Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2006

• • • Done with "Malayali". 1) He is considered as an incarnation and worshipped in
      Works of Adi Shankara, linked from the relevant section of this article. 3) Well regarding the non-english terms, Adi Shankara's works are in Sanskrit. Frankly the English terms are just vague meanings. So it may be better if we give the actual terms he uses. 4) (Vṛṣācala) is given as "Vrishachala" in Tapasyananda's referenced book. I'll remove the IAST for now until I can confirm it. P.S. Your signature is making weird spaces appear on this page. Could you possibly shorten it? :) ^Babub→Talk 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Support - All my concerns have been met.--thunderboltz 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support per last nom. Rama's arrow 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but only because I don't think WP copyright policy is officially met until a copy of the copyright release is sent to Wikipedia as well as the author who requested it. I think the image page must reflect this. Bureaucracy but needed. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) OK, opposition withdrawn. I assume this should go thru with no problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify how to send a copy to Wikipedia? Is it ok if the copy of the mail (stating the copyright/photo use permission) is displayed in a user subpage?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor is requesting to follow this policy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've forwarded the email to the PR dept per the above policy. ^Babub→Talk 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Darkblue Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per who? Lol, thats HTML code. :) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update per Babub. Lol that was funny.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Cribananda 05:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Pacific hurricane season

This is a self-nomination on behalf of

• Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ForestH2 t/c 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely laid out. Terri G 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (leaning toward object): 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is superior to this, in both content and layout. There's more analysis, for one thing—economic impact, damages, etc. Granted, there's a big difference between the two seasons (that's why this isn't an object at the moment). For example, Marty hit a month after Ignacio; was cleanup already complete, or were problems exacerbated? Is the problem here that there isn't as much information available? As for layout, I much prefer 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, as it reads more like a typical encyclopedia article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tropical Storm Hilda (2003)). That in turn calls into the question the need for an impact section, as it would add little new and would be repetition. Information is very hard to come by for Mexican storms for some reason :( --Nilfanion (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Do you have access to Spanish-language sources? I imagine that Mexican newspapers would cover the effects of the storms in significant detail, but I'm not sure how many are available online. I'll keep this as a comment and see if I can dig up some good print sources. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There really isn't much out there; I looked at what was available for Marty, and it is at most a paragraph. However, adding it all to the storm summary would overwhelm the article towards just one storm; most of the information and detail should remain on the Hurricane Marty (2003). However, some of it should be moved here—how much do you suggest? Titoxd^(?!?) 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If more isn't available for the other landfalling storms, then I wouldn't worry about adding more about Marty. There's already more on that storm in this article than any of the others. In a more perfect world we'd have about that much information on all of the land-falling storms, and would thus be able to turn the article into prose format, instead of a list-like point-by-point presentation. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds good, I'll summarize the info and add it. Now, the question is, to the Marty storm summary, or to a separate section? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The graph for the ACE section's source is different from this NHC one. For example, the one the article cites clearly shows the 1997 season as being the second most actice, while the other graph clearly shows it isn't. My best guess as to the reason for this discrepancy is the fact that the NHC graph only uses ACE in the east Pacific proper, while NCDC one also includes the central and (possibly) western Pacific. I think the article would be improved by splitting the ACE into eastern and central Pacific portions, as is done for the current season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the source of the ACE section is the 2003 TCRs. The graph is to source the claim that the season is inactive- it does that purpose. I'm not sure about how best to split EPac/CPac ACE. My opinion is the totals should be included (so each storm can be compared). Seeing how 2003 is inactive some prose about the few storms to cross 140W giving the seperate EPac and CPac ACE values for those storms would suffice.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that it is better now. Support with the disclaimer that I have worked on this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is a more indepth article than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the fourth nomination attempt, and I believe that the article meets all reasonable feature status requirements. The article's images all have been tagged properly as I have personally checked every image. --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive3

• Support as per nomination --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A took a quick glance and noticed some easy things to fix. Some images are too big, and the infobox is really wide. Change your screen resolution to 800x600 and see what you think. At low resolutions, "The 1946 NFL Championship team photo" and the infobox are really close to each other, and the picture underneath "1976-2000" takes up a significant portion of the screen. Drop that one to 250px or so. Regarding references: you know you can use the same reference more than once without retyping it? Do the following: <ref name="source">Blah Blah Blah</ref>, and then the next time you need that source, just type <ref name="source" />. Simple as that. It'll reduce the amount of text in your edit window, and will shorten the footnotes section. For example, all of the "The Honey Bears and Chicago Bears Mascots" refs will show up once. Once that's done, add more citations to the "Statistics and records" section; there's only one there and there are more numbers and details to cite. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kitch 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Corrections: As per request, the "1946 team photo" was moved down so it wouldn't interfer with the infobox. The Payton picture was dropped to 250px, the references were redone as per the helpful tip given by
  Kitch. Thank you both for your help and support. --Happyman22 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm sorry for trying to spoil (could be easily corrected) your 4th and could successful attempt on getting this article being featured. I was browsing through your photos. It is probably going to be hard to have a "free" alternative (public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons, etc.,) versions of football action, but you need to cite the authors correctly. The Walter Payton picture isn't made by the Sporting News. In fact, they credited on their website as an Associated Press photo. Anyways, good luck. --4.253.39.183 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I also wanted to add that although I don't think it is required for to be a featured article. The images probably should have "Rationale of fair use for..." on the copyright images. For example, Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg. --4.253.39.183 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, provided the fair use rationale issue is resolved. Much improved since the previous nominations. One picky comment - the Statistics and records section could do with a quick copyedit (I would do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with American football terminology). Oldelpaso 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added rationale to the Walter Payton picture and fixed the source as the AP and not Sporting News.
• Bear Down, Support! - I know how long everyone involved has work on this one, and it SHOWS! Excellent work! (And by the way, I have a copy of the Chicago Symphony Chorus performing the fight song. If I rip it to .ogg, can you use an excerpt? If interested, let me know on my talk page!) --JohnDBuell 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell[reply]
• Peta 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I hate to say it but she's right. More fair use rationales are needed, particularly on the logo images. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Corrections The images have more fair use rationales added to them especially the logo images. I believe that enough rationale to each image. --Happyman22 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would have perhaps phrased the rationales a bit more like those in Image:Superbowlshuffle.jpg, but it is an improvement. --JohnDBuell 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Continued Support: I Supported thsi article the last time around and all of my concerns were adressed last time around. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stephen Colbert might tell you otherwise. ♠ SG →Talk 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, a solid article.--Riurik 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support while I would get rid of the duplicate logo in the logos section, the objection from me, which led to pile-on the last FAC has been resolved.
  ^{wat's sup} 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Captions to photos and illustrations need to be regularized. Should all be lower-cased without random capitalization. Moncrief 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles

After the first failed nomination (

• Strong support. This is an outstanding article! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like the combined use of Cite.php and the conventional reference label approach to separate footnotes and references. However, just scanning, I did find what looked like the work of a gremlin ("literary" was misspelt "literally"). Does anyone have time to independently copyedit this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was obviously a typo. Although I've gone through the article again and again for such typos, it is inevitable to miss something.--Yannismarou 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been twice copy-edited during this candidacy from Robth and Konstable. I hope these copy-edits are sufficient.--Yannismarou 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rlevse 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done, --Riurik 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all the issues from the previous nomination and the various peer reviews look to have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a great read! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The timeline is too wide and takes a lot of space. Could you fix it? CG 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought to hide the timeline with a navbar and remove it to "See also section", as Kirill had proposed in a previous peer-review. Do you thing that's better? If you think so, listen to that: The problem is that I probably do something wrong with the navbar and, when I do hide the timeline (replacing: div class="NavContent" style="display:none"; font-size:normal; style=text-align:center" with: div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"), I then have to hit twice on "hide" (and not on "show") in order to see the timeline. That is why I haven't yet made the edit. What I may do wrong? Am I typing something wrong?--Yannismarou 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Object. This is tremendously well researched, and that alone almost brings me to support it. There are, however, a variety of problems that need to be addressed here. A list of issues I spotted follows; in several cases, I've just picked out examples of things that need to be fixed throughout:
  1. Odd cause-effect statements. From the lead: "Eager to reinforce Athenian intellectual prowess, he prompted an ambitious building project"; I don't understand how Pericles's desire to "reinforce intellectual prowess" led to the public works program, which is most commonly cited as an example of a progam intended to boost civic pride and increase employment. Several of Pericles's actions are attributed to his intrinsic characteristics, which strikes me as a little overly speculative. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the cause-effect statements in the article are accurately describing the relationship in question.
  2. Balance of historical opinions: The arguments of critics of Athenian democracy is well presented, particularly in the case of Paparrigopoulos. There is, however, an equally active body of historians defending the Athenian radical democracy and its creators; Donald Kagan, used here as a source, certainly ranks high among that group, and others can be found easily.
  3. Accuracy issues: Some of these are just omissions of relevant events. The Peace of Callias, for instance, ambiguous and tricky issue though it is, should be discussed; the events in the Aegean in the late 450s (revolts in the empire, the Egyptian disaster, etc.) Pericles's leadership during the turmoilsome period from the Athenian defeat in Egypt to the mid 440s seems to have played a critical role in the establishment of the Athenian Empire as it existed in the 430s, so a fuller discussion of the events of that period seems appropriate.

About the peace of Callias a few comments: We do not even know if it really existed. Wade-Gray is the first historian of our century who believed in its existence and Badian has published a study as well. But most researchers do not recognize it. And if it existed indeed what was Pericles' role? Why have no clue! All I can write is mere speculations and Badian's hypothesis that Pericles broke the Peace in 450, although it was agreed in 463. You're right about the Egyptian disaster. It is a serious omission. My only fear is that the article is becoming gigantic! More and more and more information. I'll try to do my best.--Yannismarou 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. I'm also puzzled by the claim that "Even after fining him, the Athenians remained true to the Periclean strategy and did not depart from it until long after his death."; this would be an unusual assessment of Athenian strategy in the 428-425 period, which was marked by the rise of aggressive leaders who broke with Pericles's strategy in a number of cases.

These aggressive leaders did not radically alter the Periclean Grand Strategy and they avoided over-extension. That is what Platias-Coliopoulos point out. This happened later after 415 BC. I quote from Platias-Coliopoulos:"It therefore becomes evident that the Atheniasn lost the war only when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitely disdained further conquests". And I quote from C. Gray: "For Sparta to succeed, Athens had to be weakened by plague, had to suffer lossed in men and prestige in the expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) and ... then had to commit major errors in lack of vigilance in the naval campaign for control of the Dardanelles". Hence, the emphasis is in the period after 415 BC. After all, until the end of the Archidamian War Athens had the upper hand. Some modifications of the Periclean Strategy until then donot constitute a radical change. The Athenians did not attempt conquests in foreign countries, for istance. I think this is a weel-argued a citated claim, based on researchers' argumentations and I donot see why it is unusual or why it should be changed.--Yannismarou 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Language. Odd and awkward word choice at a number of points: "an ambivalent symbolism", "defalcation", "Thucydides predicates that..." and a number of other odd word or phrasing choices are scattered throughout. Awkward or incorrect word order is also a significant issue. Someone needs to go through this and pick all these out.

So that's what jumps out at me. This is very good as a whole, and I'm confident that these issues can be addressed. --Robth^Talk 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Robth. I've already made some comments on Robth's remarks. After having implemented some of his suggestions, I'd like to give a more thorough answer point by point:
  1. You mention the cause-effect statement of the lead; hence I'll comment on that. I donot know what other speculative statements you find, but I donot think I attribute Pericles' actions to his intrinsic characteristics. As far as the lead is concerned, I rephrased and citated it, although I'm not absolutely right with you. Pericles did not promote art only for the reasons you mention. There was a real interest to further reinforce the intellectual brilliance of his city.
  2. I added Kagan's comments concernig Pericles' reforms and also Samons' reasoning for his actions. I want just to point out that, even as it was, the comments were not one-sided. One paragraph was devoted to Pericles' arguments and one to Cimon's (-oligarchs') point of view. Paparrigopoulos is critical towards Pericles only there. Hence, only two sentences ("According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, since Athens, after Pericles' death, sunk in the abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression descended upon the city, whose glory perished due to the anterior populist policies of Pericles.") consist a criticism of Pericles on behalf of Paparrigopoulos. All his other comments give an explanation of his actions, just like Samons. Anyway, I hope the relevant section seems now more balanced. I also mentioned Kagan's belief that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.I just want to mention that during the previous nomination I faced the opposite criticism: That I am POV in favor of Pericles! I feel confused!
     • It's sometimes possible to overcompensate and present too much of an opposing view while trying to achieve balance; in any event, the current presentation strikes me as well balanced, so this issue appears to be resolved. Thanks for clearing that up. --Robth^Talk
  3. I've said a few things about the peace of Callias. I just want to insist on the fact that we donot even now if such a thing existed and what was Pericles role. Grote, Wade-Gery, Gomme, Badian say it existed. Vlachos, Walker, Wilamowitz, Pohlman, Mayer and Schwartz say it did not exist! Ancient writers contemporary to Pericles do not mention it. Isocrates mentions it but Demosthenes doubts about it! Where is the historical reality?! We donot know! Anyway, I mentioned Badian's disputed claims and his reference to Pericles and I also mentioned Kagan's claim that Pericles used Callias as a symbol of Athenian unity.
     I also mentioned (in the section "First Peloponnesian War") the Egyptian disaster and its result as well as the debated role of Pericles. Kagan and Aird believe that Pericles initiated the excursion both in Cyprus and Egypt, while Beloch hold Cimon responsible for both decisions. In the section "Military achievements" I added Kagan's belief that Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary expeditions during the Peloponnesian War may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he allegedly had supported. Thereby, I connect the devestation in Egypt with the later policies of Pericles.
     During the late 450s I do not have in mind any important revolt in the League. The revolts in Euboea, Thebes, Samos and Byzantium are all mentioned. I am not aware of any other arousal in the Aegean against the Athenians during this period. After all, I created an article about the First Peloponnesian War and all the events of this war are in detail mentioned there. I think Pericles' role is adequately developped and more details will harm the whole article. I also added (in section "Prelude of the Wr") Ehrenberg's opinion that another fact that may well have influenced Pericles' stance just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War was the fear that revolts in the empire might spread if Athens showed herself weak. The coinage decree is also mentiones and, hence, I think there is a clear image of the Athenian empire in the 430s.
     I also clarified the events concerning the revolt of Byzantium and the Pontic Excursion (Section "Samian War"). I think that the wording is also better now.
     • You're quite right about the doubts about the Peace of Callias, but its massive significance if it did exist would seem to me to justify mentioning the possibility. Events of this time period are all but impossible to pin down, and it's best to just acknowledge that. I would mention the possibility of the peace, note that there are scholars on both sides of the question of its existence, and devote a sentence or two to explaining how it would fit in to the overall picture of this period.

     As far as revolts in the empire, I was referring to the revolts of Miletus and Erythrae in 454/3, which continued down to 452/1 or thereabouts. These aren't mentioned in the ancient sources, but have been established based on fragmentary inscriptions and the Athenian tribute-quota lists. These, along with the Egyptian disaster, have been cited as possible pretexts for withdrawing the treasury from Delos, and should probably be mentioned. Keeping the article short is a good goal, but it's important not to omit significant details of this critical period of Pericles's leadership.

     The treatment of this period is coming along, but it isn't quite there yet. The magnitude of the Egyptian disaster is far from clear in the current text, and the crisis of the empire in the early 440s isn't readily apparent. --Robth^Talk

  4. I've already explained why I regard Platias-Coliopoulos' position as basically correct. Nevertheless, I made clear that this is their opinion and I also referenced the altera pars, stating Ehrenberg's remark that the Athenians engaged in several aggressive actions soon after Pericles' death. I hope that now this topic is clarified.
     • That looks good now; my opinions on the subject have been largely shaped by Kagan, who considers the Aetolian campaign and Pylos/Sphacteria to be departures from the Periclean strategy, so I was initially surprised to see that statement; but, as I said, looks good now.
  5. I rephrased all the mentioned "awkward word choice". "Defalcation" was really wrong-"embezzlement" or "misappropriation" are the right legal terms. I also tried to make better a few other points in terms of prose. I hope it's now better!

I hope I have resolved most of the things that obliged Robth to Reluctantly Object. I hope he can now, at least, Reluctantly support! - I'm just kidding!--Yannismarou 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not quite ready to support, as my interspersed comments above indicate. I still have some qualms about the prose, but this may be a classic case of {{sofixit}}; I think I'll have time to copyedit it myself tonight. This is definitely coming along, so keep up the good work. --Robth^Talk 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK! In terms of content I think I now fully understand your concerns. These are my comments:

1. I made clear Athens' disaster in Egypt and citated these remarks( Section:"First Peloponnesian War"). I also mentioned the possible connection of this defeat with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I think this topic is covered now.

2. I mentioned and citated the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae. I subsequently emphasized on the turmoil in the empire after the defeat in Egypt and the tension in the Aegean, using Kagan and Sealey as a source. I also mentioned the possible connection of these revolts with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I hope that this topic is also covered now.

3. As far as the prose is concerned, I'd just like to mention that most users agree that the article is "outstanding" and "a great read". My point is that I believe we've already achieved a very good level of prose. Nevertheless, I donot argue that I'm infallible and, hence, I'm sure that your contribution in terms of prose improvements would be valuable; especially, from a person who has already nominated 3 FA, among which one of my favorites and a source of inspiration, Epaminondas. After all, I think that it would be better for the arrticle to attempt these minor additional improvements instead of turning it down as a FA. That is why I feel convinced that you will indeed choose the first solution and you'll make the prose improvements you regard as necessary, so as to express your support.--Yannismarou 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just gave the article a run-through, focusing mostly on prose issues but also clarifying a few things and tweaking the presentation of the First Peloponnesian War a bit. This was a very good article at the start of this review and has improved even further during the review; I'm very pleased to give it my enthusiastic support. Superb work. --Robth^Talk 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, pal!--Yannismarou 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article. --
  mav 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strongly ObjectSupport While quoting from Thucydides' orations is a neat idea, they should not be described as Pericles' without qualification. Septentrionalis 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • English usage should be followed in the use of names; for example, Josiah Ober should be spelled out.
  • Similarly, Areopagus should be so spelled; this is the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should the quotes be described? Your proposition? I describe them as Pericles', but in parenthesis I point out that they come from Thucydides' work. After all, the whole story about the authorship of Pericles' orations in Thucydides is described in the section "Oratorical Skill".

Thanks a lot for informing me this is the English Wikipedia. This was a valuable information. Realising that I may avoid exile to the Βικιπαιδεία. In the article Areopagus of the English Wikipedia, first line, it says Areopagus or Areios Pagos. Isn't this the English Wikipedia as well?

I'll correct the names and

Areios Pagos as well (which redirects to Areopagus

by the way) tomorrow morning. But are these issues so important to justify an absolute objection with no further qualification of the article?! I'm astonished. I respect the well-grounded and creative criticism, like this of Robth, but this one no!

Anyway ... As far as the quotes are concerned? What exactly would satisfy you?--Yannismarou 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had an obvious solution, I might have imposed it. The present text is actively misleading. Perhaps you should unwind a little and let other people think on it; and do read

WP:OWN. I'm sure this will be a featured article; it's not quite there yet. Septentrionalis 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have implemented a possible solution to the attribution issue, and have changed Areios Pagos to Areopagus (Sepentrionalis is right that this the common English usage). Does this way of solving the attribution problem look good to everyone? --Robth^Talk 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis,

Konstable 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding Septentrionalis' issue with "spelling out" names, I have went through them all and have expanded first names in all the first time a person is cited, and just left last names for any subsequent citations of the same person. What do you think of that?--

Konstable 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I tried to further clarify the attribution issue, by rephrasing the ends of the quotes like that: "Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)". Is Robth and everybody else happy with this suggestion? By the way, what Robth and Konstable did, it could easily be done by

WP:OWN. Now I suggest you also read {{sofixit

}}. I strongly believe that all the concerns of Septentrionalis mentioned are now addressed:

1. The quotes of Thucydides are described as Pericles' with qualification: A further note is added by Robth in all the quotes and clarifies that "Thucydides records several speeches which he attributes to Pericles; whether the exact words are Pericles' is uncertain." Robth and I rephrased the end of the quotes as I already mentioned ("Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)"). This solution conforms also with the title of the Wikipedia article about the Funeral Oration, which is

Pericles' Funeral Oration

.

