Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2008

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 User:Karanacs 19:52, 30 September 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I know it's very short. However, it is equally very comprehensive. I'm trying to set a precedent for FACing less-notable storms, and this is a textbook lesser-notable storm. I'd like to know what your opinions are on this. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination. I realize that Wikipedia's editors, sometimes rightly so, are opposed to short articles being promoted to featured article status, and thus, even if this is promoted, will probably not demonstrate "Wikipedia's best work". If and when the discussion ends at

WT:FAC ends, and pending the addition of a minimum size limit to the criteria, I may renominate this in the future. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there anything I should do to archive this? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, let's see, if I let you get this one through, then you'll send even more storm FAC's our way, in a craven attempt to boost you and Hink's rankings... that I cannot abide! Image license, author, et al all check out, though I can see from Image:Erick 2007 track.png why this isn't a longer article- that has to be the most boring force of nature I have ever seen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there's really not much at all to write about a storm that lasted for about 3 days in the middle of the ocean. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy. EC with David.

• Images fine.
• Sources fine.
• "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear managed to organize into a tropical depression later that day." - awkward comma use. Probably add another one after shear? Play around with it a bit.
• Lead needs wikilinkage; tropical depression, remnant, etc. What are these things?
• "leaving the convection displaced from the low" - ????
• "closer to the center" - center of what - for extra clarity
• "Additionally, because of the lack of damage, the name Erick was not retired and is scheduled to be used for the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." - no idea what the first part means - "retired" in this context?
• I'm not convinced that labelling something this short as featured is a good idea. I'll wait for thoughts from others. The thing is that FA = eventual TFA, and as a reader I'd be a bit cut to get this as my article for the day.

Giggy (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Copyedits done. I understand your concern about the article being short, but the article is comprehensive, so it passes
    WIAFA. Also, I'm guessing Raul might spare these short articles from the Main Page, so I don't think that's a problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Will hold off supporting for a bit, still slightly concerned over the last point. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Even though it is short, it's not stubby-short. And it does meet all the criteria. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a {{
  fact}} tag. What's more, the "fact" it follows isn't true, according to this. Otherwise, everything looks good. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Addendum: Actually, I missed the "Pacific", and it is true if you look at this, but I don't think that's a reliable source. Where did you find this, Julian? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference added. It has never (or not commonly) been brought up that the retirement fact, which appears in nearly every hurricane article, needs a cite, but I added one nonetheless. The source I added is that NHC site you listed on your first post, that shows it if you go down to the Pacific names. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aww, now I feel embarrassed for missing that. Oh well, support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine, it's easy to overlook. :-) Thanks for the support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you know, if THIS passes, ya'll will be swamped with obscure bishops, right? Mellitus Honorius of Canterbury ... just be warned! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends if anybody is good enough to get those articles to FAC. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • SOME of us have to do useful work like check other folks sourcing at FAC. It kinda limits some of our time to ... write articles. (hums) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, well then it's a trade off. I write the quality articles and you review 'em for reliable sources and such! Also, what do you mean about useful work? I bet a storm that lasted for 2 days in the middle of the Ocean that nobody knows of except for the NHC is a core topic. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is nice to see that an article created essentially to spite me is going to make it all the way to FA, because it means that I win. :) Support, although I'd like to see
  cool stuff) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Heh, yeah, but still, I think this is one of the only FACs that's being considered for merging... anyway, I added the links. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sloppy work - in a text of less than 500 words there are TWO howling spelling mistakes! This means that over 0.4 per cent of the entire text is misspelt. Proportionately, this is equivalent to more than 40 spelling mistakes in, say, the Samuel Johnson article; imagine what a fuss there would be over that. There is the sense of an in-crowd enjoying an in-joke here, and good luck to them, but this is in fact a carelessly written article about a non-event, flattered by its present C rating. