Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2013

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

The article was not promoted by

Belle (Disney character)

Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent a considerable amount of time working on it, gathering numerous sources of reliable information and editing its style and form. Feeling that Belle is one of Disney's most famous and recognizable animated characters, I believe that she deserves to have a featured article.Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is outstanding. I particularly like the block quotes. You have done an excellent job. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gratitude Thank you very much. Please notify me of any improvements that can be made. --Changedforbetter (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well written, comprehensive, and surprisingly well sourced. As a complete non-expert on the topic, the article covers everything I can imagine ever wanting to know about the character. Fantastic work! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I appreciate you saying that. I've spent a lot of time on the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I'm not sure if I'll post a full review, but I have the following comments:

• Why is the 'Feminist criticism and analysis' section only referenced to online news articles? Presenting an article by a man in the sexist British tabloid The Sun (which still has page 3 girls) as being a significant work of feminist analysis seems questionable. Searching Google scholar shows that several academic articles have discussed this character, and this article is focused solely on her (though unfortunately the article is written in academic-speak!). Please consult these sources.

• Removed comments made by Jim Korkis of The Sun.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you going to also look for other sources? Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of looking for some reputable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be rather a lot of instances of people involved with this character being quoted as saying how good the character is and what a good job Disney did in developing it. This material seems unnecessary as it doesn't add much to the article, and these obviously aren't neutral sources of commentary.

• Can you provide me with one or two examples of this feat so that I have an idea of exactly what you're talking about?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure: "O'Hara was fairly confident in her audition, which she described as "one of those auditions where I felt like it was my part and I was going to get it.", "Despite the fact that Beauty and the Beast was her first major film role, O'Hara did not feel overwhelmed by the recording process because "[she] knew [she] had the experience to play [Belle]."", ""We didn't have to be alone, and I think that was very important," said O'Hara. "Disney had to spend a lot more money and time to do that, but it consequently developed the film and the relationship with Belle and Beast.", and so on. To the extent that there's useful material here, it can be briefly summarised without the fairly inconsequential quotes. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I think I've taken care of most of these.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was O'Hara replaced?

• The source doesn't say exactly why. It does, however, say this: "They did a one-fell swoop of all the older princesses and decided to replace all of us". It is also the only reliable source I can find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Belle is an official member of the Disney Princess line-up" - are there unofficial members? If not, I'd suggest changing this to something like 'Bell is part of the...'

• Removed. Changed to "Belle is a member of the Disney Princess line-up". The term "official" is just commonly used. --Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "where Belle and the park's guests would act out a popular story" - 'guests' seems like Disney PR gumpf (theme parks have 'visitors', not 'guests'), and what's meant by 'a popular story?'
• "On 2012, a new location at the Magic Kingdom called Be Our Guest Restaurant, which will include the castle from the film as well as her cottage, village, and Gaston's Tavern." - this sentence is unclear, seems to have a few missing words and covers something which apparently occurred in 2012 in future tense.
• "is recognized for being the youngest actress to play Belle on Broadway" - what is the significance of this, and who 'recognized' her?

• I agree. This is somewhat trivial and insignificant. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Belle has received predominantly positive reception from critics" - all the critics then quoted are totally positive. What are the negative viewpoints alluded to in this sentence?

• Changed to "Belle has received positive reception from critics". Will be changed if negative sources are found.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=16982599 a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given that it's been over a week since I suggested that the available academic articles be drawn on (also suggested below) and nothing has been done about this, I'm shifting to oppose this nomination per FA criteria 1b and 1c. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize. I've been overwhelmed by the amount of changes users have been asking me to make to this article that I have forgotten your request. I appreciate your time, and understand your change of opinion.--Changedforbetter (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you be okay with moving this article from

Oppose by Redtigerxyz Most comments are not addressed. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Appearances:
  • Add years
  • Seems to cover only film appearances. Possibly a rename is needed
    • The appearances section only covers Belle's main appearances, meaning films and television series in which she appears as a central character. Some of Belle's more less significant appearances are included in summary in the "In other media" section.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This explanation seems inaccurate. Beauty and the Beast (musical) also has Belle as central character. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appearances section divided into subheadings, first listing Belle's main film appearances, followed by her television series. "In other media" section changed to "Other appearances", and includes "Disney parks" as its own subheading. Broadway section given its own heading.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I not so sure having 1-2 line/para sections is a new idea.
  • Why are the first two covered in so much detail, but the last 3 hardly any? Is that due to duration of film or importance?

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, "in other media" implies that media not covered in Appearances, which is not true. TV series in both.
  • Title changed to "Other appearances", separating Belle's main appearances from those that are less significant.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Belle appears at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" is out of place in media.
  • Given its own subheading, "Disney parks", in the renamed "Other appearances" subheading.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganization of text needed. By media/by appearances. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film and television appearances listed first, followed by other appearances which mostly includes miscellaneous film and television appearances, including Disney parks, and Broadway is listed last.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be rename to "Major Appearances" or similar.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comprehensiveness concerns:
  • Beauty and the Beast (video game)
    : Many video games feature her, which is not covered
  • How is Disney's Belle similar to/different from the original Belle from Beauty and the Beast.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources

• Source 55 is a Docstoc document, but Docstoc is simply a document hosting site, rather than a publisher in its own right. Looking at the source, I'm not sure what it is meant to be. Is it meant to be a musical programme (playbill) or is it simply created by a fan, and is therefore not a reliable source? To conclude the point: the referencing needs to be more explicit as to what the source actually is, and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source.
• Source 19, 20 and 42 are from IMDB. I'm not sure if they are reliable sources.
  • Removed and replaced by more reputable sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Source 40 and 41 are incomplete references.
• Source 31 and 32 seem to give Wikipedia articles as a source. I understand that this is frowned upon in the Wikipedia community??
  • These sources are not Wikipedia articles but instead video sources, which are 100% accepted by the Wikipedia community.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be an over-reliance on Disney and its affiliates as a source. In the article as a whole, but also in individual subsections, such as "Background and conception". I added the Newsweek source myself just now, but other than that there are only two non-Disney affiliated sources used in the entire section.
  • I do not believe there is an over-reliance on Disney sources. Yes, Disney is frequently used as a source, but the majority of information has come from various well-known and reputable sources in the media and news industries, such as
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal, and more. So I definitely wouldn't say that there are too many Disney sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• You don't need the four references you have at present to back up the statement, "Actress and model Sherri Stoner served as the performance model for Belle, providing live-action reference for the animators as they drew the character."
  • Removed two out of the four.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content

• Do we have an age for Belle at any point? Apologies if I missed this information.
  • http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/popcornbiz/Beauty-and-the-Beast-3D-Gives-Original-Star-Paige-OHara-a-New-Perspective-137157048.html This source states that she is eighteen years old. I've already used this as a reference after the phrase "to have a womanly quality to her voice, despite her young age, and sound "mature beyond her years." I haven't stated her age, however, because it often leads to arguments and edit wars.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mirror, mirror, who's the most liberated of all?" by Susan Wloszczyna in USA TODAY November 20, 1991 lists her as 18 in the 1991 film, as does Charles Bremner in The Times (of London) of November 25 1991 in "Beauty woos bookish Beast".

• This is great information to add to the "Awards and recognition" section. Do we have a source for them?--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farrtj (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

• Oppose 1b: I'm not sure to what extent they should be included, but Disney's Belle is featured in quite a bit of printed media as well. Examples include the 7-issue Marvel Comics series Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the 3rd issue of the Accalim-published Disney's Enchanting Stories comcis ("The Book Crook") and a wide assortment of books, some of which are branded as part of the Disney Princess franchise, and some of which are apparently independently associated with the Beauty and the Beast property. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen any response about this at all. Perhaps it got missed in the formatting, which I've tried to tidy up a bit? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also a couple of scholarly articles that directly address the character. A 1993 Textual Practice article considers Belle's role as a post-feminist heroine and compares here to Clarice Foster from Silence of the Lambs in this regard (no, really, it does).[9] And the Wayne State University Press-published Marvels & Tales includes a 2003 article that compares Disney's Belle to the pre-Disney incarnations of the character, along with an examination of the character's potential ambivalent expression of freedom of imagination.[10] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I also have a 2b concern with the placement of the Broadway play after the "Other appearances" section. That order needs to be reversed such that the "other" category follows anything that is specifically featured. And there's still been no effort to address print-media sources, so I'm making my concerns an official oppose at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• None Little of my above concerns have been addressed yet (some are now nearly a week old), but an audit of the extant references reveals a huge list of 2c problems that I didn't check for earlier as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your references do not have a uniform date format. See #47 and compare to #1. The date in #6 is missing a comma.
• You've got this problem with retrieval dates, too. Check the difference between #1 and #22. Also #45. And others.

• Well, your publication dates are all in one format now, and retrieval dates are in another. But that's consistent, so striking those objections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't format authors consistently. Look at the referenced movies (#31-33) and compare them to most anything else. Reference #4 is another film, but with a markedly different citation format.

• Still a problem. Look at 30 (Trousdale) and 31 (Knight) where the directors' names are first last, instead of 4 (Hahn) and 32 (Blaine) where they are last, first. Also you've got the parenthetical "(director)" on 30-32, but not on 4. Was that intentional for some reason? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have publication locations for #1 and #39, but not elsewhere. They're optional, but need to be uniform.
• Reference #6 (Ansen 1991) needs page numbers, since that's a print issue.
• Reference #19 (Julie Nathanson Starring Roles) has a double period that needs resolved. So does #39 (Storytime with Belle).
• Reference #43 is a problem; IMDb is not a reliable source. I thought these had been removed per a comment above.

• Removed #43 and others found.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is reference #55? Why is it a reliable source? Docstoc is not a publisher, it's a hosting site. This either needs real publishing information to demonstrate reliability, or needs to go.

• Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference #71 is an academic journal article. It's awesome that there's a PDF copy to link to, and you're right to do so, but that doesn't mean this is the proper citation format. Journal articles need proper citations to the print edition (which your linked page helpfully provides for you, in the right hand column), and should include doi where available (as it is in this case). This same complaint is true for all the journal articles you reference (which are still not nearly as many as you could be).

Comments by Wehwalt

Reluctant oppose What I'm finding is a bit more than a few prose tweaks that I generally offer at a FAC, in addition, especially towards the bottom of the review. There's a number of issues with proper usage and also the plot descriptions (assuming they are necessary) don't seem to have really been checked through to ensure clarity so the reader is not left puzzled. There is much good writing in the article, but this is not peer review and I shouldn't be finding this many issues in a short article.

Lede

• " fictional character and the female protagonist " I find the use of and here a bit awkward, because the two facts really aren't independent of each other. Perhaps replace "and" with "who is"?

• Done. Added "who is".--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "to whom she shows no interest" Perhaps "in whom she shows no romantic interest".

• Changed to "for whom she shows no romantic interest".--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you might want to stress that the scenario in the second paragraph of the lede is her situation at the start of Beauty and the Beast.
• "primeval" a bit fancy. Perhaps "old-fashioned" or "conservative"?

• Changed. Replaced with "conservative".

• " Belle is the fifth member of the Disney Princess line-up." No doubt, but does the reader really need to know this now? It seems extraneous to the rest of the paragraph. I would delete, or else move to after the words "Susan Egan".

• I see your point. Simply removed to be included later.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " but developed" "but was developed". I would lose the name of the author of the fairy tale for lede purposes, it slows down the action, especially because of the puzzling name.

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "with critics" Given your use of "criticism" earlier in the sentence, perhaps "commentators"?

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "unlike previous Disney princesses" Is this a reference to the Disney Princess line I commented on earlier? If so, it should be capitalized because unless I missed something, Belle is not, in-universe, a princess.

• Originally, I was simply referencing heroines who have come before Belle, not limiting it to just the franchise. But I see your point, so I have capitalized "Princess". Or would you prefer if I wrote "previous Disney animated heroines"?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Background

• "failing that" perhaps, "when he was unsuccessful". Failing that does not mean what you seem to think it means.