2.

Areios Pagos is replaced by Areopagus

by Robth.

3. Konstable did all the spelling out of all the names throughout the article.

Thereby, unless Septentrionalis is going to make some other suggestions then his objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "record" in this context is an improvement, but it is still misleading; Thucydides himself disclaims the stenographic accuracy which this will suggest to a modern reader. (

Pericles' Funeral Oration is English usage, even by those authors who argue that it is not Pericles' words, and that Thucydides indulged his habit of making the speakers say what was in his opinion demanded of them by the various occasions even more than usual to make the case for the war. Isn't Kagan one of these?) But I think in the interval I have come up with a solution. Septentrionalis 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The article, especially the notes, could still use a thorough proof-read. I think I know what note β means to say about Agariste, for example; but I'd be guessing. I corrected note δ, which ascribed a statement from Plutarch to Aristotle. This sort of thing should be fixed before articles are brought here; however, I would not be dealing with this sort of thing if the article had major flaws. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be unfair! Most things were fixed before the article was brought here! And you should recognize that! I think the meaning of the note β is clear for the common mind and well-citated. The note you say is not ascribing a statement of Plutarch to Aristotle. The first ref concerning Aristotle was just transferred to the end of the sentence so that it does not interrupt the reader. The ref of Plutarch comes exactly to the next sentence. Thus, checking both refs the reader does not get confused and learns what both writers exactly say. I'm happy however you decided to contribute! Keep up the good work, pal!--Yannismarou 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm, and attacking the people who are trying to improve the article, is not helpful. The note reads: "β. According to Plutarch, Agariste was Cleisthenes' granddaughter, but she was his niece, rather. " [1]"; This is not English; and this article will not be our best work until it is written in the language of this Wikipedia. Nor should the reader have to click on references to see what the article has failed to say. Septentrionalis 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not say that! I have changed the wording long before you made this comment. I don't see it as making any sense on your part to quote old versions of the article and changing your comment from "Object" to "Strongly Object" after everything you have pointed out has been tended to. If you want a personal qualm with Yannismarou, go ahead and have it, but the article is not Yannismarou's regarding on what you may think. I have put a lot work into it too, so have some others. If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out.--

Konstable 06:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support I would, however, like to see the Legacy subsection expanded somewhat.UberCryxic 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enriched a bit this section with a few more assessments. But I wouldn't like to overexpand it. I think that it is OK as a closure of the article.--Yannismarou 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment people will probably yell at me but... there are too many references cited inline. The text is almost unreadable because there are so many. Can they be moved to the end of sentences where possible. Its^[1] tough^[1] to^[1] read^[1] when^[1] they^[1] are^[1] everywhere.^[1] -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am concerned, I'll not yell at you! You're right! I'll move the refs at the end of the sentences wherever possible.--Yannismarou 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I placed almost all the refs at the end of the sentences. In the very few cases (4 or 5) I kept them within the sentence, I thought this was necessary for the accuracy of the article and the right emphasis. By the way I thought Christine for your baby!--Yannismarou 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is so much better, way more readable. I added your entry name to the list, Thanks! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh and... Support Nice article. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Much improved since the last nomination. Well done. My one quibble is with the timeline at the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's customary to list events on timelines in the present tense; all those present participles are throwing me off. Other than that, great job. The Disco King 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow. Mithridates 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a good article; with some polishing, it could be a great one. I seriously regret seeing Yannismarou react to suggestions that it needs that polishing with defensiveness and claims that his vast improvements are being ignored. I don't know how much the article has improved; I haven't seen it before.

Remember, the purpose of this department is to put articles on the Main Page, where they will seen by people who have never seen Wikipedia before, and don't know or care who did what. They will judge the article they see as a finished product, and compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's.

• I donot speak about my improvements. I speak about the improvements made by me, Konstable, Robth and Wandalstouring. It is not your obligation to have seen the article before the nomination. But you're definitely obliged to watch all the improvemnets done during the FA candidacy. Something you're obviously not doing. Otherwise, you'd have seen, for instance, that Konstable rephrased note β according to your suggestions and you wouldn't have turned your Objection to Strong Objection.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how nervewracking this must be, but I earnestly recommend that Yannismarou take a break and walk away from Pericles. I predict that if he does, he will find the proof-reading done, and the article, with substance largely unchanged, wearing a gold star.

• Your argumentation is is lame. In order to have a proof-reading, you must point out which points need proof-reeding. By not providing such an explanation, you're contradicting yourself and you are demolishing your own arguments.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment stands, until Pericles is polished; but I may set him an example. Septentrionalis 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment:Further to what I already remarked I must point out that I wasn't sarcastic. I really was happy you contributed and I really think you did a good job, clarifying note δ. And I really want you to contribute. Sincerely, my only intention was to thank you. If my wording was wrong or misleading, please accept my apologies. But where is the sarcasm? Hence, I donot understand why you turned object to strongly object. The problem is you took it personal and because of that (misinterpeting a comment of mine that you regarded it as sarcastic) you decided to fight against this article with all your nerve.

But, pal, this is not personal! So many users contributed to this article! Opposing it, you're not opposing me, you're opposing a great job made mainly by them. Because without them this article wouldn't be GA or A-Class. Without them, this article wouldn't have 11, if I'm right, supports.

You speak again and again and again for a proof-reading. So, do it! Instead of attacking me, dedicate your time in doing it! But you'll find nothing wrong. I bet on that.

During all these months in Wikipedia, I've never insulted anybody in Wikipedia. Neither you. And the remarks which could be regarded as offensive towards you (though they weren't), I erased them as you can see. Despite that, you keep this offensive agains me, telling I must abstain. Well, I won't. I'll keep improving this article and I expect you to do the same thing, because when I say I want you to contribute, I mean it and I am not sarcastic.

After all these, I repeat what Kontsable said: All your concerns have been addressed, "If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out." Your proof-reading argument is groundless and based on no actual examples from the article.

Your vindictive and groundless strong objection cannot be typically erased. Nevertheless, unless you are going to make some other suggestions, then this strong objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I correct: 13 supports, Septentrionalis.--Yannismarou 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that Yannismarou's post was not intended as sarcasm, and remove the strongly. I will remove my objection when the article is polished; but I do not intend to do all of that myself. Septentrionalis 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you accept you'd added the strongly because you thought I was sarcastic? But I had the impression that we are evaluating articles here not the level of sarcasm of the X or the Z user! Probably I'm wrong. You tell me that "we're writing for the readers" and you are right. I tell you that we are also evaluating for the readers. The readers "compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". I donot think that sarcasm is the right criterion for the evaluation of an article. We are not adding or removing the strongly, according to the sarcasm of the X or the Z user.--Yannismarou 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time on the article. I have fixed several solecisms and one downright error. (We do not know when Pericles was born, as a note admits; to say, as the text used to,[2] that he was born in 495, is therefore wrong.) All these are minor, but Yannismarou is rash to bet there are no more; what are his stakes? Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I know for sure is that the messing up of the citations is no polishing. When I checked the article I saw you had turned a (ref name="Pl3"/) to (ref name="P13"/) for no reason and an important citation was lost because of your negligence. And since you were lecturing me that this is an English wikipedia why you placed "engonos" next to "granddaughter"? I'm Greek you know and I know that Engonos=grandson-granddaughter, so "engonos" is redundant. And one more thing; most of the polishing you did was already copy-edited by Robth. The fact that you did not like the previous version, it does not mean that it necessarily needed polishing! You have confused the personal taste with the polishing!--Yannismarou 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you demand a polishing, you must be the first one who is careful and avoids mistakes, which, by the way, I had to polish!--Yannismarou 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't telling you; articles are addressed to the readers. We're not writing for ourselves; we're writing for the readers, many of whom aren't Hellenists. I apologize for the Plutarch footnote; but wouldn't Plutarch, Pericles [[3]] be just as useful anyway? Septentrionalis 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is useful, you unintentionally removed it and I restored it. This is the story!--Yannismarou 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're writing for the readers, we are also evaluating for the readers. For instance, we are not adding or removing the strongly according to the level of sarcasm of another user! This is obviously a wrong criterion. As you told, the reader of an article "compares it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". If we want to attract him we cannot judge an article and modify our assessments based on the sarcasm of the X or the Z user. This is obviously a wrong criterion. I am afraid you want the others to write for the readers, while you donot follow the same rule, when you evaluate or reassess an evaluation of an article.--Yannismarou 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis, I have proofread the whole article several times in the past, including once yesterday when I found no errors apart from some minor one-word grammatical mistakes. Apart from me and Yannismarou who haven't voted on this page, there are 13 other people here - all who have read critically through this article. You yourself admitedly don't see any errors right now, and the one you found and corrected was a minor omission that was clarified in a note anyway. Then there are the people who have been working on this article over the past week - me, Yannismarou, Druworos, Wandalstouring, and a whole bunch of minor editors. How is it even possible to get even more people to review this article? What reason do you have to think that there are more errors serious enough that this does not qualify as a featured article, when so many people have read through this article and either found no errors, or minor errors that have been fixed?--

Konstable 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You are wrong; we now have 16 supports.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Telex 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some P. Erson 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly better than many of the current FA selections. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I've adapted this article's use of quote boxes into the FA Joan of Arc. The editors of this article should feel proud of their work. Durova 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your nice words. I also feel obliged to thank you on behalf of Druworos, Konstable and Robth who have done such a great work for this article during the past months.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Kyriakos 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've been reluctant to speak so far because of my minor contributions to this article. I'm not about to stand here and say it doesnt have minor language issues. Yannismarou is not a native speaker, and neither am I at that. But I'd like to urge anyone that feels confident enough with the English language to go in there and fix them, rather than complain about it. I'd do that myself (in fact I did for the first couple of paragraphs a few days ago), but I simply dont have the time to deal with the enormity that this article has become. And dont feel bitter towards Yannismarou if he gets a bit defensive. He has put so much work in to this, he should be entitled to sign his name under it. Druworos 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Druworos, Konstable and Robth (and Septentrionalis as well-he also contributed) are native English speakers, they went in and fixed any remaining issues and I think the article has no minor language issues now.--Yannismarou 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given this another copyediting run-through, and cleaned up a number of small errors, particularly in the last few sections, that I'd missed on my first go-round. I also implemented a slightly different solution to the Pericles-Thucydides-attribution issue, since I don't believe that had been resolved just yet. Do these changes address all the concerns raised? --Robth^Talk 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave the article another detailed proof-reading according to Septentrionalis' suggestion and I clarified a series of issues:

1. I clarified: a) the circumstances under which the Samian War took place, b) the circumstunces under which Cimon returned to Athens in 451 BC and the assessments of modern scholars, which contradict Plutarch's biography.

2. I added: a) the assessments of modern scholars concerning the rivalry Cimon-Pericles, which contradict Aristotle, b) more inline citations in slightly under-citated parts of the article ("Samian War", "First Peloponnesian War", "First year of the war (431 BC)", "Last military operations and death", c) more references.

After this proof-reading and since Robth has copy-edited once again and has taken care of all the minor language issues, I hope that Septentrionalis' concerns are finally addressed.--Yannismarou 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Yannismarou's comments on my talk page; [4] and I think my comments are duly addressed. Thank you. Septentrionalis 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and strongly recommend closure. This is a great article, which has passed an exhausting review. All issues have been addressed. :NikoSilver: 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support My issues have already been solved. Wandalstouring 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having re-read the article and fixed any language issues I could find, I can safely say that the single thing I can think of that may have made this article unfit for FA has been adressed. Druworos 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, quite heartedly too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everton F.C.

After putting a lot of work into the article I put it up for

• Support whilst reading it yesterday I noted that it was to a very high standard, and fully deserves FA status Kingfisherswift 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as a non-native speaker of English, I can't really comment on the grammar, but otherwise, in terms of layout, lenght of sections, information included, referencing and other stuff, this deserves to be a Featured Article. – Elisson • Talk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Riurik 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  • Referencing is a little flaky and inconsistent, should really use work= parameter throughout.
  • Couple of citations needed to be added by the looks of things.
  • This is the most serious objection: Needs more GFDL-licensed images. The Fair Use rationale for the Goodison Park image is probably not OK as it is possible to provide a freely-licensed photo of the stadium as contributors to Arsenal F.C. and Manchester City F.C. have done. Additionally, one of the team in action or on the pitch would be useful as well - it is worth searching for Creative Commons-licensed works, or taking some pictures yourself at the next home game you go to.
  • No criteria given for inclusion in the bulleted list of notable players. If it is not possible to agree on one, then just remove it and provide a link to the main list article. The greatest-ever XI can stay though.
  • Navbox at the bottom looks a little wrong with that trailing vertical bar on the first line. Qwghlm 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have read the above points and have made relevant edits to address them. SenorKristobbal 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my objections have been resolved, so changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article has transformed in recent weeks, and is now worthy of FA status. Oldelpaso 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - Looks good. Two things I would say. Firstly, this comment - "Everton's second main rival is Manchester United. Recently crowd trouble has marred games." needs a citation. I've never heard of any particular rivalry between Everton and United fans. I'd also perhaps suggest putting the list of managers back in the main article. The size of the article wouldn't be increased in any great amount and most clubs pages have that sort of information on their main page. HornetMike 23:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Manchester United passage you cite has been reverted due to being unreferenced. (I would be very surprised if anybody could find a credible source to support the edits made by 80.195.92.192) ⁂veila# 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Can't put the whole list of managers back. Manchester City F.C. doesn't have a full list of managers and they were recently featured. The list was cut down after comments in a peer review so putting it back would be ignoring it. There is an obvious link to the managers page so its easy to see all the manager information a reader would want. SenorKristobbal 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well written, concise and easy to read. Looks 'neat' - well laid out. Cas Liber 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text===

• Support nowRlevse 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Minor object footnotes go immediately after puntcuation with no space in between, not in the middle of the sentence.Rlevse 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Way too many pictures. Rama's arrow 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the two gratuitous images in the Notes section. The rest seem to all be useful in illustrating the article, and it doesn't feel crowded (just colorful). —Cuiviénen 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was closely following the article's peer review. I also read the article in its entirety before voting here (copyediting alongside) and feel that it meets the FA criteria though it could use some copyediting help from native speakers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the "Notes" section may have pictures, becoz there is no clashing text to pay attention to. There is a need to remove pictures from the main body of text - they are brilliant pictures, but they have a clustering effect with the text, which kills their appeal to an extent. You better leave the pictures to be displayed on Commons. I also agree with Sundar that there is a need for more copyediting - grammatical errors, poor sentences need fixing - please see user:Tony1's copyediting guide. Nevertheless, I think its pretty much ready for FA status. Support Rama's arrow 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - I've moved two of the pictures to the "Notes" section. The text has also been peped-up a bit.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A detailed city map of Kochin might be something that can be added to the article as one becomes available. AreJay 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do as soon as a free one becomes available.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article is close to FA. I would like some clarification on 2 points. In the demographics section - "Kochi is considered the safest city in India for women" - Is there any other reference than the one cited? A source giving actual data showing Kochi to be the "safest in India" would help. In the educaton section - are you sure that education there follows 10+2+3 followed by enrollment in general or professional degree programmes. That is not the case in the rest of India where it is just 10+2 followed with degree programmes. Please double check on that. -
  review me) 07:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update-I've clarified the same in the article now. Please check.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have had another read through the article. Both my points are adressed now. -

review me) 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Larrys Creek

Larrys Creek has been rated as a

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Larrys Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nowRlevse 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Object See if the name section can be expanded. Also, while a few footnotes in the intro are okay, this has too many-it's distracting. Since the intro is supposed to be a summary, it can be written so no notes are required in it. Work on this and I'll look at again. You may want to consider adding something on its pollution history/status too. Good start, though.Rlevse 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks for the helpful critique. Per your comments, I have expanded the name section, removed all footnotes from the lead section (and I believe corrected all errors resulting from cutting and pasting the references), and made a new subsection on "Water quality and pollution" incorporating some material already in the article and adding one reference. I also added the list of tributaries recommended by the Rivers WikiProject. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. although I would like to see the color in the tributary map changed. The color for Larrys Creek is described as orange but appears quite brown, especially in the small size image displayed inline. Rmhermen 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color adjusted slightly. Kmusser 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment and thanks for fixing the color. I think the fact that it is orange with a blue line through it makes it look muddier / browner, especially on a small scale. Ruhrfisch 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 33 pin-citations. Plenty of pictures, ALL either PD or GNU-FDL. Belongs on the Wiki 1.0 CD, too. --M@rēino 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I found the article well-written and informative. --evrik 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the best stream/river articles I've seen, amazing! Pfly 16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Note: I have a small conflict of interest in that I supplied information for the "paper railroads" section. Regardless, this is a stunningly comprehensive and well-referenced article and deserves wider attention. Choess 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great work. Kmusser 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, ditto-ing what others have said. Perhaps a hair over-wikified, but nothing too problematic.
  Talk?) 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support -- comprehensive, interesting, and informative. Do you have a source for more information about the covered bridge? Since it's on the National Register of Historic Places, I think we should have an article on it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have four sources of information about the bridge, three are cited. The best is "Landis, Milton W. (October 1966). "The Larrys Creek Covered Bridge in Cogan House Township". Now and Then (The Journal of the Muncy, Pennsylvania Historical Society). XV (5): 258." which gives almost everything but the rehabilitation and National Register Information. It has much more information about the bridge, details of construction, etc. The online Covered Bridges page gives the basic data and rehab date: "Kane, Trish. "Pennsylvania - Lycoming County Covered Bridges".". The third source is a photo I took of the plaque the Lycoming County Commissioners erected when the bridge was rehabbed - it is the source for the National Register (and the photo is not on Wikipedia or explicitly cited). Here is a link to a list of Lycoming County NRHP sites, it is listed under "Cogan House Covered Bridge": [5]. The fourth source is Meginness (article ref #1), who mentions the bridge and it surviving the 1889 flood (which also wiped out Johnstown, PA - should I mention that in the article?). I would have to go back to a library that has the issue of "Now and Then" to get more details, but I could write a brief article on the bridge (I have other pictures of the bridge too - they would be GFDL). I am fairly busy now, so it could take a while. Ruhrfisch 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Camper

