundant. The name of the organization includes the word "research", does it not?
      "Since" deleted, "research" not. Names mean little in the business world (you might hear fancy brands like "Rhodium Heart Charm" with no relation to rhodium, etc. :). To get serious, De Beers is the king of the diamond world, and the biggest sponsor of the diamond research. For a good reason, they have separately stated, everywhere they could, that they never grew diamonds for gems.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      Fair enough, but by inserting that into the middle of the sentence, it almost reads as though you're advertising what nice guys they are. I think a suitable compromise would be to move it to the end of the sentence: "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes." Alternatively, if you can find concise examples of how they use the diamonds for research, that would work too. If you really want to make it clear that De Beers is research only, perhaps it would be better to show the reader rather than to tell the reader, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      Moved to the end. Its Ok to tell about DeBeers research, but in another FA :) Their range is vast and they tell nobody what they are up to. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "For growing such diamonds, stable HPHT conditions have to be kept for 6 weeks." Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual. I suggest rewording to avoid the "have to" construction.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "However, most stones are 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg) for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s" First, most of which stones? Those produced by De Beers? Second, the second clause is entirely confusing to those readers (all of them, I'd imagine) who are not already familiar with the BARS apparatus. If you think it is important enough to be mentioned here, I would suggest expanding it. If not, I would suggest removing it.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Those large stones were a mere demonstration." Demonstration of what? To whom?
      I expanded to "demonstration of the growth possibilities." Not much meaning here. Please tweak as you like. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph flows much better without it. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "the growth of most synthetic diamonds is interrupted" The word "interrupted" often implies that the process continues after the interruption has ended. Perhaps "halted" or "terminated" or "stopped"?
      Sure. I chose "terminated". Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "when they reach weight 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg)" I'm not familiar with diamond trade literature, but shouldn't this be "they reach a weight of 1 carat" ?
      Sure. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added a fact tag to the end of this paragraph. Some of the information about De Beers may be covered by Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, but statements with numbers must be followed by an inline citation.
      Ref. added. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the first few sentences of the next paragraph. Let me know if I screwed anything up.
      Somebody already tweaked Soviet Union, and I support that. I slightly changed the CVD statement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Eversole reportedly achieved vapor deposition" What is Eversole? A wikilink or a brief introductory phrase, such as "Eversole, a material engineering company," would be helpful.
      "William G. Eversole" :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      Lol, humans ftw. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "the Russian team" It won't be obvious to all readers that Deryagin and Fedoseev are Russian names. Suggest replacing Deryagin and Fedoseev with "a Russian team" or "the Russian team" with "Deryagin and Fedoseev".
      For several good reasons I chose the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Please see WP:FAC instructions (do not use templates), and pls sign posts. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Need to decide if you're going with last name first or first name firsts for the references. Most seem to be first initial first, so suggest going with that. (Current refs 1 (Royere), 3 (Nassau), 8 (Hazen) are last name first)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref 7 (Parsons articles...) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source, it's a jewelry store?
Still need to tell me why this is a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That web-site posts rare diamond books for free, thereby hoping to attract buyers (nice trick, isn't). I have replaced that link by "genuine" books and peer-reviewed articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The following books need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Nassau)
    • Current ref 8 (Hazen)
    • Current ref 11 (Barnard)
    • Current ref 37 (Koizumi)
  • Current ref 10 (Liander) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 17 (Deryagin and Fedoseev) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 18 (HPHT Synthesis...) needs a publisher.
  • Current ref 35 (CVD...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 47 (Blind to the ..) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 49 (Heartwig...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 50 (Khousary..) needs a publisher
done all titles and publishers, the rest for tomorrow NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the properties and applications sections are unneeded because they are about diamonds generally, not synthetic diamonds. Furthermore, basically all of the pictures appear to be copyright violations. The ones uploaded by the nominator here are web resolution though high quality without metadata, and the one from the Hershey book seems to be under copyright still based on my cursory research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
On second look, maybe the first part isn't true. Copyvio problems remain. I deleted one blatant one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Finished with image and reference related issues.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the image issues aren't resolved. I seriously am very skeptical that you personally took all the photos you uploaded. Why are they in varying web-resolution sizes without metadata? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
And you also haven't shown why the Hershey image is public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment that I am a professional scientist in this area. Would it explain your doubts ? Would it contradict anything ? I crop "empty" areas from virtually every my image - that is why pixels size is always different. A few crops might be exact for certain reasons (re-use as internal data). I never worried about metadata, but it seems the old free program I use chops off metadata. Some images (e.g. TEM of detonation diamond and perhaps scalpel) are taken from microscopes equipped with proprietary software. I can't speak for Hershey image as its not mine. Anything I can help with that or other images (no I don't have mine on this topic) ? Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2009: Difference between revisions Add topic