Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2006

• includes information (for example, regarding the themesong) that's not otherwise referenced in the main text.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The theme song is one fact, as is in fact mentioned at the end (that the intro sequence has become infamous enough to be a target of parody), but I'll add on the themesong just to make it clearer. The purpose of that information in the lead, however, was to further explain the plot summary of a neighborhood bar where everyone knows you.

The lead should be a summary; when information is mentioned only in the lead, either the information should be moved to the main text, or expanded on there. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, the song is mentioned in the main article. And as in my previous response, examples are more helpful than blanket statements (as I don't see any examples of this). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The table of main characters is a particularly bad idea; it should be converted into text and substantially beefed up (and the years the players were cast regulars should be added).

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Text would be unreadable. The West Wing has a character table (which you didn't seem to have a problem with when you commented on its FAC), and the only reason Arrested doesn't have one is the characters don't have sub-articles. As for the player's years, that is a very good idea. I tried it once on the infobar but it screwed up formatting, it would work better here.

Strongly disagree. I know tables are used like this in other articles, and it hurts those articles, too. Too many editors use tables for the sake of using tables, and they impeded the presentation of real information. The "Arrested Development" article uses a text format, and it's much more effective than the "West Wing" article. A general description of the show's set of characters, with a more detailed paragraph for each major character, maybe bullet-pointed, would greatly improve the article. The existing treatment is greatly inadequate. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, and if you disagree with my formatting choice I apologize, but each main character is sufficiently deep that to discuss them on the main article would be crazy, hence the split-off'ing with the character table used on other FA TV articles (like TWW). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "post-Cheers" section isn't terribly appropriate, and is, frankly, not very good. Not good at all.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I included the section at all as I feel it's important to see how a show that lasted this long affected people's career (we're talking about more than a decade of work for some of these people). I'll deal with your issues on particular sections now.

• Woody Harrelson has had a very successful film career, including an Oscar nomination, but gets only a single sentence.

By the time you get through with post-Cheers, and crossovers, and spinoffs, etc, barely half the article is actually devoted to the show itself. That's a bad idea, and expanding these sections doesn't help. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of a show on society is just as important, if not moreso, than the show itself. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not talking about the effect of the show on society. You're talking not-terribly unusual events in popular media. TV shows refer to other TV shows; TV shos spin off from other TV shows; actors keep acting after they leave one TV show or another. Kirstie Alley's weight gain and Shelley Long's depression aren't exactly earthshattering changes in the social fabric. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the actors, being so young (save maybe Alley with her appearance in a Star Trek film) was particularly widely known. Most of them owe the very notability that has them on Wikipedia to begin with to Cheers. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The point of linking on Wikipedia is that every topic mentioned doesn't have to be cover 100% as there are sub-articles for it. I added the Oscar nod as it was a big deal, but you cannot have whole careers for each actor/tress on the show.

Just adding boilerplate sentences about players having "numerous" theater/film/TV roles after appearing on the show makes the section even mushier and uninformative. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Again, you don't provide complete bios of every single person involved with the article's topic, but is important for a show completely (since Colanasto died) cast with young people to see how the actor's careers moved after the show (Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of what I mean by inadequate research; I don't know why you describe a cast like that of Cheers, who were mostly mid/late-thirties to early forties when originally cast as regulars, as "young" -- they certainly weren't "young" by TV standards. The average age of the Seinfeld regulars when that show ended was pretty close to the average age of the Cheers cast members when their regular roles began (and most of the Cheers cast, except Harrelson, were undisputably Wikinotable before joining the show. And I recommend the Seinfeld article as a good model for discussing the main (and recurring) characters in a TV show. You know, the Seinfeld article was better than this article when it came to FAC, and was rejected. The editors who proposed it seems to have been working hard on improving the article, rather than responding defensively. Monicasdude 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bebe Neuwirth has had significant film and Broadway theatre roles, entirely unmentioned.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.

• The implication that Danson had "a rocky history in finding work after the hit series" is pretty silly; after a few years of 8-figure salaries as the series wound up, it's not like he's out there pounding the pavements. And his imdb entry shows him as pretty active -- he just doesn't do much movie work while he's got a TV series on the air any more (and that's probably his choice).

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded the rocky history bit as it was a bit POV.

• Too much space is given to the Wndt/Ratzenberger lawsuit -- and the most recent citation is to 2000 events, surely something has happened in the last six years!

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) It's a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit! As for time passing, I did search long and hard when it was originally added and couldn't find anything. I found something just now, on another look, that said Paramount settled (so I reworded the section).

The current version is disproportionately long; it's factually inaccurate (for example, Wendt and Ratzenberger didn't ask SCOTUS to hear the case, since they'd won the immediately prior lower court decision); it really wasn't very important, and it has next to nothing to do with any important aspect of the show. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply an out and out lie. They did ask SCOTUS, as sourced by two seperate sources (actually several more with a simple Google search, I just didn't think we needed 10 sources for every sentence^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]}). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what has provoked this incivility, especially since you're dead wrong. Wendt and Ratzenberger won their appeal, and Paramount asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. It says so quite explicitly, for example, in one of the E!Online pages you cite. The side that wins a case doesn't ask a higher court to review/overturn their victory. That's not an obscure point. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've now fixed it. I was not trying to be mean, but you seem to purposefully (in TWW's FAC as well) attempt to derail FACs. The fact that the suit was brought to SCOTUS by Paramount and not the men was in the very final sentence of the article. I did miss it. I'm not going to even try and deny that fact. What bothers me is that had you merely said that rather than continuing with these vague complaints, only showing examples when pressed, the thing would have been solved days ago. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirstie Alley's professional work (a moderately successful TV series, quite a few miniseries, and roles in almost a dozen films, including the female lead in a Woody Allen project) is dismissed in favor of a discussion of her weight.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.

• The Shelley Long discussion is also malformed, suggesting that her divorce and depression followed soon after she left the show, rather than 15 years, after her successful (if not sensational) film career tailed off.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded and added.

• In other areas, the show was noted as well-written and well-directed, yet the off-camera craftworkers are almost entirely unmentioned. (They won just about as many Emmys as the stars, too, and that's also unmentioned.)

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I'll add further notes to the awards section.

Writing and directing awards aren't technical awards, and the winners should at least be named. It's too often standard Wikipedia practice to deprecate the work of off-camera talent/craftsworkers, and it's bad practice.Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me what you want. It is not the job of Wikipedia to bend to your personal will, and everything cannot be provided on one page. If it was, Wikipedia itself would be one page. Each of the writing and directing awards are given to several different people, and different groups each time they are awarded. Half of your complaints are about sections being too long, and this complaint would require a section as long as the article is currently to fully credit everyone who won an award. That's why the table says it's a summary of those who won, with a direct source link to a full table. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, again, dead wrong about the writing and directing awards; just refer to the listings at the IMDB, via the link you cite. It's mistakes like this that provoked my comments about inadequate research. Monicasdude 19:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have noted, the discussion of the show's critical reception should be expanded. The article really needs a coherent narrative history of the show; right now, the article is like a tree that's virtually all branches and no trunk.

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Of course expansion would be nice, but the important piece of critical reaction (that it saved the show) is mentioned. Anything further is just going to be fluff, and hard to dig up fluff at that.

Now that's just wrongheaded. Nobody would say (I hope) that, in an article about an individual performer (musician, actor, whatever), that only the initial critical reaction that made them notable should be covered. If critical reaction is important -- and nobody disputes that -- it should be treated comprehensively. Monicasdude

I'll add some more information from Toasting Cheers. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And David Angell and Tip O'Neill (among others) are more worth mentioning than a barely notable incident on Australian television. Monicasdude 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) How is a producer who died on 9-11 or a Democractic House member related to Cheers? Staxringold 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, David Angell appears to have been a writer and producer on the program [2], and Tip O'Neill played himself as a guest on the program [3]. Whether or not Angell's contributions are significant enough to be in the article I'll leave for others to disucss, but having the then-current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives appear on a television sitcom as himself should be included in a serious article about the program, as it is illustrative of the show's reach and popularity. I also seem to remember that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (maybe Admiral William J. Crowe, but I'm not sure) played himself on another episode. Gentgeen 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew about Angell, I couldn't include everyone on the crew. As for O'Neill, that is interesting. Think I should add some kind of "guest star" section? (I know John Cleese actually won an Emmy for his guest appearance) Staxringold 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing Angell as part of the "crew" on Cheers is like dismissing Philippa Boyens as part of the crew on "Lord Of The Rings." The on-camera performers don't write or stage the shows by themselves, and comprehensive articles about TV shows should appropriately reflect the important contributions of off-camera talent. Not getting my reference to O'Neill indicates, frankly, inadequacies in your research; as Gentgeen noted, it was an extremely unusual event.Monicasdude

I find that a little insulting. First off, no article on Wikipedia has comprehensive information within the article on every crewmember, or even every major crewmember. Heck, you brought up LotR, the

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy articles don't discuss Peter Jackson

, and I'd say he's rather important. As for O'Neill, yes it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't know what you are expecting. He appeared in one episode, you expect me or anyone else to have guest stars from every episode memorized? And you dodged around my question of if you think an actual guest star section is appropriate (because, if not, where would you put O'Neill?)

The LOTR movie articles aren't very good, and, despite what you say, pay more attention to Jackson than to any of the on-camera cast members. As for guest stars, I expect the editors contributing to an FA to do adequate research, and I think expecting them to, at a minimum, review the information in the IMDB is not out of line. The number and prominence of real-life figures appearing on the show as themselves is much more noteworthy, in the context of an article about the show, than events in the actors' lives a decade or more later. And your continued deprecation of off-camera creative talent as "crewmembers" is wrongheaded; the contributions of directors and writers are generally as important as the contributions of most performers. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) You can try to insult my research all you want, but no one would take an off-the-cuff remark about a Speaker to mean that he had guest starred in the series at some point... And you still haven't commented on which complaint you actually feel is correct, that the non-show elements to the show are too long, or that guest stars need their own section because they are notable enough. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I still don't think the article is close to FA quality yet, despite improvements. In terms of writing, it needs a thorough cleanup to remove unencyclopedic text -- e.g, phrases like "Sam's wacky antics," "sassy waitress Carla Tortelli," "whatever relationship troubles he was in that week," "her original rich dreams," "some other legal scam," and "he got her pregnant." There are still some dubious if not clearly wrong comments which at the very least need sourcing -- e.g., "Cheers didn't show any action outside the bar until later into the series"; "some other legal scam that grew out of [the Tortellis'] divorce"; "However, she encountered a glass ceiling." Some critical opinions/interpretations are written into the article as factual (e.g., "each of the major female characters being a flawed feminist in her own way") -- even when sourced, opinion is opinion. You really should take a look at the list of prominent figures who appeared as themselves on the show -- aside from O'Neill and Crowe, there were also two presidential candidates, one Kennedy, and several sports figures. But the most important problem is the lack of substantive information about the show itself -- while the "Arrested Development" article needs work, its structure is much better than one for this article. Monicasdude 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Again, I'm happy to go through and fix these things, but these examples are much more useful than blanket complaints. As for sourcing on the action outside the bar, it is absolutely sourced! What's the very first source listed under references? "Cheers. Created by James Burrows, Glen Charles and Les Charles. 1982-1993. Broadcast and DVD." Not everything requires outside sourcing when simple viewing of the program shows something.