Self-nomination. This is

New Carissa

Article has been extensively copyedited in past several days, plus some new information added. Article is otherwise stable, is a GA, and has undergone a peer review. Comments were attended to, most of them minor. --EngineerScotty 22:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all pictures are public domain and illustrate the article well. EngineerScotty has put a ton of work in, and he and I have made every effort to meet or exceed FA criteria. -Big Smooth 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please note that this is a self-nomination. -Big Smooth 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for failing to note that. --EngineerScotty 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as I would like to have learned more about this ship's history/crew/endeavors prior to its wrecking. As the article stands, I'd be inclined to support its FA if the subject was the crash and not the ship itself. I do understand, of course, that the crash's notability may be higher than that of the ship itself, especially if you are from the United States. I don't think it is reasonable for 75% of the article to address the ship prior to wreckage, but perhaps 5 to 10% would be more appropriate—only the infobox right now speaks of information independant of the crash. BigNate37_(T) 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added section about vessel, and a bit about the crew. Before the wreck, of course, this was an anonymous freighter that nobody outside of the shipping business knew about; and wouldn't be notable if it weren't for the wreck. I'm willing to support a move to a better title, though I'd point out that there are other articles on shipwrecks which take the name of the ship. --EngineerScotty 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the additions about the pre-wrecked vessel and readily concede that the ship lacked encyclopedic notability before the crash. I would like to ask whether the use of the word tonnage is intended this way; perhaps you meant displacement? Also, you refer to tons but the other units you express are SI; are these tonnes, imperial tons, U.S. customary tons? I'm afraid I'm not familiar at all with non-SI units. Oh, and upon further reading I see many different sytems used for units. The engine power is in bhp, fuel in gallons (l), dimensions in metres (ft), etc. Perhaps the MoS should be consulted; would you consider the ship Panamanian for this purpose? I'm not sure what units are used there, or whether international naval endeavours use a different system. BigNate37_(T) 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in principle... one problem is that when discussing nautical affairs, all sorts of unit systems are used; it is still commonplace to use horsepower, tons, nautical miles/knots, and all sorts of other non-SI units. I've generally reported the units as expressed in the primary sources, converting to SI when convenient. More SI conversions can be added, but tomorrow... I'm off to bed for the night. :) --EngineerScotty 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add a bit more info, now that I've researched the issue some more. "Tonnage", as given here, is a measurement of a ship's cargo volume, not its weight/displacement. What sort of "ton" isn't specified; since the source for the measurement is the USGC, my guess is it's a "measurement ton", equal to 40 cubic feet, or 1.1326 m³. I could not find a source for the displacement (which corresponds to the weight) of the ship, though I've seen estimates for the weight of the remaining stern section. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm happy to support this article for FA status; you two have put in a lot of work and it shows. BigNate37_(T) 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. You have paid attention to FA criteria and it shows. Some minor comments:
  • Some main sections are short; perhaps you've already looked at options to combine them.
  • The term "motor vessel" is confusing for someone who doesn't know much about ships, but "M/V", which redirects to cargo ship, is never linked to in the article. The best place for it would be in the bold ship name, but I think that is considered poor form...?
  • "nm" is better spelled out as nautical miles. I see it as nanometres, and I thought that was an awfully precise distance from shore. :-)
  • Suggest notating PDF references as such, using template {PDF} for example.
  • I checked three references for correspondence with the article and they checked out. For the longer reference documents, page numbers would have been advisable.
  • Who knew they did assessments of the economic loss from 4-8 plovers being killed?! Outriggr 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the {{PDFlink}} template to all the citations, with the size of the files. Good suggestion. -Big Smooth 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Happy to see a nominator appears to have read the FA criteria. I'm confident that any issues raised during the FAC will be addressed. Sandy 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with Sandy. Nice to see when editors know what they're doing. Special commendation for covering an environmental topic. More of that, please! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII

I'm wicked jealous — this is perhaps the best article on Wikipedia. It has nearly 140 references, is amazingly comprehensive when considering that this is the most influential video game of all time (but not the best!), and 80 percent of the work was done by Ryu; I only performed a light copyedit on this one. Speaking of copyedits, it might need a few more tweaks, but we'll leave that for you to determine. Additionally, I raised a few concerns with Ryu, and here was his reply:

Maybe it's because I'm too close to the subject (I wrote the entire article, and after almost 100kb, I guess that's inevitable XD), but I honestly can't see what we could lose from the Plot or Development sections. I mean, the thing is long as hell, yeah, but it does meet the FA criterion of staying tightly focused on the subject. Pesonally, I think if we shortened anything, we'd be losing that comprehensive overview.

I mean, looking back through the various Plot sections, I don't see anything we can lose because it's either backstory vital to understanding the rest of it, subplots that have to be touched upon in order to meet comprehensive standards, character design info that we always include and shouldn't cut just on the basis of length (it's technically shorter than VIII's character section anyway), or the major revelations and resolutions of the storyline (and we're still ignoring how much? Rufus gets mentioned one time, we don't mention any specific Turks' names, "huge materia" doesn't pop up, nor does "Sister Ray" or "Northern Cave", Bugenhagen's name doesn't even appear outside of references, all the specifics of Barret, Red, Yuffie and Cid's stories don't even get touched on, etc.). I know there's a lot of content to the article, but there's a lot of content to the game, and we don't even make note of a lot of it. More than most of them have in all honesty.

In the Development section, we're able to provide info on the software that was used in the game's development, how many people it took, how much money was spent, what prompted the leap into 3D, the initial 3D experiment (something that resulted in some criticism leveled at Square by gamers, which is mentioned later), the rationale behind some extremely notable decisions that have affected gaming ever since, the difficulties overcome in developing this groundbreaking game, and one of the most intensive marketing campaigns in the history of gaming. Again, I know we've got a lot of content, but this isn't an article about just any game. I know I'm sounding like a Final Fantasy VII zealot when I say that, but it's true. I might not personally worship the game, but it can't be denied its props. This is the World War II of video game articles. I mean, this really is the game that changed everything. Playing video games in the US was suddenly cool, "RPG" became a household name outside Japan, and you could say a game took 60 hours to finish to an awed audience instead of a jeering one.

I know there are some people who will oppose on the basis of length alone, but we both know that's not a valid objection. They would have to explain how we got off the subject in the face of us knowing why the information is relevant and able to point it out. There are actually Featured Articles longer this one, such as

Polish-Soviet War, Byzantine Empire and Theodore Roosevelt

.

I know you also have concerns about the References, but according to Wikipedia:Article size, only the main body of prose is supposed to be counted. Reviewers aren't even supposed to look at the references beyond making sure that they're actually referencing what we claim they are.

I really feel like it deserves its place as FA like it stands right now. If FA isn't something an article can get just because somebody says "This comprehensive and informative article on a major subject takes me more than half a second to scroll the entire length... and I'm just too lazy to scroll any longer than that" then it's not an honor worth getting. I think we should try it before cutting anything, and only cut if they provide some darn good reasoning. I usually go with your advice, and I won't consider moving the article forward until you agree with me, but this time, I feel sure of our current standing. I really feel sure. Ryu Kaze 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have nothing more to say. This is how Ryu wanted to depart from Wikipedia activity with a bang, and I think he'll get one. — Deckiller 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nom/obvious support: As Deckiller said (and thank you for the wonderful comments, Deck; I didn't realize you thought so highly of the article), I did a lot of work on this one and I feel like it warrants being counted among the best of Wikipedia. I guess what he's quoted from me probably says everything that I need to or would want to say, so I'll just leave it here and await the input of all of you. Ryu Kaze 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section could probably be shortened, with the bulk of it going in its own spinoff article. There should probably be a mention of the sequels in the lead, as well. Other than that, this looks fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Compilation section actually had its own page a couple of months ago, but we merged it in because it wasn't doing anything other than serving as a link station for the various titles that are part of the project. We felt that it made the most sense to discuss the Compilation within the article the project is based on, while providing links to the various titles that comprise it. You make a good point about the sequels. I meant to add mention of that into the lead and will do so now. Thank you for the reminder and general approval. Ryu Kaze 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm usually a jerk about references, but at 138, I don't think I have too much to complain about there. The article is long, yes. But I can't say what should be cut. There's just too much to cover- most of the sidestories are ignored or incredibly short as it is. The only critism that I have is minor- In the very end of the Compilation section, second to last paragraph, that "however" doesn't make any sense, as it's supporting the previous sentence. Other than that- well done Ryu! This is an amazing article, and the speed at which you moved it from bloated GA to FAC is awe-inspiring. --PresN 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. Ryu Kaze 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, wait. I see what happened there. Half of the preceding sentence got cut off at some point. The "However" was supposed to point out that a rebuttle was coming to mention of the remake rumor. I'm glad you caugh this. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, it makes much mroe sense now, thank you. --PresN 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor object simply because it's 3X the recommended size. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. If this were on one of the biggest events in the history of the world, such as World War II, I could live with the article's size, but we are after all dealing with a video game here.Rlevse 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the nomination italics. — Deckiller 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The
      featured article criteria makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it.Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — Deckiller 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which should recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of
            WP:POINT. Is it? Ryu Kaze 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I've spoken with Rlevse on his talk page.[6] He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and said that his objection can be dismissed. Ryu Kaze 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, I'd like to nip something else in the bud: just because this article is 98 KB long and featured 140 references doesn't mean that all FAs must mimic this; most gaming articles should have about 50-60 references, but this article must be extremely comprehensive about several additional aspects than the other final fantasies, namely significance, the compilation, etc. — Deckiller 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is something that needed to be brought up. Also, I'd like to add to what Deck said by pointing out that no other video game has had as much cruft associated with it, requiring extensive use of references here. Ryu Kaze 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, excessive use of so-called "fair use" images, most of which have nearly identically written (and insufficient) fair-use rationales. For example, almost every image says "The image is used to demonstrate the game's distinctive art style", but it's not at all clear that 11 images are required to do this, nor is the "distinctive art style" of the game ever discussed in the article. To move to specific images,

1. Image:Ffviibox.jpg
   . Rationale says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but it isn't. It's just used for decoration in the infobox. At 650x650 px, it's also hardly "low-resolution" as stated in the license tag. Also, no source is given for the image.
2. Image:FFVIIbattlexample.jpg has no fair-use rationale at all, and no source is given.
3. Image:Midgartechdemoshot.JPG. Rationale once again says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but the caption just says "City of Midgar", not explaining anything about what precisely is being seen in the image. Some aspects of the city are mentioned in passing in the article, but there's no way to tell which in any of them are being shown in this picture.
4. Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG and
5. Image:FFVIIsephirothdesignbynomura.JPG. The rationales for these images once again say "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but actually they both illustrate what some characters in the game look like. The characters' physical appearance does not seem to be an important characteristic of the game at all; certainly not so important that the existing text description needs to be accompanied by two images. Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG, at 567x632 px, is also not low-resolution.
6. Image:FFVIImeteorapproaching.jpg. The rationale includes the familiar line "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but with no explanation of why the reader needs to know what it looks like.
7. Image:FFVIIaerithrest.jpg. Same as above; why does the reader need to know what this scene looks like?
8. Image:FFVIIneomidgar.JPG. Same as above. What crucial information does this image provide that is not already adequately covered by the text in the sentence "While the landscape had once been desolate due to Shin-Ra's operations, it is now a land of lush greenery"?
9. Image:Compilation of FF7 logo.jpg is just the logo of the series to which the game belongs. Why is this image essential to understanding the article?

Apart from the problems with the images, the article seems to contain some original research (for example, who says "Themes of the game include environmental awareness, acceptance of self, and the nature of life, death and the spirit"? Is that the editor's own interpretation?) I notice a lot of the "references" are actually just quotes from the game, meaning primary rather than secondary sources are being used. That's not against policy, but it is discouraged, especially for claims that are open to more than one interpretation.

• That line you quoted is in the lead section. It is explained in detail in the sections below. — Deckiller 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it isn't; I went ahead and removed it. Ryu, why did you add that line anyway? Was it the literature teacher inside you? It seems the rest of the objection is the usual fare; the primary source issue is something that has not been objected before, as it is the only way to source a plot without going to "fansites" (besides, a lot of fictional FAs don't even use sources for their synopsis sections at all!). — Deckiller 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  These are either just screenshots or pictures straight from the official site which became open source for promoting the game. MythSearcher 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Must have been said literature teacher inside me. As far as objecting to the use of the script references, echoing Deckiller, no one has objected to these before, especially on the grounds that they're not reliable (a secondary source would have a more reliable quote than the game?). Anyway, I'm going to see to those image issues now. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way Angr, I'm confused by your objections on the character designs. How are the main characters not important aspects of the game? Ryu Kaze 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've made several changes for the images. See my response to A Man in Black just below. Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Just so everyone's aware, on his talk page I've left a couple of requests for
  Angr to let us know if the imagery changes listed below address his concerns. Ryu Kaze 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment — With regard to Angr's continued objection (see below), I just want it to be known that an attempt has been made to address it once again, and requests for feedback left on his talk page. While I'm sure he'll come back, just in case this gets reviewed by others before then, I want everyone to be aware that an effort is being made to satisfy any fair-use issues he has with the article. Ryu Kaze 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak object - I don't usually agree with Angr on most of these objections, but the battle example does need a rationale and source, and I'm not sure what purpose the meteor image serves. The Aeris's death scene is iconic, but it would probably be better replaced with an image of Sephiroth actually killing Aeris. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, this is a full-on objection; he's right about several of these. I'll handle them one by one.

  1. The cover in the infobox is fine, but it needs a caption and the source image needs to be reduced. I've tagged it with {{
     fairusereduce
     }} as such.

     Hey, I added the caption and series functions to the infobox for a reason; why not use them?

  2. The town image could stand to be moved down; on narrrower resolutions, it makes the beginning of this para unreadable.
  3. The battle image needs a source and rationale.
  4. How is that map at all fair-use? It's a substantial reproduction of one of the major features of that strategy guide. That's a map that someone is trying to sell.
  5. Why do we need a separate image of Midgar? This one is right on the cusp IMO; it illustrates both the cinematics and the city itself, but it needs a better caption.
  6. The cast image needs to be shrunk and has been tagged as such. It's okay other than that because it's illustrating both Nomura's art style and the plot summary (showing what each character looks like).
  7. The Sephiroth image seems gratuitous. We already have a Nomura character design image, and if the Aeris picture is switched, we'll have an in-game image.
  8. Not sure what the meteor image is there for; yup, it's a meteor.
  9. The Cloud/Aeris image isn't the iconic scene; where's Sephiroth killing Aeris?
  10. Why is there an image of Midgar covered in greenery?
  11. The logo of Compilation seems fine to me; this is the article for Compilation (and thus the image is useful for identification), and it's a significant departure from previous FFVII marketing materials.

  I think about four of these images (indutrial Midgar, green Midgar, Sephiroth, Cloud/Aeris) could be ditched, and replaced with the Sephiroth-killing-Aeris image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I'll address these issues. Some of the fair-use rationale problems are more a result of me worrying about so many different aspects of the article at once that I slipped up there. Thanks for the advice. Ryu Kaze 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, here are the changes I've made:

  1. Shrunk boxart image. By the way, Angr, this isn't a decorative piece. It's identifying the subject of the article
  2. Shrunk town image and moved it down some
  3. Got the fair-use rationale for the battle image
  4. Shrunk the map image considerably
  5. Changed the caption on the image of Midgar to identify it as an overhead shot of the city
  6. Shrunk the image of the main characters substantially
  7. Removed Nomura's design of Sephiroth
  8. Removed the image of Meteor
  9. Replaced the image of Cloud putting Aerith's body in the water with one of Sephiroth killing her. By the way, Angr, as MIB said, this is an iconic scene from the game. Please read the article for an explanation of why
  10. Removed the image of Midgar covered with greenery
  11. Shrunk the Compilation logo image, and extended its caption to point out that the logo is based on the original Final Fantasy VII's logo

  Is this sufficient to address all image concerns? Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still unhappy with the map image. That's not fair-use, it's just copyvio. It needs to be replaced with an image that isn't a substantial reproduction of a for-sale work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gotten a non-for-sale replacement for it. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did this map come from? Did FF Compendium scan it from somewhere, or make it themselves? Can you contact them to ask them to release their work under the GFDL? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'll ask them. Ryu Kaze 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I tell you what: until we can get a map under the GFDL, I'm just going to remove it altogether so there's no concern over fair-use for it. Ryu Kaze 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, all of my concerns are resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool. I've sent a request for the GFDL of the image to the maintenance guru at FFCompendium, so hopefully we'll be able to use it later. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are two sentences in the article with a whopping five citations lined up in a row (one is the end of the first paragraph in "Characters," the other in the first para of "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII"). I appreciate the desire to properly and conclusively cite sources, but it seems a bit overcrowded and hard to read. Might both of these cases be properly cited with, say, no more than three footnotes each? Alternatively, if you feel that all of the sources are necessary, you might think of putting some of them into the markup, commented-out ("<!-- Further details on such-and-such can be found in Authorname, Book Title, pages 10-12" and so on). Andrew Levine 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's fairly obvious that you never read the article before it was turned into an FAC. As stated above, FF7 is the most cruft-attracting game ever. For an article that has historicaly been a bloated plot summary to be submitted as a ~100kb FAC, there needs to be almost epic levels of referencing to show that that is not the case here. I also disagree with putting references in markup- what's the point of references if you can't see them on the article itself? it defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I dont' feel that they are distracting, even the 5-in-a-row ones. --PresN 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there's no point in references that can't be seen, but I'll go ahead and just reduce the quantity to three each for the sake of readability. Ryu Kaze 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Ryu Kaze 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose/comment The compilation section has a dizzying amount of links. Between the wikilinksand the footnote links, it makes the section rather difficult to read.
  Kevin_b_er 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for your input. I've fixed it up. Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I have several complaints, but they're rather weak ones, mainly the fact that often the character section rambles on a bit about the characters' design. This is all subjective though, which is why I'm supporting and not objecting. You guys did a good job again. (When you're done, I'd like to work with me on FFIV next, and I've done a bit of starting it up, and plan to work on it a bit more, mainly because this November will mark its 15th anniversary). Sir Crazyswordsman 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. I'm probably going to be pretty busy in the offline world soon, by the way, so I may not be able to help. :( Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll definitely be around, but not in full swing once college rolls around next month. — Deckiller 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't really say much except I read it, it is really good, and it seems to pass FA standards with flying colors.
  RN 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Now that the image issues have been ironed out, I can safely say this is the best Final Fantasy article on Wikipedia, richly deserving to stand alongside previously featured FF articles such as VI, VIII, X and X-2 as shining examples of what a CVG-related Featured Article should embody. Yes, it's big, but it never feels like a long read: everything is (despite first glance!) actually very lightly touched upon and straight-to-the-point, without any extra fluff. It's very well written (although that pretty much goes without saying...) and is unbelievably well-referenced. In short, what was once a good article a month ago is an exemplary one now, and one of the most influential video games out there now has an article to match. Amazing work (yet again)! --NateDan 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd thanked you already. My apologies. Thank you for the support. Ryu Kaze 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the principal contributer to a FA and a current FAC I fully understand the difficulty of keeping articles down in size. It bothers me slightly that you consider this isn't really an actionable objection, it is actionable, it is simply very hard. Any FAC on a subject could theoretically be three times as long and still only cover a fraction of what there is to know about it, that is the essence of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a book). The skill of the editor is whitteling down a huge body of facts into a succinct body of prose that covers the salient points. So here I am, wanting to support what is for the most part a very good article that falls down due to a lack of heavy red marker pen editing. The article does a good job of explaining the games importance (I LOVE it when articles explain real world importance), but the long story section is bloated and difficult to follow or remain interested in. It simply fails to be 'the best of Wikipedia's work'. I am holding off on actually objecting, I'd be interested to see the editors comments, and I would like to see this featured, I just don't think it is there yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, we're strongly opposed to being badgered between inclusionism and deletionism because we nearly lost a featured article last month because it didn't explain the story enough. Heck, that article's story section is nearly as long as this one, and some editors felt it wasn't comprehensive enough. RPGs are 40 hours long, and they have lenghty stories; to ignore major plot elements is not cutting fancruft, but failing to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Please understand that we're sick of the "too long" or "too short" games of monkey in the middle, and we try our hardest to reach middle ground so that we're not screwed by a faction. — Deckiller 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I appreciate your comments and the fact that you asked for an explanation of length rather than outright opposed. I can also appreciate that you shot for explaining your concerns with the article rather than straight out labeling them grounds for objection. Now, to be entirely honest with you, working on the story section for this one was harder than those for Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Chrono Trigger or Shadow of the Colossus. While Final Fantasy X has an unbelievably immense level of backstory, the main story that develops as you play is still relatively straightforward and — sticking to the main subplot, while briefly touching on the surrounding ones — can be done fairly easily. Final Fantasy VIII is a simple matter on both levels. VI and X-2 are a little heavier on backstory than VIII, but still nothing near X (obviously X itself serves as the backstory for X-2), while having a main storyline that's quite straightforward. Chrono Trigger and Shadow have essentially no backstory, while Shadow is extremely straightforward in its main story. CT, however, is pretty heavy on describing the actual developments of the story — mainly because, like VII, each main character has their own subplot that has to be resolved during the game. Even so, it's still not on the same level of content as VII.