• Alright. Changed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "wasn't" contractions are strongly disfavored in the MoS. Please take this as a reference to any other contractions in the article which are not in quotations.

• I am aware of this, but sometimes I do it subconsciously. I will search the article for them.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I should mention, at least in passing, that the heroine in the short story is also named Belle.

• I am aware of this, but I did not want to say "Belle was based on the heroine, Belle, of 'Beauty and the Beast'" or something along the lines of that. I will try to figure out another way of writing it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voice

"Actress and singer Paige O'Hara was thirty-years-old at the time, and had read about" Too long winded. How about "Thirty-year-old actress and singer Paige O'Hara had read about …"

• Changed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upon hearing that the studio was holding auditions for the film's female lead and, at the behest of composer Alan Menken and lyricist Howard Ashman,[10] specifically looking for Broadway performers, O'Hara, a Broadway actress who was working in New York at the time, contacted her agent, who got her an audition.[9]" This sentence should be restructured, it takes much too long for the reader to learn what happened "upon hearing etc."

Sentence restructured.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "O'Hara's entire audition process lasted five auditions," Eliminate one of the uses of the word "audition" here.

• Done. Replaced the first "audition" with "casting".--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ""recorded [her voice]" for it to be "sent ... back to [Los Angeles]" Both quotes are so short I question their utility. Fold them into prose unless there's a really good reason for keeping it as is.

• Changed. Quotation marks simply removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "auditioner" Some hasty Google work tells me that it can mean either the people auditioning, or those judging them. Best to have a word which is not ambiguous.

• Auditioners removed. Replaced with "judicial panel".

• I don't think the Show Boat quote works, because the recording has not been previously mentioned. Since you are first mentioning it here, you should say something like "greatly admired her work on a recording of Show Boat. Something like that.

• ...Alright?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The filmmakers told O'Hara not to raise her pitch because they wanted Belle to sound "very realistic."" This sounds very similar to what the "auditioners" said in the previous paragraph. Unless you feel this is essential, I would omit. We get what Disney wanted, a skilled but ordinary-sounding voice.

• I've included this information because the first mention specifically talks about what the people auditioning O'Hara wanted, while the second talks about what the filmmakers (directors, Ashman and Menken, Hahn, whoever) wanted once she was cast. In my opinion, both are essential.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "but they were never included" Perhaps "but none were included".

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "By special request," Whose?

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Replacement": This comes on very suddenly, you were just recording the movie and suddenly she's replaced? Perhaps you should mention the works O'Hara voiced Belle in, then say the reason why Disney replaced her (you do not, at present, really, it's sort of implied her voice is deepening with age but you don't come out and say it. I would mention the name of the replacement in the final sentence. Consider moving this subsection to someplace later in the article, it feels out of place here.

• Will work on it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

• I note again, the "Disney princess" If this is an accepted term, then you should probably parenthetically define it at first use with lower case.

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The O'Hara quotation to The Guardian implies she was also a performance model in some way. Did the animators watch and sketch her as she voiced the role?

• This is correct. I initially had a quote stating this, but I had previously removed it because I thought it made the sentence too long. I can include it again if you like?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

• "leaving it" I would change to "leaving her village" and strike the word "village" in the previous sentence.

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lead to a dark" It should be "Led".

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Back home in the village" This sentence gets very involved towards the end. I would suggest a restructuring and possibly a split.

• "The majority of the mob is fended off by the enchanted objects upon arrival" Much of the mob. Also, this is the first mention of enchanted objects. As we say in the law, lay a proper foundation.

• Done. Enchanted servants now mentioned at the start of the second paragraph.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "realizing how Belle has changed him," I think it is not germane that the Beast realizes his change here. It is sufficient that he has changed.
• "Just before the last petal falls from the enchanted rose" If the reader has not seen the film, this is about the moment he goes WTF?
• "his enchanted servants" Presumably this will be cleared up once you explain the castle's non-Bestial inhabitants, but at present this is utterly inexplicable.
• " one ritual Beast" The Beast, perhaps? You have not mentioned whether he is human or not.
• "during the winter segment" You could set this up better by mentioning the passage of time during the plot description in the previous section. I will be honest, I'm not thrilled about all the recapitulations of the various plots of the shows Belle appears in and I question whether reciting them helps us understand Belle as a subject.

• That's about as far as I can go and be fair to another review I want to do tonight. Let me know when you want me to look at it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The main reason I support it is because "Beauty and the Beast" is a cherished film and Belle is a marvelous animated character. Mickey798 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that doesn't constitute support in terms of the FAC criteria, which is we're about here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Having been under review for a month, there's clearly no consensus to promote the article, nor do I see the likelihood of one emerging any time soon. You can renominate after addressing outstanding concerns, provided a minimum of two weeks has passed from the date this is archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was not promoted by

Bat'leth

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is as comprehensive as it can be using all possible relevant and reliable sources that could be found and that it would be good to show on the main page as a FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm sorry, but while I admire your ambitions for the article, on the basis of the lead the prose looks to be well below FAC standard. For example:-

• "widely available online" - delete "online", this is not a sales pitch
• "they have also been used in crimes with debates on legality differing between countries." More punctuation needed, to clarify meaning
• "Bat'leths were designed as martial arts style swords and was created..." Were/was mismatch. The sentence then meanders on, with no punctuation up to a redundant "as well" at the end.
• The last lead sentence, "Bat'leths are also considered part of popular culture, appearing in television programmes outside of the Star Trek franchise as well as teams being set up to practice using bat'leths as part of a martial art" has several grammar issues and needs to be redrafted.
• A minor point, but you should also link "long-sword". Incidentally, I note that the wikipedia page gives the word unhyphenated.

I have not looked in detail beyond the lead, but further down, my eye caught an "it's" that should be "its", and also "The rise in popularity of the bat'leth have also led...". There are likely to be other similar errors. I can't speak beyond prose issues, but the article needs a full copyedit. I also note that File:Sword of Kahless.JPG is still in the article, despite a warning from Ruhrfisch in the peer review (29 January) that this is a likely copvio. Have you checked the status of this image? Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed the issues you have brought up and removed the Sword of Kahless picture. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but...the issues I raised were only a sample. And I'm not overimpressed by some of your fixes; for example, "they have also been used in crimes with debates on legality differing between countries" is still unpunctuated, and we have sentences such as "Martial arts teams have set up to use bat'leths in martial arts". Sadly, I have to concur with Graham's view that the article is not ready for FAC, but that does not mean all is lost; there are things you can do. The first is to get a full copyedit, from an editor familar with FAC prose standards and preferably with knowledge of the Star Trek genre. Such editors exist; there are several Star Trek-related articles listed at
  WP:FA. Why not approach one or more of the main editors of these, and ask them to work with you? If you are patient, this could be a positive way forward. Leaving the article to its fate here is not likely to get you very far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I suppose so. I think i'd better cut my losses and withdraw this. Incidentally, I was also thinking of maybe bringing
  2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA but I am having trouble getting a review for it from the Football project. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Possibly under snow but is there really a need to be so dismissive? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a
  talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There nothing in the FAC that says anything about retrieval dates. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, no. But FAC does have an expectation of high-quality sources, which includes ensuring that web-based references have not been subject to alteration or linkrot since their initial inclusion (a frequent cause of concern at FARC). Thus, I don't think there's anything unreasonable in suggesting that retrieval dates be "relatively" recent (I set my threshold of concern at ~1 year, but it's not a hard demarcation). With web references of that age (or older), I have no problem setting an expectation that the article's editors would have checked the status of the links, and, upon doing so, updated the retrieval date accordingly – or, if they haven't, that they can and should. Regardless, that's far from the most serious problem here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well I suppose I could always hand it to the copyedit guild and I probably think I should withdraw this. I was also thinking of bringing

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA and I think that is probably better than this so I would ask that this be closed for the moment so I can bring that in instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 20:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

This candidate was not promoted by

Otis Redding

Nominator(s):

Tomcat (7) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• My review is very tough because 1) the nominator was warned for trivial renoms back in December and then again in January [13][14], 2) the same nominator started the previous four unsuccessful FACs, 3) the nominator is competing at the WikiCup, and 4) the article has failed many times before, especially on writing style. It really needed a complete rewrite, top to bottom, which it did not get. Somebody other than Tomcat7 should start over with it.

• Per your comment it seems that you have something against me.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Furthermore, I don't understand why your comments should be tough in this case. I don't find them tough, but rather randomly chosen. Next, there are no restrictions on how many times a nomination for one particular article is created. There is no reason to name a fun competition. I pointed out above that it received excellent copyedits. Even twice. So you want to exclude me? For what reasons?--
  Tomcat (7) 21:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The "fun" competition apparently creates in you a pressure to push sub-par articles through GAN and FAC. That is why I bring it up.
  What this article needs is
  "engaging, even brilliant" prose, which it has never had, and will not get until someone takes it all the way down to barebones to build it back up. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I said at Talk:Otis Redding/GA1 that Redding was an exciting performer with sensual and sexual overtones, per Bill Graham. Nobody has yet figured out how to put that sufficiently into the article. Around 1990, more or less, Graham said "By far, Otis Redding was the single most extraordinary talent I had ever seen. There was no comparison. Then or now." Unusually, Graham flew to Atlanta then drove to Memphis to convince Redding to come to San Francisco to play the Fillmore. More Graham: "Six foot three, a black Adonis. He moved like a serpent. A panther stalking his prey... Beautiful and shining, black, sweaty, sensuous, and passionate." And the kicker, while discussing Jimi Hendrix: "It has always amazed me that no rock historian has ever dealt with the most significant aspect of who Jimi Hendrix was. After Otis Redding, he was the first black man in the history of this country who caused the mass of white females in the audience to disregard his race and want his body. They wanted to fuck him as a unit. After Otis, he was the first black sex symbol in White America."[15]

• I do not support adding such sensationalist phrases. If there is a good reason, please name one.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm including the Graham quotes to give an idea of what Graham thought, not to suggest wording for the article. I'm saying that the article fails to give the reader an idea of how viscerally exciting it was to watch Redding perform live. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ralph J. Gleason, SF music critic, said that Redding was scheduled to make a TV special for National Educational Television, to be filmed on December 26, 1967.[16]

• I will look into that, I think I have heard about that somewhere and decided leaving it out.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why is there nothing about the San Francisco Bay which is what the song refers to?

• Because the article is about Otis Redding, not the song. --
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's The Fillmore or Fillmore Auditorium, not Fillmore Theatre.

• Changed.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is surrounded by quotation marks as it is a quote from that source.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The point is that the reader is not told what that unfamiliar term means. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be made clear that "Moohah" is the nickname of WDIA disk jockey A.C. Williams. His mother did not name him that.

• I added his initials.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Then he is an idiot.--
  Tomcat (7) 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I fixed one, the other one will need to be replaced.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I fixed the other one.--
  Tomcat (7) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Very awkward wording regarding the fact that Redding was popular with a mostly black audience, that he wanted to cross over and attract the larger white audience, which led to the Whisky-A-Go-Go in Los Angeles being selected as a venue. The time frame should be clear: three days in April 1966 including April 8.[17] The fact should be stated that an album was later released of this 40-minute set: In Person at the Whisky a Go Go. "Afro-Americans"? Dang.

• There was another album, not just that one, and it is already mentioned below. I am not sure about that source, seems to be not very reliable. For example they wrote Whiskey instead of Whisky. Not trustworthy imho.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here is the awkward wording:

  Since Afro-Americans still formed the majority of fans, Redding chose to perform at Whisky a Go Go on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles. Redding was one of the first soul artists to perform in the western United States. His performance received critical acclaim, including positive press in the Los Angeles Times and he penetrated mainstream popular culture.