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Typos fixed, though I would appreciate if you didn't call two simple grammar mistakes "sloppy work". Also, the C-class rating was put there as a place-holder until the FAC passed/failed. Cheers, and thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my comments made you snappy - they were intended mainly in a light-hearted vein, as I imagined was the case with this whole nomination. It appears, however, that you are serious, and actually believe this to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. So I'd better get serious, too. Featured article criteria require that as a primary condition for promotion the prose should engage the reader. What could possibly be less engaging than this article's opening sentence, describing Erick as "a weak tropical cyclone that caused no effects on land or sea"? You might as well just say "This is an article about nothing". Now articles, or TV shows (Seinfeld) about nothing can be very engaging, if sufficient genius is applied, but lacking that, the brief prose which follows this opening statement is merely deadly dull - it's not your fault, but nothing happened to provide any spark to the account. You assert in response to the comment below that "all named storms are notable", which is highly questionable on any proper definition of "notable", but even so that doesn't mean that they are all suitable topics for individual encyclopedia articles. In real-world terms this "event" wasn't so much non-notable as non-noticed, and by your own account the name was promptly re-assigned for future use on a proper storm, which confirms the official view that this was a threat that didn't materialise. OK, it might have done - so write an extended article about the factors which could have arisen, how or why they didn't, how often these circumstances occur, etc. etc., and you might have an informative and engaging article. But on its own - no, no, no. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was actually serious about nominating this, and I feel somewhat offended that you thought it was a joke. That's besides the point, however, and I would like to know what you think the article needs, as I see your oppose still stands. The article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. The storm lasted for 2 days in the middle of the ocean. No ships encountered the storm. It never affected land. And the storm was a storm, so I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it didn't materialize. All but the most catastrophic storms have their names go on to the next cycle. Since I would still like this to pass, is there anything I could do that could get your support? After all, it was Raul that said that any article that passes AfD can become featured. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I misconstrued your motives, though I think I'd actually have preferred it to have been a joke. What didn't materialise was the threat and/or consquences that might have arisen from this weather system had it developed differently, but it didn't and thus became a non-event. Whether the article is technically qualified to become featured is, to me, beside the point. I am technically qualified to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but don't expect this to happen. As to what you could do to gain my support, please see the end of my previous comment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added quite a bit of information on the storm's statistics and forecasting, and I changed the opening sentence. I can't help, though, that the storm didn't effect land. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we won't ever agree on this one, though I recognise that you have tried to expand the meagre content. This hasn't made the prose more engaging - my primary objection to the article - but the subject seems so inconsequential that I suppose nothing can. I don't have any more time to argue about it, however, so I'll strike the oppose. Sorry I can't be more positive, but I am somewhat apprehensive about where the promotion of this article, if it occurs, may lead us in future. Anyway, enough said. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Brianboulton, using your analogy, since you are qualified to become prime minister (just as this topic is notable enough to be an article and hence featured), with enough work you could become PM if you really wanted to and enough people voted for you. That's what is happening here: Julian has put in a lot of work into this article to bring it up FA criteria, and it's up to us to look at the problems with the article, not just the size. Besides, we wouldn't hear of people voting down the perfect candidate for PM just because he/she was too short (that's a hyperbole, but you get my drift)! It's good that this is the biggest issue for this FAC, as opposed to sourcing issues or picture problems that kill so many FACs. Sorry for butting in, but I just wanted to add my two cents. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose and I fully expect this to be unactionable, as I'm unable to identify a condition that could really be remedied. I'm primarily concerned that this article relies on one source (National Hurricane Center), a condition for which we even have a
  cleanup template. The nature of the source's coverage, further, is problematic. The NHC presumably didn't track/record this because it was notable or important, but because it had the potential of becoming notable or important (e.g. making landfall, etc.) - potential it did not fulfill (i.e. a "non-event" per Brianboulton). My impression is that the NHC would track all such weather systems as mere mechanical exercise, not because such a system is particularly meaningful. Secondly, I appreciate brevity and succinctness and recognize fully the distinction between comprehensiveness and length, but I don't think this "exemplifies our very best work". I've deliberately not nominated Pearson's Candy Company, despite it having every major detail that has been published (comprehensive), for the same reason. I subscribe, as not all do, to the idea that some articles just can't become featured; it doesn't mean they aren't fine articles, it just means they aren't the tops. Эlcobbola _talk 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • All named storms are notable, as they have significant coverage in reliable sources—namely the NHC. There is extremely little about the storm, so it is comprehensiveness. Would it help if I added redundant non-NHC sources? I wouldn't find any more information, but at least it would give it a sense of broadness. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I added a couple sources from news agencies. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, the subsequent addition of several non-NHC sources is enough for me. Эlcobbola _talk 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I tried to expand the Impact section with some odds and ends about statistics. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - OpposeComment - Am I being stupid? I don't understand this:

Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth named storm of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. The eighth tropical cyclone and fourth named storm of the season, Erick originated from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa, traveled westward across the Atlantic, and emerged into the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Was it the fourth or the fifth and why say the same thing twice? In trying to work this out, I didn't get any further into the article. A very poor start.

^Talk 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not the same thing. A tropical cyclone can be a tropical depression, but still not have attained tropical storm status, and was thus not named; so there might have been a depression early in the season that adds to the higher number of tropical cyclones than named storms. I tried to clarify it some to make it more clear that a tropical cyclone and a named storm are not always the same. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still find the first two sentences of the Introduction difficult to understand. Perhaps the second sentence needs to start with "when" or "as".
• In the same sentence:

I found this article dull. I might be because in England we only get boring weather, but I found the prose to be lazy. Our weather forecasts are written and presented better than this. FAs are supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's best work.

Done with everything, except the image. It's

WP:WPTC standard to include such a track map in every tropical cyclone article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• I maintain my opposition, because I cannot support this article's FA candidature; it's little more than stub about a transient atmospheric phenomenon. And one from which we have nothing to learn. My critical comments were not addressed in full; the legend for the image of the route of the storm, for example, still gives no geographical context, and the prose is still dull. I don't think this article satisfies the FA criteria with regard to engaging prose. Given that some FAs take months and years to perfect, to promote this would lower the standard of Wikipedia's exemplary work. The FA process, as I see see it is about raising the required standard; should this become an FA, the standard will be lowered. Sorry to be so blunt and, please don't shoot the messenger, but I think the motivation driving this nomination is more about collecting FA trophies than building a great encyclopaedia.
  ^Talk 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I must disagree. There is very little to write about this storm, and thus an oppose based upon length is not actionable. However, I will continue to polish the prose, and I hope you will in time feel comfortable supporting. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I expanded the track map caption. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm withdrawing my opposition and changing to neutral. There is little on this page that has caused me to change my mind but discussions on the FAC Talk page have clearly revealled that the FA criteria do not support the main issue I had with this article, and it is the criteria that should be adressed. Perhaps something like this should be added, "Short, but otherwise FA standard articles will not be promoted until all possibilities for merger with related articles have been explored."
  ^Talk 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sounds good, thanks. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Comprehensive, reminds me in a way of
  | Speak 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That would indeed be quite nice! :) Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll have to agree with LS. (Bou'in Zahra rules!) Nice work. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the fact it passed south of Hawaii on August 5 should be mentioned - per here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, thanks for the suggestion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Forgive me, but why not just make this a GA? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could. But then inevitably I would send it to FAC again, as this is clearly the most comprehensive account of the storm anywhere, and is deserving of featured article status. As I indicated above, length isn't and shouldn't be a factor in deciding what can be considered Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, forgive me if I'm missing something, but was there something wrong with the TOC that required it be removed (or not-allowed, whatever you want to call it)? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing requires the TOC to be removed, but it only automatically appears if there are three sections or more. The "see also" is hardly a section (two lines) and if I can see all the readable prose on one screen, I see no purpose for the TOC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, that makes sense, since there's really only two sections. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I encourage compact but complete and clearly written articles on an interesting topic that I am able to read without loosing my eyesight, although the FAC elite may disapprove. I find the prose compelling. It is refreshing to see a nomination that is not filled with arcane accusations of MoS breaches. (To

• Even though I've supported above, I have to question removing the TOC. Again, why was that done?
  cool stuff) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think, according to

Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29, the TOC is only automatically generated if there are more than three headings. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, it is. I removed the NOTOC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support you have received a lot of flack for this article, and I see nothing wrong with it. Keep up the good work. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—For such a short nomination to be promoted, the prose would need to be very good, and every possible niche of the topic exposed and detailed. It's not the FA Criteria as much as the instruction in the lead that comes into play here: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". Would an outside visitor find it odd that we claim this for such a short article? Even for a more generous treatment of such a topic, the prose needs cleansing. The lead, just a slender paragraph, brought up these concerns, and casting my eyes further down I saw other glitches, too.

• I had to read the opening sentence twice—it's barely grammatical, and unkind to the readers: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth to attain tropical storm status of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season." Why not: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season and the fifth to attain tropical storm status."?
• "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear, formed into a tropical depression later that day." Eeuuw; not a nice sentence structure. Again, the solution is easy by just rearranging the dominoes: "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that formed into a tropical depression later that day, despite strong wind shear." And "low pressure system"—you might bend just a little for non-experts who will be eased through the prose by the use of the odd hyphen for double adjectives. Scientific American would use a hyphen; so would many good US writers. There are more instances further down.
• "The next day, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Erick, and while the storm moved westward, the shear quickly tore the storm apart. The storm weakened to a tropical depression on August 2 and degenerated into a remnant low later that day. Because the storm never neared land, no effects were reported in association with Erick." Oh dear. Repetitions: day day; the storm, the storm, the storm, the storm. Tearing a storm apart might sound odd to non-experts (even to experts), so even "broke up/down [or "dissipated"] the storm system" might be better—you're the expert. Something more formal, please. The last clause: I'm sure effects out to sea were reported; precision requires a little qualification here, and you could remove "associated with Erik" as redundant, and use "Erik previously to avoid the stormstormstorm etc. "Near" as a verb ... hmmm, easier as "did not approach land"? Rids us of the ne .. ne, too.
• Can't more be said in the Stats section? Can't some of the info in the daughter article be specifically applied to this topic? Tony (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. Done with all of your examples, and I added a little more to the stats section. I believe anything more would stray too far off-topic. More examples would be appreciated, if you find the time. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose You have not done the first of Tony's comments (the "the" is needed), and "tropical storm" is not linked here but is a few lines down. And so on. With two mistakes in the first sentence, even after one had been pointed out, the prose can hardly be called brilliant. I would expect more images in an FA (unlike some, I have no objection to galleries). As the thing apparently only hit 40 mph for one minute, there should be some pleasant seascapes as well as more satellite images. Given the current discussion on talk on very short articles, I also think the outcome of this should be delayed until we see if a lower size limit is to be imposed. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I've adjusted the opening sentence, and I added another satellite image. Unfortunately, as the storm was so short-lived, I'm afraid there aren't enough satellite images to warrant a gallery section (which I believe are discouraged anyway). Cheers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fundamental oppose. I know it's late in the same, and perhaps it is too late to affect anything. However, I oppose the idea of something so short being featured. I believe it fails the standard for brilliant prose (for example, four sentence start "On August X"). I also believe it fails the stability criterion. If this is promoted, then that pretty much throws out any chance for a merge; FWI, there is still a technically active merger discussion, which the nominator even agreed to. (link). You can consider this inactionable, but I feel I have to state my position on the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, my points were merely examples of problems. I agree entirely with Johnbod's concern that there's a distinct possibility that a lower word-length requirement will soon be added to the criteria. Tony (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 19:36, 30 September 2008 [2].

Utah State Route 103

Nominator(s): Admrboltz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because even though it is short, the route is less than a quarter mile long, and is as comprehensive as it can get. The article passed its GA as well as WikiProject ACR, and has went through a PR as well, and I think the article is ready. Admrboltz (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

392 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad or good? Just wondering what this has to do with anything.