VII has a ridiculus number of subplots that are introduced, developed, and resolved within the framework of the actual story. That's not even looking at the backstory, which — while not as immense as X's — is still pretty large. Unfortunately, also like X, major aspects of the backstory are revealed during the development of the game itself (specifically Sephiroth and Cloud's histories, which also requires going into the history of Jenova and bringing up Professor Gast). That requires roughly four paragraphs within the story section right there. VII is notorious for being a game where things are not what they seem, full of plot twists, revelations and "Where did that come from?" moments. Since we're required to write about the stories of fictional works in the way that the story unfolds for the player in order to maintain a real world perspective, this means that the section is unavoidably going to be long.

I love succinct, crisp descriptions in an encyclopedia article as much as anyone, I promise. To ensure that this article was comprehensive (a standard of FAC that overshadows any concerns of length), it couldn't be short. However, that doesn't mean it isn't succint. As I said in the text Deckiller quoted when nominating the article, there is a whole lot that we're still not bringing up because it's not part of the core storyline. Comprehensiveness requires that we touch on the main characters' subplots and mention their resolutions, but we don't mention any of the development of those except with the core plot. To give you some examples of the things I didn't include for the sake of brevity, read this list:

(note to Raul: this is a list of examples of how we've maintained brevity with the story aspects of the article; you won't need to read each of these if you just want to cut to whatever response follows)

• A character named "Bugenhagen" lives at Cosmo Canyon. He's probably the most intelligent character in the entire game, with an extensive understanding of the planet and the Lifestream. He is, in fact, the character who first brings it up (it wasn't necessary to mention this, because Sephiroth's explanation of his plan is sufficient for emphasising the characters' understanding of the Lifestream). This character also pretty much raised Red XIII, and was the one who discovered that Aerith had been trying to cast Holy before she died and tells the others that Sephiroth must be blocking the spell from moving against Meteor. Before the end of the game, Bugenhagen dies from old age, being 130 years old. None of this is mentioned in such specifics.
• Rufus Shinra becomes the president of Shin-Ra after Sephiroth kills his father. This is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is that Rufus' philosophy for running the company was in stark contrast to his father's. Instead of running the world with money, he believed he could do it through fear. People in society consider him cold-hearted and he's infamous for looking down on others as stupid, because he's extremely clever himself. In a turn of striking irony, after Meteor is summoned and the WEAPONs awakened, he takes up the position of defending the world from despair himself, and it becomes apparent that he actually cares for his people. At one point, he tries having the members of AVALANCHE executed while telling the public that Meteor and the WEAPONs are their fault. Even though he expected the world was going to be destroyed anyway, he wanted the public to feel better, thinking that someone was responsible and was being punished. Before the end of the game, everyone believes he's dead, killed in an explosion caused by one of the WEAPONs. He survived, though, and shows up alive in Advent Children. Obviously not all of this is mentioned.
• Sephiroth cast Meteor in the crater where Jenova had landed. This crater caved in when he cast the spell and the WEAPONs awakened, revealing that the planet underneath had been hurt drastically because of Jenova. There was a chasm leading all the way to the planet's core. It is through this chasm that the heroes travel at the end of the game, but they can't do it right away because Sephiroth erected a magical barrier over it after casting Meteor. In order to penetrate this barrier, Shin-Ra moves a gigantic cannon from their military base to Midgar, hooks it up to all the mako reactors in the city, and fires a beam of pure mako at the barrier. In the meantime, one of the WEAPONs shoots at Midgar. The beam from the cannon cuts through the WEAPON, killing it, while its attack hits Rufus' office, apparently killing him. The mako beam keeps going, hits Sephiroth's barrier, breaks it, and then gives the heroes the opportunity to go after Sephiroth. Before they can, however, Hojo takes over the cannon and tries shooting at the crater again, intending to send the Lifestream's power directly to Sephiroth. The heroes go after him, and it's then that we learn that Hojo is Sephiroth's father. More stuff we don't specify.
• There's four members of the Turks unit seen in the game. They're extremely popular characters, but we don't mention even their names (I was hoping the fact that they got their own game — as mentioned in the Compilation section — would emphasise that well enough). We don't mention that Reno (probably the most popular Turk) is the one who was ordered to destroy Sector 7. We also don't mention that Don Corneo shows up again during Yuffie's subplot, kidnaps Yuffie and Elena (one of the Turks), and that AVALANCHE and the Turks form a begruding respect for one another while working together to free their comrades. As a result of this team-up, near the end of the game, the player is given the option of not fighting the group. In Advent Children, their respect for one another is still there, and they help each other out.
• Cid gets to fulfill his dream of going into space when Shin-Ra tries using the rocket from years earlier to send a materia bomb into Meteor. It's during this scenario that we learn that the assistant he had been verbally abusing for years saved his life. She had been examining an oxygen tank she wasn't comfortable with when it was almost time to launch the rocket. She said she'd stay in the room and die to make sure that Cid got to have his dream, but he wasn't willing to kill someone to go into space, so he stopped the launch. When Shin-Ra sends the rocket up, AVALANCHE is onboard, and as Cid runs past the oxygen tank that his assistant had been examining years earlier, it explodes, trapping him under some rubble. He then realizes that she had been right about it, and later apologizes to her.
• Yuffie fights her father and several important people from Wutai, earning the right to carry the sacred Leviathan materia. It's also at this time that she and her father's disputes are settled when she learns why he hadn't fought back against Shin-Ra.
• There's still a lot more I haven't gotten into.

As Deckiller explained, we seek to establish a compromise between the inclusionist and deletionist philosophies, because we don't want to be caught in the middle while they feud, wanting our work to be used as an example in their ideal wars. It's happened to us before and we nearly lost an FA over it. We've had to explain that there's no standard for length except succinct comprehensiveness (not an oxymoron, as some have argued). Sometimes more coverage is required because there's more content, but even when that's true, we shoot for brevity. I believe the mark has been hit in this case. Ryu Kaze 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I see. He who sits in the middle of the road gets hit on both sides as my grandmother once warned me. I didn't realise that people were demanding longer story sections. Okay, your explanation makes sense to a point - I did appreciate that the length of the RPG meant that it was difficult to condense. Please be aware that what I was advocating was not deletionism - I'm a lumper/splitter, and I was reasoning that there was scope to move large sections to their respective subpages and place briefer summaries in their place here. Ultimately I still feel that is both possible and preferable, but I conceed that I a) don't know the subject well enough to make definitive statements on that and b) the cut off point between too long and too short is subjective. It may indeed be impossible.

So I shall not be objecting. I haven't made my mind up about supporting it yet either. I am no slave to the 30k limit, (both albatross and procellariidae exceed that) this article is way beyond even what is normal for fac (45-60k) and that bothers me. But so does not recognising the obvious hard work, research and effort that went into this. So, um, watch this space. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm surprised we haven't been opposed for not explaining the story enough. — Deckiller 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am too. Especially by those who are fans of the side characters whose subplots haven't gotten as much coverage as Cloud, Tifa, Aerith and Sephiroth's (the main main characters). Oh, and by the way, Aerith's dad is Professor Gast. So there's another subplot we didn't really delve into. Ryu Kaze 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu, any luck with that FF9 ultimania? At this rate, FF9 is going to be 2/3 in universe. Do you think you could send me the relevent info via e-mail, especially if it goes into details similar to FF7? — Deckiller 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put my reply on your talk page so that we don't get the FAC more off-track than it already is. XD Ryu Kaze 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I still feel the story section is too long but I am clearly outvoted by people who understand teh subject inside out. I have also decided that rigidly objecting or even withholding support based on a guideline is both hypocritical and mean. Most FAs break way past the 30k limit. At any rate, I need to show support for gaming FACs that try so hard to provide good information on development and real world significance (rather than a list of what the little monstermon did in manga episodes). Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article comprehensively covers everything one should know about the game without losing its focus in trivia or speculation. After reviewing, I noticed the article has a couple "snakey" sentences, but it's nothing notable or even gramatically incorrect. Which means this article is worthy of support! Also a Comment. Fair use isn't an attempt to "sneak something in while praying the owner doesn't sue us." As long as the images aren't decorative and provide important illustration of topics discussed, we should be protected under the law. These informal policy wars over the 'generally accepted fair-use limit' are becoming nonsensical. Like comprehensiveness, appropriate number varies by article; instead of imposing a vague, Wikipedia-wide limit, one should review articles on a case-by-case basis for having superfluous images. --Zeality 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, Zeality. On the subject of the fair-use images, I agree that it shouldn't be a "sneak something in while hoping we don't get sued" thing. I wish there was a more solid concept of what does and doesn't fall under fair-use. It's somewhat laughable that it's even part of copyright law since you don't know how it will be defined until you're already in court. Though my commentary is probably more fit for a discussion of US copyright law than anything else, so I'll stop with this closing statement: fair-use is a wonderful concept, but implemented somewhat poorly (note: this is not a negative criticique of how Wikipedia handles fair-use, just so no one takes it that way; it's just commentary on fair-use in general). Ryu Kaze 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support This is very informative, while keeping consistency and staying true to the source material. My only concern? A little too long...but there's so much stuff in the game that as it stands now I can't see any excess that can be cut, so..has my vote! Dee man45 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't see anything that can be legitimately cut either, and it is very well written. Nifboy 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Ryu Kaze 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nicely done, as usual! Well organized, written and referenced. Combination 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate it very much. Ryu Kaze 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Killer job, Ryu. I have a couple of things I'd like to comment on, although since I'm working on another article I'm restricting my comments to the first couple of sections:
  • "console and computer role-playin game"? Again, I feel that console role-playing games (also known as Japanese role-playing games) and computer role-playing games (Western role-playing games) are genre distinctions, not platform. Of course, Final Fantasy VII would fall under
    console role-playing game
    .
  • I don't see the purpose of wikilinking some of the dates. 2000s?
  • "often credited"? How about just "credited"? Less verbosity and one less peacock term. I would probably revise the sentence to read something shorter and less awkward like "...is credited with bringing mainstream success to console role-playing games." "Out of Japan" is unnecessary; the implication of mainstream is enough.
  • "As with the preceding games in the series, the world map may be traversed by foot, by chocobo, by airship, or by other means of transportation." I would replace "may be" with "is."
  • "At other times, pre-rendered cinematic cut scenes progress the story." Consider replacing "progress" with "advance." I think "advance" suits the context slightly better and "progression" is used in the same paragraph (thus, "advanced" won't sound as repetitive").
  • "During its turn-based battle sequences, the game uses the same Active Time Battle (ATB) system used in the three Final Fantasy games preceding it." Occurrences of "uses" and "used" very close to each other. "Utiliized" is overboard, so perhaps "...featured in the three preceding Final Fantasy games."
  • "Unlike previous games in the series, which traditionally allowed 4-5 playable characters to participate in battle, Final Fantasy VII allows for only three characters to be present in the party at any one time." The previous games in the series still (presently) allow for 4-5 playable characters (although Final Fantasy IV was the only to allow for five).
  • "Final Fantasy VII's skill system has been described as a combination of the character class system used in Final Fantasy V and the accessory system seen in Final Fantasy VI." "Has been described"? Sounds a bit weasel-wordish.

That's all I have for now. This article is truly amazing; the only criticisms I could come up with were nit-picks. Again, excellent job. :) --Tristam 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I took a lot of these into consideration during a light copyedit, although the "can be" wording is intentional, since chocobos aren't mandatory (and adding a whole sentence describing that would be redundant). — Deckiller 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to apologize if I seem a little overly frank for this FAC (and my community work in general); with lots of FA pushes comes lots of mirrored objections, so we tend to grow impatient as editors, which leads to attempts to "nip things in the bud", which can often come across as confrontational. — Deckiller 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input, Tristam, and your support. Thanks also to Deckiller for addressing the suggestions you provided. Ryu Kaze 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am really impressed. This article has a sort of special place in my heart because it was one of my first edits while I was still known as a bunch of numbers separated by periods. Coming from someone who's played the game inside and out, I would say that the story section is barebones, absolutely as thin as it can get without slipping over a vital plot point. As Ryu Kaze has pointed out, there are plenty of things that seem just as important to understanding the story but have been completely glossed over for the sake of succinctness. I bet some FFVII fanboy out there will vandalize the story section by adding all of these things, rather than deleting. Axem Titanium 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. Ryu Kaze 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Length issues are rising again, this time represented by a tag on the main article. I'd like to reinforce the fact that this is already a summarized portion of the story, and further summarization will lead to issues coming from the other side. We struck a balance. — Deckiller 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This article is unreadable. I consider FFVII to be among the best video games in history and I really wanted to read this entire article in order to give a thoughout evaluation. However, my sincere desire to read the entire article was defeated once I got to the Story section. This section is just much too long. Trying to review every significant point in the story is just too tedious. The full story should be moved to a separate article and a summarized version added to the main article. The summary should be 5 or 6 paragraphs at the most (the same length as the other sections). The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section should also be moved to a separate article (as has been suggested already). The Development section is also on the long side, though perhaps it could just be edited down a bit. The writing style and referencing are excellent and I would certainly support this article's nomination if I could just read the whole thing. Kaldari 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaldari, comprehensivess is a
    criterion for featured articles
    . Length is not. Did you read the above discussion about this issue? The only requirement related to length for featured articles is that they stay on the subject while first achieving comprehensiveness. As you can see detailed above, a lot of the story has still been left out, though I'm sure you know this anyway since you've indicated that you've played the game.

You said "The summary should be 5 or 6 paragraphs at the most" because other sections are that long. That doesn't make sense to me at all. There's more content here than with other stories and the other sections of the article. You can't impose a standard size on something that has no standard quantity of content to begin with. Were the section to be shortened as you've suggested here, someone could object (rightfully so) on the grounds that the much more important requirement of comrephensiveness has not been met, if not on the grounds that the story summary would be incomprehensible (remember, game stories have to be summarized in the order that the information is presented to us in the real world; trying to omit info under these circumstances would make it impenetrable to an outside reader). What's the point in a reader even starting to read the article if it's not going to be comprehensive or make sense? Again, comprehensiveness comes first.

Wikipedia:Article size is just a suggestion. It's not even part of the manual of style. It is, in fact, a suggestion that openly and readily admits that there will be exceptions to how strongly it should be considered with specific subjects (from the page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information"). It acknowledges that how long an article should be is a case-by-case matter. Why are you citing it in your objection when it doesn't even suggest that there should be a strictly followed standard of length?

For that matter, the manual of style only suggests that story summaries be kept "reasonably short". How can someone put down a universal definition of what is "reasonably short" when not every story has the same amount of content? Final Fantasy VII probably has more content than any of the others, and for reasons, explained above, it is being reasonably short. There's a ton of things that don't get in-depth coverage because the focus here is on the core storyline, with only the briefest mention of subplots. I am absolutely flabbergasted that someone who has played the game would suggest that Final Fantasy VII — the Final Fantasy game that probably has more content to its storyline than any of the others — should have a shorter story section than the articles on Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X or Final Fantasy X-2. Chrono Trigger — another game with a lot of content — has a story section that rivals this one. If this article was about Shadow of the Colossus — an excercise in the concept of minimalistic storytelling — I would agree that 5 paragraphs are sufficient. But you can't suggest that a game designed to be completed in 10 to 12 hours with an intentionally minimalistic storyline should have the same summary size as a game designed to be completed in 50 or more hours, with a storyline that to this day is considered one of the most long-winded and convoluted outings in RPGs.

I feel inclined to ask if you considered the subject of the article when you made that suggestion. If so, you didn't add any mention of it to your claim. An argument for why the story section should be shorter than it is should be based on the story itself and why it doesn't require this kind of coverage — as well as how this kind of coverage could be avoided while being comprehensive and ensuring that the information makes sense — while hopefully taking into account that this is the article for the most revolutionary title in video game history. Why should it have a shorter story section than its successors?

By the way, the Compilation section would be a stub if it were an article to itself. That not only would result in ignoring coverage of this very notable aspect of this very notable game, but it would be placing that information into a spot where it wouldn't be so likely to get proper coverage. Outside of the article for Final Fantasy VII, a Compilation section isn't going to serve a purpose much greater than being a link repository. It's actually very relevant to the subject being discussed in this article, and should be described here.

Thanks for the compliment about writing style and referencing, though. Sorry if I was harsh in there at any point. I was just really floored by the suggestion you made and that you objected on such a basis. Ryu Kaze 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the entire FAC debate as well as much of the discussion on the article's talk page. I am still very firm in my belief that the story section is too long. I know that the article length guidelines are only suggestions. However, I believe that having a section that is so tedious as to be unreadable is certainly objectionable. I've read 1,000 page books, but I couldn't read this encyclopedia article because it was too tedious (despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the game, no less). To me that is a huge problem. Please explain to me why it would be a problem to summarize the story? Obviously it is already summarized, I just think it needs to be summarized a lot more. I don't think that would prohibit the article from being comprehensive. Kaldari 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry you found the section tedious. I will scan the section again tonight and see if there's anything at all that could possibly be condensed, but I'm not expecting to be able to condense much. Even sticking to the core storyline, there's so much that has to be mentioned for the summary to make sense and be comprehensive too. But I will try. Ryu Kaze 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the entire oppose boils down to finding the content dry? — Deckiller 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, tedious is not the same thing as dry. All that I'm asking is that you limit the Story section to only the core storyline and that you remove any extraneous details not essential to the story. Considering how complex the core story is, perhaps it is not possible to adequately summarize it in 6 paragraphs. However, I do think the section can successfully be edited down more with some effort. Kaldari 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Kaldari, but I've gone back through the Story section and I honestly can't see any way of making it shorter while preserving comprehensive requirements and the out-of-universe perspective that is also required. The only way it could be done would be to place the backstory info about Jenova's landing and defeat in the Setting section, as well as the info on Sephiroth's pre-birth enhancement, but I can't do that because we're required to present information like this in the order it's presented in-game. Since these are very important aspect of how the story unfolds, I can't move that information to the Setting section. If you must object, you just must. I cannot and will not compromise the integirty of the article — in a way that guarantees it merit objections, no less — for the sake of it being called "too long" on the basis of only "I got bored while reading it".