  
  This is very clunky prose, and it completely fails to get the reader excited about one of Redding's most important gigs, a career milestone. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Throughout 1966 Redding's backing band was his own guys, but it is not mentioned. They perform on the Whisky a Go Go date and at the Fillmore in December. The next year, Redding went to Europe with Booker T. and the M.G.'s but this is not mentioned.

• Can you clarify what do you exactly mean? What guys do you mean?--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Still have not incorporated enough of the story about writing "Dock of the Bay" in Sausalito. Music critic Joel Selvin wrote about the composition. Selvin's not referenced in the article yet. I think the writing of the song should come chronologically at the right place, in August 1967 while Redding is still in Northern California working an engagement at San Francisco's Basin Street West following the Monterey Pop gig, not after discussing the Stax recording session.

• It seems that particularly that song you always identify as his only major achivement. This is simply not correct.
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It was split from the death section as it had no impact on his death. --
  Tomcat (7) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I removed the pounds. They were included in Brown, I think.--
  Tomcat (7) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not support this article for FA. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a
  talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

This article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Norman Selfe

Nominator(s): Wittylama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years, I've finally got something to (hopefully) FA standards...
Norman Selfe is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a fascinating character who clearly cared deeply about providing access to practical education to everyone. I'm sure he would have been a Wikipedian if he were alive today! The unusual thing about how this article is that the original content on which it is based comes from an original research essay in the Dictionary of Sydney which I imported as it is CC-By-SA licensed. Therefore, for many of the facts both the source content and the direction of the reference is the same thing - unusual but not against the rules if done correctly (which I've had checked over three prior peer reviews). Wittylama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, attribution present

• Missing bibliographic info for Selfe 1990

• I think this may be a typo for 1900 - nominator needs to confirm. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep - simple typo. I'd be very surprised if Selfe were publishing anything in 1990! :-) Fixed now. Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography

• Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest putting Freyne 2009 in Bibliography

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've undone this, for now. I created the bibliography section at the request of a previous reviewer to highlight the published books that are used as references multiple times - the important physical publications that are accessible (as opposed to unique materials in a reference library or pamphlets). Freyne is certainly used multiple times but is not a book. That means, as far as I thought, she gets a mention in the external links section immediately below (and also in the mini attribution line immediately below that (because of the CC-by-SA content). I think mixing websites into the "bibliography" section is confusing. Is this ok? What do you think? Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN8: formatting

• Please specify problem. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For "cited in..." notations, suggest including page numbers, and be consistent in how these are formatted

• As far as I can see, the "cited in" notes which lack page numbers are all to the online Freyne article which is not paginated. I don't see any format inconsistencies - perhaps you will indicate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As Brianboulton says - this is my intention with the 'cited in' cases without page numbers. Please advise if there are others I've missed. Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN20: WriteLight appears to be a
  self-publisher
  , so what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Also need page number

• I've replaced with a better source (and added a pic too). Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN23: formatting

• This probably arise from use of the "citation" template, per note below. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Cite Book format. Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN11: formatting, and given that this was unpublished what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

• I've listed "Arthur (2001)... cited in Freyne (2009)" several times (footnotes 11, 17, 22, 26...) because that is what Freyne cites. As Freyne is the Reliable Source here I could simply have cited her each time, but it is more academically honest to make reference back to the source she is using. Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mix {{
  cite}}, {{citation
  }} and untemplated citations - pick one format and stick with it

• I believe all instances of {{citation}} are now replaced with cite book etc. Wittylama 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN34: don't use all-caps

• Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN35: formatting

• I've got rid of the overitalicisation but maybe a further format check necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN37, 38: page(s)?

• This is find-able, but requires trekking into the research library to bring up the microfiche of the first volume of this journal. These are editions 4 and 6 of the first volume so they're not particularly large publications. I think, for the purposes of anyone coming after us to find these sources won't have any difficulty tracking the reference even without page numbers. So... yes, I can find the specific page numbers for these essays in the journals when I have the time to go to the research library, but do you think it's a blocker for the purposes of this FA review? Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN40: publisher?

• Added, with link to National Library catalogue reference for consolidated publication of this and others. 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• FN41, 43, 47, 51, 57, 58, 60: page formatting

• All fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges

• Fixed a couple, can't see any more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN55: formatting

• Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN62: formatting

• I believe I've fixed this. Please confirm. Wittylama 04:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher for dictionaries/encyclopedias. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now removed the publisher (ANU) for the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The ADB, unlike the Dictionary of Sydney is both a physical and digital publication so many references to them in other publications treat them as a book but still link to the URL. I'm now treating it as an online citation only. Wittylama 04:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have fixed most of the above (as indicated) on behalf of the nominator, who needs to deal with the remainder, i.e. refs 8, 11, 20, 37, 38 40 and 62 plus the mixed templates issue and the final point about dictionary publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I've now gone through and addressed all the remainder. Thank you very much for your assistance Brianboulton! Wittylama 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- with no further comments after more than a month, I'm afraid this review has well and truly stalled, so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

This article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Deadalive

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifteenth episode of

I'm probably not the best qualified to check some of the FA criteria, but I'll do what I can, since this is nearing the bottom of the list without any love at all. So far, all I have checked is the reference formatting and quality. I've got significant concerns there, so I'll hold a bit before looking at the actual article text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Date formats are inconsistent in footnotes. Compare the retrieval date on #2 with #8. Footnote #3 has two different date formats. Footnotes #8 and #32 have their publication dates in different formats. I probably missed some; this needs a thorough audit.

  Fixed. Those were just sloppy mistakes on my part.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, when a footnote refers to something in the works cited list, you include the publication date. Sometimes (with the Spotnitz source) you don't. Any reason this shouldn't be consistent, however you decide to do it?

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is iTunes really the best we can do to source the running time? I wouldn't object on this alone, but surely we can find that figure somewhere...

  Why isn't it acceptable? iTunes is a third-party, reliable company. They clearly state the running time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I need to give this particular topic some more thought. Ideally, what I'd prefer is if some third-party source that actually had significant coverage and commentary on this topic also included the runtime, so that we weren't just citing that data point to a big chart on a web portal of a company trying to sell downloadable copies. I suppose it's too much to hope that Shearman & Pearson includes this? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it necessary to tell us that Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News? You do this with a couple other publications, too, but not all of them. I don't really feel this is the same sort of thing as citing publishers, and I really haven't seen it elsewhere before. Is there a reason for it?

  I do this for all the newspapers, because the publisher publishes the newspaper, and it is the same thing (in fact, it's the definition of publisher). I also do it for all the website that have publishers. I'm being inclusive, not exclusive, so I certainly don't see why this is a problem.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I've ever seen "publisher" used that way. Yes, Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News. But that doesn't mean it's the publisher of that newspaper (the newspaper itself is, as is the case for most major market US papers). Similarly, Bertelsmann owns Random House, but that doesn't mean it's the actual publisher of everything put out by Random House. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see this as a problem. Regardless of how it works, Berkshire Hathaway still is the official publisher of The Buffalo News.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cinefantastique sources are from 2002. I may be wrong in remembering this, but wasn't that periodically officially rebranded CFQ by that time?

  You're totes right.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually pretty dubious about the reference in footnote #40. An advertising flyer is a primary source, but those aren't without their uses. But I don't really see anything to give us context for the flyer in the reference; the link is to an image stored on photobucket that isn't immediately identifiable as a flyer -- and likely presents some copyright concerns as well.

  Primary sources aren't issues unless they are non-notable. Furthermore saying this isn't noticeable as a flyer because it is presented as an image is like saying a page scan doesn't look like a book because there is no context. I can remove the image link, for copyright reasons, but I feel the source isn't an issue at all. It was issued by Fox, after all, which makes it notable and reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  My problems with the flyer are really twofold. As I've noted, one concern is that we are linking to copyright violation at photobucket. But the other is verifiability. What assurance do we have that the flyer, as hosted at photobucket, is legitimate, and has not been manipulated in any way (in fact, I strongly suspect it has and that the image we're linking to is cropped from a larger document that includes more information, like show times, and possibly publication data)? In part, too, I'm worried about the ability of readers to locate the source from the information we're able to provide, which is almost none. To be clear, I don't doubt that this flyer is actually real, and a real piece of advertising, and a plausibly useful primary source; I do have misgivings about it's use as a "high-quality reliable source" for the FA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll concede this one. I just removed it, as it doesn't add that much to the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote #43's link takes me to a University of Kansas login prompt, which is not exactly what I expect (subscription required) to imply. Is that link targeted correctly? And is that source really the best quality to begin with? Here's its self-description: "BtoB, the magazine for marketing strategists, delivers timely editorial on all disciplines of business-to-business marketing. Published 6 times a year by Crain Communications Inc, BtoB provides marketers with the information and analysis they need to develop a winning integrated marketing strategy for their companies." I'm not entirely sure that can be counted on for neutral, factual information. Has this been used in other X-Files FAs, or have you checked with
  WP:RSN
  ?

  The reason many of the 'sub required' links take you to the University of Kansas page is because they are articles from my university's database, which can only be accessed if you are a student. However, the info is out there, and can be requested (I provide all the necessary information, down to page numbers in some cases). I would argue that it still falls under "subscription required", because you better believe I had to purchase a subscription to get it. As for the 'dubiousness' of BotB: it's owned by Crain Communications publishing. Even though BotB isn't super huge, doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and is a marketing magazine, that doesn't mean it is not neutral. In fact, that's quite a claim to make. It's a published magazine from a notable publisher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the login, I was mostly just wanting to spot-check for link target accuracy there, since I was expected a paywall by the publisher or one of the standard periodicals aggregators. But, sure, university databases should be fine, too. As to the periodical in question, my concern was that, as this is an editorial-driven marketing magazine, claims and analyses published therein might have a realistic expectation of being biased. However, I see you're only using that source as a citation for a hard data point, and I see no reason to doubt the accuracy there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I can give you the info for the article. It's basically disclosing how much money companies/products pay for ad/air time during TV commercials and the like. For The X-Files, it reads: "The X-Files, Fox Phone: (310) 369-1000 URL: www.fox.com Viewers: 12.4 mil. (April 1 episode) Ad revenues: N/A Ad rates: $225,000 per 30-second spot Comment: IT companies are starting to narrow their focus down to coders and other IT geeks, many of whom get their weekly fix of science fiction from this prime-time show. Notes: Ad revenue for 2000, unless otherwise noted. Revenue figures provided by CMR Business to Business and media properties themselves. TV viewership figures provided by Nielsen Media Research Inc. Some TV ad rates were provided by media buyers."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't think there's any problem with that sort of material coming from BotB. I wouldn't use it as a source for any sort of critical or analytic material, but that sort of numeric factual data is fine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, very little of this represents independent sourcing. The article leans heavily on the Spotnitz source, and I can't see any reason that would be considered independent. To say nothing of the booklet, a DVD, the episode itself, Fox-owned websites, and a promotional flyer.