L — 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - It would be nice if the link to SR-97 was turned blue. If no one gets to it soon I'll create that article.
  L — 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oh, boy. Let's see what page will break a certain record—this or Space Science Fiction Magazine. Then again, a very conditional support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Meets criteria 3 - Could a {{coord}} be added? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{coord}} has been added for the mid point on the route --Admrboltz (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree when there are no photos at all - for once one could get a whole road into one photo, but we don't have it. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you are correct Fasach Nua (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mainly on grounds of size. Some (not me) would call this a stub. A more in depth treatment could be envisaged, not that I am asking for one. It doesn't say how many lanes it has & there are no photos. No details of when construction approved, who designed or built it, & so on. But really there has to be a floor under which FA cannot go. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific component of the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria that this article fails to meet? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That oppose is not actionable. Length is not part of

WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There are plenty of actionable points made. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But according to this statement, mainly on grounds of size, those points were not what prompted you to oppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposing, and have given several actionable reasons. Your dictionary will tell you that "mainly" and "solely" are not synonymns. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not part of the FA criteria in any way, which means opposing "mainly" because of length is just as bad as opposing "solely" because of it. However, your concerns about comprehensiveness are legitimate, and can indeed warrant an oppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails criterion 3 on illustration. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox contains two images; one of the shield and another of the map. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely reasonable to expect at least one photo in an FA, especially given the point I made above. The article is very unclear as to what the road runs through. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the route description is for. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I have added the lane information to the article, a photo has been requested via template on the talk page, as well as a local in the area. I have emailed the Utah Department of Transportation for information on the original construction approval. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose primarily based on sourcing. I consider the Utah Department of Transportation to be essentially a primary source for a road in Utah. That means the entire article is based on primary sources. Has the road been mentioned in any newspaper (even when it was first built)? Any road-specific magazine/journal/conference? The prose is also not quite up to snuff. The shorter an article is, the better the prose must be (because it is a lot harder to overlook one awkward sentence if there are 5999 other sentences than if there are only 50). Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will attempt to locate secondary sources, but could you be more specific on prose issues. This article was PRed, but if you still see issues, please point them out so I can address them. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • examples of prose issues
      • There is a lot of passive voice: "An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus" insead of "The eastern terminus is an ..."
      • Comma issues: " An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus, and only grants access to authorized Hill Air Force Base personnel" - comma used when both sides are complete sentences but not otherwise
      • Some sentences are overly long and awkward (see fist sentence of history section)
      • The last two sections of history don't flow well together

Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have worked some on the prose, though maybe I should see if I can get a copyeditor as well... --Admrboltz (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can this not be merged into Interstate 15 in Utah, Davis County, Utah, List of state highways in Utah, Utah State Route 126, Clearfield, Utah or Hill Air Force Base? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you make broad assessments, I would have prefered you read it, as your edit summary was "I want to oppose, but I have not read it". Why should an A-Class article (which is also a GA) be merged into anything. If we were to merge all smaller routes into I-15, the article would be hundreds of kilobytes long... I have never seen a county article with detailed descriptions of highways in them. List of state highways in Utah is just that, a list, not a detailed A/GA grade route article, that article would also be hundreds of kilobytes long. 126, Clearfield and the base also just don't make sense. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my reasoning at a couple (or soon to be a couple) short FAs, due to comprehensiveness concerns. There's so little content as to make it impossible for the article to meet
  WP:LEAD and still have content left for the rest of the article. Where's the context about why the route was even planned to begin with, et al? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • On WP:LEAD, "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." -- I find that my lead does do this. It summarizes pretty much everything but AADT, which isn't all that interesting, but makes the article complete. The route was created along with the Interstate, so that the people on the interstate can access the base. Presumably the US Route could do this before any sort of rerouting. (though I can not confirm this on any map as the route is so short. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — What is this article lacking that
  WP:WIAFA that has a minimum length requirement. This article scales well for the size of the subject matter compared to other highways that have FAs written about them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose - instead of pointing at all the
  pointy as these are basic issues that, beyond the size bone of contention, should be picked up. Once again, is this Wikipedia's "very best work"? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Karanacs (talk · contribs) had a good point, there are no secondary sources, which I had never thought of. I attempted to locate newspaper articles through the EBSCO database, KSL.com, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsbank (which searches: The Deseret News, The Hearld Journal, The Spectrum and the Standard-Examiner (the local paper of the area)). Google news also had nothing to say. If anything, I 100% agreed with Karanacs' oppose.

If I may be allowed to respond before the nom is closed...

"0.080-0.174" - en dash required.

Engaging prose means if I find something boring or badly phrased, I'll call a spade a spade - sorry if you found it condescending.

Why would you date link the citations? I read the article three times - it didn't take long - there's no need to link dates in citations any more.

"If I were to cut out Hill AFB, there would be a very short history section." - exactly the point.

It's not Wikipedia's very best work, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be practical: it's highly likely that a lower limit to word length will soon be imposed on nominations. This needs recasting as a merged article or one with larger scope. Tony (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:17, 30 September 2008 [3].