If you're saying that you watched the the first however many seasons yourself and are making observations from your own viewing, that's a violation of

WP:NOR, whether those observations are correct or incorrect. And, given that scenes in Season 4, relatively early in the series, were set in Diane Chambers' apartment, the observation is incorrect. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

NOR applies when it is original research. It is not OR when the show is cited as a source and you include information from that show (again, Carla is a waitress is not sourced, because it is in the show very clearly). And the 4th season is later into the show, exactly as the article said already. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should review the NOR policy more carefully. The NOR policy is fairly clear; statements like the one at issue here violate the policy unless this exception applies: "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge." I don't think anyone can fairly say that a statement which requires someone to watch (at a minimum) 24-36 hours of a television series, keeping track of the location sets involved, is "easily verified." Monicasdude 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't source that Homer Simpson is the father of The Simpson family, because it is simply known from watching the show. And again, do you think a guest star section (maybe sub-section of the cast section) is appropriate? What you seem to have done is complain, rather than suggest fixes or comment on suggested fixes, which is a lot less helpful. Staxringold 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the FA candidates page. What I've done is object, and stated a rationale for my objections. That's all that is called for. Too many editors pushing FA candidates believe they have a Wikipedia-given right to have "their" articles promoted unless editors who object also do the work of fixing up the articles. That's not policy. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --
  Wikipedical 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I went ahead and added the guest star section, just so you guys know. Staxringold 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.Cool page. I am a big fan of Cheers, and you covered all the bases. Great job, my definite pick for featured page.Afrohead 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The internet links in the references section need to have correct dates attributed to them. For example, the article about Long attempting suicide was not written in 2006 as the section says. You need separate dates for when it was written (or no date, if it's not dated) and when it was retrieved as a source. Andrew Levine 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Added all the available dates. Staxringold 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentObject The production info satisfies my main objection, so, while I'm not supporting, I am no longer objecting. This simply reflects my current approach to FAC, where I'm attempting to interpret FA in a practical manner by only addressing things that I see as really out of sync with a basic application of FA criteria, when they don't seem to be being addressed by others (e.g. I have read/reviewed about half of the current FACs, and where I have no comment, I am explicitly not objecting.). My other Cheers suggestions would IMO still further improve the article. :) Thanks for the extra material. --Tsavage 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the "late" objection, but since this is still open, and an initial round of FAC improvement edits has been made, here's my contribution to the review based on the current version...) On the main grounds for objection, I find this article not comprehensive. In general terms, it covers only certain aspects of a "TV series", while entirely omitting others, notably, series production. The coverage here principally concerns only three areas:

• cast (not crew) Specifically, the actors and their characters are covered at length, to the exclusion of other participants in the making of this show.

Comment No television article substantially covers the crew. The reason? There are hundreds of them. Give me some idea of what you want and I'll add it. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• storyline and episodes - including "social impact" of aspects of same.

Comment As I said to Monicasdude, the documented impact of episodes is as important as their actual content. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• awards and other show rating/ranking data

This may be fine for entertainment media coverage, aimed at consumers of the show, but it is certainly incomplete for encyclopedic coverage, where ALL the basic aspects of a topic must be considered. One of those aspects is production information: how the show was actually put together. The "product" is a collection of stored audio and images. HOW those were...configured is naturally part of the fundamental nature of the show. I made the same objection to the (recently promoted)

The West Wing

, where it was ignored (although that article did have some production information). One comment there was to the effect that "we don't need to know what aspect ratio it was shot in". I agree. What is required is simply basics. For example:

• where was the show shot - apparently, the interior of the Bull & Finch was recreated in LA studios, while the Boston exterior was used in the series.
• was it shot in front of a live audience?
• was it considered innovative in any way for a sitcom, at its inception or later on? Usually, hit series do innovate in production areas (handheld camera, use of a signature shooting style, largely one-take, reliance on ad libs, novel approach to writing, etc etc). Putting this series in context with other similar series is necessary. If its production was entirely unremarkable compared to others, that in itself is notable.

• I'll try to add what I can find. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an unreasonable expectation, nor is production information somehow self-evident and therefore unnecessary, as the numerous "making of" documentaries for TV series and films helps demonstrate -- there is general interest in such info, beyond the simple logic that "what something is must be described, and a TV show is more than just actors and scripts that magically make it to tape". In an apparently appended section, a list of technical awards is included, which only begs the question: What exactly were they for? What was so great about the editing in 1984 that won it an Emmy? And so forth. An exhaustive technical breakdown is NOT REQUIRED. A balanced coverage in addition to actors, plot and awards is.

In addition to my main objection, I find some additional coverage of the music used/soundtrack, and the absence of any treatment of the business aspect (was this a particularly big moneymaker? how much did an episode cost? etc etc) also missing aspects. Again, excruciating detail is NOT required and not even desirable, simply, a summary of the most important facts.

Given your requests, I may just add a "Production" section that includes all of this. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the prominent and early use of tables to present lists is essentially "poor writing". A list, if at all necessary, belongs at the end. If the content is centrally important to the development of the core article, it should be incorporated as such. A list provides no summary, no context, and detracts from readability. One doesn't simple run into a huge table and "read through it", tables are generally (and very much so in this case) and obstacle.

Tables are not an obstacle. Come on. Summarizing the information in the awards or cast section into text would take far more room and be far more confusing. The only reason Arrested uses a textual coverage for their cast is that none of the characters have sub-articles. The cast table is just a more complete version of the For complete ____ see ____ split-off links, and the awards table would be crazy as straight text. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the overall balance of detail is uneven. What is included and what is not included often seems arbitrary. Specifically, with I categorically agree with Monicasdude's itemized objections. Some overlap mine, others, I wouldn't necessarily have listed if they hadn't already appeared. That said, I find none of those simply...whimsical, they all address the core FA criteria in a reasonable manner. --Tsavage 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what though? The impact of the show is important. The largest complaint I saw from Monicasdude was too much focus on that lawsuit, but that's one measly paragraph on what might have been groundbreaking legally. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I just read for the first time Arrested Development. As far as content, it is so much better: if that outline were applied to this article, maybe less than half the areas covered there are dealt with here. With that as an example (and "FA standard" of sorts), it should be easy to understand the shortcomings mentioned here... --Tsavage 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just added a production section that hopefully deals with most of your issues. Staxringold 14:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good article. --
  e Ong 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose: shoudn't be difficult to sort these things out though:
  1. First issue is that the reference to critics of the way the show dealt with alcoholism is from MegaEssays.com, a school essay cheat site. It's both unsourced and, IMO, an unreliable opinion. Our references must be verifiable and notable. Suggest that another reference is found for this point.
  2. The lead section should introduce any facts that aren't in the main article. This means that there is no need for any footnotes (except with an exception such as clarifying birth date or the spelling of someone's name). Suggest removing these.
  3. Any chance of moving to the new footnote scheme? <ref> and </ref> are better. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the sentence, as all the refs I could find were just links to that essay, and replaced the ref system with the new one. I have left the few refs that are in the lead in the lead as I think removing them would require some really awkward wording... Staxringold 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Australia

Comprehensive article on the flag of Australia, with multiple contributors, on par with other featured flags. Comments welcome.--

• Support. Appears to be adequate.
  • The above unsigned voted was added by User:Fifelfoo at 05:12 on January 24. Andrew Levine 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good article in line with the recently promoted Flag of Mexico. One thing more I would like to see, under the Protocol section, is what the recommended way to salute the flag is (if any). Andrew Levine 05:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] says that all should face the flag, no hand salute is given unless a person is wearing a uniform. Head-gear should also be removed too.
    Fair use policy 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • At least in some uniformed organisations, (uniform) hats are kept on and only officers salute. On the whole, I'm not sure that most of the protocol suggestions on that page are official in any sense. JPD (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good reading and informative throughout, well done. A minor comment, the last paragraph of the Other Australian flags section could probably do with a little information or even a link as to how those flags are officially recognised, given that the article puts some emphasis on the flags act. --darkliight^talk 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, meets the criteria.--
  talk 08:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Well done, great work. —Nightstallion (?) 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Let's hope it gets FA in time for Australia Day! - G^t 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This looks great and kudos to the major authors of the article.
  Fair use policy 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Well done, Aussies. We poms must get the
  Union Flag sorted out. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Nice and well written. —BrianSmithson 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done.
  Forever young 10:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Nicely done. Australia's pride in flag form as a well-done article! Uncke Herb 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting reading and a great article. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well written, well referenced, comprehensive. Rossrs 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good charts with explanations, interesting history section. Brandmeister 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and weak support: I notice that the National Flag Day and Centenary Flag sections are painfully short. Could they be added to the "history" section, or better yet, expanded (probably not). Thank you. --Trevdna 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painfully short is a bit of an overstatement. There really isn't much information about these subjects, but they both warrant mention and are distinct topics from the history of the flag.--
    nixie 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 18:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Yes! ^KILO-_LIMA 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political integration of India

Salute to All - After an intensive peer review, this article has improved in quality and content by over 50% - it is a balanced, informative, comprehensive and well-structured account of the most important series of events in modern Indian history - the story of the integration of a nation. I hope you will enjoy this article. I welcome all your comments, and ask for your vote to make this a Featured Article. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Rama's Arrow 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments' a few cosmetic things before I read the article in more depth, quotes shouldn't be in italics as it makes them harder to read, see the MoS. What is the purpose of see alsos at the begining of a section, are these main articles (if so use {{
  nixie 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment — I'll likely end up supporting this one once I've read this thoroughly. Some initial comments:
  • There is no mention of accession of Kochi (Cochin) and Travancore. I think this is needed.
  • There should also be no single-paragraph sections (this is evidence of somewhat poor topical organization) — please break up their contents or merge the sections (i.e., if there is one paragraph in a section, cleave it into two more more paragraphs, with each dealing w/ a facet of the section).
  • Some slightly awkward phrasing and syntax: e.g., "significantly diverse" — this is binary, a population is either diverse or it is not; these should be easily fixed.