That seems to be more an issue of you and the content finding yourselves incompatible (or perhaps you and this particular means of presenting the content finding yourselves incompatible; you did say you played and liked the game itself). One might as well object to Theodore Roosevelt's FA status on the basis of "I got bored while reading the Assistant Secretary of the Navy section". You didn't explain to me why you believed the section was too long on the basis of the content itself. You just said you got bored. I don't see how that provides me with any constructive input, or even a basis for shortening it in the event it was too long. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disappointing that you would rather blame the reader than work on fixing the problem. There are plenty of areas in which the story section could be edited down without removing any vital plot informtion. I'll edit the section to give you a couple of examples. Kaldari 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally think that the article is now lacking a bit, I can accept the changes you made as long as the line "As the journey progresses, each member of the group must come to terms with personal conflicts from their past" remains. So long as that line is there, I at least feel like the article is making the attempt to acknowledge those subplots. Does this satisfy your concerns with the article? Ryu Kaze 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I trimmed the last bit of supporting cast subplot info that you missed, just so it remains consistently on the core characters. Ryu Kaze 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still feel like the overall writing style of the Story section is too detailed, I'll give you credit for making a good faith effort (the first actual edit I've seen to address the issue, however timidly). So long as the Story section is restricted to the main storyline, I'll withdraw my opposition. Other than that issue, I think this is actually a very well done article. The references especially are extensive and I love the dialog citations from the game. There are a couple of awkward sentences, but I'll fix them myself if I can find them again. BTW, I only went through the first 4 paragraphs of the Story section to look for things to cut as an example, so I may still find some things to cut in the rest of it if I get around to editing the article again. I hope you've found my edits so far at least somewhat helpful. Good luck on the FAC nomination. Kaldari 05:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kaldari. I can acknowledge that your edits were helpful, yes. I fear we might get some flack from those who feel a little more detailis needed for the other subplots, but now that an even greater effort has been made to strike a balance, I hope that everyone will agree that most of what could be done has been done. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the changes you've made. I still can't support, but I can object less strongly than before. I'm still not seeing any discussion of "the game's distinctive art style" mentioned in every fair-use rationale. (Is the art style really that distinctive? I'm no expert, but to me it looks like every other manga/anime out there.) And I'm still not convinced that most of these images are showing important aspects of the game in a way a text description would be unable to, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
  User:Angr 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Within the Final Fantasy series, it most definitely has a distinct art style. Though Tetsuya Nomura did the designs for VIII, X, and X-2 afterward, there were some major differences in the level of detail incorporated and even the anatomy represented (particularly with the characters' feet). It's mentioned in the Characters section, I believe, that Nomura said the game's graphical limitations caused him to restrict his actual style, making the designs a lot plainer. In an interview about the development of the next game, the art director, Yusuke Naora, said "This is how [Nomura] really draws". Thanks for returning, by the way. Ryu Kaze 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I've expaneded the fair-use rationale for the images. Give it a look if you would, please. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With regard to Angr's continued objection, I just want it to be known that an attempt has been made to address it once again, and requests for feedback left on his talk page. While I'm sure he'll come back, just in case this gets reviewed by others before then, I want everyone to be aware that an effort is being made to satisfy any fair-use issues he has with the article. Ryu Kaze 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Just updating to inform everyone that FFCompendium said the world map image we were interested in using isn't theirs and they can't remember who they got it from some six years ago. That being the case, I'm going to contact RPGamer for permission to use the map on their site instead. Ryu Kaze 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - To be honest, I have been concerned about the length as well, but it now appears that much of the articles size is images, which are now reduced to a necessary amount, and has been thoroughly copyedited. I think it is an FA worthy article. Judgesurreal777 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- I think that the article is very complete and it has to be long because there are a lot of things to say about the game, so i don´t think that how long is an article is a problem. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 200.127.225.234 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for your support. Ryu Kaze 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE ... This article just spoiled the game for me. And it doesn't even say it has spoilers. How can you forget something so essential?

And by the way, I'm not joking. It did spoil the game for me. I'm pretty upset right now. -.-

For more info, check this out, in the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy_VII#I.27m_really_pissed.21.21

I wrote that comment. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 200.125.31.234 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

• I think the article makes itself quite clear that it contains plot details. The Plot sections are not small, nor are the headers for those sections any more difficult to see than the headers for any of the other sections. For that matter, this is a featured article candidate (comprehensiveness being a criterion of FA) in an encyclopedia. It's going to contain plot details. In any event, a lack of spoiler tags is not grounds for opposing an FA nomination. We're not required to warn people about plot details in articles. Not only is it not part of the
  manual of style, but readers are supposed to assume that any article may contain them without them being singled out, as mentioned in the encyclopedia-wide notice accessible from the bottom of every page. Ryu Kaze 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not to be rude or anything, but why on earth would anyone read an encyclopedia article on a game, an article that claims to cover the whole game and all of the important details, and be surprised when some of those details turn out to be major plot points, in a section called "plot"? Not only that, but if you've never played the game at all, even things like the names of characters would be spoilers. What's more, for someone who (on the talk page) claims to have played FFs 1-6 and 8, and can therefore be called somewhat of a final fantasy fanboy, to not know that Aeris was killed, 9 years ago in fact, is a bit odd. In short, your object vote isn't basd on anything that can really be used as the basis for a vote, and the fact that you honestly expected the article to not say anything at all about the plot at all is shocking. --PresN 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, it's me again. I'd like to point out a few things before you guys continue to bash me. 1) First things first. You might be thinking that I'm just some anonymous guy making all this stuff up because I have something personal against the article writer and don't want the article to be featured. Well, let me tell you a few things. a) I have no idea who wrote it and I really don't mind. I really like Wikipedia and I read it quite a lot. If someone ever did such thing just to prevent an article to be featured in an online encyclopedia, that person would clearly have some serious problems. It's not the case with me. In fact, I really don't care if this article becomes featured or not. Therefore, if you want, don't even count my "OPPOSE" vote. However, all I want is for you to at least CONSIDER the problem I had. b) Why am I anonymous? Well, because I'm not a member. And why am I not a member? Because, frankly, I don't think I could contribute with much (if not anything), really. Maybe only some stuff in the article about Uruguay (country where I live) and some other Uruguayan culture stuff. c) Ok I know. So you're wondering why, not being a member, I have the knowledge of how to edit stuff, and even add bold text!! (OMG!!) Well, first, I know basic HTML (I know this is not HTML but knowing how to use tags and stuff helped me here), and I can handle all this stuff with ease. Second, I'm a member of Uncyclopedia, so I learned how the Wikipedia tags and stuff work there. The only major contribution I made in Uncyclopedia in the 3 or 4 months I've been a member is in the Uruguay article. IF you want, here's the link to my user page there, which is pretty damn blank: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:Magellan 2) About coming here. Well I have no idea why I came - I guess I just wanted to check out the Wikipedia article of FF7. Like I already said, I really like Wikipedia and I read it a lot. However, when I came to this article, I knew it would have spoilers. I AVOIDED the parts that say "Plot" and "Story". I actually scrolled down so fast that I missed the screenshot of Sephiroth killing Aeries. However, when I was reading the Legacy (that part interested me, I wanted to read about the criticism), I saw the spoiler. And it sucked. Note: I don't think that knowing the names of the characters is a spoiler. But knowing that they die is. Let me tell you, I already knew stuff such as, for example, that Sephiroth is that last boss. I don't think that's much of a big deal. I have many friends who played FF7 and they would always tell me "Hey man you gotta play it, it rules". And I even saw one of them playing once. They'd tell me some cool stuff about the gameplay and the story but always VAGUE - like a synopsis. They never told me "Hey man, you know that girl from the intro cut scene? The first character to appear in the game? SHE DIES!". 3) I'm 18 years old and I really DID play FF 1-6 and 8. The first one on a real NES (which I still have, along with the original FF cartridge), which used to belong to my older brother. I played ALL OTHERS on a zSNES emulator (except 8, of course). I played the PC version of FF8 (in Spanish, because I couldn't find it in English)... You can tell that I'm not a very big fan of video game consoles - I just use the PC for everything. So the reason why I had never played FF7 before is pretty simple - I just never got the chance to do so. And I never really worried about playing it. I really like the FF series A LOT, but I don't consider myself a FAANNNNN, you know what I mean? Anyway, some months ago, my older bolder (who lives in London) came down to South America and gave me ALL his games. FF7 pc-version was one of them. And I decided to start it, so I could finally get to play it. <<<>>> That's all. Happy now? I couldn't have given more detail. Anyway, let me say what I came here to say: please add a spoiler tag or two. It doesn't hurt anyone. This article spoiled the game for me. It's just the right thing to do. Add one at "story" and another at "legacy" or something. ... Here's the link to article's talk page section about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy_VII#I.27m_really_pissed.21.21 --- Thanks for reading my long post.

• I don't recall us bashing you, nor do I see what your anonymous status or history with Final Fantasy games has to do with any of this. Spoiler tags are a stylistic option, not a requirement. They aren't "the right thing to do" in a place that promotes knowledge, not fansite courtesies, has a no censorship policy, and demands that information be presented impartially. Were we writing an argumentative essay, the attempt to influence how readers absorbed specifically-targeted information — if they were allowed to absorb it at all — would be fine (if not the entire point), but that's not what's going on here. This article is an attempt at providing a comprehensive, impartial presentation of information to further readers' knowledge on the subject. It is a fictional work with a story. Therefore, that story will be summarized and people will not be encouraged to avoid learning about it on the basis of a point of view assumption that knowledge ruins things. Once again, this isn't grounds for objecting to the article's nomination for featured article status. Please cease and desist with disrupting this process on such dubious grounds. I realize your intentions are good, but they're misplaced. Ryu Kaze 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Updating to let everyone know that the dispute with this user has been resolved.[7] Ryu Kaze 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This article meets the FA criteria and requirements. The language has a good flow and over 100 references are included (citations including notable sources such as GameSpot, IGN and several published books and reviews). —
  Wackymacs 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I supported Ryu's last FAC and told him I was waiting for his next nomination. Didn't expect to see one so soon, though! And I'm glad it's Final Fantasy VII, probably the most important of the modern games in the series. Looks like you've taken care of the major issues listed above, so just a lot of support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 23:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for your support. Ryu Kaze 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. After a copyedit that I just did (please correct any problems that I might have introduced), I'm almost ready to support. The only thing is that the very last paragraph is a bit confusing, and I was unsure how to recast it; can someone try to clarify it? The length of the article is not a problem for me; the prose doesn't seem to drag on or become lost in details. The only thing that I'd caution about for future work is that the "with <person> <verb>ing..." clause formula can lead to long sentences; be wary of overusing it. Otherwise, it looks good. — TKD::Talk 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your copyedit was performed well. I adjusted that paragraph you had concerns with (the last from the Legacy section, right?). I hope that helps it. Thanks for the advice, compliment and copyedit, by the way. Ryu Kaze 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thanks. Looks good. — TKD::Talk 15:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support...Partly. It sounds right, I did some formating to make it look better instead of all crowded together. More edits should be made though. MythSearcher 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your support, but you're not supposed to insert a
    forced break except in cases of very severe layout issues, and only as a last resort. As there are different monitor sizes with different screen resolutions using different internet browsers, how images appear on one person's screen aren't necessarily going to match how they appear on someone else's. I'm not sure how the inclusion of the forced break altered the layout on your screen, but on mine it produced a very unsightly white gap. Where use of a forced break won't necessarily benefit all monitors/resolutions/browsers, they're not supposed to be included. Instead, any and all other avenues are supposed to be pursued. I've moved the field map image up now (after removing the forced break), so hopefully that will make things look a little better. I know moving the image into the first paragraph can produce problems as well, but hopefully since the thumbnail is small, it won't. Ryu Kaze 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The problem seems to have fixed now, but another occured. The combat picture is now forcing the header "Plot" towards the right. I know it does not happen in smaller screens but it is still a little odd. I try not to add a forced break here (where it seems to be fine since it is the end of a section) and moved the picture up instead. MythSearcher 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to work. Ryu Kaze 11:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I nominated this a while ago and it failed but since the regular editors fixed it from a decent article to an amazing one, it must be a part of the FA -ScotchMB 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. I never even noticed the previous nomination of this article (from late June, apparently). Had I noticed, maybe I would have tried improving it then. Ryu Kaze 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — This article has 44KB of prose as of 21 August 2006. —The preceding
  talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment - as of August 22, there are: 18 Supports, 2 Nominating Supports, and 1 non-crossed out object (Angr), for a current tally of (20/1/0). --PresN 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great work.
  Thunderbrand 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I no longer object, as it seems the article does not violate Wikipedia's fair-use policy.
  User:Angr 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks a lot for all your input, Angr. So I guess the count now stands at (21/0/0). Thanks, by the way, to PresN for tallying things up earlier. Ryu Kaze 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... let's call it (20/0/1). I can't be philosophically opposed to the concept of FAs while actually supporting an FAC! ;-)
      User:Angr 06:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Oppose: I must say that the quality of this article is amazing -- that's true. It is very complete, and well featured. I would give it a 10 out of a 10 -- if it wasn't for the fact that it has SPOILERS -- SPOILERS that disgraced my gameplay of FF7. After that, I would give it a 2 out of a 10. I've read the arguments in pro and against adding spoiler tags, and I found that the arguments against are mostly CHILDISH. I am not going to be part of a edit war on this, but I a "highly active" wikipedia editor, I want to make sure that I express my voice on this. I might sound a bit harsh on the "giving 2 out of a 10" thing, but no matter how good is this article, it spoiled my gameplay and further interest in the game -- and I know that I am not alone on this as I have seen other users complaining about the same. Consider this analogy: I feel that this article is as deceptive as having a date with
  she-male. I vote to REMOVE IT IS FEATURE STATUS, to avoid spoiling the plot to other users. --Pinnecco 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ummmm... if you haven't noticed, this discussion is over and Final Fantasy VII is already featured. If you'd like, featured article review exists to reevaluate featured articles but, being only a few days after passing FAC practically unopposed by the end, I doubt the article could have degraded so quickly. Axem Titanium 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that -- But I wanted to express it anyway. Thanks for the hint above. I'll make sure to have a look at the featured article review and take this discussion there. --Pinnecco 17:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags have absolutely nothing to do with

featured article criteria. FA status can't be removed because the article is informative. That's what it's there to do. If anything, putting a spoiler tag is making it less informative because it's telling people "Don't learn about why this game is important or I promise it will ruin any future experience with it you might have". You came to the article to learn, correct? You learned. Mission accomplished. Ryu Kaze 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, no one's going to appreciate you calling preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia "childish". You say you've read the reasons why spoiler tags aren't used here. If so, then you know why other people who feel more comfortable with their presence have even agreed that it makes more sense not to use them. This isn't "randomfansite.com". This is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. A neutral body of comprehensive knowledge that aims only to educate while presenting information in an impartial manner. Why do you think hiding knowledge from people or warning them not to learn is part of FA criteria? Ryu Kaze 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the arguments against having spoiler warnings (which I found most of them childish) = "preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia" in your view? If so, you just proved my point. YES, this is a democracy. The fact that I vote to remove its feature status will probably have no effect watsoever in practive, as I am just one person voting against its feature status, when there are several out there voting in favour. But this is what democracy is all about. This article ruined my gameplay, and the last thing I want is other FF7 players to see this article featured on WP's frontpage and scream "damn wikipedia! at their monitors. My mind is made up, your mind is made up. (I am not trying to convince anyone here to change their POV). --Pinnecco 09:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting against its featured article status" does nothing on this page, and if you bring it to FAR based on your current objections, that's one-sided action outside of a simple talkpage discussion (hence WP:POINT), as nobody will support a removal based on the fact it has spoilers, since it's not mentioned in the FA critiera, and practically all FAs have "gameplay spoilers" and story synopses. — Deckiller 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Pinnecco, no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I believe you're thinking of the United States (which is really a republic, anyway, but whatever). Wikipedia =/= United States. If you think things are settled on Wikipedia by way of a show of hands, you have completely misunderstood the process. Ryu Kaze 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like to comment that you say you don't want to take sides in an "edit war", but you have clearly taken the anti-spoilers side, and now, in your attempt to remove this article from FA status only because of that, you have begun violate

WP:POINT (or, rather, you will actually break it if you try to list it for review). Additionally, 900 edits over two years is good, but not "highly active" as a general standard, but that's beside the point. — Deckiller 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Woa that's a load of BULL. Just checked the

WP:POINT is biased. Sorry, but that's what talk pages are for, to voice concerns. --Pinnecco 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Read the wording clearly. You have begun to violate WP:POINT by stating interest in featured article review. You're going to put the article up for review just days after it was featured becuase it spoiled your gameplay. Nobody will side with you on that one, thus, it would be clearly sen as a unilateral action. And, when we discuss that most FAs have such spoilers, it wouldn't be a stretch to say you'd put those up for a one-person review, as well. You haven't exactly violated it yet, but the above serves as a heads up to prevent it from happing Also, none of this should have occured on the FAC nomination page. You said talk pages are to voice concerns, so why didn't you post this on the FF7 talkpage? — Deckiller 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnecco, you acting alone is unilateral action. Thus, the "uni" part of the word. Ryu Kaze 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of BS festival? To voice my concerns on a talk page is not an action against the article. This is a democracy after all It is not a democracy? Even better in this case then, as I might draw some consesus that this article might hurt other FF7 players if it is featured in the frontpage -- regardless of how many people are with me or not. I'm leaving this discussion now as it seems futile since there is some strong BIAS here. My mind is made up. But please don't take my refrain from answering your further comments as a fact that I decided to agree with you because I don't. --Pinnecco 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to comment as you please, so I'll neither tell you to go nor beg you to come back, but I'd like you to find me a person who doesn't operate with bias. No one does. You're certainly not operating without it. You've made a judgement and are voicing it in accordance with that judgement. This is bias. We have done the same. The only difference is that we're looking to Wikipedia's policies, not hypothetical scenarios that involve us dancing on the edge of policy. Bias is only a problem when it's based on things like personal preference, a gut feeling, or some other such intangible matter irrelevant to Wikipedia's development. For that matter, you're talking about warning people not to learn what is one of the most important aspects of this historically notable subject (mentioned in almost every section of the article). How can people come here to find out what makes it important if you're trying to "protect" them from learning that? Knowledge isn't going to kill you, and knowledge is what this place is about.

By the way, while Wikipedia isn't a democracy, what is decided has to be based on the reasoning in arguments. Shouting "There's information in this article that was created to grant knowledge in this encyclopedia that was created to hold knowledge" (which is all Wikipedia hears since it's supposed to present the information here impartially) doesn't quite stand up to "Not only are we supposed to present information impartially, but this is one of the most important aspects of the subject. It is, in fact, common knowledge among those familiar with the medium, as well as knowledge required for an understanding of the relevance of the subject". This isn't even one of those articles that you can say people can read while avoiding plot details and then still understand the importance of the subject. Ryu Kaze 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. By your analogy, you would rather not know that

she-male before your date? So you'd prefer ignorance until it's too late? By the way, I have no idea who she is or whether or not that's true, I'm just trying to clarify your analogy so I can understand where you're coming from. Axem Titanium 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Heh, the analogy is a simple humorous way of illustrating a deception. The Russian model is not really a shemale -- I think this is the part you didn't get. Well, I hope so, because I don't know where you come from, but from where I come from we don't tend to feel a woman's crotch when we meet them for the first time. --Pinnecco 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would rather know about something such as this (a "spoiler", if you will) before entering a relationship. But that's just me. Maybe you prefer falling into traps finding out too late. Axem Titanium 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute answer, but a logical fallacy at the thread -- since I was the one that was complaining about not knowing things before hand (i.e.: no spoiler warnings). --Pinnecco 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padmé Amidala

Self-nomination This is an article about a main character from Star Wars. I revised it using the guideline