Gregory House

Nominator(s): Music2611 (talk)

previous FAC (23:17, 22 December 2007)

This

Per the

WP:FAC instructions, did you consult Saranghae honey (talk · contribs) before nominating this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, why? --Music26/11 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the edit count tool, Saranghae honey has the highest number of edits to the article and is therefore apparently the main contributor. Sandy is asking if you (with only five edits) contacted them first, which the FAC instructions say you should do. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the image Image:HouseGregoryHouse.png contain significantly greater information than is contained in the free image Image:Hugh Laurie Actors Guild.jpg ? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most importantly, the cane, if you can find me a free image of Hugh Laurie with a walking cane, than I think that image will be appropriate.--Music26/11 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - while it's an excellent start, there's some grammar issues ("...to give him ketamine treatment...", et al), and the article has no information about the reception of the character. Furthermore the 'characterization' section goes into minutiae which is irrelevant to a reader trying to understand the character. Other comments: Image:HouseRightDamagedLeg.JPG needs a Fair Use Rationale to comply with NFCC, but I don't think it significantly aids our understanding of the topic--the prose says his leg was scarred from surgery, I'm not really sure we need a nonfree image to reinforce that. That said, in reply to Fasach Nua above, it's important to have a actual shot of the character as he appears in the fictional medium, not just the actor; I'll set about improving the rationale. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Em dashes should not be spaced, although spaced en dashes can be used for parenthesis.--Grahame (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 2 needs a source for the information.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.languagemonitor.com/
  • http://blogcritics.org/
• Current ref 7 (House and Holmes...) is lacking a last access date and publisher at the very least. (The publisher shouldn't be given in the link)
• Current ref 26 needs a publisher and last access date at the very least.
• Current ref 40 (Wittler...) is lacking a publisher.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How could this article be stable with the show still ongoing and the character still developing?--ragesoss (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that could be a big problem. His character has already pretty much developed and its not like we learn something new in every episode. The only time it would need updating is after some really big milestones occur, and these are very rare and only happen towards the end of some seasons.

But nonetheless: Very weak oppose - Sorry, but if I had to make the decision myself, there is no way this could be FA just yet. As much as I love Greg House, and the series itself, the article (though good) lacks some additional shine and features in my opinion. First and foremost, the lead is a little short. You should definitely expand the description of his character in the lead, rather than just putting it into brief wording. Expanding on it would give a higher understanding of the character, which is really needed in the lead. Remember, House's character is what he is always sanctioned for; you should really try to portray this as much as you can in the lead. And I wouldn't mind seeing the whole cane and vicodin issue in the lead either as it is something which has also really sanctioned the character, along with his clear medical genius feature. Additionally, the biography and characterization section lacks information just like the lead. It seems that you have made the article very brief and basic. The content is not really the problem; it is all relevant and inclusive, but you need to expand on it. For a quick example, you really need to go into more detail about how Greg takes the Vicodin continuously without reason sometimes due to a clear addiction which he refuses to admit in some cases. You could also expand his on his many near death situations etc, and how his only friend is Wilson, as he really neglects to call anyone else his friend and vice-versa. Basically, it kind of fails the content criteria as it neglects some information. Hope this helps. Domiy (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comments

I've tried to improve the article, a reception section has been started (although it still requiers a bit more expansion), most of your requests have been answered. Take a look.--Music26/11 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:17, 30 September 2008 [4].

Lancaster Barnstormers

Nominator(s):

talk

)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that the page is well-written and includes all relevant info regarding the team.

Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments regarding images:
  • talk) 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:IUP
    vis-a-vis NFCC#6) and a rationale (NFCC#10C)
  • criterion 3
    , needs a rationale and appears to be freely replaceable (NFCC#1 - given that it is illustrating "When a Code Red is called, all team management and loyal fans wear red shirts to support the Barnstormers", why wouldn't a picture of the fans wearing red suffice?)
  • Image:War of the Roses.PNG - needs a caption and a rationale for this article. Эlcobbola _talk 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
• http://www.atlanticleague.com/rw_roster06.pdf is dead.
• http://www.minorleaguenews.com/rawfeed/html/2006/04/18/06.html ditto.
• http://www.fox23news.com/sports/mlb/mlbguide/story.aspx?content_id=FF2FABB0-1207-415B-BCEC-4D16FCE631BB again.
• I'm not sure I like having the Lancaster Barnstormers website as a source for its self.
• What makes http://www.800padutch.com/ reliable?
• What makes http://www.ballparkwatch.com/news/2003archives/sept18_sept24.htm reliable?
• Is http://nbpfaus.net/~pfau/al-info.html reliable?
• Too many formatted citations, which is the main reason for my oppose. Make sure every last one uses {{cite web}}, or some type of proper format.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, cite templates are not required for featured articles or any article; consistently formatted citations are, per
  WP:WIAFA, 2c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok, thanks for pointing that out. Was the criteria always like that? I thought I remember reading it a while back saying it had to be {{cite web}} or a variation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They've never been required, but they can be useful for editors who don't otherwise know how to format citations (even though some of us hate them because they chunk up articles and affect load time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Much more editing is needed before this can be considered among our best work. Here are some problems with the article.