  In the past, DVD commentaries have totally been considered reliable third-party sources. The interview is from a notable, reliable DVD release from a notable, reliable company. Anything released by Fox is also reliable and notable. Primary sources are not bad if they are reliable and notable. In addition, ~26 of the 55 references are completely from third party sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.), whereas, the rest were officially published by (like I mentioned before) reliable sources. All in all, I'm very confused by the amount of criticism these references are receiving, when articles I've worked on in the past have proceeded with similar citations just fine.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern's not about primary sources per se, but about non-independent ones. I know

  WP:IS is an essay, but I don't really understand how DVD commentaries are independent with that in mind. They most certainly have a vested interest in the topic at hand. I view non-independent sources much like primary ones: they are useful, with caution, so long as the bulk of the article or passages do not depend on them, as seems to be the case for much the Writing section, for example. Now, admittedly, I'm used to working with scientific and historical topics rather than popular culture ones, so it's plausible that I'm simply misreading the expectations and standing consensus of sourcing in this field. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think the problem with this is that the primary sources are largely being used for the production part of the episode. Many, many, many TV series/episode pages use the DVD commentary, mini-documentaries, booklets, etc. to cite this part of the article. Of course there will be a vested interest, because it is intrinsically related to the show and the show's parent network, but I don't see the issue with this. For instance, many of the books I used in my previous FANs—"The Truth", "Triangle", and "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"—were officially licensed by Fox and feature interviews and other primary sources from the people involved (I also used the DVD commentary, as that's pretty important for those episodes, too). This is a pretty common occurrence when it comes to TV articles (for instance, this (unrelated) FA makes use of DVD commentary and mini-documentaries). For reviews, I totally get that they should be third-party (which I think all of them in this article are), but for production info, there's really no way to get completely independent sources, because Fox owns the rights to all the film, scripts, etc, and thus have to license/release them. Besides, the DVD released are notable and reliable, because Fox as a company has to pass through many hoops before releasing DVDs. I guess what I'm trying to say is that DVD features have long been accepted as citations for an FA, for at least TV articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk)

  Personally, I disagree, but this does appear to be the longstanding consensus take on television sourcing, even at the FA level. Objection withdrawn, and chalked up to the difference in sourcing expectations between this and my normal editing areas. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- After eliciting comments from only one reviewer in six weeks, this nom unfortunately seems more dead than alive; curious given it's had so many reviews beforehand. I will archive it and perhaps you can have another go at some later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

This article was not promoted by

Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well illustrated and well sourced article about a very important government policy in the country of Turkey. The article includes maps, figures, tables, and a comparative analyses section. The article also gives a brief insight into each community that was affected by the policy. It gives great examples of those towns and villages whose names were changed. The maps of each community were of my creation in reflection to various sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the

Comment Pardon me. Please discard my "Confiscated Armenian properties" nomination. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not sure how much time I'll have this week to review, but here are a couple of comments. I will review further if I have time.

• Per
  WP:MOSQUOTE the use of the {{cquote
  }} template is only for pull quotes; please change these to block quotes.
• The link to population exchange between Greece and Turkey appears three times in a short span. Generally only the first instance should be linked without a particular reason for adding more links; many editors link again in the body if the only prior link is in the lead, for example. I haven't looked for other examples, but please check. It's probably OK to leave every city in the tables/lists linked, even if they have been mentioned before, but I would not link them again if they are mentioned after the table.
• The lead is too short. See
  WP:LEAD
  for some guidelines on length; I would think a couple of paragraphs is necessary at least.
• "Potamia" is also spelt "Potamya"; are both acceptable or is one a typo?
• I see a few grammatical errors; a copyedit is needed. I may have time, but can't promise, so please try to get someone to go over the article. A couple of examples, out of several that I noticed: "Enver Paşa disregarded however, changing ..." -- missing word, presumably; "It is not known how many geographical names have changed due to the ordinance, nevertheless the ultimate objective ..." -- run-on sentence.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for taking your time and reviewing my article. I have fixed much of the concerns you have raised. Just to touch up, Potamya is simply the Turkish way of saying Potamia. Since the source highlighted what the Turkish Prime Minister said about Potamya, I was compelled to write it in the language the source and the speech was made in. All other issues have been fixed. I did request a copy-editor. We will see how that goes. But if you see any other concerns, please address them. I am more than willing to fix them. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've struck most of the comments above, but I'm afraid the article really needs that copyedit, and I feel I have to oppose until then. This is an impressively detailed article on an unusual topic, and I hope you can find someone to improve the prose; I'd love to see this on the main page. I particularly like the maps. A couple more specific points:

• The use of "Assyrian" in the lead probably requires a link, since to many readers the default meaning of Assyrian is ancient
  Eastern Aramaic
  ?
• Can I ask why there you have up to six references for some quite short sentences? References are there to let readers verify the information in the article; I would suggest picking no more than three of the most authoritative sources and only listing those. The reader doesn't really benefit from having a longer list of reliable sources that support a statement; the only exception might be highly controversial statements which require extensive and detailed sourcing. In many cases it might be that a single reference is enough.
• Within some of the tables, there is no reference cited for some of the comments. For example, the comments on Colemêrg are not cited. Is this information covered by the references at the top of the table, currently [44] and [45]? If so I would suggest adding a citation for those notes inside the table, at each row.
• In a couple of places, you say "in September 2012, legislation has been promulgated to restore the names of ...." Is this legislation still pending, or is it now law, or did it fail to pass? I'd phrase this differently depending on the outcome. I'd also suggest saying "was introduced" rather than "has been promulgated" unless I'm missing a shade of meaning.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced Assyrian/Syriac with Eastern Aramaic. I already emphasized the specific dialect used by Assyrians in Turkey (particularly the Assyrians that live in Southeastern Turkey).

• There are many references because this is a controversial subject in Turkey. However, I may remove some of the additional sources if need be.
• Yes [44] and [45] in fact reference all examples of name changes that I have provided. There are additional sources provided on some for additional verification and details.
• I have changed the law to "Introduced'. I have yet to find sources whether the law is fully in effect or not. It is fairly recent anyways.
• I have resquested a CE through the guild of copy editors. I hope they can CE it ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I added another link to

Assyrian/Syriac people in the lead. Good luck with the guild of copy editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Thank you for raising these concerns. I have fixed the issues regarding referencing. Now almost all Ref's have page numbers in them. I removed the Xlibris ref. I revised bare url refs and even removed some. If you can be more specific regarding the formatting and missing information, I will revise those issues as well. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 2c, at least. I do not believe this article is ready for FAC. Date formatting strikes me as an immediate problem. Between references 2, 6, 7, and 18, I see four different ways of specifying an exact date. Some of your sources have publication locations and some do not. Locations are optional, but generally all-or-nothing. I'm not 100% certain what Wikipedia's MOS best practices are, but I suspect that the use of [u.a.] regarding publication locations is discouraged, and I'm especially doubtful of its use regarding the publisher itself (as in reference 54). Quite a few references are formatted in a way that makes it difficult to determine what you're citing; reference 8, for example, seems to refer to two different editions of the same work? What's important is that you cite what you actually referred to, not whatever other versions of the work may exist. You generally use citation templates, but when you don't, the formatting doesn't match the templated entries, and in some cases makes it impossible to even figure out what sort of material is being referenced (see references 24, 25, 27, 28). And I strongly suspect that you're missing language tags for quite a few sources that aren't in English. I suspect there are other issues with the article itself, but there are enough referencing problems that I stopped there. I will note, separately, that while it wouldn't earn a criterion 3 oppose from me, it would be really nice if the Assyrian map was in the same format as all the other maps, to make it easier to compare them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please give me some time and I will have these issues resolved to the best of my abilities. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by

Mass Effect 2

Nominator(s): Niwi3 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. As far as I know, I'm the only editor of the article and have been working on it for the past 8-9 months. The article passed a good article nomination on July 9, 2012, and since then I've further improved and expanded it substantially. I've also created three separate articles, Mass Effect 2: Arrival, Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker and List of Mass Effect 2 downloadable content, to better organize the article. This is the first time I nominate an article for FA Status, so apologies for any inconveniences this nomination may cause. Regards.--Niwi3 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You've picked a poor screenshot, replace it with one which isn't entirely in red. Try and show shooting and the mass effect powers together with your allies if you can. -
  n 15:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done. Thank you for taking your time to review the article.--Niwi3 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidinNJ

At the current time, the article's content is excellent, its referencing is good, its structure is good, and its prose is mediocre. Here are my suggestions:

(1) Remove the bolded material from the references. For definitions, just define the item in the sentence. For example, I would have "The Citadel Council is an executive committee composed of representatives ..." rather than "Codex - Citadel Council: The Council is an executive committee composed of representatives." For quotes, the person's name should be unbolded, and outside the quotation marks. For example, I would change "Illusive Man: Shepard -- we caught a break to ..." to Illusive Man: "Shepard we caught a break to ..."

Fixed. However, I cannot move the person's name ouside the quotation marks due to the parameter |quote=. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes. This is my first time dealing with the videgame citation format. I don't like the idea of the author being inside the same quotation marks as the quote, but if that's the template design then that's what should be used.

(2) I would break the "Gameplay" and "Reception" sections each in 2 subsections. I would break "Development" into 3 rather than 2 subsections. It makes it easier to read.

I've broken the gameplay section in 3 parts. What do you think? Also, any idea on how to break the Development and Reception sections in subsections? Thank you for your comments. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Development". Call it something like "Product design", and have 3 sections - "Planning", "Development", and "Technical issues". "Reception" could be broken into "Awards", "Plot and characters development", and "Technical features". Those are just suggestions. If you have better titles, feel free to use them. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What do you think? Also, I don't think we need more subsections in the Reception section, mainly because I don't know where the PlayStation 3 paragraph would fit better. I'd love more opinions from other reviewers if possible. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The biggest issue I see with this article is the writing. It presumes that the person has a substantial knowledge of video gaming and software. I have a decent amount of experience with those topics, and I found myself confused at times. For example in the Gameplay section, the article reads "During conversations with NPCs, Mass Effect 2 employs a radial command menu, called Dialogue Wheel, where dialogue options depend on direction.[4]" The Technical Issues subsection states, "There were also issues with regards to crashes, video hitching and long load times on single core computers but these were later addressed in a patch.[56] Many readers will not understand the concept of dialogue options or video hitching.

Replaced video hitching with temporal freezes, and wikilinked dialogue options to the article interactive storytelling. What do you think? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me if you have any questions. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article is not FA quality, and I see no evidence that it will meet
  characters in the article that is very difficult to read. I substituted a table of characters, but the nominator of this article removed the table, and prefers the prose as-is. Furthermore the article utilizes a lot of jargon that may be difficult for people not versed in video gaming to understand, and is a bit one-sided in that it only cites positive reviews of the game. Overall, this is not a bad article, but it is clearly not among the best of Wikipedia. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think the table is unnecessary because it wastes a lot of space and contains redundant information (the comment "part of Commander Shepard's squad" appears in almost every entry of the table); I'd love more opinions about this from other reviewers, if possible. As for the Reception section, Mass Effect 2 is a game that received a lot of positive reviews, so I think it's obvious that there are more positive reviews than negative reviews. I might agree with the writing being difficult for people not versed in video gaming to understand, but could you be more specific? Thank you for your time, comments, and interest.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

In the gameplay section, The manual (this is the correct manual, right?) doesn't seem to support this statement: "Importing an old character allows several decisions the player made in the original game to impact the story of Mass Effect 2" Page 3 mentions that an old account will get expereince and resource bonuses, but doesn't say anything about the impact on the story.--

It also says that it keeps all the details of the character, including history (of the previous game). But I agree, so I replaced the reference with the review of IGN so it's less confusing. Thank you for taking your time to review the article, much appreciated.--Niwi3 (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The manual does not specify that galaxy the game is set in is the Milkyway galaxy. The citation for that part says page 17. However, some of the info referenced about the ship is on page 16, and info about scanning planets for resources is on page 18.--

Fixed. Thanks! --Niwi3 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the manual does talk about Squad points, it doesn't seem to say anything about experience points. Another ref might be needed at the part about experience points.--

Done.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shepard and the squad members are protected by a health bar"? I don't think this is the right way to word it. Is the health bar actually protecting them?--

I agree that this is confusing wording.anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "if Shepard dies, the player must start the game again from the last saved point" is not supported by the source (at least not that page).--

Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gamepressure.com is not listed at

It's a third-party, published source that seems stable. In any case, I can replace it with Mass Effect 2's Prima Official Game Guide if you wish. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the website is part of Gry OnLine, which is listed as a RS.--

talk) 14:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The second intro paragraph is not cohesive. First sentence talks about changes from the original game, the second talks about the soundtrack composer, and last ones talk about DLC. DLC can arguably be a change since it's difference DLC than the original game had, but I think the soundtrack should be omitted from this paragraph at least. anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the soundtrack composer, and added info about how developers approached the story, which is different from the original game. What do you think? Thanks.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better!anstosa (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of Gameplay, I don't think "allows the player to [...] tackle missions" reads like an encyclopedia. Use less emotional verbs like "allows the player to [...] find and complete missions" anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph of Gameplay, I think NPC is a more appropriate description than AI. anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Development > Technical issues "indecipherable" sounds too opinionated. Consider "difficult to read". anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sequel section, "was envisioned as a trilogy from the very start" doesn't sound encyclopedic. Perhaps "from its inception"? anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks!--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rsmary