— Saravask 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the above points have been presently addressed. Rama's Arrow 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now. The nominator and authors have done an excellent job on this. I've read the whole thing carefully and done some minor copyedits. I can see no major problems. Thanks for addressing my above concerns quickly. Good luck. Saravask 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A very informative and well-written article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support truly and well deserved. Some minor quibbles and they would be easily addressed. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-written. utcursch | talk 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very well written and with comprehensive coverage of the facts and events of the period. --Bhadani 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well referenced, well written, comprehensive article.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment. It's very good. I removed one problematic POV statement from the lead, but it mostly reads fine without it. One thing I noticed is the only place where it is mentioned the states that did not join India is in the map in the conflicting agendas section. It seems at least a paragraph or so should be dedicated to discussing areas that were not integrated and why. That's nearly as important as a discussion of what was integrated. Perhaps something else needs to be shortened to summary form to make room. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taxman - I'm a little unclear what you mean - in the CA section, apart from Pakistan there is no mentioned state that stayed away - Indore, Jodhpur etc. joined India. The main discussion about the creation of a separation of states from India is in the Partition of India. From the beginning this article makes the impression of taking over from the partition article, in the line of the history of India. It was suggested by a couple of folks to add a reference to Baluchistan and its demand to join India - but this was an India-Pakistan debate and it belongs in the partition article (besides, Baluchistan's main gambit was independence). Rama's Arrow 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From our partition article: "The term partition is generally used only in reference to the independence of India and Pakistan in August 1947, which were created largely along religious lines. Ceylon and Burma were granted complete independence separately, on January 4 and February 4, 1948, respectively." Why were those not integrated into India? What about Bhutan and Nepal? Was there no effort to itegrate those? Why? The partition article doesn't discuss those so we don't really know. If we're going to discuss integration of India we need to discuss what wasn't integrated. I suspect this is something entirely basic to someone familiar with the issue, but the article should include those important bits of context for the uninitiated reader. Is that any clearer? By the way the CA section and it's caption is a bit mangled now. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the "States" section that Nepal became independent and that Bhutan developed a protectorate relationship in 1949 with India. Ceylon was never considered a part of British India, while Burma was split off in 1936-38 I believe - thus they don't deserve mention here. On the whole I don't recommend discussing the reasons for Nepal/Bhutan in length becoz they will require an explanation that spins off into (1) why the Brits arranged for their independence, and (2) why and how are they/not considered a part of the British India, India...? Very murky waters IMHO. I don't want to go beyond India's political integration. Rama's Arrow 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I back including the 1948 map in the CA section, becoz readers should have a clear image of the subcontinent after accession battles. The maps are organized in (1) Un-integrated Indian subcontinent, (2) Politically independent subcontinent, (3) India - Union of states, theme. Rama's Arrow 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taxman - now I feel you're right. Bhutan and Nepal are already noted in "States" section; I'll add a ref to Sri Lanka and Burma. What I'm trying to say is that getting anywhere near Bhutan's and Nepal's nationhood (...why they were not integrated) is unwise; India officially accepted this. Rama's Arrow 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman's points have been addressed Rama's Arrow 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine and simple. I think it was something very obvious to you guys but important to note quickly in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written. Tintin Talk 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- copyedited it a bit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Great work, done almost singlehandedly by Rama's Arrow. There might be a scope for minor improvements here and there, but overall, it's FA material. deeptrivia (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great article, and thanks for addressing my concerns so quickly.--
  nixie 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Well written.Jisha C J 12:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Good work. --Pamri • Talk 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Beautifully written. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP cookie

I think this article now reasonably covers the topic of (Internet) cookies, thanks also to some comments it received in the peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1). This is a self nomination. - Liberatore(T) 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Small objection. The lists in the paragraphs should be converted to prose, otherwise looks fine. ToC may be a tad overlong, perhaps some sections could be merged? RyanGerbil10 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed some lists. Beside the "Implementation" section, the only list I have left is that on misconceptions, which is a bit long and probably looks better as a list. I however do not insist on this: if you feel that it would better restated as prose, I will accept this advice. As for the "Implementation" section, here I am using lists for indicating a sequence of steps, so I believe that these lists should not be converted. As for the TOC, maybe a viable solution could be to technically remove second-level heading from the TOC (I will check whether this is feasible). - Liberatore(T) 13:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Objection withdrawn. Sorry about the delay in response, I am setting up a new computer. The article has improved greatly, good job. RyanGerbil10 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Object. The article is slanted towards the downsides of cookies while spending little time on their useful applications. The lead is a small paragraph describing what cookies are, and then a large one criticizing them. In the main text, only a brief list explains what cookies are used for, and then the next several pages are spent detailing various downsides to them (with scary names like "cookie poisoning"). This is followed by a list of 4 "alternatives" which are presented as viable solutions but are in fact inadequate for most applications (track by IP address? use a nonstandard plugin? come on). It is mentioned that the CIA used cookies as though this were a sinister conspiracy, when in fact it was almost certainly an error on the part of one of their web designers (because it's so hard to make a useful website without them!). To balance all the criticism out, I'd like to see the beginning of the article include a variety of scenarios for how cookies are used (here is how Amazon uses cookies, here is how Wikipedia uses cookies, etc) and the "misconceptions" moved up closer to the lead. The lead image would also be better replaced by a screenshot of a shopping cart or something. Redquark 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading your comments, I realized that the article may look slightly POV against cookies. However, I believe that the main problem was with the initial sections (the Implementation section is more balanced). I have therefore addressed your main objection by:

  • adding a third paragraph in the lead, explaining the misconceptions about cookies
  • moving the "Misconception" paragraph much higher (it is now the third paragraph)
  • expanded the purpose section a bit (this is also to follow the suggestion above to remove lists)

  I think that these changes address the main point of your objection. As for the other points you make:

  • For the lead picture, your idea is good, but I would like to use a free image. Any suggestion?
  • Cookies have some drawbacks that need to be explained; note that the very first drawback is that cookies are not precise in tracing users, which attenuates somehow the privacy concerns; "cookie poisoning" is a technical term; I do not see how I can go without it;
  • The drawbacks of the alternatives are explained. For example, the section on IP addresses begins with "An unreliable technique for tracing users..."; I would also like to remark that this section should clarify that tracing can be done without cookies, and therefore rejecting cookies does not completely eliminate the privacy concerns. I have slightly modified the lead of this section, to make hopefully clear that these alternatives have drawbacks.
  • How cookies are used for shopping carts and preference/authentication is explained in the Implementation section.
  • I have explained that CIA stated that cookies were set unintentionally.

  Actually, there should be a point somewhere saying that this is an actual possibility because of the use of software libraries or tools that set cookies by default even if they are not used. Any suggestion as where this could be said? - Liberatore(T) 13:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, I'm satisfied. I'd still like a lead image showing an application rather than internal representation, but don't know where to find a free one either. Redquark 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support..presents good and bad points of cookies, misconceptions, and how they are used in terms many laymen could understand. Rlevse 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Kevin baas 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thorough.[reply]

• Comment - I was expecting to be told why they are called "cookies". Magic cookie does not tell me either. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question. "HTTP cookie" comes straight from "magic cookie"; as for where "magic cookie" comes from, these Web pages [5] [6] offer a possible explanation. I have not added it to the article because it seems to me not to be verified enough. - Liberatore(T) 12:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of New Jersey

Peer Review

Self-Nomination. Having undergone efforts by

Comment: Andy has been working hard on this article and related NJ History articles. Regardless of what happens in this FAC, I wanted to thank him for the numerous contributions and for getting many others to contribute through the drive to improve this article over the last 6 weeks. The contributions have covered much material that was previously either not covered at all, or was lacking details or depth. I have made some edits to HoNJ, so I will Abstain from voting. Thanks all. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this article is "
  well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable," and so I support it. Thank you AndyZ for all your work on this! Disclaimer: I am one of the top contributors to this article and so may be biased toward it. Cmadler 00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Extremely well-written. From a New Jerseyan, it's good to see a high quality New Jersey article get nominated. - Cuivienen 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, one minor nitpick, the reference should come after the full stop, there is a mix positions of before and after the punctuation in the article. Some of the main article links seem excessive, like those in the subsections in Colonial history, links within the sections (which are already there for most of them) are probably enough. 21st century could probably be further summarised, since the content in this article is identical to that in the 21st century article - alternatively the 21st century article could be redirected to this one, it seems a tad premature for the article given that we are only 6 years into the 21st century.--
  nixie 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have moved all of the ref tags to the end of the punctuation mark. I removed the two excessive detail templates you were referring to in the Colonial history section. I will also work on the 21st century section asap. AndyZ 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut down a bit on the 21st section; is it ok now? AndyZ 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from another New Jerseyan. Although I think that the "21st century" section may be a bit disproportionately long, it's really a judgment call. Andrew Levine 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is slightly long, but I feel that that is necessary because 9/11 was an important recent event that was responsible for a lot of damage in comparison the entire rest of the history of New Jersey. However, I did cut down a bit on the 21st section part. AndyZ 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I want to vote in support of the article, but since I was it's original creator as well as a contributor, (not as much as AndyZ), I feel as if I am biased in the article and therefore should abstain, courteously --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong at all with voting to support an article you've worked on. Especially when it's a good article. Andrew Levine 06:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok then, Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, great article. The summary is very good and it points out all the important information to a reader. --
  e Ong 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support very good article --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This is a good article, however, it can still improve. Specifically, I find the article to be a good summary of the events and forces that have influenced New Jersey, however the writing could use a thorough copy-edit. Many of sentences are not constructed well and do not flow well together. However, I do not find this to be object-worthy, so I remain neutral. --maclean25 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been heavily copyediting by myself and several other users- could you be more explicit when you indicate that it needs a thorough copy-edit? Is there any certain section that requires more copyediting? Thanks, AndyZ 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are doing good work with the copy-editing. I hope you continue, even after its promotion. Specifically, I am referring to those paragraphs that simply state facts but do not relate the paragraph's idea to NJ. For example, the first paragraph of "Early 1900s and World War I" states that Standard Oil was created, then dissolved, controlled much oil, became 34 companies. Better ordering of facts and using transitions could better relate this to how it impacted NJ. I'll elaborate on suggestions for improvements (eg. map for New Sweden, etc.) on the talk page. --maclean25 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object
  • Notes and references should be separated. As it is it's difficult to pick out the references if you are looking for further reading since they're all mixed in with comments, etc.
  • The sources seem too skewed towards internet sources and while some books are used I think much more of an analysis of the history is done in books. That isn't to say that it makes it wrong... but references like this don't seem to exude trustworthy. I checked the facts with Britannica but every source cited here should be something that we can say, "oh that's a good source" and trust what it says. I don't think this article has that.
  • I think the 21st century is given too much space and isn't well cited. The terrorist attacks part doesn't seem particularly well referenced. I think that some source should be cited about job movement that gives us an idea of the scope and that there has actually been a study done about it. I also am not sure it's the best heading title but, that's not so important.
  • Early colonial history reads choppily and the references aren't there to fill anything in. My problem with that is that convenient sources were found. In my opinion the sources should give you the fact used in the article and knowledge that surrounds that to make sure the writers have the full pictures and choose what is relevant from the data. This also serves for some good further reading for people browsing the encyclopedia.
  • On some images default thumb sizes are overwritten (some are too small). I think Image:Wpdms east west new jersey.png should be redone so it's not as choppy and possible the location finder in the U.S. should be totally removed.
  • All in all this article reads better than Britannica's article. But, I don't think that's enough anymore to become an FA. I really think we need stronger sources even if they produce the exact same article... but, who knows, better sources may produce a better article. The thing is... when you look at a source it needs to be authoritative and trustworthy... a lot of these sites may be right but we can't just assume they're trustworthy. gren グレン ^? 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it appears I am too late... Raul just featured it. gren グレン ^? 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State Capitol