• Listen to Julian when he says the references need work. They need access dates, authors, publishers, and publication dates where given. I also share his concerns about there being too many primary sources. Thirteen primary sources out of 35 total is not the worst I've seen, but it would be good to lower this number somewhat.
• All of the headings in the History subsections violate
  WP:MOS
  . Only proper nouns should be capitalized in headings after the first word.
• Notable Barnstormers: What makes these people notable and not others? This is a big POV problem to me.
• Why in the world do we need a Quick facts section at the end? Many of these facts are in the infobox, while media-related items could use their own section.
• What kind of promotions does this team run? This is how minor-league baseball teams draw fans. Even a paragraph or two on any notable promotions the team has run would add some life to the article.
• Instead of having this many subsections in Tradition and Philanthropy, consider merging these items into 2-3 paragraphs each. Looks stubby in its current form.
• A brief look at the prose: to remove a redundancy in the third paragraph, try "Baseball fans in Lancaster waited 44 years for the sport to return after the Lancaster Red Roses folded following the 1961 season."
• Remove the bolding for the Barnstormers in the third paragraph.
• A couple of facts about the nickname in the lead aren't expanded on or even repeated in the body.
• Loads of unneeded bolding in the history section.

Overall, a lot of work will be needed here. For a good idea of what to aim for, read Nashville Sounds, a recently promoted featured article. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your comments. I will work on the article, though it will take some time.

I suspect that this may need more work than can be done during FAC jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should be moving beyond the robotic linking of the names of commonly known countries (especially anglophone ones). I've zapped them, along with the autoformatting. See MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made several changes to the page with all of your comments in mind. Please review them and tell me what you think.

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:17, 30 September 2008 [5].

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk)

previous FAC withdrawn

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that I've covered everything possible with this storm. I've never had an FA before but I think this one meets the criteria for one. All thoughts on this article welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• Opening sentence is quite weak.
• The southern portion of the wave split off and continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean on October 8. Showers and thunderstorms developed around the low around October 11 while located 240 nmi (440 km) south of Acapulco, Mexico. Wait a second...when did the low develop?
• The intensification was very short lived and Kiko was downgraded to a tropical depression six hours later as the center became displaced from the diminishing convective activity. Remove "very", redundant and POV.
• Why did the storm reach tropical storm status the second time?
• As it moved away from the coast, an eye had begun to form. "Had begun" → "began"
• On October 22, Kiko was downgraded to a tropical depression as strong wind shear left the low exposed. Slightly confusing. Was the center even covered with convection since you last said it was exposed?
• Life threatening flash floods and mudslides were possible over the mountainous terrain. Not sure I see the relevence. Any kind of impact could have happened.
• Mexican officials also closed the port of captaincy as a precaution.[1] Mexican officials advised residents in danger of flooding to avoid low-lying areas. "Mexican officials....Mexican officials"...zzz
• As Kiko paralleled the coast for two days, rain fell constantly along the coastlines until Kiko pulled away from shore. Awkwardly worded, avoid using the same word or variations in the same sentence (sans coast, coastline).
• Only 2 people survived; 15 bodies were recovered and 9 passengers were never found. Here, you use number characters. In the lead, you spell them out.
• Last sentence of the article needs a reference.
• In reference 1 spell out "TCR".
• Remove the all-caps author in ref 12.
• Add Category:Hurricanes in Mexico

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done all of the above (at least I'm quite sure I have). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it's done, but we still don't know when the low developed. It goes from "the wave..." to "the low..." with nothing between. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've explaned how the wave became a low. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but aside from needing another good copyedit, I'm not convinced the article is indeed comprehensive. Try looking for impact in Spanish sources. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources talk about Kiko approaching and that warnings have been issued. I think I found two that have some impact. Otherwise, I cannot seem to find info on impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I haven't found anything on impact (other than the ship capsizing), just a lot of repetitive preparation. Also, how should I go about copy-editing the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should bring in a new copyeditor. I know User:Finetooth often takes such requests. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a copyedit, don't know how long until Finetooth responds. What should I do about the lack of information on Kiko's impact? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess User:Plasticup just did the copyedit (not sure if it was the kind you were looking for though). Other than that, what's left that I can do? (since there is basically no info on impact.) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, all he did was add nbsps. Just wait for more reviewers, I suppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, Finetooth has done (or is still doing) the full copyedit. It takes more than one person to do a FA review? Didn't know that...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the FAC stays open for anywhere between one week and three weeks, and during any given FAC there may be numerous reviews. For now, I'm not convinced the article is ready just yet, so I'm going to wait a tad before declaring my !vote. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do you mind clarifying A tropical wave exited the coast of Africa on September 26. The wave quickly developed, spawning Tropical Storm Melissa on September 28. At the same time, part of the wave separated from the developing tropical depression and continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean... as I don't really understand. Don't actual clarify in the article unless you feel its appropriate.
  Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The tropical wave that formed into tropical storm melissa had two parts, sort of like in 2006 when a low broke off of Tropical Storm Florence and developed into Tropical Storm Gordon. The lower portion of the wave continued to move towards the west, since it was weak, and the developing northern part intensified into a tropical depression. Hope that helps a bit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was being a bit unclear, I meant did it form on the west or east coast of Africa? Pretty sure its west coast but I'm not sure.

Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

West coast, south of the Cape Verde islands and west of Senegal. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:17, 30 September 2008 [6].

No Mercy (2005)

Nominator(s): --LAX

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. It has been taken "out-of-universe" and improved based on the recent FAC of

• What makes http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com a reliable source?