The article says the game was released for Windows and Xbox on January 26, 2010. I did a little searching and found that some sites list that ME2 Platinum Hits for Xbox was released Jan. 19, 2010^[1][2][3]. They don't seem very reputable to me though, but can someone else also take a look into it? It seems weird to me that the Platinum Hits version was released before the original version, but it would be worth looking into. I'm curious where the Jan. 19, 2010 date came from. --Rsmary (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I didn't even know there was a Platinum edition of this game. Here, it says that a "Platinum Collection" was released on June 21, 2012 in Japan. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore the January 19, 2010 release date. It doesn't look like that's accurate, and from what I can tell the Platinum Hits Xbox edition was released around the same time the PS3 version was released (based on all the forum posts I went through). The Platinum Hits edition just came with DLCs and other things. Thanks for looking into it with me! --Rsmary (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, the third sentence "Set within the Milky Way galaxy [...] called the Collectors in a suicide mission" sounds a little awkward. It's a little long, possibly because the "in a suicide mission" part cuts the flow of the sentence. Also, I'm not sure if it's the most accurate representation of the member recruitment. Shepard isn't trying to recruit an already existing team, he/she is trying to recruit individual members to make a team. --Rsmary (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fixed. What do you think? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! --Rsmary (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Plot section, third paragraph, the sentence "Squad members survive or perish along the way depending on their loyalty, upgrades to the Normandy, and selections of specific members to perform certain tasks." doesn't flow well. "Squad members survive or perish along the way depending on their loyalty" doesn't follow the same pattern as "upgrades to the Normandy" and "selections of specific members to perform certain tasks" since the last two listings are things you can do in the game while the first listing is something that happens. It's also a little random because it doesn't sound like a linear part of the plot, thus doesn't follow well with the paragraph itself. What can we do with this to improve it? --Rsmary (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand you clearly. As far as I know, there are mainly 3 factors that determine whether the squad members survive or not, and all these 3 are things you can do in the game. It's not random. It all depends on the player's choices. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusing comment. I totally misunderstood the sentence; the actual meaning was made clear after I read your comment. Maybe we can rephrase it as "Squad members may survive or perish depending on their loyalty to Shepard, the upgrades made to the Normandy, and the tasks assigned for specific members to perform." I'd love your opinion on what phrasing you prefer. Thanks! --Rsmary (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better and seems more accurate. Thank you for your suggestions, much appreciated! --Niwi3 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar of the article can use a little bit more tweaking. There are areas with misused commas, subject-verb disagreements, and a couple of other tiny misspellings. If they're not changed, I'll probably do a more thorough read and edit those myself when I get the chance. Will strikeout this comment when I'm done. --Rsmary (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made some minor changes to the article: removed a lot of unnecessary and misused commas, changed all the subject-verb disagreements I could find, and rephrased some sentences to improve flow and length. However, I do think there may still be some grammatical improvements to be made that I probably missed. --Rsmary (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent copy-edits, much appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made further improvements, especially in the Gameplay section. I think it sounds better now. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Closing note: This
  talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

Nominator(s): Mickey798 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a very significant movie and needs to be honored because it has stood the test of time. It's possible that there are some minor mistakes in there and to make it a featured article, it needs some clean-up if necessary. Mickey798 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed the FAC instructions that say, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."?

talk) 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Nominator has ignored the FAC instructions that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." I would recommend a withdraw if possible. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. There is still some work needed before this article is ready for consideration for FA status.

talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mo I am nominating this for featured article because I have taken it to GA level and believe it is worthy of FA level. I last nominated this article for review on the 2 February, which it failed. I have changed it a good amount since then, taking on board comments from the last review. Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 Februar16y 2013 (UTC)

File:KFC logo-image.svg is boiler plated, what is it's purpose? 94.197.33.20 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "boiler plated" me in this context? The KFC logo is fair use.Farrtj (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is a copy and paste from another non-free image, what is special about this image that means it needs to be used in this article? 188.29.78.209 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's self explanatory: "The image is used to identify KFC, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey." There is no free alternative. Farrtj (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be your contention that the average Wikipedia user on seeing an article entitled KFC, would be unable to ascertain it was an article about KFC without the use of non-free content? 188.29.175.15 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The logo as a means of identification is especially important for users for which English is a second language, or those with poor literacy skills. An initialism could stand for anything. The logo gives very quick confirmation that this is in fact, the restaurant chain. Farrtj (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose use of non-free content without valid fair use rationale 188.28.76.41 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contested. Use of low resolution logo constitutes fair use.Farrtj (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Contested. Use of a logo on an article about the company itself falls so far within the realm of fair use that I'd be tempted to oppose an article that didn't include it. Textbook case of fair use. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Curly Turkey. The use of this image in this article clearly falls well within the boundaries of both the fair use doctrine AND Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose is unwarranted, the logo is appropriate as it shows what is used identify the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my unaddressed comments in the previous FAC. This article remains heavily dependent on news stories for sourcing, and fails to make much use of the academic articles and books which cover this topic. The 'operations' section remains in a poor state - for instance, the 420 stores in Indonesia are accorded a single brief sentence while the 840 stores in the UK and Ireland gets a very detailed three paragraph section (which includes a dubious claim from the company's website which implies that its a well regarded workplace - KFC may well have won these awards, but it's obviously not actually considered a desirable employer by most people). The article's prose also needs work - watch out of past tense being used when it's not needed (many uses of 'would' could be replaced by 'was' or equivalent as an example), and a fair amount of material in the 'Products' section is unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested 1.) The Featured Article Criteria says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I've added a few more book sources from books that mention KFC in passing across a few sentences. I'll point out that your disapproval of news sources seems to imply that I am leaning heavily on tabloid sources, which is simply not the case. A quick scan of the references section shows that my sources lean on upmarket broadsheets such as The Economist, The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, New York Times. And it seems an unfair criticism anyway: a subject such as this is always going to necessitate a degree of dependence on news sources, as books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway. The article conforms to FA criteria: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Furthermore, "it neglects no major facts or details". 2.) I've expanded Indonesia now. Bear in mind that the market there is very similar to the Chinese market, and other Asian KFCs. It's only worth including facts that are interesting and informative, not adding facts that are dull and repetitive. 3.) I've removed the great place to work claim, as I can see where you're coming from. 4.) I'll dispute that the past tense is overused in the article. 5.) As per Wikipedia:When to cite, I don't think it's necessary to cite some pretty uncontentious claims, that I believe fall under "Subject-specific common knowledge".Farrtj (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that those newspapers are not tabloids (I subscribe to the NY Times and buy The Economist most weeks...). My concern is that you still haven't drawn on the full range of high quality sources. Your claim that "books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway" is dubious given that I had no problem finding several useful looking sources in a few minutes of searching in the last FAC (all of which you then dismissed on, to be frank, unconvincing grounds). Adding an extra half a sentence to the section on Indonesia does not address the obvious gross imbalance here. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My oh my! I'm just being obtrusive! I'm clearly ignoring the fantastic sources out there because I want this article to fail!* (sarcasm) The UK & Ireland was KFC's first overseas market. Basically it's only European success until very recently. It is still one of KFC's major markets. Plus, there are great sources available for the UK operations, which isn't the case with the Indonesian operations. And where does one draw the line on which countries are commented on in depth anyway? Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand all have as many restaurants as the Indonesian operation. An encylopedia is an overview of a topic, not a detailing of every single aspect of its operation. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback for you, compiled as I was reading your article:

Franchising
'In 1958, Sanders gifted the rights to franchise KFC in Florida to his eldest daughter Margaret, as a wedding present.'

• I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is, especially as the opening sentence of a new paragraph. I don't doubt it's factually right but cannot see its relevance in the KFC story, as compared to the rest of the paragraph.

Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale by Sanders
'In 1966, Sanders' nephew Lee Cummings left the company after the sale to found the Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken chain.'

• Not sure of the relevance of this sentence, given the first time Lee Cummings is mentioned is when he left the company.

Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'According to Sally Denton…'

• Who is Sally Denton? What is her place in the KFC story?

Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In August 1970 Sanders and his grandson Harland Adams resigned from the board of directors.'

• Since when had Sanders been on the board? What relevance was Harland Adams to the KFC story?

Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heublein takeover
'The company, once too large for Sanders to handle, grew too much for John Y. Brown as well. After just a few years on the stock exchange, the company had overreached itself.'

• Construction of these sentences needs some work.

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 1973 Heublein introduced barbecue spare ribs, which sold well, but caused "tremendous" operating problems.'

• What problems were these?

I don't know.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need to find out. Cannot leave at 'tremendous' without amplification. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you open up the reference at the end of the sentence, it just has the "tremendous" quote, but does not explain what the problems were.Farrtj (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be relevant: 'He tells about KFC's attempt to sell spare ribs. "The ribs were carefully researched," he says. But we ran into the biggest pork shortage in 40 years in 1975. So what was supposed to go out at $1.69 or $1.79 went out at $2.09, and over $2 it did not have a prayer.' It's from Business Week, 1977, Issues 2490-2498; that's all I can see from the Google entry. There is also some discussion in that article about KFC spending too much time on long-term planning noting that the fast-food franchising business is so volatile that it is hard to do any long-term planning (according to a former KFC exec). Sounds like an interesting article just for that bit, let alone the KFC exec's comment about the pernickety ribs. Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added the bit about the price of pork shooting up. But I think the article makes it quite clear: diversifying from what they did best (fried chicken) was a bad move.Farrtj (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale to PepsiCo
'…spicy "Hot Wings", popcorn chicken, and the "Zinger", a spicy chicken fillet burger, for international markets.'

• Which of these products were introduced to international markets?

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Some product launches, such as skinless chicken, designed to appeal to more health-conscious customers were outright failures, increasing overheads and helping operating profits decline by 37 per cent in 1991, after customers failed to accept the unfamiliar texture.'

• Sentence is too long.

I've changed it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Cranor's proposed contract…'

• Cranor is mentioned two long paragraphs ago and by the time I had gotten to this mention I'd forgotten who he was.

I'm not sure what to do about that, as I don't want to repeat who he is.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, I think. Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricon/Yum! Brands
'APP argued that mixed tropical hardwood fibre "can be…'

• Turn the quote into a blockquote. It's too long for an in-line quote.

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In April 2010, the Double Down sandwich sandwich was launched.'

• As an opening sentence of a new paragraph, this sentence doesn't convey what the rest of the paragraph will be about.

Moved it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 2012, Interbrand valued the KFC brand at just under $6 billion. Interbrand lauded KFC's promotional activity on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.'

• These two sentences bear no relevance to the rest of the paragraph.

Moved them to marketing.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China
'It is the largest Western restaurant chain, with 4,200 branches, and China is one of the only countries in the world where McDonald's is not the dominant fast food chain.'

• What's the dominant food chain/s in China?

sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The chain has adapted to the market in another way: the average Chinese KFC is twice as large as an American outlet.'

• How is this an adaptation?

It is.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. Pls check my edit. Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Warren Liu, a former vice-president of Tricon Global Restaurants argues that, "being the first – the pioneer into these remote corners of China – has continued to provide KFC with a substantial competitive advantage." '

• Hmm. I was going to say, "who are Tricon Global Restaurants"? but then I see they are mentioned several paragraphs ago. Same problem as last time---players are mentioned early on then again several paragraphs later on by which time their relevance is forgotten. I'll think some more about how this could be addressed.