This article has failed its first attempt at FA. However, after rereading the article, I believe that most, if not all, of the problems have been fixed (I asked Carnildo about the images, and he says that so far he has no objections with some of the images that currently can't be obtained through free means). Hence, I am taking the chance and giving this article a second shot at FA (as a sidenote this is, to my knowledge, the fourth FAC that relates exclusively to the State of Michigan). Pentawing^Talk 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent article. — Lovelac7 14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done. Rlevse 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm sure you've tried, but something has to be done about the first sentence. There's got to be a way not to be so redundant, make it clear this article is about the building, and still link to the necessary articles. Also the bit about the filming is really out of place and doesn't make for a full paragraph. Otherwise good stuff. - Taxman ^Talk 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I reworked the first sentence and shortened and moved the MGTV item to a better location. You're right about that one paragraph sticking out. Jtmichcock 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but now the two notable trees is in a similar position. Is there anything additional important about related ceremonial items, rocks, plaques, etc that could flesh out that paragraph? - Taxman ^Talk 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two other trees that are of historical significance that were in prior edits. These adds two more sentences to the paragraph and fleshes it out. Jtmichcock 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice. Gflores ^Talk 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Excellent. --
  Wikipedical
• Support. It looks very good, and is pretty well-written. My only suggestion is to add a paragraph or two directly under "History" and "The capitol today". Tuf-Kat 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Hugo Chávez

Withdrawn FAC. Peer review 1 (no comments). Peer review 2 (no comments). This article's contents were part of an article that was nominated two months ago (late November) for FAC. I later withdrew this, stating that I'd not renominate it. But of late I've been reading comments such as this. Thus, given how much effort I put into this in the past, I've tidied this back up, reformatted its referencing system, and copyedited it. Saravask 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Two obvious technical issues: (1) the references are double-numbered (probably due to the way MediaWiki numbering in a table works) and (2) the "Coup attempt of 1992" section isn't really a section in its own right—the link to the next article should either be removed (and left in the topic template) or worked into the text in a more suitable fashion. —Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully took care of both now ([7]; [8]). Saravask 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All things appear to be in order. Seems a bit short but my new monitor has higher resolution, so it could just be my problem. RyanGerbil10 05:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Could probably use some more Wikilinks... it seems so barren as it is right now. Gflores ^Talk 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What did he do to earn so many promotions and decorations in his early career, especially as he was sympathizing with the enemy? Also, (Chávez 2005b) link to the mp3 does not seem to work (for me at least).--maclean25 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The books refer to Chavez's strong on-the-job discipline and feigned loyalty — this may be all there is to it. Also, it is possible that number of awards Chavez earned is average, or even sub-par (i.e., perhaps his awards are not exactly the Venezuelan equivalents of the Purple Heart or the Bharat Ratna). About the mp3 link: yes, I checked it now — it is broken now (last time I checked/used it was several months ago). But there is a link to it on the right-hand sidebar on the Democracy Now! homepage (scroll down and look under "Hugo Chavez Special"; it's labeled "Online Special: Chavez NYC Speech"). I made fixes to the ref accordingly ([9]).

• Further comments: the article states "by 1988 per capita income fell to a third of its previous levels." however the reference says "real wages". I noticed that this figure in the reference was itself referenced to a piece by Noam Chomsky, might I suggest this alternative reference (which suggests 1989 would be more accurate). I don't see how (Schuyler 2001, p. 10) is related to the "Such measures involved the..." sentence in "Reaction to the Caracazo". Nor, (Schuyler 2001, p. 11) for the "This continuing poverty among the poor... sentence. In the "We'd like to here more about it" quote in "Final preparations" does Gott really spell "here" or is it "hear"? --maclean25 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some fixes to address most of your points ([10]). However, I'm not sure about a few of them:
    • " ... don't see how (Schuyler 2001, p. 10) is related to the "Such measures involved the..." sentence ... ". From (Schuyler 2001, p. 10): "Pressured by the International Monetary Fund and advised by neoliberal gurus ... Venezuela transformed its development strategy from state-led industrialization to neoliberalism: open markets, free trade, exports, privatization and limited government spending and involvement in the economy." My summarization of this (in whole) was "Such measures involved the removal of state-managed development and industrialization, the implementation of market liberalization measures, enactment of export subsidies and incentives, extensive privatization of state-owned holdings, curtailed social spending, the release of longstanding price controls on many goods, as well as liberalization of capital and liquidity flows into and out of Venezuela.^[1][2]" Most of this hews closely to what Schuyler says (indicated by the second inline citation); those portions that do not were taken from (Gott 2005, pp. 51-52) (as indicated by the first of the two inline citations).
    • "Nor, (Schuyler 2001, p. 11) for the "This continuing poverty among the poor... sentence." This statement was referenced to (Chomsky 1998, p. 33). It was never referenced to (Schuyler 2001, p. 11).
  • Thanks. — Saravask 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my points and pointing out where I was mistaken. Everything looks in order, so I support this as a FA. --maclean25 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Happy to support more excellent work by Saravask. 172 | Talk 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done.
  Forever young 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Rama's Arrow 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks very excellent Tuf-Kat 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it needs categories? I added
  Template:Uncat... maybe it belongs in Category:Hugo Chávez... but, I figured I'd leave that up to you... but it needs something. gren グレン ^? 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I created Category:Hugo Chávez (a model of Category:Saffron); I think I put all those articles in it now. Thanks. Saravask 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941)

I am nominating this article because it is very informative, has many relevant pictures, and sourced. I've spent a lot of time writing this and I think the subject matter is really cool. Self-nomination.

• Support. This is a substantial article on a relatively obscure topic. It
  counters systematic bias and is an informative read on a subject that not many people know about. (This is a semi-self-support.) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Object. Definitely an interesting article, but there are a few minor problems. While it's well-footnoted, I think you need more than two references. Your opening should also be at least two paragraphs. Finally, your article doesn't cover the last sixty years. How has Sino-German cooperation evolved over that period with both East/West Germany and China/Taiwan? Palm_Dogg 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with footnotes is that the subject matter is relatively obscure, and it's hard to find book sources on it, let alone web sources. I can of course use the sources used by the two sources I listed, but I think that would be considered cheating :). As for the naming, we are thinking about renaming the article to something more specific like Sino-German cooperation (1911-1938)
  BlueShirts 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• I'm sure there are many more sources that can be used to flesh out this article, even if said sources aren't books solely about the history of relations between China and Germany. Andrew Levine 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object, there is a lot of information here, but ths article completely leaves out the entire post-WWII (and PRC) era. Of what nature were China's relations to East and West Germany? What about post-Reunification? Andrew Levine 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • objection no longer relevant or valid as the article has been renamed--Jiang 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add on, this article was never meant to be a detailed account of Sino-German relations. It simply documents this unique period of cooperation between China and Germany from 1911-1940ish.
    Sino-German relations could be another article, covering both normal diplomatic relations between 1911-1949 for the ROC and then 1949- for the PRC and 1949- for ROC on Taiwan, with both East and West Germany. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: They weren't really "cooperating" between 1941 and 1945, were they? Being that they were at war with each other and all. I think another rename is in order. Andrew Levine 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bleugh... That's a good point... I think a declaration of war conclusively put an end to any cooperation that could have been going on... :) (I'll rename it and delete the 1911-1949 redirect.) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bleugh! Dunno what's wrong, mistyped 2 edit summaries in a row just now. Anyway, done. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very good article, but a minor object on various technical issues (which should be fairly easy to fix):

1. The title should be more specific (this should also address Andrew Levine's objection).
2. The lead should be two or three paragraphs.
3. The origin and copyright status of the first image are unclear.
4. The "See also" section is entirely redundant with links in the article, and should be eliminated.
5. The article needs a thorough copyedit, as there are numerous grammatical errors scattered throughout.

On the broader issue of referencing, it is acceptable to cite the sources Kirby is using (e.g. "Book A, cited in Book B"; see the

CMS for the exact format to use here). As it stands, the article is extremely dependent on Kirby; this is not improper per se, but it would be nice to have some other authors listed, if only to demonstrate that what is being described isn't a figment of his imagination ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• okay, changed the name of article, added sources, and extended the lead section to reflect objections.
  BlueShirts 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Great article on obscure but important topic. Wikipedia needs more articles like this. The minor aspects of history, politics, and economic development help provide a framework from which other articles can expand and grow. Wendell 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great article--Jiang 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional suport: lead needs more ilinks, for example, Republic of China is not linked. Second, make sure that all positions mentioned in notes are also added to references section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The topic seems to be interesting, esp. before WWII. Brandmeister 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the recent changes make it an example of what Wikipedia should be about. It's well written, well resourced, good pictures, good links and it informed me about a subject I knew next to nothing about. • U|T|E 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Kat

Peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Krazy Kat/archive1

Self-nomination. I've spent a lot of time bringing this article up to quality in the past week. The peer review has attracted two comments, both positive; someone else put it on Wikipedia:Good articles a couple days ago, and another user left a positive comment on the talk page. The article is well-sourced (using the new Cite.php feature for footnotes), well-written, and uses several free images (along with properly tagged fair-use image where free ones were not available). Andrew Levine 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and Support. Andrew Levine 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with enthusiasm. Rick Norwood 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a great article. My only note might be smallifying those images a little, as they break up some of the paragraphs, even with my big resolution. Staxringold 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two widest images have just been downsized from 350 to 300 pixels in width. Andrew Levine 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with some sugggestions re image placement: Intro image should go completely to top of article so the right margin of the intro graphs are consistent; also why are the two images in "Characters" on the same side when all the other images alternate as they should from left to right? Daniel Case 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just switched all of them to right-aligned, which I think is less disorienting, and also avoids the problem of having a section header sitting directly atop an image (I think having text directly under the header looks better). Andrew Levine 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great article about a fantastic strip. I have a couple requests; since I don't have my Fantagraphics books with me, I can't add anything myself and keep everything properly cited. I think the article should mention Herriman's disinclination for multi-strip stories—somewhere in one of his introductions, Mr. Bum Bill B. tells how Hearst suggested that Herriman should start doing stories which continued over several strips, a popular practice in other comics. Herriman produced a story about the most powerful ketnip ever to grace Coconino County, not exactly what Hearst had in mind. Also, I recall several jokes about Prohibition, with both Ignatz and Joe Stork getting into the bootlegging business. Finally, I'd love to see a paragraph on the 1911 "Krazy Kat Rag" (and if somebody with a piano could make an ogg of it, that would be cool too). Anville 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support, Aniville. I don't have much time to do more heavy improvements right now, but in the next few days I will dive back into the Fantagraphics books and give your suggestions a try. Andrew Levine 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well written, references and illustrations are excellent. I think the images look a bit uniform/ordered being all right-aligned but it looks better than it did before, and I can't think of another way of assembling them that would work. I'm impressed that the article covers such a wide scope of information in such an intelligent and concise manner. Rossrs 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I've never heard of this, it does meet the criteria to be a featured article. Captain Jackson 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Of kourse I suppoit this "article" about one of my favourite "kartoon kats". JIP | Talk 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good one. Mstroeck 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I especially enjoyed the solid discussion of Krazy Kat's lasting influence in the comics world. Great article!
  • (The above unsigned vote was added by KrazyCaley on January 19 at 18:27.) Andrew Levine 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor object. Support. I made a few minor changes here and there, mainly wikifying full dates (I hate date links, but it's the only way to let them format correctly based on user preferences), changing general descriptions of the strip and plots to literary present tense (the strip doesn't change if you read it today), and removing some passive voice. There are a couple of places where a source citation is needed (when someone's opinion is being paraphrased or someone is being quoted); I've added edit-mode-only comments to indicate where. I'd also like to see the web references listed under "References" as well as "Notes"; there's no reason to treat them differently. Once these are addressed, I have no problem changing to support. — BrianSmithson 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Changing to support. Still think the web references should be treated as regular references, but not a big deal. Good job to all involved. — BrianSmithson 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now it's a full objection. Rick Norwood is systematically undoing the copy edits I made, which, among other things, reverts us to improper use of past tense to describe plot elements in a literary work. Sorry. — BrianSmithson 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source for the "Herriman was fond of experimenting..." quote was the same Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman book cited throughout. The "purveyor of progeny" quote is simply how Joe Stork is referred to almost every time he appears in the strip. I'll add both citations when I get a chance this weekend. As for the use of the literary present, everything that takes place within the world of the comic does indeed use that tense, but anything Herriman (or anyone else) did in his lifetime needs to use the past tense. Andrew Levine 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful article.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done! :) -
  Mailer Diablo 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful articall. Absolutely. Ideally, there would be articles for those redlinks in the later sections, but why hold this article to account for other article's failings? --
  (talk) Contribs 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Médecins Sans Frontières

I've put some work into this article over the past two months. I submitted it for peer review five days ago (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Médecins Sans Frontières/archive1), and we fixed some problems. It has 79 references for verification, and the article is *cough* 62kB in size *cough*. --CDN99 18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is extremely long and the history section could easily be split off into a sub-page and then condensed on the article's main page. Kevin M Marshall 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section also has organizational information and content relevant to other sections of the article. Is the length really a problem? because a lot of good articles are much longer than 32kB. --CDN99 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over at peer review we discussed the possibility of separating out the History section, but we decided it would probably be better to keep it all together, at least for now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the length as a huge problem, but I think the history section in the main article is too long. It is my opinion that a history section for an organization like this should give a generic overview of the group's development and very brief reference to some major operations they have conducted, not a list and description of every single noteworthy and encyclopedic intervention they have had. Kevin M Marshall 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 62kb is far from being "too long," especially when dealing with one of the world's most prominent NGOs. Article is well-written and comprehensive. Andrew Levine 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A nice article, but I would have expected to see more about what makes MSF different from many other organisation (particularly the Red Crosss) - that it "seeks also to raise awareness of crisis situations; MSF acts as a witness and will speak out, either in private or in public about the plight of populations in danger for whom MSF works" which makes it "brash and outspoken in a way its Red Cross, UN and other international counterparts would not contemplate". -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To comment on your comment from a Red Cross point of view: MSF is, with the words of its founder Bernard Kouchner, always impartial but not always neutral, as opposed to the Red Cross which has Impartiality AND Neutrality among its seven basic principles, with neutrality playing a central role for what the Red Cross does. Apart from that, MSF is different from the ICRC regarding its legal constitution (NGO vs. private association), and the ICRC has a unique and special role in International Humanitarian Law. Though I'm not sure whether all of these points should be mentioned explicitly in an article about MSF, and some of them are already there in one way or the other. --Uwe 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned many times in the article that MSF speaks out, demands intervention, etc. I thought saying something like MSF is "brash and outspoken in a way its Red Cross, UN and other international counterparts would not contemplate" would be a strong POV, which I tried to avoid. --CDN99 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although I provided some of the information and sources for the article, I think it's still okay for me to throw in my opinion. I have no problem with the length of the article which I consider appropriate. The content is comprehensive and well researched, I see no NPOV issue, and the article has sufficient pictures to illustrate some points. More and better pictures are probably hard to get. So all in all, I think FA status would be well deserved for this article. --Uwe 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very good and informative article. Tarret 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think that the List of deaths and abductions of volunteers could use some trimming, including the removal of the overly long quote, it could probably be reduced to a paragraph following from Dangers faced by volunteers. Having a list at this point in the article lets the rest of the prose down, the list also make it plainly obvious that deaths of MSF prior to 2003 aren't discussed. The lead gets a bit bogged down in the discussion of organizational structure. Does anyone think MSF does a bad job? A minor style thing, the inline refs are supposed to be places after the punctuation mark.--
  nixie 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Trimmed list of deaths, remove quote, reduced to paragraph (put some of the list as examples for the paragraph ). I removed the list of "support sections," but left the operational sections. Also fixed the punctuation/inline ref order. You reminded me about the controversy over whether MSF caused the Srebrenica massacre or not....I'll look for that story and see if I can add something to the article. --CDN99 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Support; I agree with User:Kevin M Marshall; the history section takes up 20kb of the article, which is the same length as a number of good FAs. I'd suggest dropping it to 10kb max and moving the original text to a subpage, working on that a bit, and getting that featured as well. See? Two FAs for the price of one =). Think about your readers—the longer the article, the less attention they will have for the end of it. I personally think that it's imperative that readers' eyes aren't bugging out once they get to the meat of the article, where we actually find out what the organization does. Some cleaning up is necessary as well—periods inside quotes when they shouldn't be, inconsistent note locations, and what really kills me, all the carat signs next to the 2nd reference. You could use ref note labels to fix that problem but I'd suggest just switching to the new method described at m:Cite/Cite.php. And finally, could we mention the translation of the title of the article in the first sentence? Not a big deal (waiting until the second sentence isn't the end of the world), but not everyone speaks a romance language and thus won't have any idea what's being referred to. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the three places where a " was outside a period/comma, but what do you mean by "inconsistent note locations"? The history section describes what the organisation does, its reason for creation and its development over 30 years; without reading it completely, you don't know about MSF. I didn't put the translation in the first sentence because part of the content is the fact that the group is known as Médecins Sans Frontières, not Doctors Without Borders, even to English speaking people. The Doctors Without Borders name is used primarily in the United States, and by some in Canada. --CDN99 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By inconsistent note locations,^[1] I mean that all notes are not formatted like this.^[2] Some are here, ^[3] some others are here ^[4]. Sorry to be confusing; I never know what to call the things (citations? references? notes? Probably the first would be best...). I know it's a minor issue, so I'll gladly fix them if you're going to stay with the current referencing system. In fact, if you don't mind me doing it, I could switch the article over to m:Cite/Cite.php myself and take care of it all at once. Thanks for fixing the period/comma problem. I'll do a more thorough read through of the history section to see if I agree with your statement about its necessity; if I do after that, I'll support. Nixie's ideas for reduction seem sound, but I'll need to take a look to be sure I agree and to see if there is anything else. And again, the translation issue isn't a big deal; I like to throw ideas for minor improvement out there, and if you've got a good reason for doing it that way, I usually don't mind too much. I simply think that an understanding of the organization's name is essential context for the rest of the lead, and as such ought to be mentioned ASAP. It'd be a much bigger problem if the translation wasn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph, but the 2nd sentence isn't a big deal.--Spangineer (háblame) 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were three places where a note was inside a period. Should notes be inside a period, but outside a comma and colons? I'll change over to the new citation style. --CDN99 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think general consensus is that citations should always immediately follow the punctuation, with no space in between the two. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll remove the spaces as I find them. I tried the new citation style with "show preview"... and unless I'm doing something wrong, the new style is extremely awkward. I have nearly 90 inline citations to put into the text, and they would greatly increase the size of the article themselves, not to mention being confusing when the entire reference is stuck in at the end of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph (that is, when someone goes to edit the article). I used "note_label" for the one book with all the references, to get rid of the carat symbols. --CDN99 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, the appearance of references within the text in edit mode is one of the disadvantages of this new system. However, it shouldn't notably increase the size of the article, since all you are doing is moving the text of the note from the notes section up to its location in the article. As for my previous objection about the history, I'm afraid I must continue to propose that its size be reduced. The Biafra section should be reduced to several sentences and incorporated into the last paragraph of the previous section, and the second paragraph of that previous section should be removed (However, the Red Cross has always...). People interested in that genocide can refer to the corresponding article, but the focus here must be on Kouchner. In the 1971 section, is there an outside reference for the claim "today known for its quick response in an emergency"? Other than that, I don't mind the rest of the two history sections—they seem to be written fairly tightly, and don't stray from the topic. Perhaps there's a little too much detail, but that's not worth arguing over. I will however agree with Ambi and Maclean25 regarding organizational structure and references, but I don't think I'll object over either, especially if at least a little effort is given to Ambi's concern. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the article --CDN99 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I'm switching to support, though I still think that m:Cite/Cite.php would be helpful. You just added a new citation to the lead, but it's note number nine—keeping those numbers straight is going to be really tough as the article changes and other sources are incorporated. There are also two more notes that you cite twice, and as a result they each have two carat signs. To help reduce the amount of space they take up, the reference templates you are using can have the line breaks removed, so that the text in edit mode isn't a complete disaster to read. If you're too busy, I can make the change. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New citation style switch made. You were right, it is better, and it also decreased the article size by ~1-2 kB. --CDN99 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think a good copyeditor would be able to get rid of some of the redundant text in the history section, for example the two paragraps about the red cross are completly unnecessary. The Biafra and Creation sections could also be shortened, for example the reader doesn't need a fairly in-depth recap on the political forces leading the the Nigerian Civil War, they just need to know that Kouchner was there and thats how he got the idea to star MSF. --
    nixie 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I've just trimmed and rewritten some of the History section to leave what I feel is a reasonable amount of context for the article, which now stands at 59kb. Andrew Levine 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the part about Kouchner being influenced by the large number of starving children, because that's the most significant thing he witnessed. --CDN99 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. While this is mostly a good article, the history section is too long and contains too much information that just isn't relevant to MSF. There are two paragraphs before it even gets to the conflict where the idea to create MSF came from, and three more before it gets to anything much about the actual creation of the organisation. This much background is unnecessary. Apart from that, I'd like to see a bit more about the organisational structure itself - things like its funding and staffing are covered with about one sentence each. Finally, it mightn't hurt to mention MSF's response to the tsunami - they were notable there for only asking for exactly what they needed to do the tasks they had the resources for, and no more. Ambi 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tsunami relief wasn't notable because it was broadcast right away to the rest of the world, and billions of dollars were poured in immediately. I stayed with the underreported missions because they're the most important field missions MSF sets up. As for funding and staffing, what else can be said? --CDN99 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the tsunami relief may have been hum-drum, so far as those things go, but it's still notable. It doesn't deserve 2 paragraphs, perhaps, but it deserves a mention. About funding, the article doesn't mention (if I recall correctly) MSF's budget or annual income, or who their biggest donors are (if known). About staffing, are there many workers not in the field (fund-raisers, accountants, lawyers, etc.)? Here and here are info about MSF USA, but I'm confused as to whether the numbers they give refer to the US branch only, or to the entire organization. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did mention the tsunami relief in passing, but only the fact that MSF is providing ongoing psychological support. I recently added MSF's budget (400 million USD), the distribution between donors and that there are 1000 permanent staff. I've been finding at various places that the number of volunteers sent to places is between 2000 and 3000, so I'll add that when I find a good source. --CDN99 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, currently, by my count, there are 79 references. Of those 63 (or 79%) are from the subject organization (ie. www.msf.org or www.msf.xx). The article could benefit from a diversification of sources. There are many academic resources on this subject, such as these or these here. --maclean25 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe I didn't find those sources (they're good!). I searched every medical journal I had access to and found only brief mentions of MSF. In some of those articles they cite Lancet and BMJ papers about MSF that I should have found immediately. Shit...unfortunately, I've already spent too much time, that I really couldn't afford, on this article, so if a diversification of sources is necessary (I admit, it would be very good), I surrender....someone else can rewrite it. --CDN99 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, c'mon :o). Don't stop short of reaching your final goal. As promised, your article will make it into the German Wikipedia in the near future, and we only accept true high quality work over there. See that as an incentive to raise your ambitions :o). --Uwe 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you put it so nicely. It will take a lot of time to go through the new sources and through the article to replace some MSF articles with some new sources. I'll do it, but I guess this effectively postpones FA status, because it will be over a long period of time. If you look at my edit count from Interiot's tool you'll see two long periods where I did zero edits, and I am (or, should be) in another one of those time periods. Sporadic minor edits are all I can handle, so I could use some help from a dedicated editor. --CDN99 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could keep it as is, with a "further reading" section that includes these. I think it's featured-quality, even if it could be improved. (Even featured articles could be expanded.) After all, Maclean25's comment was a comment, not an object. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was going to propose too. Lots of articles have a "notes" section and a "references"/"further reading" section. So this would be all right?--CDN99 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great article. --WS 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriaen van der Donck