Couldn't tell you. I don't really think the amount of money grossed is all that important; I think I could just remove it. As for the attendance, however, I'm not so sure. I can't find any reliable sources for it, and I wouldn't want to leave it unsourced. So I guess it's whatever you decide. --LAX 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason it is reliable is because it has always had accurate results for ppvs by WWF/E, TNA, etc.--WillC 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed this with Ealdgyth in the past, the reason it hasn't been found reliable is because a reliable third party source hasn't mentioned or credited them. Though, the way they get their info is reliable, through VHS, magazines, and they have a established staff of writers. If anyone want's to take a shot at proving it reliable, be my guest, I haven't found anything. --

X 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed. --LAX 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19 (the WWE press release) needs an access date.

Done. --LAX 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links checked out with the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose: a very quick look suggests that it's OK. Tony (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very thorough look also suggests that it's OK. Most of it is really quite good, but there is some slippage toward the end. Here's what I found in a full reading.

• "Batista, as part of the storyline, then proclaimed that he would hurt Guerrero had he not changed for the better." Something about this seems off. I think it may be the "had he not" part.
• "During the match, "Cowboy" Bob (disguised as a fan) came into the ring an interrupted the match."
• Event, Preliminary matches: Maybe say which of Holly's arms was being attacked. Or was it both? If you can't find this anywhere, it's no big deal.
• Main event matches: Sounds like Batista and the crowd were mocking Guerrero. Perhaps say as much in the article, if the source says so; otherwise it's probably original research. Again, not a big deal if left unchanged.
• Aftermath: "Their feud was planned to continue, in which Guerrero would have gone back to his villainous character." In which is referring to the feud, not continue; it's not the smoothest transition. Try and or as.
• "This setup a Hell in the Cell match..." Not sure about setup being one word here.
• "Undertaker defeated Randy and ended their near year-long storyline." Perhaps nearly, though that's quite picky.
• "in which the winner would be the man who wins won four matches over the other first." Tense correction would be good.
• "The buys from No Mercy helped the promotion's revenue of $18.8 million..." I still don't like the helped part. This is at least the third time I've said that here. Also, non-breaking spaces are needed for the two numbers in that sentence.
• "None of the matches received a match rating higher the five out of ten." A redundancy and a typo.
• "The match between Bobby Lashley and Simon Dean was rated a three out of ten, the lowest overall." Ten should be changed to a numeral. It's fine to leave the others spelled out, because numbers shouldn't end a sentence if it can be avoided. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --LAX 10:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose - Reference situation still has to be sorted out. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I removed it. --LAX 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the background section seems to deal with standard professional wrestling knowledge. Perhaps include a "see also" link at the top of the section? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, in a way, which at the request of a reviewer at a previous WP:PW PPV FA (which has since passed). It was done to take the article out of universe. Many project members feel that it's unnecessary, but other FA reviews stated it was needed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying its bad. I'm just saying there just needs to be a "see also" template at the top of the section with a larger page on the background of professional wrestling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to a Featured Professional Wrestling Article, I actually like that idea.--

X 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Good idea. A great compromise between "overexplain it" and "just link it to professional wrestling. Should make both sides happy. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --LAX 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by User:Dweller

• "wrestlers and other talent" What other talent? Not mentioned in rest of article, that I can see. Was there a warm-up act or something that wasn't wrestling? (Also, this may be a dialect thing, but "talent" sounds POV to me) --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• what on earth does "unmerciful" mean in this context? And why such a superlative positive or negative (no idea which, but presumably it's one or the other) when they only rated it 5/10? --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In English English we wouldn't say "lit it on fire". OK in US Eng? --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "preliminary match" is helpfully wikilinked. "primary preliminary match" is not and comes across as tautologous. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other talent would mean commentatators, ring announcers and on-screen authority figures as well as referees. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nine professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card, which were planned with predetermined outcomes by WWE's script writers." The subject of the sentence is the (passive) card, so was planned would be better, but even better if you make it active. You need to cite the script writers/predetermined.
• "a storyline expansion in which WWE assigned its employees" presumably it's "to which" but even then I don't understand what you mean
• first mention of Batista uses his nickname, which is informal --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Randy faced off against Undertaker" Doesn't he need a definite article each time? --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I very much doubt any druids were there. Perhaps actors dressed as...

It looks like a well-written, well-researched article that could seriously do with a third party copyedit from someone like me who knows nothing about wrestling.

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 User:Karanacs 18:04, 29 September 2008 [7].

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone many changes since its elevation to GA status and has completed a peer review. Serendi^podous 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - While the article is nice, it doesn't really explain enough or in some way draw together the broad context of legal actions around the author, publisher, movie producers, and assorted others. If there is such a thing (might be to OR'y). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on how to do that would be appreciated. Serendi^podous 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I don't know. I havn't had time to think through what would help, and not be a big OR summary. I would not characterize my comment as an opppose though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates were messy; I've audited, but didn't fix the MoS breach in "the" 12 September. Tony (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All three non-free images have very weak rationales. In fact, none of them seems to meet
  gr 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In the case of Rah and the Muggles and Walk Up To Dragon, the subsections are also the main articles for those books, so the images are there to illustrate the books themselves as well as their legal relation to Harry Potter. Serendi^podous 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't articles about the books, they're subsections of an article about legal disputes over Harry Potter. —