Sorted. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, how could it be relevant to go into the remote corners of China---which I question is the case---rather than densely populated urban centres?

sortedFarrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In November 2011, Yum! acquired Little Sheep, a Mongolian restaurant chain specialising in hot pot.'

• Not sure what the relevance of this statement is?

removed.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other observations

The lead. Please check to see this still matches the content and flow of the main body of the article.

Products
'…typically holding between 6 and 16 pieces of chicken.'

• Is it 6 to 16, or 5 to 15?

Did a quick Ctrl + F search and couldn't find the 5 to 15 reference.Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headslap! I meant to say, 'Is it 6 to 16 or 7 to 15? It should probably(?) say, '…typically holding from 6 to 16 pieces of chicken.' Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still a little confused by what you mean. Have a look at what I've done.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorted. Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan. In the first FAC review, mention was made of Japan, where 'KFC is a big deal - Google japanese kfc christmas for instance).' Does anything need to be said about KFC Japan?

It's a big deal at Xmas there. But I'm not sure if that fact justifies an entire subsection. I'd need more than just that to pad out the subsection, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to find it. Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secret recipe. I suspect this is all marketing baloney. Is there no literature questioning the existence of a secret recipe or speculating that it is simply a marketing ploy? If there isn't that's fine but at the moment this section appears non-neutral in its POV.

There isn't. If successive generations of journalists and academics have not seen fit to question its veracity then that's good enough for me. And I'm careful not to say "the secret recipe is great", I just mention what people have said about it. Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH: 'In his book "Big Secrets," William Poundstone revealed a laboratory analysis of Kentucky Fried Chicken: "The sample of coating mix was found to contain four and only four ingredients: flour, salt, monosodium glutamate, and black pepper. There were no eleven herbs and spices — no herbs at all in fact... Nothing was found in the sample that couldn't be identified." So much for the "secret." In fact, the chicken's ingredient statement is available on KFC's Web site. See here. Sandbh (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Poundstone got hold of the breading mix BEFORE the spices were added to it. And the KFC ingredient list just lists "spices". Plus laboratory analysis of the 11 herbs and spices would take months and be very expensive, and at the end of the day, only KFC can market their product as 11 herbs and spices, so what would be the point? Poundstone's claim is a big claim, basically accusing a reputable company of mass fraud and deception. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence, and in the 30 years since Poundstone made his claim, no one else has backed him up. Furthermore, if this lab analysis really is so easy to do, and KFC really were conning everyone, do you not think their competitors would have called them up on it? Also, there is countless anecdotal evidence from people who currently work for KFC that there is a spice mix that is added to the chicken breading. Farrtj (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References. Are the following worth considering, revisiting or citing:

• Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food, by AF Smith

Looked at it again, just in case, but it only touches on KFC fleetingly. No good. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal, by E Schlosser

There is nothing in this book worth adding. The focus in on the burger chains.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast food: Roadside restaurants in the automobile age, by JA Jakle & KA Sculle

Re-read. Was able to add one thing. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.worldpoultry.net --- 57 items about KFC

Looked through them all. Articles are very short: nothing worth using.Farrtj (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Making fast food: From the frying pan into the fryer, by E Reiter

Not very helpful.Farrtj (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting meat on the American table: Taste, technology, transformation, by R Horowitz. Only one mention of KFC of note, but perhaps it could be worked into the article: 'In 1994 (as a unit of Pepsico), KFC sold the equivalent of eleven pieces of chicken for each American citizen.' (p. 127)

That statistic is a little too promotional and unscientific sounding.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was thinking more from the pov of giving an idea of the scale of US KFC ops. Eleven pieces for each American citizen? Amazing! Huge! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rehashing of something already stated in the Jakle and Sculle Roadside Restaurants book, which I have already added in a more scientific format to the article.Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cooking After 50 Years, by Robert Darden Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking People With You: The Only Way to Make Big Things Happen, by David Novak (Chairman and CEO of Yum! Brands) Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent source. I've already added a few things from it. I see this is a new source, hence I haven't seen it before.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The changing chicken: Chooks, cooks and culinary culture, by Jane Dixon. Briefly discusses what KFC's advertising is promoting, and it's not the chicken (p. 136). Also says that 'Labour process accounts of fast food operations are becoming numerous and the practices of chains, such as KFC, have been described elsewhere. Suffice to say, fast food chains rely on Fordist food production and distribution processes.' (pp. 182–3). Is some content about KFC labor processes warranted?

Not much help. Badly researched as well: she claims that the KFC initialism was adopted in 1993, when it was actually 1991! Farrtj (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Oxford companion to American food and drink, by Andrew F. Smith (Kentucky Fried Chicken entry)

This proved quite helpful.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See also http://www.scribd.com/doc/90380099/43264573-KFC (don't know if any good; stumbled across when I was looking for info about the problems with the ribs) Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A random term paper is not a good source.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not cite any sources that could be harvested? Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it's no good. The freely available pages offer no citations whatsoever. And the rest is behind a paywall. It doesn't look very good anyway.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe also the International directory of company histories Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that would be useful, but I don't have access to that.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no university libraries within reach? The British Library, in London? Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All being well, it would take me 4 and a half hours to reach the British Library. By which time I would have to start making my way back home again!Farrtj (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-library loan? Or what about those nearby university libraries? Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that that resource will be helpful if it just provides a general overview of the company. I already have a great overview of the company. The snippet views available on Google Books do not offer any new information. Farrtj (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations Please fix these in your list of references.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment
Once the above observations are considered I suspect your article will be in range of FA status. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer now. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Hengistbury Head

Nominator(s):

talk 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I know we can just view this on WikiMiniAtlas and the other tools, but it would be useful to have an map view of the headland. 149.241.35.153 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded and added an old map from 1759 which gives a rough idea of the layout (and looks sweet)

• Oppose. Simply not ready for FAC, fails most of the criteria. I didn't evaluate the overall prose quality. However, considerable expansion is needed to meet 1b and 1c. The stubby history and geology sections stand out as visibly incomplete. In part, this is because there don't appear to be any scholarly sources; I'd expect to see some journal publications for an article that includes Upper Paleolithic archaeology and geology of interest. There's a lot of unreferenced text that needs citation ("The Head today" maybe has the longest passages of this, but isn't unique to this issue). Regarding 2a, the lead fails to summarize the article structure, and there's quite a bit of information in the lead (Ancient Monument status, Site of Nature Conservation Interest status, etc.) that isn't mentioned again in the body, including Warren Hill, which appears only in a context-free See Also link list. Criterion 2c is a huge problem; most of the references are
  image use policies, which presents a problem with criterion 3 also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cheers for yr input Squeamish Ossifrage, clearly I was a tad hasty in submitting this article, I'll do what I can to improve it though, (it's tricky to find free scholarly text about the site), I'll remove some of the images too - but I'm a bit unsure when it comes to properly formatting refs. Anyway, I bow to yr great wiki wisdom and withdraw the nomination.

talk 10:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose, suggest withdrawal. As per SQ, I am not convinced that this is near FA status. I think the article would benefit from going through GAC, and perhaps peer review, before it is brought here. I'm also wondering whether there are a lot more sources worth citing other than those currently used, which seem to be almost entirely web-based. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Bal maiden

Nominator(s):  Mogism (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it says everything about bal maidens (female manual labourers in the mines of south-west Britain) that any general reader could reasonably want to know. A peer review didn't get any responses, but I wasn't really surprised by that as everyone I'm aware of with in interest in the topic had already looked at it by that point. As mentioned at the peer review, this relies very heavily on Lynne Mayers but that's purely because her series is so definitive, it's unlikely anyone will ever write another significant work on the topic. None of this material is disputed or controversial, so there's not an "only giving one point of view" problem. Mogism (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smalljim

A great piece of work in a topic that I'm interested in, so I have a few suggestions...

• Firstly, although I don't have the 2008 edition of Mayers' book, I do have a copy of the Hypatia Trust 1st edition which is A4 sized with 246 pages. The pagination is evidently different, but does Mayers mention any significant changes in the 2nd ed.?

• The correct term for what the article calls a metal mine or metal mining throughout is metalliferous, as used by Mayers herself.

Lead photo

• "Bal maidens in traditional protective clothing, 1890" — Are they not wearing their clean white aprons which were exchanged for rough hessian ones for work? There's a similar-looking photo on p.48 of Mayers 1st ed. showing "two Dolcoath balmaidens, wearing their best aprons [...] One has her work apron over her arm".

Mechanisation and the 18th century copper boom

• "In 1678 Clement Clerke introduced the coal-powered reverberatory furnace, allowing metal to be separated from fine grains of ore which had previously been discarded as waste, greatly increasing the quantity of metal extractable from ore.[35]" — I think this gives the wrong impression both regarding the date and the fate of the "fines" (the older method of smelting tin was the blowing house). Mayers herself seems confused here (at least in the 1st ed.) Since this isn't central to the article, I think something simpler like "The introduction of the coal-powered reverberatory furnace greatly improved the yield" would be better.

Working conditions

• "Other contemporary observers noted that bal maidens were generally good natured and well behaved,[118] and often devoutly religious,[117] but it is well-documented that bal maidens typically took great pride in their own appearance and clothing.[119]" — should that really be a "but" in there?

Notes

• Note b. should mention that that first reference is to "ball maidens" [sic]. Out of interest the text (as reported the next day by another newspaper) was apparently as follows:

The disasters which occur from the want of a Breakwater at Padstow prove the expediency of such an erection, by means of which the brig Isabella lately wrecked near that port and her valuable cargo would in all probability have been preserved. The country-people in that neighbourhood have been for some time busily employed in securing articles which belonged to the cargo of this vessel. On Wednesday evening a box of figs was discovered on Saint Miniver Common by a party of females on the look-out for concealed plunder; who were attacked by some ball maidens returning from a mine. After a sharp contest of two hours, victory declared in favour of the ball maidens who bore away the prize.

— Royal Cornwall Gazette, Saturday 6 Feb 1819, page 2. (via British Newspaper Archive)

Not just "rough in speech", eh!

• Note d. "Streaming was the original means of collecting ore which had eroded from mineral deposits and settled on stream and river beds, by separating the heavy metal from the lighter surrounding mud and gravel." — metal should read ore here, but even with that change this still isn't correct, something like "
  alluvial deposits in river and stream beds where they had accumulated after being eroded from the ore-bearing lodes
  ." would be more accurate. (That's wrong too - I'll come back on this)

Hope this helps, may have some more later.  —SMALLJIM  18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From the preface to the second edition, the most significant changes from the original Hypatia work are "to extend the geographic scope to include Dartmoor and the Teign and Exe valleys; a more extensive use of the 1952 scrapbook compiled by the Troon Women's Institute; use of the "Day and Night Book" of two captains from Dolcoath in 1822-23; a much fuller treatment of 19th century tin streaming; a change to bal maiden rather than balmaiden as a more authentic usage". (Translation for readers unfamiliar with UK geography: 1st ed only covers Cornwall but 2nd ed covers the whole southwest.)
• I agree, but "metal mine" is repeated so often, for obvious reasons, that I'm reluctant to use the term "metalliferous". I know it's technically the correct term, but there's no risk of "metal mine" misleading readers into thinking a mine was made of metal, as opposed to extracting metals. If people think it's a problem I can change it, obviously.
• Impossible to say, as the photo isn't high enough quality to tell if the aprons are work aprons that haven't yet got dirty, or clean aprons that they're going to take off as soon as the photographer has finished. I think it would be very confusing to readers to have a long explanation in the caption, since the aprons would have looked the same in either case.
• Agree and have removed. I think it's worth mentioning the introduction of the furnaces, as it explains why the industry suddenly became efficient enough for large-scale operations to start, but there's no need to go into technical details.
• I think the "but" is appropriate in the context of "were they spendthrifts who blew all their spare cash on fancy clothes?". In devoutly Methodist 19th century Cornwall, "devoutly religious" and "pride in their own appearance" would have been considered incompatible.
• Agreed, added.
• Simplified further to "by collecting ore-bearing pebbles from river and stream beds" - again, readers don't need the technical details.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Mogism (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that, especially the edition differences - looks like I can refer to the first ed. text without too much trouble.