• Co-nom and support — I helped Dmoon copyedit the article a bit; the prose is decent, and if it still raises a few objections, I'd be more than willing to give it a more extensive audit. — Deckiller 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm... 10 fair use images. You will probably have to negotiate that down to about five. See ROTS and its nomination for an example of this process :) Haukur 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Since reduced. Haukur 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May I know why this is a major issue? According to this
  webpage on Wikipedia, point number four states this: It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. I personally feel that it is not necessary to negotiate this down to five. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The images are not used for decorative purposes and what is depicted in the image is discussed in the article, per fair use rules. The article has the same number of fair use images as Jabba the Hutt, which passed FAC without objection last month. Dmoon1 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and removed two images from the "Star Wars films" section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. I noticed a violation of the fair use rules. The
  fair use criteria state: criterium #3 "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. (...) Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." and #8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I strongly object to the use of the following images (and give the others the benefit of the doubt): 1 image should do for the Star Wars films section. Using multiple images is unnecessary (as 1 will do adequately), violates the "as little as possible" and are mostly decorative (as there is already one Star Wars films picture). Note also that the lead picture is an image from the films, which could be mentioned under this image - this would further weaken the arguments used for using multiple images;--The images of the Characteristics and the Natalie Portman sections are decorative (and thus also violate the "as little as possible") as they don't really add anything. Sijo Ripa 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (solved. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]
  • There is only on image per film, this is "as little as possible" which is a subjective expression. The pictures are not decorative, they are illustrative, which is the requirement for fair use. The image from the lead is not a screenshot, but a promotional image. The amount of images used in this article is not excessive and is supported by precedent.Dmoon1 20:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and removed two images from the Star Wars films section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, good job, Dmoon1. I still object to the picture in the Characteristics section and to the picture in the Natalie Portman-section, as they don't seem to add anything. Sijo Ripa 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the image in the Natalie Portman section as I agree that it appears to be a violation of fair use. The other one, however, does depict a characteristic of Amidala as a character and is thus valid. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a free image of Natalie to the section, to replace the removed image. -- Zanimum 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still object because there are still two non-significantly-contributing fair use pictures left. Sijo Ripa 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine. You've yet to convince me that these images do not "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text." The images in the "Characteristics" and "Natalie Portman" section illustrate relevant points in those sections. The consensus of the other editors and commentators are that these images fulfill the fair use requirements, so they are not likely to be removed. Dmoon1 17:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Three fair use images have been removed. Dmoon1 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's very nicely referenced and well-written. I wondered what the "Other references" section was, and I also wondered if you could include a References section with the citations listed in alphabetical order. I wouldn't not support because of the lack of it but it would add the finishing touch. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Other references sub-section is the same thing as a Further readings section. This is third time I've explained this at FAC, so I just went ahead and renamed the section heading. There is no need to have an alphabetized reference section since all the relevant citation info (author's full name, full title, publication data, etc.) is listed in the endnote. Thanks for your input. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a references section is actually part of
      Wikipedia:What is a featured article?: " ... these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." It can be helpful because with a long list of footnotes in the order in which they were used in the text, it can be hard to see at a glance which sources you've used. The other reason for keeping it is that, if someone deletes the first one in any series of notes, the subsequent notes get broken, and it can then be difficult or impossible for other editors to know what the source was: for example, if it only says Smith 2005, p. 1. If you have a full citation in the References section, then everyone can see what Smith 2005 refers to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Wikipedia:Footnotes for the referencing system used in this article. Dmoon1 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • • The relevant guideline is
            here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • It is recommended, but not required. This is also a matter of personal preference and I think it adds unncessary bloat to the end of the article. None of the last 5 featured articles I wrote contain such a section. Dmoon1 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • All guidelines are just recommendations, but FAs should probably try to act on them. As I said above, I won't object on the basis of that alone, but I hope you'll consider it for the future. It really does help to have a solid list with full citations in alphabetical order in case any of the footnotes goes missing, and you know how easy that is on Wikipedia with multiple editors. Anyway, it's a very good article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, but you should note that very few featured articles do this. Those that do use abbreviated footnotes (e.g., Smith, Wealth of Nations, 34) instead of full cites in the notes. Dmoon1 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment — Now that the nomination is back on the nomination page, I'll provide my input. The article is largely well-done, but I think there's a few tweaks that need to be made to its wording, as well as a few other touches:
  • I'm not sure of the necessity of Padmé's film quotes, which lend to more of an in-universe descriptive feel than you guys probably intended (though I must applaud beginning the "Star Wars films" section by detailing mention of her in Return of the Jedi first)
    • WP:WAF suggests to use quotes from the work of fiction. WAF's author BrianSmithson had me include quotes in the Jabba the Hutt article (see here), so I added them here as well. It's supposed to add to the context of the article's subject in her universe. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • The introduction to the "Appearances" section is a bit bland because it has three full stops: "Padmé Amidala is a main character in Star Wars fiction. She plays a prominent role in the prequel trilogy of films directed by George Lucas between 1999 and 2005. Besides the Star Wars films, Padmé appears in the Clone Wars miniseries and Expanded Universe literature." Furthermore, the first and second sentences are somewhat redundant of one another. They should be combined or the first one simply lost
    • Revised this. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part should be reworded: "Padmé Amidala appears in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, Padmé introduces...". Perhaps something like "Padmé Amidala makes additional appearances in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, she..."
    • Fixed this. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one link for "Expanded Universe", as well as possibly an indication of this material's ranking in canon hierarchy
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "link for 'Expanded Universe'" (wikilink?) and I'm not too concerned about canon; this is just supposed to be an account of her appearances in major Star Wars literature, canon and non-canon (but I think all of these included in the article are considered canon). I've noticed that discussions about canon can lead to frivolous debates and arguments, so I generally avoid trying to rank works based on canon unless its status is pretty much well determined. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption "Depiction of Padmé Amidala from Attack of the Clones advertising as an Amazon" is worded awkwardly, and I'm not sure how appropriate it is without explanation of what is meant by "Amazon" here. I'd suggest just losing that part altogether
    • This is something that was supposed to be explained in the article; it now is. It is a reference made by film critics to the depiction of the character as a strong, aggressive woman at the end of Attack of the Clones. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an "Other references" section? Why are they not all in-line? It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious as to why they aren't uniform
    • I addressed this under the comment above Ryu's. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are my only gripes really. Overall, the article is well-referened, well-written, informative and thorough. It's also illustrated superbly with the various costumes (the makeup image is a particularly nice touch). If these matters I've listed above can be touched upon or explained, I'll throw in my support. Ryu Kaze 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to address your concerns, please let me know if you require anything more. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we're good. You've addressed and explained everything to my satisfaction. Full support. Ryu Kaze 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment to full stops Full stops are perfectly fine (wihin reason) in this kind of prose. — Deckiller 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, violates
  User:Angr 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The article has the average number of fair use images as other featured articles in the media category. All of the images used correspond with commentary in the text. I could find no prohibitions against galleries in the
    WP:FU (unless I missed something). The two fair use images in the gallery are being compared with the two PD images that accompany them. The commentary that discusses these four images is in the sub-section which the gallery is located. Dmoon1 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This oppose position will likely be ignored by Raul, as it is not real supported by anything in the featured article critiera (nor has anything similar been supported in the past). — Deckiller 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's supported by featured article criterion 4: "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status". These images are inappopriate (because they are stolen) and do not have acceptable copyright status.
        User:Angr 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The images are not stolen. "Where appropriate" means that the image is used in a way to enhance the discussion and critical commentary of the article, and the images here do that. "Acceptable copyright status" refers to the correct licensing tags, and all of these images are tagged correctly AND have descriptive fair use rationales. You don't seem to understand what fair use is and should probably familiarize yourself with
          Wikipedia:Fair use. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Strong Oppose - good article but just non-notable --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Notability is not a factor when critiquing FACs. (BTW, your placement of the FAC template on the main page of the article
    GoOdCoNtEnT.][reply
    ]

Lets face it, it would be just rude to not take the time to do so, when an editor(s) have taken the time to develop an article to meet these criteria. When reading the guidelines and criteria, you'll notice that one of the very few conditions of an objection is that objections must be actionable - clearly your objection is not. You'll also note that notability is not mentioned anywhere in the FA criteria. Finally, this information will also help you to decide whether nominating an article (or several) is really a good idea in the future. Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to future contributions from your enlightened self. darkliight^[πalk] 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment Please re-visit "All URLs last accessed August 5, 2006 unless otherwise stated." Wiki is not static: you could leave the article, other editors could come along and make changes, and that kind of statement doesn't work well in a dynamic environment. It shouldn't be hard just to add it to each footnote. Sandy 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Looks good. Sandy 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this has been done. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good to me. Another great article from Dmoon1! The Wookieepedian 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Dmoon1 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rama's arrow 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. I've taken the liberty of removing the one remaining fair use image that could be objectionable. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good to me. I couldn't find any issues except some information is stated in 2 sections but I don't really see this as a problems since this information fits good into the point of this sections. Aside from this, I hope Padmé wont deteriorate in quality like the last time dmoon1 rewrote it... or maybe im thinking of something else.
  - Tutmosis 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Btw, I love that infobox image. Clearly shows Padmé impersonator. I was getting tired of this night shot 22 degree 20 inches of the ground shoulder blade view pictures of characters (in other words unclear).

- Tutmosis 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Thanks. It didn't deteriorate, that was what the article looked like when I rewrote it (it was BAD). This was the first article I attempted to rewrite when I joined Wikipedia, not having a clue what I was doing. I finally got around to revising it. Dmoon1 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm glad I'm not the only person who dislikes bloated notations - I find them an eyesore, so I'm glad this article keeps them brief and to the point. As for using this "URL last accessed" palaver on every citation, I find it rather annoying and am quite saddened commentators have urged DMoon1 to do this. LuciferMorgan 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• object there isnt a fair representation of images. A lot of fans remember the character for her prettier side in the second film, and i remember there used to be at least one image of her by the lake/etc in the article but they have all been removed. i know there is a limit, but maybe one of the other images needs to go in order to fit in an image of her on naboo, which is rather important. what does everyone else think? Im not sure who picked all the images, but there should be an equal representation of her character/story. Reillycnter
  • Your concern is understood, but there are a substantianal amount of fair use images in the article already. Currently, all the images illustrate key topics in the discussion/commentary, so to remove one would be more harmful (IMO) than not having a picture that shows how pretty the character is. Plus, to label a character in an image as "pretty" is sort of POV, and would no doubt lead to an argument among two or more editors as to just which picture is "prettiest"; the character's beauty can be inferred from most of the images used. The images are as representative as they possible can be within reasonable limits. Dmoon1 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying and i understand that. but i think you misunderstood whta i meant, regardless of whether the character is pretty or not, the article fails to show her lighter side, instead, all the images are battle/senator based. say the limitation for copyright images has been reach, i have done some research, and may have found a resolution, that could add one of the older images back: there is a no. of photos [8](here) which are under a Creative Commons license that i see works with wikipedia. the last image in the comstumes section on the Padme wiki article is copyright, why use a Creative Commons one instead, which gives us breathing space to add one of the older images. Reillycnter
      • The images at this site are blurry and none of them illustrate points in the article. The last picture you refer to is for comparative purposes with the Russian noblewoman's fashion and you're not likely to find a free replacement. The image that was once in the article is here: Image:Padme Naboo lake.jpg, but it is blurry as well. To be honest, the images aren't meant to show any of her sides (except the one in the "Characteristics" section and that's because it details the main focus of the discussion there). The point: it is not feasible to chronicle every aspect of a character through images; that is what the text is for. Dmoon1 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Images aren't really a basis for objection anyway, unless they're not properly captioned or of inappropriate copyright status. Please review
          Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. For that matter, as Dmoon has said, the images currently in the article are being used to illustrate aspects of the character discussed within the text, and — if someone is going to consider her pretty, not that such an issue even matters — they should make that determination from the images already present. It's entirely a POV matter in the first place as to whether or not she's even pretty. Some people might not think so. Some people might think she looks prettier with the face paint for that matter. Even if it was unanimous that she's prettiest without it, that still leaves the issue of which image she is prettiest in and why there's discussion going on over the inclusion of an image for purely decorative purposes based on the POV assumption that she's prettiest without the paint and that people need to see yet another image of her without the paint in order to make them realize that they think so too. This is just a matter of editorial stylistic preference, I think. This objection is likely dismissable on the basis of the rules for objecting in FAC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored". Ryu Kaze 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Kitch 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this meets our current standards of what's needed for featured status. Haukur 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support and editorial help. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pretty good, if it's going to be a FA like Jabba the Hutt I'd be interested to in a section showing the impact the char has had on culture and mass media - how was she received, how has she been portrayed in other media (particularly satire, parody etc). I conceed that she hasn't been around as long as Jabba to have that effect nor has she had quite the effect, but I'm certain I've seen her crop up here and there. (This isn't an objection, I need to read the whole thing properly before I decided how to vote). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good point and something I discussed on the talk page and at peer review. I don't think she had the impact on pop culture that Jabba the Hutt, Princess Leia, or Darth Vader had. The costumes were put on exhibit at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising, but I think that was more for their artistic value. You don't see people walking around dressed like this because of this character. Her role in mass media is discussed in the "Appearances" section; her name doesn't appear outside of Star Wars regularly as Jabba the Hutt's. There were Queen Amidala action figures, dolls, and Halloween costumes, but I think that's as close as you get to pop culture impact, and I can't see justifying a whole section writing about the Queen Amidala Ultimate Hair fashion doll. If you can think of something else, however, please let me know and I'll see what I can dig up. (Also keep in mind that every character article is going to be unique depending on the character, so it will not be possible to use Jabba the Hutt as THE standard for every article.) Thanks for your input and taking the time to read the article. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I can see that. I kind of thought she turned up a lot, at least I'm certain I see her ridiculous costumes from the the first film cropping up a lot. At any rate, I have two further comments, first off the comparisons of the costumes to real-world royal costumes is very good but might benefit from the images being slightly larger and closer to the related text (middle of the text rather than at the bottom); and this statement bothers me...The first appearance of Padmé Amidala in Star Wars Expanded Universe literature is Mike Baron's 1998 comic book adaptation of Timothy Zahn's novel The Last Command (1993). Set nine years after the events of A New Hope, the comic features a portrait of Padmé hanging in the Imperial Palace on Coruscant. The image is based on Natalie Portman's likeness. For someone not 100% certain of the timeframes involved is this before or after ROTJ? Does the comic specifically state that this was Padme, or explain who Padme was, or was it snuck in without explnation by an artist who knew that Portman was going to be in the filum as a nod to knowing fans? A little more context might help, even if you just put the explanation in the footnote. Other than this I cannot think of any objections and am pleased to see an impressive section on the evolution of the character in the scrips and concepts Lucas had and critical real world opinions on her (as opposed to just a list of what she did in the films like so many other character FACs). Support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your support! I elaborated on the appearance of Padmé's portrait in the comic book, but I couldn't get the images to work in the costume section outside the gallery. They kept making the text look funny. Dmoon1 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice article, without the problems found in Darth Vader. igordebraga ≠ 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Dmoon1 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think "Rick McCallum, quoted in 'Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars' from answers.com is a reliable source. In fact, it seems the quoted article is a Wikipedia mirror. Surely a better citation can be found? Andrew Levine 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted the user that added this quote to the Wikipedia article Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars which the answers.com site is mirroring to see if he can provide me with a specific source. Until I hear back, I have removed the quote and added a remark that official Star Wars sources do not attempt to explain the plot hole and I gave an example from a reliable source. Dmoon1 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Oppose ReverendG 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to give a reason for your opposition so that I can attempt to address it; if you don't then your objection is not actionable. Dmoon1 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support you're right, i had no basis for objection that i can see. ReverendG 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Dmoon1 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow, I'm impressed... If only we had these standards on wookieepedia... --UVnet 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support (now it would do no one any good if Wikipedia and Wookieepedia were mirrors ;) ). Dmoon1 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This article is great and I really don't understand the fair use concerns. There is no policy that says you are only allowed to use x fair use images. At best you can only view two images at same time on my screen, so they are not overused. --Maitch 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Dmoon1 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto delle donne

This article has just had an extremely thorough Peer review, and I believe that the issues which were brought up have been resolved, except the image which I am going to retrieve from the library tomorrow :) I think this is a very good article on a somewhat esoteric subject. I've tried to keep it streamlined and focused on important issues, and I think that's been accomplished, and hopefully the subject's larger musical importance is clear. I look forward to some constructive criticism, and hope that this can be brought through to be an FA. Mak (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (p.s. self-nom. are there any serious ones which aren't?)[reply]

• The article looks quite good, but there are a few strange points in the lead:
  • "late Renaissance court" - 1580 is rather after any endpoint of the Renaissance that I'm familiar with. Is there some particular source that suggests this?
  • "provoking imitations in the powerful northern courts of the Medici and Orsini" - both of these courts were south of Este, so I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say. (If it's meant to suggest that these courts were in Northern Italy, a source for ascribing the cities to that region would be nice.) Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your first point- in music the standard dates given for the Renaissance are 1400-1600. One possible source is the

New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians article on the Renaissance. Would you like an inline citation? This is considered standard in musical discourse. In answer to your second point - they are both in what I would consider northern Italy, but since I don't have a source and according to our articles Florence is in Central Italy, I guess I'll remove the northern bit. Thanks for your comments. Mak (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, ok; I didn't realize that musical history might have a different view of the Renaissance than some other fields. It's probably fine now; support from me, as this is an excellent article in all other respects. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from a participant in the peer review. I'm hoping that my arduous experience with the Gregorian chant FA candidacy translated into a peer review that will make this article pass readily. Only two small points:

• There are a few red links. Can you make stubs for these?
• Some references end in periods (Chew.) while others don't (Chew). Can this be standardized? (I know, it's so nitpicky. I'm sorry.) Peirigill 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already made many many stubs/articles in support of this article, but I think those two should also have stubs so I'll work on that. For the refs - do you have a preference? I have no problem with standardizing. Thanks very much for your support. Also, the facsimile may have to wait a little more, the library lost my request to get the book from New Jersey, or wherever they keep them. Thanks, Mak (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't decipher
  WP:FOOTNOTE on this point. The gist seems to be that any reasonable footnote style is acceptable. Since you're the primary editor, you decide the reference style for the article by fiat. Unless some editor with expertise in footnote styles has an opinion, I'd say pick whichever you like best — a period at the end of every footnote, or at the end of none — and stick with it. Peirigill 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok, Paolo Virchi and Ricciardo Amadino are now Blue, and I believe the inline citations are standardized now. Mak (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great. Really nicely written. pschemp | talk 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Really well done. I hope you don't mind, but I've added in some CSS to change the references section into three columns (won't be visible on Internet Explorer, though). If you don't like it, by all means, revert away! ♠ SG →Talk 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, I was actually wondering if there was a way to do that. Thanks, Mak (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Objecting to give the following comments some weight. Are there any graphic portrayals of the donne? I find the top image confusing in an article that does not deal with the Castello Estense (about which not even a stub has been produced). In order to go on the front page, the article will need a more relevant and descriptive image. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no images, (to my knowledge, and I have looked), of the concerto delle donne. The only images of the people involved which I have been able to find are either the image of Alfonso d'Este which is already on his page, or are on Laurie Stras' website, with special thanks to a specific person. Although these are probably technically PD, I don't feel comfortable using them, since I think they are in a private collection, and everyone involved would know they were taken from that website without permission. Perhaps one of the title pages of the facsimiles would be a better lead image? Or would you prefer the image of Alfonso? I'm not attached to any of the images in the article, I'm really not a visual learner, so I welcome input. I'd just like to point out that Featured Articles are not necessarily placed on the main page, so comments on their suitability for the main page aren't necessarily relevant. -- User:Makemi with login problems

• p.s. if you're objecting because I haven't written an article on Castello Estense, I'd just like everyone to know that so far I have written 23 articles in support of this article. To expect me to write an article on architecture for a music FAC seems just a tad unreasonable. User:Makemi

I was wondering whether anyone was going to object to the lede image. I was hoping no one would complain. Since someone has, I have some thoughts:

• Per
  WP:WIAFA
  , images are NOT required: "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." We could remove all images and this article still would deserve FA status.
• That said, it's reasonable to request whether any pictures of the ladies are available. I don't believe any are. Every CD of this music that I've ever seen has not included an image of the ladies on its cover art. If such an image existed and were readily available, I'd have expected to find it there. None of my books on Renaissance music have an image of them either.
• The castle is not a strong lede image. It is, I believe, a relevant and acceptable image. The castle was their performance space. It's comparable to using a picture of the California State Senate building to illustrate an article on the California State Senate instead of a photo of the assembled senators. Any confusion about the nature of the image is cleared up by reading the caption. Moreover, the article does deal with the Estense castle: "There was even a rival group in Ferrara, in the very palace where the concerto delle donne performed." It is true that the Estense castle is not mentioned explicitly in the body of the article. I'll edit it into that sentence; Makemi, it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the palace explicitly in the "Formation" or "Roster" sections. It doesn't need to be linked, and no stub needs to be created.
• However, since this is a music and not an architectural FAC, I'd recommend using the notated musical manuscript as the lede image. You can either attach the sound sample to the image in a userbox as was done for Gregorian chant, or you can leave the sound file down in the Music section and refer the reader to the lede image either in the text of the Music section or in the sound file's description.
• This article, whether displaying the castle, the frontispiece, or the notated manuscript as the lede image, would be perfectly suitable for the main page, and I look forward to seeing it there soon. Peirigill 11:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the lede to include the facsimile and the music sample. It might need some tweaking, depending on your browser. I agree that the Castello Estense image was not very strong, I used it originally because I 1) Didn't have a facsimile and 2) Thought that the Castle was best at expressing something about the entire group, instead of an image just of the patron, which I thought would be misleading. I hope it's better now, thanks for the comments, Mak (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. The point was not about the need for an image. The point was that misleading images must be avoided. I've removed my objection and will fully support once I've figured out how the page can be laid out in a way that allows it being comfortably viewed on 800x600 screens. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Contributor as copyeditor) Very good article. Here are some comments for improvement.MarkBuckles (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musica secreta redirects to Musica reservata

. Are they synonyms? There’s no reference to the term ‘’Musica secreta’’ on the reservata page.