gr 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Since both are out of print, no one is ever going to be able to verify any plot details or similar about those books, so their legal relation to Harry Potter is all that can be reliably mentioned about them. Serendi^podous 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the argument "They'll never have articles of their own, so we get to use the cover images in this article instead" doesn't hold water. The images don't contribute significantly to readers' understanding of this article. —

gr 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK then. But I don't want anyone coming along and saying that this article needs an image in it. Serendi^podous 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image check... wait, what, there are no images! Could some be found? Also, what makes the following sites reliable:
  • World Socialist Web Site, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, authorslawyer, Mike Geist, Ocheps.uk, Briffa, AFP, RDR Books, JSsecurity, and The Book Seller?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them unreliable? As for images... *sigh*. Serendi^podous 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a clear case that while images could be used at times, they would require non-frees with tenacious rationales, and thus not really strong candidates (as noted above, the book images really do not qualify as well, unless the issue was really about the cover itself, which it isn't). The only place that I can see free images being used is pictures of Nancy Stouffer, Claire Field, Dmitri Yemets, or the float from the Hindu celebration; the first three are just really extras and are not needed to fully understand the article, and barring existing images, the last one is impossible to reproduce. Barring all that, if there is some (non-free) political cartoon or something akin that images how aggressive the Potter laywers are towards copyvios as to wrap up the whole article, that could be allowable (I do not know of one off hand). This is a clear case where the extent of getting images cannot realistically be expected nor to help the article's comprehensiveness without weighting down non-free use, so the lack of images are fine with me. --MASEM 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible images from Wikimedia Commons: Image:Harry Potter 7 boxes.JPG or Image:Harry Potter VI boxes.jpg (the Legal Injunctions section). There's also Image:Harry Potter OotP Amazon box.jpg, an Amazon.com box saying "Deliver on June 21". Image:Jk-rowling-crop.JPG is the only good pic of J. K. on Comm. Also, you could put Image:Ebayheadquarters cropped.jpg in the eBay section if you want, I'm not sure if it'd be relevant tho. Similarly, Image:ASDA Gosforth.jpg could be used the last section if you thought it appropriate.Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDR Books is the defendant in one of the lawsuits. Why would their site be considered somehow an unreliable source for their opinion? The Bookseller is the most established publishing trade magazine in the UK. AFP is the third largest news agency in the world after Associated Press and Reuters.

That clears all but AuthorsLawyer, then. I suggest contacting the webmaster/sniffing around to see if it could meet

WP:SPS. The current images meet c3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

How do I do that? Send an email saying, "Um, excuse me, some guy on Wikipedia says you're not a reliable source. Could you provide me with proof that you are?" Serendi^podous 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this source at first when I went through the article. It looks like a blog. Generally, there are a few things that can prove that a self-published source meets WP's reliability criteria: a) has it been referenced or used as a source by a magazine/newspaper/journal? b) is the author a recognized expert in the field? Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't find anything. So you should withdraw the nomination. Because there is simply no way I can write objectively about the Stouffer case without referring to the court's decision, and the only way I can refer to the court's decision is through one of the transcriptions online. And online transcriptions of the court's decision are only available from "unreliable" sources. Serendi^podous 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the webmaster of that site, asking how to source the original document. I don't know what else to do. Serendi^podous 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He emailed me back. Gave me the primary reference. Swapped it. Serendi^podous 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• In the Claire field section, IMO the word "threatening" used to describe WB's letters is POV. It doesn't appear in the ref you cited for it. May I suggest removing the word. Picky picky :P
• What is the outcome of the Preventive Maintenance Monthly case? I'm assuming nothing came of it; if so, please state that in the article.
• In the Wyrd Sister section, you say that the group claimed to plan to appeal. Did they ever? If they did/didn't, it should be stated.
• Also in Wyrd Sister, I don't understand why the group took action against the guy from Pulp and the people from Radiohead. Please elaborate. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "threatening." Also found the resolution to the PMM case. I located a quote from the band's lawyer that explained their reasons for suing Pulp; not sure about the source though. Can't find what happened after; unfortunately, when you're looking through the internet you're generally reliant on media sites, and when things get boring the media up sticks and move on without bothering to do any followup. Same thing happened with the eBay case. Haven't been able to resolve that one either. Serendi^podous 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly,

• Support. Everything looks good now. I changed some of the wording in the Wyrd Sisters section. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support by karanacs. All the issues below have been corrected. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. Overall, I thought the article was remarkably comprehensive and very well-written. There are a few minor things that should be fixed, however, then I'll be happy to support.[reply]
  • I think you probably need a source for this: "When the actual novel Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in 2003, interest in the unauthorised book quickly faded."
  • "China's Legal Times " - is that a newspaper or magazine? If so, it should be in italics
  • "It is estimated that there are fifteen million fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China today" - can you put a date on the "today"? Is that "as of 2008, as of 2007..."?
  • The references are not all formatted the same way.
    • For example, in the first three references, number 1 (Potter author zaps court rival) is formatted the same as 3 (Fake Harry Potter novel hits China), but number 2 (Rowling seeks "Grotter" ban) is formatted differently.
    • Ref 16 (Ottenheimer closing down) is also not formatted consistent with the others

Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, I think. Serendi^podous 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Hey Serendi, long time no see :)! Comprehensive, seems pretty good. —
  | Speak 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]