• Metal mine — well, if the reliable sources use the full term... But I'm happy to see what others think.
• Aprons — on p.49 of my Meyers it specifically says "The best one ... worn to and from the mine as well as for photographs and special occasions." If not in the caption, a mention of how dirty the hessian aprons got would be useful (we have a brief description from Minnie Andrews, and it's covered in Schwartz's Tin Mines and Miners of Lanner (2001) p. 87
  ISBN 1-84114-019-8
  ).
• Reverb. furnace — the way it's worded leads one to assume that 1678 was the date it was introduced here, which it wasn't: my Mayers only says "at the beginning of the 18th century".
• Pride in appearance — OK, I see what you're getting at, but to me the phrasing in the text doesn't express that clearly; and is that actually what the sources are implying?
• Pebbles — no, sorry for the confusion caused by my strike-out. That would have been the very earliest means of collecting ore (before streaming): I'll sleep on this!

 —SMALLJIM  00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, today I've done what I should have done yesterday – I printed out the article and worked through it, pencil in hand. I'm sorry to say that the whole thing ended up covered in adverse comments. Now I'm not an experienced FA reviewer (I didn't even read the instructions about not using semicolon emboldened headings!), nor am I familiar with how the

• "Clay maidens" are an intentional omission. This article is "Bal maiden", not "Female manual labourers", and the only thing a chiuna clay quarry has in common with a metalliferous mine is that both involve a hole in the ground.
• Regarding other metals, I think anything more than the "bal maidens also worked in lead, zinc, manganese, iron, antimony, wolfram, and uranium mines" which is already in the article would raise
  WP:UNDUE
  issues. The 19th century Cornish mining industry was overwhelmingly dominated by tin and copper - to go into detail on arsenic, manganese etc would give these minor industries an undue prominence.
• I don't grasp what you're asking for as regards "myth and reality", over and above what's already included in the "Working conditions" section. If you're asking for an "in popular culture" section, I'd vehemently oppose that. Mogism (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Bal_maidens_at_Dolcoath,_1890_(full_length).jpg/File:Miners_and_bal_maidens_at_Dolcoath,_1890.jpg: when/where was this first published?
• File:SpallingLge_cropped.jpg: what was the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get back to you on that one - it's widely used so might take a while to work out where it first appeared. If necessary I can certainly make a fair-use justification for this one.
• Not certain; the user who uploaded this hasn't edited since 2008. (It was uploaded as part of the original version of this article which was cut-and-pasted with permission from a website; this OTRS ticket refers, but because I don't have OTRS I can't confirm if that relates to the images or just the text.) As James Henderson is such a common name among engineers it's hard to confirm which was the one who wrote and illustrated this paper. It certainly appeared in the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1858 so will definitely be PD in the USA, and even if he had been a child prodigy who was publishing long papers in technical journals in his teens, he would have had to have lived well into triple figures for this still to be in copyright in the UK. Mogism (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

• With no activity here for about a month, this nomination unfortunately seems to have well and truly stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. If others have indeed expressed an interest in it, you may wish to leave them neutrally worded notes before you renominate for FAC at a later date.
• As a bit of housekeeping, there are Harv errors appearing under Further reading -- since there shouldn't be citations pointing to these entries anyway, a simple way to eliminate the errors is to use the Cite Book template instead of Citation. N.B. You can use this script to check for such errors in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Priyanka Chopra is a popular and award winning

These are pretty trivial points. Overall the article looks solid and comprehensive. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead sources and MOS. Un-sourced statements were just to highlight some film special appearances. Is a source really needed? They are in the filmography table also, and can be verified in the film articles. Or does it just look bad that the paragraph ends without a source? I am still deciding which of the 20 or so endorsements are the most important to show (was trying to be comprehensive). BollyJeff | talk 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the other two points as well. BollyJeff | talk 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my specific concerns, which seem to have been adequately addressed. My original purpose (as stated) was to get the review going, and that seems to have worked. Unfortunately it is most unlikely I will find the time to go through this rather long article and give it a full review. I appreciate the effort that's gone into it, and wish it success. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding sources - At Bollyjeff's request, in early December I performed a quite ruthless audit of the references for accuracy and reliability. I did find many non-reliable sources at that time, but they were improved almost immediately and with nary a quibble. Obviously the article is very active and has changed a great deal since December, though, so another source review is needed; I will try to do so soon. In the meantime I concur with Brian: please let's try to let the article rest a bit during FAC, aside from reverting vandalism and making changes agreed on during the FAC itself, so that reviewers are commenting on more or less the same version of the article. Maralia (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do concur with the sentiments expressed by both Brian and Maralia. I had raised this concern at the PR itself. I would say give it one last brush and then stop with the vigorous content changing and sourcing. Especially

User:Pks1142's edits which creat more problems. Let the reviewers critic on a stable version of the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Check your eyes

 ✉  06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop with the

personal attacks, try to understand the points regarding the numerous edits. You might decide for these major edits as beneficial, but ultimately this leads to the article kosing its stability. That is the point everyone is trying to make. And many a times I have seen Bollyjeff having to revert your edit because of this. As I had pointed out in the Peer review, stability is pretty important. Anyhow, continue editing then and fall to deaf ears like you are. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that these points are all now addressed. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a few more source spotchecks done by a reviewer, to ensure that sources are being properly represented (see my comment above about the song, and my earlier review on the article talk page). Altogether this is in pretty good shape. Maralia (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. I'm going to give the article another read-through. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through the Column writing section, and will try to read the rest within a couple of days.

• "She earned critical appraisal for her portrayal of a seductress...". I'm pretty sure that "appraisal" is meant to be "praise", but I don't know how they term it in India. Seems odd to me, though.
• Debut and breakthrough: "and a nomination for Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award." Needs "the" before the award name.
• Similar tweak is needed at the end of this subsection.
• Critical acclaim: "for which she was being considered for inclusion in the Guinness World Records book for being the first film actress...". I never like to see a prose redundancy like "being" is here, especially when the first one isn't needed and can be removed without doing anything else.
• "and" is needed before "performing at live shows including the Miss India pageant".
• General comment: There are a lot of paragraphs that start with "Chopra" or "In xxxx". Some more variety would be nice for the sake of the prose.
• Recent work: If "box-office" has a hyphen elsewhere, it should in the second paragraph here as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of the points.

 ✉  03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have addressed the rest. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Philanthropy: "She also appeared at the launch a of campaign...". "a" and "of" need to be reversed.
• Public image and personal life: "Chopra was featured on Verve list of most powerful women in 2009 and 2010." "Verve" → "Verve's"?
• ""is talking about my personal life." and said...". Can't have a period followed like this. For the sake of the sentence, you might consider adjusting the punctuation in the quote; we are allowed to make reasonable style changes like this.
• All caps in refs 74 and 84 need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BollyJeff | talk 12:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Since my comments have all been addressed, I'll offer my backing now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Just a few initial comments for now; more to come! While I was reading the article, I noticed that there were several prose issues. I'll take a stab at it and see what I can do!

• I notice that the article has some Soft 404 link problems. Please see its Checklinks entry! You might want to consider fixing the other links too! Some of them change domains! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Majority, if not all, of the sources used are reliable. However, I did notice the use of some unreliable ones like Radiosargam, Planet Bollywood, Glamsham—please replace them! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These first two items are done. Checklinks now runs spotless. BollyJeff | talk 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Early life and pageantry" section, it states that Chopra began receiving film offers after she was crowned Miss World. However, in the following section, it goes on to say that she "started getting film offers right after Miss India and before Miss World". This confusion needs to be cleared up! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This has been fixed. BollyJeff | talk 02:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I found the article's fragmentary writing style (She did this ... she did that ... she did the other ...) rather difficult to read. One example of what I'm talking about: "Her personal website, iampriyankachopra.com, was opened in August 2010. Chopra lives with her family and Brando, her dog. Chopra has a tattoo on her wrist that reads "Daddy's lil girl", referring to her loving relationship with her father." Added to which there seems little effort to gather related information together. For instance, that piece of trivia about her tattoo really belongs with the rest of the material on her relationship with her family members. Sorry. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. These were my exact comments (She did this ... she did that) to the copy editor from the

WP:GOCE who worked on this at the time; see. The article was a more flowery read prior, but I deferred to their judgement. Seems like you can't please everyone. I will try to address your specific comments as best I can. BollyJeff | talk 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't seen that, but it is indeed interesting that you had the same impression as I did; I'm not sure that the GOCE copyeditor really did you any favours. What's really needed is to get some coherent flow back into the text. I can't make any promises, but I make take a look at one or two of the sections later to see what can be done. I can see that Priyanka Chopra is a significant figure in Indian cinema, and it pains me to have to oppose at this time, but I really can't see how this meets the "engaging, even professional prose" requirement as it stands. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After our edits to the Public image and personal life section, I have gone back over several other sections to try and make it a more engaging read. BollyJeff | talk 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, myself and a couple other editors have now gone through the whole article again to give it a better flow. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The article has improved since its nomination. I thinks, it meets the criteria now. Excellent work from BollyJeff! Zia Khan 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : As one of the contributors (the main contributor is
  talk 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 23:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Zaian War

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article on and off for the past two and a bit years. I feel it is now as complete as I can make it and a potential FA. It recently passed a MilHist A-class review and was peer-reviewed prior to that. It has been almost four years since my last FAC so I might be a little rusty on the guidelines! I tend to be quite busy during the week but will catch up on any comments here at the weekends. Many thanks, I hope you enjoy reading the article - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, after some tweaks. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• File:General_Lyautey-Pirou-img_3150.jpg: page number? Any idea of date photo was taken?

I didn't upload so I don't know what page number it came from. I have taken a look at the photo and dated it to 1908-9 as Lyautey is wearing the insignia of a grand officier of the Legion of Honour (which he was awarded in 1908) and the photographer died in 1909 - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:030Arab.jpg: source link appears dead. When/where was this first published?

I was not the uploader so cannot be sure. I have been troubled by this image for some time, not knowing the date or place of publication/creation and the multiple licenses makes it hard to defend as definitely PD. As it is only tangential to the article I have removed it - Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN86: page?

Not sure, the Google Books preview does not provide page numbers and I do not own a physical copy of this book - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  WP:SCHOLARSHIP, what makes Lázaro a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See his bio here. He is a doctor of history and an associate professor at Santa Clara University with peer reviewed publications and a couple of history books to his name - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Camouflage

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article now represents a helpful overview of a large topic of wide interest. The 'Camouflage' navbox shows that this article sits in a tree of articles, of which Military camouflage and Operation Bertram are also good articles, and others such as Countershading and Ship camouflage are now covered in detail. The function of the 'Camouflage' article itself is thus to provide a concise summary and overview of the whole topic. For this reason it covers a wide range of mechanisms, many with subsidiary articles, and both animal and military camouflage. Where mechanisms may be hard to grasp, they are explained graphically in specially drawn diagrams, such as for 'Eliminating shadow', 'Motion camouflage', and 'Counterillumination'. Since the article is referenced for general interest, it summarizes the historical development of camouflage. It does this both by calling out articles on pioneering books such as those of Abbott Thayer and Hugh Cott, and by summarizing the history of military camouflage. Finally, it provides a wide but carefully chosen set of images, nearly all from Commons, illustrating each aspect of this especially visual topic. It has been found necessary to group the images in galleries to keep them conveniently close to the sections that they illustrate. The bibliography is grouped for easy access by readers with different interests. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grandiose

• I don't understand the need for the rather unusual approach taken to images in the article, particularly in the "History" section (since I can't see a reason to depart from regular principles there). Why so many images? We don't have to have pictures of all these people, and it breaks up the flow in my opinion.

--- all people images removed; other images have been culled.