Self-nomination. Biography of a very interesting character from an underrepresented part of America's colonial history. I think I've addressed all the suggestions from its peer review. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I will support the article if a few small fixes are made.
  • "Some historians have argued that had it been written in English, the Description would have become a classic of American colonial literature." This claim should be H-noted.
  • ""her father was remembered as a national hero for helping free Breda from Spanish forces during the course of the Eighty Years' War." If he was regarded as a national hero at the time, van der Donck's grandfather should be named (and wikilinked, even if it's just a redlink) here.
  • ""he attracted the ire of Van Rensselaer with his independent ideas on how to enforce laws" Which of van der Donck's ideas in particular were contentious?

Andrew Levine 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The full quote for that is given further down. I should really just have another go at integrating the quote into the lead.
  • I've simply moved the quote up into the intro, but am unsure whether to use Hnotes or the inline external link in this situation. Optimally I'll be able to find the original source of the quote if it's in print. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. I'll eventually translate the rather short nl:Adriaen van Bergen to bluelink it.
• I'll dive back into my sources tonight to find specifics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added specifics including quotes from Van Rensselaer's letters. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All of my objections have been fixed. Andrew Levine 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really great article, fits the FA criteria. —
  Wackymacs 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Indeed a great article that fits FA criteria. Maartenvdbent 10:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor oppose - would prefer to see a ref/note system used, or an explanation of what kind referenceing system is being used added. It's the first time I've come across this system and it is not intuitive - innote articles normally have the - specific notes are in text detail in the reference secton. Please remove the html link from the lead into an external links section.--
  nixie 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - If you haven't known already, check out
  Mailer Diablo 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• After some comments from others I switched from the ref/note system to the Hnote system because I reference Shorto's work many times and preferred to not deal with the severe numbering hassle that tends to cause. I rather think the result is much neater, but I'm willing to switch it back if preferred. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as much as I dislike systems that require manual renumbering for repeat references, I switched the article back to ref/note. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport. Well-written article that should be FA. Gflores ^Talk 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Athens, Georgia

Old peer review and old FAC. This is the second try, and a self-nom. Most of the objections last time were on style, and the article has been significantly copyedited (see diff since last nom). No major expansion on content, but a few tidbits here and there were added. I've also put some sound samples in and removed the poorly-licensed image. Tuf-Kat 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I like it, but it feels kinda short. Everyking 05:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm inclined to Support. It's well written, structured and illustrated. It's concise but still seems to cover the major points sufficiently. Rossrs 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) My only concern is the excessive number of red links which create the appearance of an article "under construction" rather than a "finished product". I think a featured article ideally should have zero redlinks. I think these should either be "delinked" until there are articles, or stub articles should be created for them. I won't object on that basis but I hope you'll look at it. Rossrs 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've delinked/removed a few, filled in a bunch with stubs (mostly). There's still a couple (14, specifically), but I think this helps (I will try to fill in the remainder in the next few days). Tuf-Kat 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I think it helps. It'll be good when there are no red links, but it's definitely improved it already. Rossrs
• Support, well-written and thorough. Andrew Levine 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening section left me wondering..."Only two bands made this the Liverpool of the south? (REM and B52s)". I'd like to see this fleshed out more with more famous bands upfront. Rlevse 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The lead does not claim or imply that two bands made Athens the Liverpool of the South. There are no other bands anywhere's near as famous as those two -- I guess Matthew Sweet comes closest, but he's from Nebraska anyway. The source for "Liverpool of the south" only mentions REM in connection to that quote, and I think that mentioning any specific bands in the first paragraph is placing a lot of focus and should not be done lightly. Every source (or at least most) used in the writing of this article mentions those two, so they should be in the first paragraph, but no one else is such a standard reference point. And there are five other bands mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead as well. Tuf-Kat 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on, y'all! Ok, bands "from Athens" (remember that the "Seattle bands" weren't actually from Seattle; a "scene" is a critical more than geographical term) include Indigo Girls, Guadalcanal Diary, as well as the B's and REM. Additionally, for underground music, Pylon is very important (nationally very, very well known among the college rock folk of the 80s). Another very famous band "from Athens" was Drivin' n' Cryin'. Ummm, there were many more. Ok, Mitch Easter's band...forgotten their name, but they were MTV stars in 81-82, were from Charlotte but "from Athens" in the scene terminology. Compare to the grunge "scene," where, other than Nirvana, there is really only Soundgarden that everyone can remember. The point being that local scenes generate big buzz, produce 4-5 nationally famous bands, and then, when the dust settles, have 2-3 long term national bands. Geogre 14:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Pylon is already in the lead, and I'll replace the very obscure Side Effects with the Indigo Girls, who are much more well-known. I stand by the claim about "Liverpool of the south", which is an opinion cited appropriately and without putting specific examples in the author's mouth. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.Support. Quite good, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. Is there an opera house in the city? A hip-hop scene? A music school? The article seems to be focused on the twentieth century and on popular music. Jkelly 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's an opera house, I can't find any evidence of it on google. The article has a paragraph on the University of Georgia's music school, and various other mentions of University-related music stuff. The article also mentions Bubba Sparxx, the only notable rapper from the area (AFAIK), and I haven't found any evidence of a particuarly notable hip hop scene in the area. I agree that the article is focused on modern popular music, but then that's the only reason this article exists, IMO -- the average 100,000 person American city probably doesn't need a "music of", but Athens' modern rock scene is exceptionally notable. That doesn't mean some more info on music history and folk music wouldn't be nice, but I think what's there is adequate (though any folk music from Athens is part of the regional tradition, and thus would be more appropriate elsewhere). Also, since the only book published on the subject AFAICT is on rock, and there's no evidence of any other resources, I don't think it's possible to expand significantly. Tuf-Kat 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note that this article mentions a historical opera house, but this presumably no longer exists, and if it was all that notable, surely I'd be able to find at least a name somewhere on the web. Tuf-Kat 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is the Morton Theater, but it was closed during the scene. When the scene was happening, there was very little urban music, and musicians used to say that the reason Athens happened was that there was nothing to do in the town. You went to class, and then you went to parties. At the parties, the artsy folks would get into camp and strange music, and the people in the town with money to pay bands didn't have the redneck bias against "weird" music, so the "New Wave" and "Punk" bands could play fraternities and get decent pay (which was not the case most places). What else? At the time, UGA wasn't an awfully, awfully difficult undergraduate institution compared to the brains of the people going there. Nowadays, the school has upped its standards a great deal, but the point is that people had more brains and time than they could occupy, so they started bands, and art movements, and creative writing communes, etc. This was helped along by certain professors in the Studio Art Department, as well (e.g. many early REM videos were directed by Prof. James Herbert, an art professor there who was a focal point for a lot of the musicians). Geogre 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah-ha! The Morton Theater is apparently the same as the "historical opera house in the Morton Building" I alluded to above. I hadn't been able to find the name, but since I now have, I've found this, which Ishould be able to use to expand the history section of this article a little later today (or maybe tomorrow). Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanded a bit on this topic. Tuf-Kat 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I've changed my comment to support. Jkelly 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How did this get through as a FA? What's next Decatur, Arkansas? The discussion here seems a bit skinny. Who is the person who makes these decisions???? Albatross2147 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical engineering

A self-nomination, I sincerely believe this article has grown to be one of the best it can be. The article has previously undergone peer review. Cedars 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous so called peer review has nothing to do with the present article nonmination. THe article is now quite different from what it was.--Light current 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really dont feel this article is upto scratch yet for FAC nom. It needs a great deal more work to make it interesting enough to the general readership. I feel that one of the sub fields may be more of a suitable candidate where the presentation can be made more punchy and glamorous. After all, electrical engineering as such is not really that appealing to the general public unfortunately.!--Light current 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The level of interest the general public may have in an article is not valid grounds for an objection.