• To the extent that anyone knows what musica reservata and musica secreta actually mean, yes, they're synonyms. Musica secreta is basically only used as a term in reference to the Ferrarese court, but it comes from the same mileu etc. as musica reservata and means the same thing. I've added it to the musica reservata article.

First big music section seems disorganized. It starts out discussing the composers who wrote pieces in the style, but also includes important stylistic information in strange places like the end of a paragraph (“This indicates both that male singers were probably not used after Brancaccio, and that instrumental accompaniments were a common and acceptable means of filling in the counterpoint.”) This is a big point and should be presented as such. And I think we should get the the discussion of dimunitions either earlier in the first section or in a separate section entirely. Much of this seems like it should be located under “Style”. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still working on organisation. You're right there. Mak (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'm working on it. it just sucks that my computer with all my notes died, and I had to return my main source :( </whining> Mak (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

This is the second article I have personally brought to FAC - the first being

• Support. Rlevse 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! ReverendG 05:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could the pictures be straightened so they are actually level? --
  Peter Andersen 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply: I could try rescanning them, but straightening is a little beyond my current photo editing abilities. --JohnDBuell 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They should be better now. Peter Andersen got one, and I took care of the other. - EurekaLott 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support! Mollsmolyneux 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The lead seems to be lacking a little in introducing the reader to the subject matter. It should include mention of the adaptations that have followed the radio series (the main Hitchiker's page features an opening that would be more appropriate, really; something similar to that). Also, don't forget to put the article subject in bold. By the way, this is more a stylistic suggestion than anything else, but since those red links aren't linking to anything, it would improve the appearance of the page to just drop them. Ryu Kaze 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: The first and second points I've done. If anyone would like to go through and remove red links, feel free. --JohnDBuell 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done I've changed all the red links back to normal text (I assume that's what you wanted?), there is still one in the notes section that I can't seem to find. Terri G 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I guess it doesn't really matter to me. Here and in Peer Review I've long said that I'm FOR red links, as I see them as "calling out" for expansion of Wikipedia into new articles and new subjects. I've started a couple of articles myself that way. But there are a number of people who think that they detract *shrug* The one you are looking for is within the 'ref' tags in the "Music used in the series" section. --JohnDBuell 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, like I said, it's purely a stylistic suggestion. Some people like them because of the "calling out" value, while others think they're a little painful to look at. I guess I honestly see them as both, but I usually expect that someone who wants to provide info on one of the red linked subjects will attempt to do so anyway. Red text actually bothers my eyes for some reason or another if I look at it too long, so I tend to think of the aesthetic value before the "calling out" value. Again, it's purely a stlyistic suggestion, and you guys should do what you prefer. A few red links certainly aren't grounds for objection, and — as you can see just below — the other changes warranted my support already. Good work with this article. Ryu Kaze 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — The changes work for me. Ryu Kaze 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Dunstan

This is an well-referenced and detailed article on a famous Australian politician. It has already undergone a peer review, and improved further as a result. This is to hopefully be my fourth featured article - I welcome your comments and votes! michael ^talk 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This article is about as good as they come. Rebecca 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--
  talk 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, looks like a great article. Only slight problem is red links, especially in the first paragraph of "The Dunstan Decade". Not enough to vote oppose, but definitely unsightly. Stilgar135 05:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All those links, in time, will be blue. However, right now there's no point simply writing twenty one-sentence stubs. michael ^talk 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great work. JPD (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - I'm one of those sticklers for
  WP:LEAD, in that this article should have at least a three paragraph lead section. Other than that, looks good to me! Fieari 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• At less than 30 000 characters, according to
  WP:LEAD, two paragraphs are sufficent. michael ^talk 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Not a criteria but is it possible fill out an infobox for Dunstan? I feel infoboxes add a higher level of quality and visual satisfaction to an article.
  - Tutmosis 14:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I did consider adding one. However, the portrait style of the lead image negates any positive impact from an infobox. michael ^talk 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, some of the image captions still need work.--
  Peta 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've made some changes. If you can be more specific, I'd be glad to know how I could improve them further. michael ^talk 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. I should disclose, as required by the new rules, that I copy-edited part of the article a while back, and had another go at it an hour ago. I think it's good, but a few sentences need ironing out. See my inline queries. BTW, flesh-pink hot pants and cooking books, I love it! PS The WP:LEAD guidelines that Fieri cites above contain proposed guidelines, not strict rules, about the number of paragraphs in a lead. I'll certainly be opposing any move to strict rules in this respect. Tony 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) PPS Please consider consistent use of "ALP"/"Labor Party" after first spelling it out. Same for "SA"/"South Australia". "Commonwealth" is a difficult word for non-Australians. Consider using just "federal", which is universally understood. Tony 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Starting image still needs a caption, but other than that this is well-written and well sourced. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest

Self-nomination

Okay, I think this is ready! I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration, after having done a lot of work on it. Before I started, it looked like this, and was in dire need of a re-write. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch, as so. However, it was still a little sketchy and lacked references, so I worked to get it up to Good Article standard (seen here). After some more work, I submitted it for FA candidacy when it was in this state, but the nomination failed, although I addressed many of the objections raised. From this, I began to have a much clearer idea of the FA criteria, and have since understood exactly why it failed the first time. I decided to concentrate on really addressing everything possible, in order to bring the article up to standard. I made sure that all major points were referenced, and expanded on any vague explanations to make them as encyclopædic and comprehensive as possible. A peer review was carried out, in which many very useful points were raised by fellow Wikipedian Bravada, to whom I am very grateful for his input. I addressed all the addressable points raised, and the article's quality was raised enormously; thanks to his strict criticism ;) There are points which were not addressed, but to my mind they are not addressable - and only a matter of preference as to how one would write the article. I do believe that there are no remaining addressable criticisms which could knock this nomination down, based upon Wikipedia guidelines. Following the useful peer review, I have carried out many more tweaks, re-writes and stylistic edits; finally going through the entire things, word-by-word with a fine-tooth comb. I am very proud of this article, and — as I now have greater understanding of what the criteria are for an article to be featured — I do believe it is ready.

So, fellow Wikipedians, I refer it to you: please, if you have any addressable concerns with the article then mention them here and I will promptly deal with them. If you have no objections, then please support. Thank you :) EuroSong ^talk 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportRlevse 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 12 points, well structured, written and referenced. Rossrs 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no objections ST47 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Support the rules section seems to be overly complicated when there is a separate page for them, perhaps the current rules only would be sufficient for the main page? Also I think there is a lot of jumping around in the chronology which can get confusing, perhaps a list showing the years of the main changes would help. Terri G 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is structured to be themed, not chronological. Do you think that a list of years showing major changes would be repeating too much information, or do you think it would be okay? It can be easily done... I just did not do such a thing because I thought it might make the article too repetitive. The separate rules page is not a good article at all - in fact it was created as a "break-out" article from an ancient version of this main article, and as it stands is pretty poor. It's one of my next projects to work on actually :) Therefore I have included all the important rules here in this article as it stands, and information contained in poorly-written other articles does not influence the flow or content of this article. Thank you for your (mild) support :) EuroSong ^talk 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good, all-round. Kingfisherswift 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A better lead-off picture would help to draw in the reader. Right now, the massive amount of text with a logo that is basically text isn't friendly to my visual sensibilities. A captured image of the actual contest might be better perhaps? --ScienceApologist 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention this. I have, myself, been thinking this for a long time: however I have not really come up with a suitable, appropriate alternative. The article used to have a more colourful logo: the old one, which was used for the Contest from 1956–1993. However, this was replaced with this modern, generic logo.. which — although accurate — is rather bland, I agree. The problem with having a screen shot is that it would necessarily come from one particular year, and while that might be very appropriate for the invididual Eurovision year articles which exist, it is really not what I want for the main article. No single year should be given precedence – not least in the lead. Perhaps someone can suggest something I haven't thought of? Until then, I'll keep the current logo. Thank you for your comment; do you like the rest of the article anyway? EuroSong ^talk 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot from Congratulations, showing a lotof different artists from different years on stage together? I have only seen some fragments of Congratulations, so I don't know whether there was an appropriate scene, but the stage and performances seemed kitchy enough to serve as an illustration for the entire ESC. Bravada, talk - 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I don't actually have the programme with me though, so such a screenshot would have to be uploaded by someone else. However, the image of "kitschy" is something I want to get far away from. If such an image is used it should be a decent, sensible one. EuroSong ^talk 08:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but if its to be about Eurovision, you won't get far away from that. Bravada, talk - 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Eurovision has never been about that. It's just about beautiful music and international friendship :) EuroSong ^talk 12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Important in European Culture Flymeoutofhere 12:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical heraldry

Self-nomination. This article has been through a

A technical question: in printed works images are numbered and can be referenced by number. How should one image be referenced in the text of the same article? Must the caption or a description be repeated in the text to identify the image? Gimmetrow 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Object. Lead could be longer, article itself a bit short. External links section looks weird with only one link. A See Also section would be useful. No references in 'Crosier' section. —
  Wackymacs 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've added refs to the Crosier section and two online sources to external links, and a See Also section. Thanks for the feedback! Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the See Also list repeats links present in the article.

WP:GTL says that is not ideal. I don't mind either way, but all the links are in the text. Gimmetrow 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Object. Decent article, but not fully comprehensive at the moment. Jeronimo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear why the article is divided in "Western tradition" and "Eastern tradition", especially since "Western" is 75% of the article and "Eastern" is rather short. It may make more sense to mix these (like Catholic and Anglican are mixed) making sections of the current subsection, adding one for mantles.

It seemed natural to divide it this way, but I see what you suggest and will give it a try. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten along this idea. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • How/where/when were/are the coats of arms are used? The first picture's caption gives a good example of this, but more is needed.

At one point I had found a good image of a document seal but the image was large (>1Mb) and made the page very slow for me to load. Will try to find that one image again. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was unable to find this image again, but did add an image of Leo XI's arms. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Are there any notable differences between ecclesiastical heraldry (and its usage) and "normal" heraldry? If so, discuss, if not mention that.

That's almost exactly what this article is intended to be about: the devices that are associated primarily with church heraldry and not used much in "regular" heraldry. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote lead to try to clarify this. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Catholic, Eastern and Anglican churches are mentioned, what about the other Christian churches (Protestant, Koptic)? Do they use heraldry, or if they don't, why not?

Yes, other churches use crests and coats of arms, but mainly use crosses and color/tincture symbolism to distinguish from corporate or non-ecclesiastical symbolism. Aside from the obvious (churches which don't use the mitre wouldn't use it for heraldry), literature about this is short and I'm not sure what could be said without OR. Eastern heraldry is relatively short for a similar reason - coats are often not much different than "regular" arms which use the mantle/shield form. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eg, compare a typical Eastern secular coat with this coat from the article. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It needs to be a bit more accessible at a few places as not all (heraldic) terms are properly explained. For example, the term galero is mentioned in the lead but not explained until the section about galeros, and lozenge (Shield subsection) is not explained at all (except on the linked wiki page).

Tried to address. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Are you sure all the pictures can be used? Some of them have a tag that seems to indicate otherwise, but I'm no expert on this. Jeronimo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure, but I am mainly concerned about the Eastern ones, and as they are the only two available I think they qualify as fair use. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are fine. 2-3 'fair use' images per article is fine, as long as they have a fair use rationale. —

Wackymacs 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Again thanks for the feedback! I've been trying to get feedback for a few weeks. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great improvements, I withdraw my objection and support. One thing though: "In the Byzantine tradition colors have a mystical." in the "Tincture" section seems like it is missing some words. Jeronimo 09:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support a great article on a hard to find subject. Well worthy of FA status.--Forlornandshorn 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Dave Boven 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References are in order: can you get JKelly (or someone who knows Fair Use) to check the images, and one of the copy editors to check the prose? Sandy 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is extensive German ecclestiastical heraldry, some of it Protestant; some of this is in Fox-Davies, but you may have access to a more direct source. Septentrionalis 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: A lot of work has been put into this article since I last read it fully. Well done to all involved (mainly Gimmetrow)! I have a number of comments, some about the prose, some about the content. I guess I could just make changes myself, but listing them here lets me explain my reasoning, and if Gimmetrow integrates them into the article it is less likely something else will get broken. Dr pda 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainly" is understatement. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lead:

Within the coat of arms, the shield usually combines the bishop's attributes with those of his diocese - is there a better word than attributes? Perhaps 'personal arms'? I recognise the difficulty of trying to find a synonym when both coat of arms and shield are already used in the sentence.

This was supposed to be a reference to shield composition, and the "may change" clause a reference to marshalling. I've given it a try but this seems to focus too much on marshalling, and I may change it back after time provides some distance. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analagous customs are followed...galero in heraldry - to me this would come better at the beginning of the paragraph. That way the customs are analogous to those of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than those of the pope, schools and dioceses. (Although I can see that putting the pope at the start of the paragraph keeps the references to the RCC together)

institutions such as schools and dioceses - perhaps Church institutions... as I presume Church schools are what is meant here.

Lead restructured. I was thinking of this anyway. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a better image than Martin Luther's seal for illustrating this article. It illustrates the point that personal arms can become used as impersonal, but is not really recognisably 'armorial' (Is that a shield with a cross right at the centre of what looks like a flower?). What about Image:Archbishop_Stefan_Insignia.png, which is reasonably early (12th century), is a good illustration of the seal featuring the likeness of a person, and also demonstrates the oval shape? Or something else from commons:Category:Seals instead?

The purpose was to show another seal that may be less foreign than the medieval ones. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • History

In the first sentence do we need both the Middle Ages, and beginning in the late eleventh century?

The link between heraldry as used on the battlefield and as used by the Church on seals could be made a bit more explicit. As it stands the second sentence does not seem to have anything to do with the first.

I'm not sure it is entirely correct to say that helmets, crests, coronets etc have never been used in the heraldry of ecclesiastical bodies or individuals. I came across a book today (A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry, by John Woodward (Edinburgh, 1894) ), and although I only flipped through it, I remember seeing many examples where these elements were used, particularly on the Continent among prelates etc who held temporal authority.

I did not say they were "never used" but "found little place" - that might still be too far but the helmet/crest seems to me more a Germanic thing, probably deriving from the prince-bishops. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like the following for the first paragraph:

Heraldry developed in Europe in the late eleventh century as personal badges of the warrior classes, in part as a mark of identification on the battlefield. In due course its use spread to other aspects of life, particularly on seals as evidence of the identity and authority of the person issuing, or party to, a legal document. The Church also needed to identify the origin of documents and ownership of property, and likewise adopted the use of seals. Over time seals became essential to conducting business, with the Synod of London in 1237 requiring seals for all religious authorities in 1237, and the decree of Edward I of England in 1307 that no document would be valid without one. The earliest ecclesiastical seals bore a likeness of the owner of the seal, as did contemporary seals of the nobility with the shield (displaying the heraldic insignia) included. Over time the seals of the nobility were reduced to just the shield, and clergy followed this development. Personal arms of bishops and abbots often continued to be used after their deaths, gradually becoming an impersonal seal. There was a tendency for clergy to avoid the use of the more martial aspects of the coat of arms, such as the helmet and crest, as well as symbols of temporal rank such as coronets, however, this was not always the case, particularly if a prelate enjoyed some form of secular authority. (insert example here, e.g. the German Prince-Bishops?). The galero (see below) was used instead of the helmet and crest in the arms of cardinals from the 13th century and later adopted by bishops, but ecclesiastical heraldry did not have a formal structure for indicating position within the Church until the seventeenth century, when a system for ecclesiastical hats attributed to Pierre Palliot came into use.

The last paragraph, especially the marking of buildings remains, reads a little bit oddly. What sort of community is meant, a religious one, i.e. an order/abbey?

I had in mind processional banners as in a school. Specified. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be good to give a translation of Collegio Araldico and Annuario Pontifico, or at least a brief gloss as to what they are.

• • Tincture

There's not really any need to introduce the terminology or, argent etc since these terms are not subsequently used. How about replacing the second sentence with

The heraldic metals are gold and silver, usually represented as yellow and white, while red, green, blue, purple and black normally comprise the colours.

An heraldic rather than a heraldic is strictly correct I think

It sounds like the colours for licence plates were chosen to obey the rule of tincture. Perhaps Most licence plates today use colour combinations which satisfy the rule of tincture for the same reason., or better The same principle can be seen today in the choice of colour combinations used on licence plates

Changed. I was not conscious of this in regard to license plates until I read that idea in every WP heraldry article on tincture. Some of those articles could use a similar copyedit. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Shield

A new bishop requires personal arms almost immediately. One of his duties as bishop is to prepare documents which must bear his own name and arms - does this refer just to Catholic bishops? Is this document just one with his name and arms, or does this mean he needs arms to seal the document to make it valid?

Specified RC. Official documents are written on a sort of letterhead and press-sealed. The arms are usually on the letterhead and definitely on the seal. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

escutcheon of pretence - I think this terminology is only valid applied to an inescutcheon borne by the husband of an heraldic heiress (he is 'pretending' to her arms)

The footnote goes to a description of the arms of a Bishop Bootkoski which uses the phrase: escutcheon "in pretense".[9] Maybe I'll footnote an explanation. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A married Anglican bishop combines the arms of his wife and the diocese on two separate shields placed accollé, or side-by-side - this is a little unclear. How about A married Anglican bishop combines his personal arms with those of his diocese on one shield and with those of his wife on another shield, the two shields being placed accollé, or side-by-side

The caption is also a bit confusing, how about the arms of an Anglican bishop marshalled with those of the diocese (left shield) and of his spouse (right shield)

Caption changed. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the last paragraph rather confusing. As I understand it Anglican diocesan bishops impale their personal arms (if they have any) with those of their See. How does this differ from Catholic bishops? Also, how can official arms be personal arms? The former relate to the office, the latter to an individual; if the individual holds the office then they are combined, e.g. by impalement. Also the Anglican Church, to me, refers to the wider Anglican communion, not just the Church Of England. The Anglican church in Commonwealth countries in particular follows the same heraldic traditions. Brooke-Little, in his 1983 revision of Boutell's Heraldry says this:

Archbishops and diocesan bishops may impale their personal arms on the sinister side with those of the See. Other bishops use only their personal arms. All bishops ensign their shields with their mitre.

perhaps we could use something like that for the first sentence. The second sentence is better, I would be inclined to leave out 'for similar reasons', and possibly also 'arms of', because it is the dioceses which cannot be recognised in law. If you want a reference for this, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 seems to be the operative act. It basically repeals the penalties prescribed by an earlier act for anyone using the titles Archbishop of X, Bishop of Y, Dean of Z except for holders of such offices in the Church of England, but does not remove the offence. (Brooke-Little says it is due to a clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, but as far as I can tell the clause although similar has since been repealed)

• • Galero

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that Anglican clergy can use hats as well. A bit of digging reveals that they can. The following passage again comes from Boutell's Heraldry, p225-6, but similar information can be found in Heim's Heraldry of the Catholic Church, in the chapter on the Church of England:

Anglican clergy not of episcopal rank, unlike the Roman clergy, have always borne arms in the same way as laymen, that is with shield, helm and crest. Recently, particularly in High Church circles there has been a movement to dispense with helms and crests, and replace them with ecclesiatical hats like those in the Roman Catholic Church. This mild agitation culminated in the Archbishop of Canterbury writing to the Earl Marshal, to say that in his view it would be proper and acceptable that those clergy of the Anglican Communion who desired to ensign their arms with an approved design of ecclesiastical hat should be permitted to do so. In response to this letter the Earl Marshal issued a Warrant on 21st December 1976, permitting the Officers of Arms to marshal the arms of those clergy of the Anglican Communion who wished to use hats in place of crests to do this, and list of appropriate hats was annexed to the warrant. The hats authorised are as follows:

DEANS: A black hat having three red tassels pendent from purple cords on either side. ARCHDEACONS: A black hat having three purple tassels pendent from purple cords on either side. CANONS, HONORARY CANONS EMERITUS AND PREBENDARIES: A black hat having three red tassels pendent from black cords on either side. PRIESTS: A black hat having one black tassels pendent from a black and white cord on either side. DOCTORS OF DIVINITY: The hat appropriate to their degree, the cord from which the tassel depends being interlaced with a skein of red. MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN'S ECCLESIASTICAL HOUSEHOLD: The hat appropriate to their degree charged on the front of the crown with a Tudor Rose proper. DEACONS: A black hat without either cords or tassels

Depictions of these hats can be found here, which incidentally mentions that the hat used in Presbyterian coats of arms is a geneva bonnet, rather than a galero.