: Thank you, this does need explaining. The topic is about hiding from view, often in plain sight, so it is necessarily and essentially visual. Accordingly each aspect and mechanism of camouflage is illustrated to show what is done and why. I don't have any special attachment to galleries, so if anyone knows a better way to present the images I'm happy to go with it.

In the History section, your point has more force, I agree. I felt it would be helpful to readers actually to see who did what, to put a face and name to each topic, such as Thayer and countershading. We could remove the people, but that would take away from the history the people who made it happen. Of course that could become a subsidiary article, 'History of camouflage' if you prefer. I've removed the portraits from History.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just picked one image out to explain: File:Andre Mare Camouflaged Iron Observation Tree (The Elm at Vermezeele) 1916.jpg. Which is the country of origin? Is the (underlying) work in the public domain in the country of origin? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a non-free usage rationale. Mare was French. If the image, or rather the notebook of which it forms part, counts as having been published then its pre-1923 date means it is public domain and it can be moved to Commons. Since it was unclear to me I treated it as non-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made a mistake in your understanding somewhere. The file does not have a fair use rationale. It merely is somewhat unclear. It can stay on en.wiki if it is correctly licensed for the US, which it is. It should not be moved to Commons without a French rationale and, for FA purposes, this should be clearly indicated so the reader of the file description is not in doubt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, the description has been updated recently, by bot and human, so my NFUR is now only in the history. I have put a comment on the image description page as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question how many non-free images are used in the article?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 right now. If we remove 3 portraits, 65. 21 could go to Commons (Yehudi lights by US military; Dazzle Ball, 1919), leaving 43. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hchc2009:

• I'd oppose on the basis of the sheer number of images; in one case, as many as six images for a single paragraph section. The result detracts from the underlying article, which I generally enjoyed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have reduced the no. of images per row, max 5. Have culled images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks very busy indeed on my screen, but that may just be the size of the monitor etc. I'm withdrawing my opposition, but I can't move to a support position because of that. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment — There are too many images. This one in particular is purely decorative.

Thankyou for the guidance. Images culled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can the publication dates of books be placed after the books' names in parentheses? For example "the 1909 book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom" → "the book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom (1909)" --- done
• "He showed by experiment that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds they were reared on as larvae (caterpillars)." → "He showed, by experiment, that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds on which they were reared as larvae (caterpillars)." --- done
• "British army" → "British Army" --- done
• "calves die before their first birthday." → "calves die within a year." --- done
• "influenced Fashion from the time of the first world war onwards." → "influenced fashion for the time from the First World War onwards."
• "In 1919, Chelsea Arts Club held a "Dazzle Ball". Those attending wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." Why is "Dazzle Ball" in caps? I suggest "In 1919, the attendants of a "dazzle ball", hosted by the Chelsea Arts Club, wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." --- done
• "Illustrated London News" Italicise. --- done
• "1885-1932" and "first world war" MOS. --- done
• "His 1973 screenprint of a leafily-camouflaged tank, Arcadia, 1973" Repetition of 1973. --- done
• "In the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, military clothing was often worn by anti-war protestors as a symbol of political protest" → "During the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, anti-war protestors often wore military clothing during demonstrations against the American involvement in the Vietnam War." 1) Am I right in assuming that the protesters were against the Vietnam War, or were they demonstrating against wars in general? 2) I don't understand how camouflage clothing was used as a symbol of political protest, wouldn't it make sense to not wear camouflage, since they were anti-war? --- done. Clarified with "ironically".
• "plastic branches (see illustration)" What illustration? --- done

---Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) --- done, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments Oppose. This article suffers from problems both at the organizational level and the prose level. The article has significantly improved since the start of the FAC. My resolved comments have been moved to the FAC talk page to reduce clutter. There may be issues that I have missed, so I encourage other reviewers to apply a critical eye to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Give up and oppose - sorry, but the citations are just too messy for me to keep reviewing them at this point. Please make them consistent and include required information. Also, on a quick look I'm seeing

MOS issues so far detected have been done.

page refs formatted

bibliography restructured

other ref issues being addressed by reviewer.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: okay, I've fixed all issues with citations and MOS that I could find, and have also done some copy-editing of the prose and fixed a few images. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• "camouflet, a
  French term meaning blow smoke in someone's face.": It means "affront" these days, and I'm pretty sure it would have to be a noun no matter how far back you go (and thus couldn't mean "blow smoke"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's all for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern I'm seeing some rather fundamental problems with organization and POV of the article. The current texts seems to be quite too heavily dominated by military camouflage. For example, far more than half of the illustrations are of soldiers and military equipment. And this is rather difficult to understand, since there is a perfectly fine stand-alone sub-article for military camouflage. This is most obvious by sections like "Dazzle painting" (obvious military application, but sorted independently), "Fashion, art and society" (inspiration by military) and "Non-military camouflage" (the dead giveaway). Peter ^Isotalo 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Thank you. This is an artefact of this FAC, which has removed a large number of animal images; the article was predominantly zoological, balanced by a mil summary (after all, the term camouflage comes from World War I), with no POV to mil. Similarly the title 'non-military...' is of FAC vintage, have replaced it with 'Civil applications'. 'Dazzle' too covers both Zebra and Dazzle ship, not a mil section; retitling to 'Distraction'. Have replaced ship image with zebra, snow overalls with ptarmigan. On the organization question, please see discussion above, which is ongoing I believe this has now been satisfactorily addressed.

--- Other images and balance: please see "Reorganisation" above

--- Comments by DexDor on Camouflage's talk page. DexDor reports that for technical reasons and the length of this FAC he has had to comment on the Talk page instead. I have responded to his comments there.

• Closing note: This
  talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Greed (film)

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into the article from several editors who all deserve credit for it. I think it is currently in great shape and would be an interesting choice as a Featured Article. I'm willing to work on the page if requested, but may need a little time to re-order my sources from the local library. Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Tend to oppose' The plot section is huge, and does not follow
  WP:FILMPLOT.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If it was shortened would you have any other objections?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not read other parts of the article. My objection was solely based on the plot section. If the plot is shortened, I would remove my oppose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have it shorter by this weekend. Also, you should read the rest at this point. The irony of all this is funny.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its shorter now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any takers?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck out my potential oppose which was solely based on the length of the plot section. It is shorter now, although may not strictly follow the guideline, but that is not a major problem perhaps. The lead is fascinating. I have not read the rest of the article yet. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More on plot: Do we really need the first paragraph (how McTeague's mother pleads Potter the dentist etc)? This seems not to be related to the actual plot/theme of the film. Cannot we begin with something like, "McTeague is a dentist in San Francisco..."

  It could go, but I'd rather not cut it. In the original cut these scenes took up the first hour of the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket from Maria." Who is Maria?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A suggestion for fixing this second point is at
  talk) 19:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I just read that post in the talk page. I agree that it can be left as "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket." Maria, when she is mentioned in the subplot, has a proper introduction (including the fact that she sold the lottery ticket to Trina). And before that subplot, Maria is not mentioned in the plot anymore. So, this sounds good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• done --
  talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This might be fixed simply by changing it from "Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague" to "Von Stroheim's interest in the novel McTeague", but if the body of the article must stand alone from the lead completely, then it needs to be recast by mentioning the novel first. --
  talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes; and the sentence "McTeague was first published in 1899 and was inspired by an October 1893 murder case in which a poor husband with a history of beating his wife finally stole her money and stabbed her to death at her workplace in San Francisco" should be moved from Theme to the beginning of "Background" section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree. It relates more to the themes of the film and I think is better where it is.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, no problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says the film is based on the novel McTeague, but that is not mentioned in the body of the article.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s". Why is it important to know that he lived in San Francisco?

  As von Stroheim is so central to the entire tale, I think it's useful to have this small added element of biographical info. It certainly was for me, reading it for the first time as someone who had neither heard of the film nor heard of von Stroheim. --

  talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree, every source on the film mentions some aspect of this part of von Stroheim's life.

• , in that case the article should mention why staying in San Francisco was important in his life/career/this film. Did he do something while in SF that led to this film making? I mean, you mention he lived in SF in the initial period, so perhaps he moved somewhere else after that. Why is that not important, too? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of "Background and writing" in this version has three sentences which seem completely disconnected in their content or theme. Why are these three sentences come in this way?

• Which three sentences?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In this version, the first two sentences (Greed is based upon American author Frank Norris's 1899 novel McTeague. Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague can be traced back to January 1920 when he told a journalist that he wanted to film the novel) are fine and flows nice. However, the nest two sentences (He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s.[6] His firing by Universal's Irving Thalberg on October 6, 1922 while working on Merry-Go-Round was an unprecedented event in Hollywood, bringing in a new era in which the producer and the studio had power over artists and directors) how are they connected to the previous two sentences. A connection should be there. IMO, if the importance of San Francisco (as discussed above in a point) is established, the staying in SF sentence would become ok. But a context/background of the firing would be needed for un-halted reading of this paragraph. Otherwise, the last two sentences appear as two disjointed ideas forcefully placed in that paragraph.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His firing by Thalberg..." Who is Thalberg?

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality. He will have the co-operation of the department heads of the Culver City studio, but each unit will be separate unto itself." This whole long quote seems completely unnecessary in an article about this film.

• Suggest cutting it to 'Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality"' --
  talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...have reformed - or surrendered - for it is..." Endash with space, or, emdash.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before shooting began, von Stroheim told a reporter, "it is possible to tell a great story in motion pictures in such a way that the spectator forgets he is looking at beauteous Gertie Gefelta the producer's pet and discovers himself intensely interested, just as if he were looking out of a window at life itself. He will come to believe that what he is gazing at is real — a cameraman was present in the household and nobody knew it. They went on in their daily life with their joys, fun and tragedies and the camera stole it all, holding it up afterward for all to see" Again, a big quote. Please explicitly establish its connection with the film, or remove/summarize.

• It relates to von Stroheim's style and beliefs as a filmmaker. I can't see a way to summarize it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You dont necessarily need to summarize, but establish the connection. Indeed you have established the connection while replying here. That it reflects his belief as a filmmaker. So, perhaps you can add that bit, that it was his principle/idea of film-making.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He also attended society functions in town..." How is this important to the film article?

• It relates to the amount of research that von Stroheim put into the film in order to get authenticity. I think its clear.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you should mention that he was researching the social scenario. It is not unusual that a director would attend social functions etc, and that probably does not need mention. But if he was doing that to do pre-production research, definitely that should be mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "he even rented the buildings from the novel's real-life inspirations for the film...". Means there were real people on whom the novel was based?

• Would it work better as "he rented some of the actual buildings that had inspired scenes in the novel"? --
  talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, your suggested version is probably better.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving the present-day equivalent of the amount of 5000 dollars would be helpful for the readers.

• done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^Please provide a source how you converted the 5,000 dollars to present-day equivalent.

I can't find a web source that creates a unique url for the calculation. Could I just add a link to the inflation calculator?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. Probably providing an explanatory note that a certain inflation calculator was used (with url of the online calculator) to calculate the present value would be enough.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Demiurge1000, thanks for taking care of some of these and sorry for not following through on the Maria concern. I will be able to work on this either a little bit every day or all at once on Friday. But most of these concerns should be easy to address so it shouldn't take long....once I find the time and catch up on sleep.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a query (may not be important for this article), do we know why was he fired by Thalberg?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was because he was over budget and over schedule, which is now (basically) mentioned in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "sometime-actor" an usual term?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I'll finish this up Friday or Saturday.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I think the concerns above have been addressed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead in this version has six paragraphs, three of them pretty small paragraphs. If possible, please consider merging so that the lead has less number of paragraphs, and, more importantly, we have less of such small choppy paragraphs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've always agreed. I'm just going to fix these in the entire article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except criteria 1a and 1c.

I do not have the capacity to judge the article against criterion 1a, as I do not use a professional level English. However, for an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. Nice work, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What does that mean?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by

God of War (video game)

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]