Shoe Polish was on the main page not long ago. - The Catfish 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sometimes I think shoe polish is actually more intersting than EE! 9its certainly less controversial!--Light current 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written. Coming in knowing little about the subject, I found it easy to read and navigate.
  Forever young 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is a good start. As I noted on the talk page, the Terminology section must be removed, and its content implemented into the lead. There should also be further development in the lead of the general history of the profession, in my opinion. I like the inclusion of electrical engineer information in this article. The subfields section I think should be converted to normal text, with subsections and no special background color. Finally, the lead needs a picture of some common EE-related product or structure. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the big box should be converted to normal summary style text.--
    nixie 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks for the suggestions. The editors have now removed the big box, incorporated the terminology into the lead and added an EE picture to the lead. Cedars 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this suggestion too!--Light current 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think
  turbid to read.--Light current 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Good article. Someone might want to tighten the language a bit (there are some informal style sentences like "may or not be certified..."), but in general, I believe this is a valid FAC. Phils 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more specific issues: the last paragraph of the "Early developments in electricity" section doesn't seem to have a good topic sentence, and its last sentence begs the question of who were the other important people of the era. If the people mentioned in the following section are the people that are meant, a better connecting sentence would be helpful. The paragraph also seems to suggest that Tesla's work had an impact on EE while Edison was only a mercenary out to make money. Another thing—I've just combined the demographics section into the newly renamed "Practicing engineers" section, because that section already covered professional societies, which was largely unrelated to training and certification. Anyway, most of the statistics in that section focus on engieners in general, not on electrical engineers. While there may be some correlation, it'd be better to have numbers specifically stating the number of EEs in those countries. Finally, I'm a bit disappointed with the inconsistency of the notes: there aren't any in the second half of the history section, nor in the education section, nor in the sub disciplines section. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some adjustments to the Edison/Telsa paragraph but more improvements are welcome. Statistics specifically for electrical engineers are very had to come by (if they exist). The 0.25% figure is specific to electrical engineering but the others are not. I have added an extra sentence to clarify this. The general statistics are included to give an idea of where in the world engineering is growing. As for the notes, they were only added when there was a need for details outside of the main body of the article. As such I'm not sure if there's any need for them to be placed consistently through the article (most times the necessary information can be represented in the article's main body). Thanks for your comments. Cedars 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take a look at this some more and see if I can fix the problems I see, but for now I'll formalize my vote—object. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have further revised the statistics paragraph and would be happy to investigate further sources for the revised comment. Is the statistics paragraph the main outstanding point of your objection or are there other parts of what you mentioned that you still feel have not been addressed? Thanks. Cedars 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My main outstanding problem is the lack of inline citations. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the "main body" of the article—
          verifiable, which means that sources are needed to back up everything in the article. I would think that an introductory EE book with a chapter or two on the history and application of EE would serve the purpose quite nicely, but until then there is a lot of unreferenced material in this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • If I provided citations for the text on each of the sub-disciplines would that be sufficient to address your concerns? Cedars 05:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Equally important, if not more so, are the education and history sections. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Citations are now provided for all the facts in the History section. The Education section is based on a general survey of universities. I can provide a citation for this section if need be. Is that neceessary and otherwise is there anything else required to take care of the objection? Cheers. Cedars 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have now added a citation for the Education section and expanded the History section slightly. Cedars 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote at the moment, although I just changed the lead so that pictures are only on one side. Having a picture at the top-left and top-right makes it unreadable in 800x600, so I would have to oppose if that returns. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment (and edit) Christopher. I have now removed the second lead picture since one lead picture should sufficient for the article. Cedars 02:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great article, very detailed. --
  Talk 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose ==Sub disciplines== uses a table to display images and content. Is there a valid reason for using such a markup? It is considered bad style to wikify headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for using table formatting was that it helped ensure the pictures aligned with the related content. The links were important becuase they link to articles on the sub disciplines. However I have now removed the table and hopefully this helps resolve the objection. Cedars 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 1 does not return to the section. Also check the links. One of the links points to a dead resource: [11] =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Nichalp. I have fixed the note link and corrected the citation. The citation now points to data from the 2004 NSF report. Cedars 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A ton of effort has obviously gone into this article, and looking it over in the most cynical manner possible, I can still find absolutely nothing about its content or layout that would prevent it from being a great featured article.User:KrazyCaley
• Comment. Is it just me, or are there a ton of blue wikilinks in the article? Does it really need all of them? I'm sure you could at least remove some of the year-links. Gflores ^Talk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gflores! I have removed all the date links as you suggested because they are inconsistent with the current

Manual of Style. I will take a closer look at the other wikilinks soon. There are still date links in the web reference template but unfortunately this template is protected and therefore this cannot be changed. Thanks for your suggestions. Cedars 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks better. But it can still be better. :) I noticed that United States in linked 3 times. Australia as well. Automobiles, physics, appliances, Canada, and several others are linked more than one time. If it's really necessary for the links to be there, that's fine. But in my opinion that doesn't appear to be the case. It's ultimately your decision. P.S. I can give you a list of the things linked multiple times, you'd like. Keep up the good work. :) Gflores ^Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with the suggestions that you very briefly explain
  VLSI (rather than just relying on the bluelinks) and that you put in a couple of lines about where electrical engineers usually work (consulting firms? universities?). -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the suggestions Mwalcoff. I have now explained those terms in the article. The article already contains the sentence "Electrical engineers may be found in the pristine lab environment of a fabrication plant, the offices of a consulting firm or on site at a mine." Is that sufficient to cover the workplaces of electrical engineering or would you like more details? Cedars 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, sorry, I missed that. I reaffirm my support. Good job. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for adding citations. A few in the subdisciplines section would be nice, but I'll support now. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well written. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on historical/ bias grounds. I believe the history section is woefully inadequate for an encyclopedia article indicating, as it does, that nothing happened in electrical engineering duing WW2. This is a denial of the facts and should be rectified.--Light current 06:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is only meant to give a brief overview of the history of electrical engineering. More detailed discussion will be placed in the history of electrical engineering article as it evolves. Cedars 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks very good. My only suggestion is to put a couple paragraphs directly under "History" -- just a brief overview. Tuf-Kat 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shielded metal arc welding

An article on one of the world's most common

• Comment/Weak Support - While this article does seem to be well referenced, one of the things I like about most articles in wikipedia is that I can instantly fact-check the article by clicking links to other internet sites. In this manner, I can determine for myself whether or not what I'm reading is true, or whether it has recently been the victim of "sneaky vandalism". Other than this, the article looks great to me, well written, all that. I learned quite a bit. Fieari 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opposite opinion. Websites are cheap, and anyone can create them, but print references get much more verification. Furthermore, there is no online resource that I'm aware of that approaches the comprehensiveness and detail of this article, making it difficult to cite much at all. In any case, some of the references I've used (at least the Jeffus one) can be checked on Google books, and as that program continues to expand, more of them will be available there. Even so, I've added a couple external links that give good (but short) overviews of the process; let me know if that's sufficient. And, for what it's worth, I'll be watching this article like a hawk to keep sneaky vandalism from getting in. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, by no means would I want the text sources REPLACED by web links. I just wanted a few in addition to the text sources, so I can quickly verify things. What has been added is plenty sufficent, and any mild reservations I had have been met, so I can now whole heartedly support this as a FA. Fieari 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I actually prefer book sources— more authority. Books are used in the accademic world, even though the teachers might not have access to them for fact checking. Excellent work, Spangineer. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Everything appears to be in order. References and footnotes are used in line with current guidelines, layout is thoughtful and logical, picture copyright status is flawless, and the prose is well-written. RyanGerbil10 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The footnotes seem to be there to reference every single paragraph, yet the article is supposed to be about the basics of SMAW. Is every single paragraph about something overly complicated or controversial? If not, dump most of the notes. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are they hurting anything? Some articles have 100+ footnotes to verify everything in the article, but I've done it with fewer than 25. I don't think any of this is "common knowledge", so I'd prefer to make sure the entire article is verifiable. And I don't think the footnotes greatly hurt readability—nearly all of them appear at the end of a paragraph, thereby not contributing an extra break in the prose. Please take a look at User:Spangineer/inline citations for my opinion related to inline citations. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Spangineer, having more footnotes is not a bad thing, and 25 footnotes isn't an exceptionable amount. AndyZ 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it looks excellent, though I note a few sentences here and there that could use a copyedit. Some examples follow: Tuf-Kat 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they must be kept dry" - not immediately clear what "they" refers to, and that whole paragraph seems to have some needlessly complex sentences. (good work fixing this paragraph!)
  • "Typically, the equipment used for SMAW" -- why not "SMAW typically uses"
    • I've addressed these examples; hopefully the new text is an improvement. I'll keep an eye out for other issues, and will attempt to correct any other wording problems that anyone notices and mentions. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support: The article twice mentions that nonferrous materials such as nickel and copper alloys may be welded by this process, but provides no further information. Could you add one or two more lines about this? I am guessing that electrodes with a mild steel core may not be appropriate for these metals, but the article is not clear about the existence of other types of electrodes. --Allen3 ^talk 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A valid point, though one surprisingly not addressed to a great extent in my sources. I've added a new paragraph in the electrode section that talks about the composition of the electrode core, but I can't seem to find too much more information, especially related to the nonferrous materials. I suspect that that is due to the fact that the process is most frequently used for welding steels. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent work - I am just worried what you will do when we run out of welding topics :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, don't worry, there are plenty of topics to go—besides all of the processes, there's the equipment. However, I'm mostly limited to the topics for which we have good free-license pictures, and those are beginning to dwindle. I'm actually not sure what I'm going to work on next... --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Nichalp 07:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice work on another welding article! -Rebelguys2 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek Kingdom

Obscure, fascinating historical subject. Essentially self-nom

• Comment: A brillant outpouring, but it is rather long. Certain sections would benefit from being spun off into their own articles and summarised here (for example, the first section, history, and the last section, timeline, could be combined into an excellent - probably featurable - article on the History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom). Otherwise, bravo. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have added a few bits here and there, but the main work is of others - mostly
  PHG. There are few works in existence about this fascinating subject, and certainly none this comprehensive and multifoil. The Indo-Greeks are a great lost civilisation; their influence is subtle but traces of it remains in most Asian cultures; something which is reflected here, especially if one browses through the many "sequel" articles on Nomad kingdoms. I do agree with the previous speaker: a few spin off pages might be good. I suggest one for the kings (Rulers of the Indo-Greek kingdoms): the sequence is not quite established. A list of the most important kings could still be on the original page. --Sponsianus 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Support. I have few recommendations to make for the article - possibly, as proposed by Sponsianus, a separated page for the list of rulers. But as for generating a History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom page, -- I'm not so sure, as I feel the "Historical outline" section suits quite well where it is. Aldux 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy crap. I'll vote after I actually read it all, but in the meantime, it certainly looks impressive! :) My only comment at the moment is please take a look at it in Safari or Firefox. There are a lot of images bumping into each other and/or that simply have clunky layouts. This sounds weird, but instead of thinking about illustrating the text, think about illustrating the article. They are two (slightly) different things. Anyway, shutting up now. :) jengod 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.
  PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. Magnificent. Although it's on the long side, I think that the potential readers of this article have more stamina than most. Mark¹ 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeNeutral. Magnificent in length, detail, and with decent citations, good pictures...but:

The article is entitled "Indo-Greek Kingdom" but the introduction neither describes that subject nor uses that term (it describes the Indo-Greek people or their Kings). It should be re-written to reflect this.