Fine, I'll work this in (given a full reference). I've been limiting the article to statements I can verify from another source, and as I noted in PR I do not have the Heim book. By the way, the Geneva hat is already mentioned in a footnote. Nevertheless many Presbyterian arms use a hat that looks (to me) indistinguishable from any other galero. The movement to use Geneva hats is a sort of heraldry current event. I don't want to quote blogs but I tried to acknowledge it by having the footnote on Geneva hat point to one of the people pushing for it. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Motto

Translation of the Latin would probably be a good idea.

I thought the translation was adequate, but I suppose the humor may be more evident now. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Papal Insignia

The book by Woodward I mentioned above gives examples of other clergy using angels as supporters.

AFAIK, no RC clergy uses supporters based on office held, except the Pope. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Chivalric Insignia

This section seems only to address Catholic orders. What about the British orders of chivalry, for example, or the Order of St John?

Main point here was that RC clergy can only use chivalric insignia from two orders - any others are not allowed on their coat of arms. Happy to add information on other orders if it has some religious connection and a reference. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two bad images. Image:CoA Husi Bishopry.jpg and Image:Serb-ch.gif have no source. There is no licensing information on either the original design or this particular rendition. Best course of action would be to just remove both; they're not essential to the article. Jkelly 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without them there will be no eastern heraldry image. Gimmetrow 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to put in some time to help with this. Let's look for some old illustrations of Orthodox coats of arms. Jkelly 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed both images and rearranged the others for layout. Gimmetrow 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've copy-edited the first few sections (rather quickly). I wasn't entirely happy with the writing: a few of my edits were personal preferences, but most were sorely needed. Please check them, since I'm unsure of your intended meaning in a few places (like right at the top). Tony 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to the hidden text around "permissible"? Fixed. I was struggling with that sentence before; it doesn't fit with the other ideas in the paragraph. I rewrote the lead a couple days ago, and now that sentence is unnecessary. Regarding shapes, clergy don't use fewer shield shapes, but rather more often use the shapes that have less obvious military connections. Gimmetrow 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; but a few suggestions. Typically we use "According to <expert>, XYZ is true" only when XYZ is subject to debate. Thus, I don't think the following sentence is optimal: "According to Guy Selvester, 'non-episcopal cardinals may not display a cross in their arms.'" I could be wrong, but it seems that this isn't controversial. Leave the citation, drop the "according to" bit. Another thing: in the sentence "No other Roman or Anglican clergy has a right to supporters unless by personal right", what does "personal right" mean? Unless that is understood by the reader, the sentence isn't worth much. Other than that, nice job. I can't comment on whether or not this is comprehensive, but it looks FA worthy. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cardinal-not-a-bishop detail is not mentioned in other sources, but one case contrary to Selvester's statement is given in the same paragraph. I can't determine if the arms are "improper", there are different schools of thought, or Selvester is wrong.

Regarding "personal right", for clergy the use of supporters is not based on an office held (primate, patriach, etc.), except for the Pope. But if someone used them before becoming a priest (eg, in the family coat of arms, or from former military service), these could be retained.

Are periods at the end of captions an MoS rule I don't know about? Gimmetrow 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Selvester, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying "personal right". As for image captions

Wikipedia:Captions suggests that complete sentences are preferable, and I've seen a number of people mention using periods on FAC. But no, it's not in the style manual right now, and it's not a big deal, but I like to see them when there are relatively long image captions. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. I had decided a while back not to use periods because some of the captions are not complete sentences. Gimmetrow 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Riurik 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sandy 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (terminology)

I'm restarting this nomination - the old discussion was too long to parse and contained a number of no-longer applicable sections. I'd like to see more work done on addressing the issue of list-heaviness. Raul654 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. in current form. The article is list-heavy, but also extremely informative. The lists seem appropriate here, but could be improved by converting into prose. If any section needs it, the one which needs it most is "In History." Neutral in curent form, would support fully with some list conversion. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tried converting history to list form, it made it very confusing. -

· 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Fine! I know it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I Support! RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well that was easier than I expected :) Besides, Niko took care of the history section now :) -

· 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose As before on the basis of it not being an article, but a list. As before, looking at, for quick examples, most of the featured lists of birds contain blocks of prose as this article does but are fundamentally lists as this one is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: FLs that were specified before (
    List of Oklahoma birds
    ) contain extremely less prose.
  • On the other hand, there are many precedents of featured articles that also contain lists:
    • Rugby World Cup
    • Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)
    • Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006
      (massive lists)
    • FIFA World Cup
    • €2 commemorative coins
      (massive lists)
    • History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) (massive lists)
  • This is an article, which has the following main differences from lists (of birds or anything):
    • It has a subject: To clarify the mess and semiological confusion among terms used in Macedonia. (Birds only have identical names for everyone, which are simply listed)
    • It illustrates the controversy that created this mess (
      UN
      did't deal with birds, and different species don't quarrel over who's to be called eagle.)
    • It explains which term, under which context (referred for whom, addressing whom, and said by whom) can be considered pejorative and for what (cited) reason. (Nobody is offended when someone calls a bird by another name.)
    • The text/list ratio is 58% - 42%, including references. Compare the truncated versions I created:
      • Macedonia (terminology) PROSE (28.1Kb)
      • vs
      • Macedonia (terminology) LISTS (21.0Kb, plus some 'lists' included are essentially not lists, as explained below.)
      • Such a ratio does not exist in any type of featured list. (They are more like 20%-80%, including the FL examples above).
    • The 'lists' that have remained, are not essentially 'lists'. They are paragraphs that have been bulleted only to illustrate semiological confusion. No other featured list contains paragraphs for every single entry (excluding the bottom part of 'terminology by group' section).
    • On the other hand, there are featured articles with greater dominance of lists (examples above), plus their lists are indeed lists and not bulleted paragraphs.
    • Three (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to remove the bullets from these paragraphs. See examples of ways to reformat the history section:
      • One by Errant: here
      • One by myself: here (note, 'history' didn't exist as a section yet, see bottom of intro)
      • Another by myself: here
    • The proof that it is not a list, lies in the fact that it was indeed formatted as prose, but then bulleted back only to illustrate semiological confusion. Try doing that in the lists of the precedent featured articles I specified above!
    • Nine users who had 'list' concerns, removed their opposition in view of the large scale additions and modifications in this article.
      • 6 of them support (User:UberCryxic-Wholehearted Support, User:Smurrayinchester-Support, User:Jaranda-Support, User:TheGrappler-Support, User:Fieari-Support now, User:RyanGerbil10-Support) and,
      • 3 of them are neutral (User:Robth, User:Zafiroblue05, User:Huntster).
  • Please consider the gravity of each objection: It seems there are like 30 users who approve it as it is, 9 users who thought it used to be a list and isn't now (6 of them on top of that now support), and we are trying to deal with a veto of one or two users who just object on bullet-formatted text. The veto power of the users who objected to bullet removal, the main contributors included, was overwhelming. I request you follow user Robth's example to reconsider your votes, and go for Neutral, which will not veto the wishes of the extreme majority here. :NikoSilver: 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veto power :) -

· 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose I have no idea what this veto crap is but I am still objecting on the list issue. NikoSilver has tried to argue against it instead of addressing it. Please address it since it has been a concern since the beggining and both attempts to fix it have been, in my opinion, tentative at best. Joelito (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as before. Tony 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, im still going against the grain here, although I see why people are arguing this is a list it also wouldn't make it through the FL process. In fact it definitely wouldn't and would be very out of place as a featured lists. I think the problem here is that this is an article worthy of featred status - plus it is on an interesting and controversial topic and deals with it so well!! It is a shame that it gets denied that by being too list'y but I suppose that is the way things go. In fairness to Nikosilver and Frtancis they have done a sterling job addressing all the problems as best they may so I think Joelito is being a little unfair, in truth they did experiment with more prose but they are right that it made the article more confusing.

The thing is that this is (and never was) a list - so if it's not an article then what is it. Regardless I am supporting this still simply because it is a great piece of work that both these 2 and others have spent a long time perfecting... --Errant

Talk)(Review me) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Ok. I'll try to address it, but not that it hasn't already been extensively addressed.:NikoSilver: 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to understand the objections. We could view all wiki articles as a "list" of facts, especially since there is no room for original research, and we have the POV factor. Indeed, most articles consist of a list of different facts, in appropriate order, they build a picture of the same object. Here we have a list of facts describing a same noun/appelation but which is interpreted in different ways. It is that difference of interpretations that forms the core of the article, one that has preoccupied a number of academics, politicians and historians. In my opinion, several experts in the field - some of them also true experts in the ways of wikipedia - have poured over the article, debated and concured that it is an article, not a list. Therefore, I think its FA suitability needs to be evaluated in terms of a bona fide article. Politis 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Errant and Politis. I too think that it may have been something close to a list earlier, but it is simply unfair towards the extensive efforts and attempts that have been made to de-bullet it, to simlply stick on the list issue and not want to discuss! The precedents are numerous and the arguments above were compelling (did the opposers read them? Why don't they respond?) I will make one more attempt, though, but I strongly believe it will be to the detriment of the article's readability. Again, please do not ignore the wide consensus of the rest of the users who support, and of those that have dropped their 'list' objections. It is simply unfair to veto this great article, without any real basis, and without any discussion! I am deeply dissappointed. :NikoSilver: 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To opposers: Please see it now, and respond if this is the direction to which you wish the article was formulated...:NikoSilver: 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody responded to this, but my opinion is it sucks coz it repeats the same thing in three places, just to include some prose: maps+text+table. :NikoSilver: 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and Support I want to express my strong disapproval of Joelito's comments. At first, I too accused Niko of not addressing that issue and trying to argue around it, but since then there has been clear and extensive improvement in that area. "Tentative" means something like "experimental," and while I'm not trying to give anyone a vocabulary lesson, the changes that Niko has implemented are very sweeping, not tentative at all. Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!UberCryxic 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone wishing to verify the "clear and extensive improvement in that area" here are the diffs [10]. I still see the same lists. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply eye-jogging through the article reveals massive differences, either large white spaces where none existed or new material. I am not going to document every change, but you can see that the lists in the lead were taken away. Beyond that, you haven't really addressed my point. Some of the lists are still there, but Niko has made huge strides in adding prose to what is now firmly an article. This statement by me, "Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!" holds very true with your link. Anyone can see that there have been huge changes made. At the very least, you questioning Niko's efforts to address the problem are disingenuous in light of evidence that you yourself have presented.UberCryxic 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Joelito: Point? Where exactly do you see the same lists? Also, I think the diff is so messed up, that I am beggining to think you haven't followed the article's evolution since nomination. Let me put simply:

• Original version before nomination (July, 10): 17.3Kb
• Macedonia (terminology) today (July, 24): 48.7Kb - all additions in prose and refs. No list added.

• Major additions:

• WP:LEAD
  1 par -> 3pars
• Etymology: ->New section, 3 pars
• History: 1 sentence + a list (still incorporated in lead) -> 3 pars + list, separate section + 2 subsections
• Templatised Maps: as cool as always. Unchanged
• Geography: 2 lists with 3 pars intermingled -> 2 lists plus 6 pars
• Demographics: Just a list -> a paragraph and a list with much lengthier entries
• Linguistics: Just a list -> 3 pars + 1 opening sentence + a list
• Politics: List with sublists containing 1 par -> No list + 3 pars
• Names in the languages of the region: Unchanged
• Terminology by group: 1 opening sentence + 3 lists -> 3 pars + 3 lists
• Notes (one of the most important parts): 4 essential notes -> 5 essential notes
• References: 4 -> 73! (we even have an objection for that now below!)
• Totals: 9 pars + 2 sentences + 9 lists + 4 refs -> 27! pars + 2 sentences + 8 lists + 73 refs

• How can you (Joelito) not notice that and ironicaly request us to verify UberCryxic above? I think you better strike that last unfortunate comment (at least), or your opposition is likely not to be taken seriously at all. :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop trying to dismiss anyone (attacking the messenger) who opposes you and start addressing the concerns. I have commented every time a new section for the FAC has been created so I have been following the progress. 9 lists --> 7 lists + 1 table are still too many lists for an article. If I am not mistaken only 1 of the lists has been converted to prose. I know the article has been expanded considerably (also some of my past concerns) but the list concern has not been addressed to my (and others) satisfaction. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He is not dismissing you. He has already significantly addressed concerns like the ones you have brought up. We can certainly have a conversation regarding what degree of satisfaction Niko has given those objecting, but don't making the categorical statement that he is not addressing your concerns. That's just a plain lie. Obviously he has; you can see the article for yourself. Niko has actually proven himself to be one of the most involved and quickest FA nominators I've ever seen.UberCryxic 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006: I suppose 5 tables and 3 lists would be fine then, huh? Nobody attacked you. It is your insufficient arguments I am attacking. You have never responded on the issue. You always just post a message to keep the conversation alive. Kindly respond to every single argument in my two lengthy posts above. If you can't then you're wrong. I am certain the article is in the wrong path with the recent irrational additions. This is not Macedonia (region) we're writing here. It is Macedonia (terminology). :NikoSilver: 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• object so many references to such a small article. Needs proper development not to reference every word. Very nice and instructive maps!!! --Pedro 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that's an original! :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much refs isn't a reason to oppose any FAC

^{wat's sup} 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Half of the article are refs, that's original! An article is not a collection of references. It seems a reference page in a PHD, not an encyclopedia article. --Pedro 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not very kind, Pedro. How can references be original? All articles in wikipedia are, arguably, a list of referenced facts because we do not accept POV or original research. I would say this article is an OK introduction to a PhD thesis, not its reference pages. Politis 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I cannot satisfy you and remove references. Feel free to keep opposing. Thank you.:NikoSilver: 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i'm just saying it needs expansion and better formating and not concentrating to much on references, many of those references are not very useful, but you shouldn't remove them - That would be stupid. --Pedro 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, we can't expand it further. (a)It is already almost 50Kb, without the templatised maps. (b)We will not be "tightly focused on the subject". The subject is terminology. Why the hell should we expand further e.g. history? The parts that are relevant in illustrating the controversy and confusion in terminology are expanded more than adequately. After reading it, do you have any question on the how's and why's of the terminology? Anything you believe would apply? The fact that we have so many refs, is because we can't tolerate nationalist rant about 'unsubstantiated material'. (Greeks included). :NikoSilver: 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • changed to neutral. It doesnt look great (except for the maps that are great, it is informative enough, most important in a FA is information).--Pedro 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing statement: After extensive attempts to ruin the article towards the direction indicated by Joelito, without real argumentation, or any substantial responses to my arguments, I have decided to revert the article to the version before these attempts. If anyone still thinks this is not an article, then so be it. Let's put it in the Featured Stubs! Raul, feel free to close this, list it in FL, dump it, delete it or... (why not? 30 users emphatically say so!) feature it as it is. I am out. :NikoSilver: 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of work here has been done. A lot of various things have been tried. The essential problem I see is scope. This isn't a history article, nor is it a geographical article. It isn't an article on linguistics either. It is an article on terminology. The stated purpose of the article is to describe the way that the terminology surrounding Macedonia is used by various groups. Now then, people may say "but why on earth do you need that, and whats with all the lists?", the reason for the lists is simple. The principle that was decided upon on the inception of the page was to use Self identifying terms. So many other articles related to Macedonia have been edit warred into oblivion because of terminology. In fact, you can even see it in the history of this one.

The more prose that was added, the closer we got to edit warring. It really is very difficult to write an article regarding Macedonia that all sides accept. By and large everyone accepts this. Back to the lists! The lists as they are so lovingly called are imperative to keeping the content readable. When we have 6 different meanings for the term Macedonia, how else are we to present them, We have 3 different meanings for the term "Macedonian" relating to linguistics, and 5 relating to "Macedonian" in demographics.

How then should we format this, whilst maintaining self-identifying terms that it wouldn't be entirely opaque? Is it possible to have a featured article on terminology? I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the

requirements

, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.

I may be naïve, but I think that the article has the potential to improve articles about Macedonia as a whole. When a non-Balkanian comes to a Macedonia related article and sees such a large dispute going on, the first instinct is to hop it, get out of there, it isn't worth the trouble to get involved, those guys will never agree. A top class reference on terminology might help to lessen that, and get a larger number of non-Balkanian editors involved, something that the articles are in serious need of. This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this.

So, my final plea, do not oppose solely on the fact that there are a large number of lists in the article, perhaps oppose because you don't think that is some of Wikipedia's best work, or oppose because you don't think it is neutral, or there is a full stop out of place. Just not the lists. -

· 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for the length of my reply. Feel free to remove parts you feel are irrelevant in order to keep the page more legible. -

· 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Oppose Neutral - Political tensions on Wikipedia is not justification for making this a featured article, Francis. If the article is so great now in easing the flame wars that occur in Balkan-related topics, then it should be a significant help regardless if it is featured or not. Telling someone to look beyond the tangible aspects of the formatting and to support it for its spiritual merits is just wrong. If this was a "Articles that create a paradigm shift and further the cause of togetherness" nomination I would be in favor. But it is not, and so I won't vote in favor until the list issue is resolved. --Sean WI 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has gone through a considerable change since it was first put up for a nomination. I now see the work that has gone into transforming the article into a stable, informative, and interesting read. My prior objections to the format have been aleviated by the endless work that a select few people have accomplished. I now feel that the bullet points are an acceptable way to convey the message, making it easy for the uninformed to digest the material. This article has my support. --Sean WI 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you didn't want to read the whole post, it was pretty long, so I'll direct you to, "This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this." -

· 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe you should better direct him to: I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the

requirements

, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.

I second your whole comment 100%. Let it burn, I don't care. I am not ruining a great article because some people cannot justify their opposition. I have presented compelling precedents and arguments in two lengthy posts above and nobody has responded to either. You can't veto something unless you have a solid rationale. Therefore, I consider all 'list' oppositions moot. :NikoSilver: 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys lets stay calm and friendly! The article has improved alot and will continue to do so over the years. I think you should forget about FA for now and wait a couple of months - then relist it and see if time has matured it enough for people to have changed their minds --Errant

No Errant, but thanks. I sincerely believe that all 'list' oppositions are invalid. Reasoning above.:NikoSilver: 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some recent additions in prose. Mainly, a new 'etymology' section, and several paragraphs in 'history' section, which was also split in two subsections. For more details, refer to my comment above under 'Major additions'. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]