• Done. Thanks for the comment.
  PHG 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The pictures are great, but IMO rather cluttered, especially toward the middle of the article.

• Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.
  PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Better, although I would still cut more coin pictures.

The entire "Indo-Greeks and Buddhism" probably should be its own article, with the main article focusing on the Indo-Greek Kingdom and this subsection truncated substantially to reflect the overall point about cultural syncretism, with less detail about every coin, icon, deity, etc. IMO the article should include sections 1,6,7,8 with the interior cultural sections shortened and moved to subarticles as indicated. Alternatively, expand the introduction by another paragraph to include an overview of the cultural/religious subject addressed in those subsections.

• Please check the re-organization, which I think makes the article clearer now.
  PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think it's a great article, just a bit unwieldy and long. It could probably be two FAs. Kaisershatner 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! Thanks. I also exported the timeline section into its own article. I moved the history sections around because the major cultural paragraphs dealt with Menander, so they follow chronologically now with the post-Menander history sections coming before legacy. I still have concerns about length & density of pictures, but maybe that's just a matter of taste. From the standpoint of references and breadth of information, it's very impressive. Kaisershatner 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – 1. I have concerns on the length of the article. Perhaps the lists and quotes should be cut down and a summary provided. Although I agree that most sections are written in summary form, I still feel that the length should be cut down. Summarising entire sections perhaps? 2. Reduce the linked text. Punjab, India and other words have been excessively linked. 3. To the south, the Greeks occupied the areas of the Sindh and Gujarat down to the region of Surat (Greek: Saraostus) near Bombay Use the new name Mumbai and on the first instance use Mumbai (Bombay). According to Plotomy, Mumbai was also known to the greeks as heptanesia. Could this be mentioned? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed the mention of "Bombay" to "Mumbai (Bombay)".
  PHG 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. Although I do find it a little long, and some of the images, especially the large number of coins, could be formatted differently or the number displayed reduced, these minor issues should not stop this excellent article from being featured, Gentgeen 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.
  PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• SupportObject: A great article, and I'd like to support, but there are some issues that should be addressed brfore it becomes a FA. First, there are quite a few tiny paragraphs - expand or merge. Second: we need to decide whether this is an article about a former state or history of it, and format it accordingly (compare:
  History of Poland (1569-1795), history of that state). If this is supposed to be article about a state, format it like a state - meaning history should only be in one section - at the moment, it's spread throughtout the article. Economy section is missing - it should be added to a state article. If it's history, then format it chronologically, rename to 'History of...' and move geography and culture sections to state article (or its subarticles).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Done. Thank you for the great feedback. I have mostly restructured the article along the "State" format, with History/ Culture/ Religion/ Art/ Legacy/ Timeline... for Economy... well close to nothing is known about it.
  PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Done. I have added a "State" box at the top of the article, and even added a paragraph on Economics. Thanks for the suggestions.
  PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Great! I support now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's looking too long, some information is redundant, the ruler's list can be moved to another article or organized as table, but it is a great article TheNeon 09:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have re-incorporated the "Nomadic invasion" paragraph into "History" so as to avoid a major redundancy... this also allowed to shorten the article slightly.
  PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. The map in the lead has no source. Also, it shows Sialkot as a box, and other places as circles, but there's no explanation why this is so. Is that a convention for capitals?deeptrivia (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I wrote the sources, and changed Sialkot to a regular city (it only later became Menander's capital).
  PHG 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. A beautiful article. Linguiste 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article is very well done, but there are a few cases where a theory (presumably from someones original research) is mentioned but not backed up by a source, which makes the text sound weasly:

Menander is considered as probably the most successful Indo-Greek king, and the conqueror of the vastest territory. According to who?

• Done. "Numismats and historians are unanimous in considering that Menander was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, and the most famous of the Indo-Greek kings. The coins to the name of Menander are incomparably more abundant than those of any other Indo-Greek king" Bopearachchi, "Monnaies Greco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques", p76.
  PHG 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Among others, Foucher, and more recently Boardman have taken the contrary view that some of the most purely Hellenistic works of northwestern India and Afghanistan, may actually be wrongly attributed to later centuries, and instead belong to a period one or two centuries earlier, to the time of the Indo-Greeks in the 2nd-1st century BCE. - cites for the research please

• Done."The beginnings of the Gandhara school have been dated everywhere from the first century B.C. (which was M.Foucher's view) to the Kushan period and even after it" (Tarn, p394). Foucher's views can be found in "La vieille route de l'Inde, de Bactres a Taxila", pp340-341). The view is also supported by Sir John Marshall ("The Buddhist art of Gandhara", pp5-6). Also the recent discoveries at
  PHG 10:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Alternatively, it has been suggested that these works of art may have been executed by itinerant Greek artists during the time of maritime contacts with the West from the 1st to the 3rd century CE. suggested by whom?

• Done. "Others, dating the work to the first two centuries A.D., after the waning of Greek autonomy on the Northwest, connect it instead with the Roman Imperial trade, which was just then getting a foothold at sites like
  PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Could you be more specific?
  PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agjusted the only one that was still there.--
  nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please dont put quotes in itallics, see Mos. Would it be possible to have the notes in text like (Tarn 1951) changed to ref/note so that a consistent system for notes is used throughout the article.--

• Done
  PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. thanks for addressing all my points so quickly.--
  nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The lead map has border POV issues. Please fix them. deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Deeptrivia. As far as I know, the borders on the map are in line with general knowledge regarding the territorial expansion of the Indo-Greeks (Tarn, Bopearachchi, Westermanns "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" of 1955 etc...). The only contentious issue among historians has been about whether the Indo-Greeks actually took Pataliputra or not (although everybody agrees that they besieged Pataliputra, as described by the Indian record of the Yuga Purana). This doubt has been reflected in the map by stopping the border line at the level of Pataliputra (it used to be around Pataliputra), so that the question remains suspended. Best regards
  PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, I was talking about the current borders of India shown in the map, with reference to Kashmir. deeptrivia (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Deeptrivia. Honestly, I have no clue about how I should modify this map to avoid 20th century border polemics. Any specifics about which lines should, for example, be pasted out?
  PHG 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi PHG. I think the easiest way out would be to remove all modern political borders. That's not too bad, I guess. deeptrivia (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to make the map very hard to read. I would have imagined that taking away the two small lines around the Sialkot dot would solve the Kashmir border issue. Can you confirm?

PHG 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You can use this NPOV map as a reference and see how best you can resolve this issue. deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala

Self-nomination. Peer review. This article has been changed in terms of copyediting, referencing, comprehensiveness, and layout. Got much-needed help and critique from User:Tintin1107 and User:Raghu.kuttan. Saravask 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object – sorry to have missed PR.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I addressed all these points here. Saravask 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In response to Nichalp's first point, I have the article (minus the infobox/Notes/References/Ex.Links) currently clocked at 28kb. --maclean25 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done on the copyedit, a few points: 1. The =Trivia= material should be integrated with the text 2. =Related topics= renamed to ==See also==. Can you also link to wikiquote and wikitravel? The portal is repeated twice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [12]. Saravask 10:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks support =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Its an awesome, awesome article. Its beautiful. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. As pointed out by Nichalp, some things may need tweaking, but this article has improved greatly in the past few weeks. Not that long ago, I took out a superfluous and poorly dones section on festivals while thinking to myself that the article had degenerated into a specious collection of one-line sections and hopeless lists. Excellent work bringing this article back, but may need just a few minor adjustments at the moment, but nothing so severe that it shouldn't be able to pass FA in a week of conscientious editing. RyanGerbil10 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, greatly improved from a short while ago. Andrew Levine 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Small Finnish cities are not notable enough. Oh, you meant Kerala. Support. This is much better than Helsinki, which I nominated for a featured article myself. JIP | Talk 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I didn't know that such a nice article was brewing in my backyard! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can you get hold of the state's extreme temperatures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found reliable sources for this, despite looked around for an hour. I've have even searched the Indian Meteorological Department's website. Someone else has, perhaps?
• Support. Such a great article. Gflores ^Talk 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. B-e-a-utiful. --Khoikhoi 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Translating Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png into English and using it in the History section would be appropriate. Also, consider using images from commons:Kerala. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png is too specialized to appear in Kerala — this was also true (by comments others made) of figures/maps I drew on the Geography of Kerala — two of the three were too specialized. Also, I am the one who loaded up and overhauled commons:Kerala (check the edit history, for example); I'm familiar w/ all the images there, and I think I choose the best images. Let me know if there are even better ones elsewhere. Thanks. Saravask 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBSD

In the previous attempt to feature this article, only three opinions were ever given - during that time the complaints were taken back and one even converted to a support, however this was not enough to get the article a passing grade. So here it is again for another attempt, here s the old peer review and previous FAC attempt. Janizary 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article contains a great deal of information, well-referenced, seems quite well-written. The order of later sections may need a slight tweaking, but besides that, I can't think of any other wide-scale suggestions for improvement. RyanGerbil10 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Same as above, and it seems to have a good balance of history and technical information. Rst, Fri Jan 6 14:48:36 UTC 2006.

• Neutral. Much better after the rewrite. I'm concerned about meeting the stability criteria after changing that fast, but what is there is good. Object for now. Sorry, as I know you guys are really trying to get this one featured, but the writing is simply not very good. There's lots of short paragraphs and choppy sentences throughout the article that makes the text flow poorly. I know that's a hard objection to handle because it's pretty fundamental, but good writing is clearly fundamental to a FA too. I can pick out examples if you want, but there are literally so many, that I'm not sure listing them would be fruitful. I'll see if I can set aside some time to work on fixing what I see, but honestly I'm not sure I'll be able to. 2) There's really no mention of the downsides of OpenBSD. For one, it's really not terribly usable by someone without significant technical skills. That of course is a downside to some and not to others, but it is an important facet. Saying a desktop can be run kind of glosses over that important bit. Performance. Pretty much all head to head tests put it way behind the other BSD's and Linux for most general tasks. The developers will generally admit this explaining performance is secondary to correctness and security. But the fact it is way behind is also ignored in the article. Another tidbit: is DJB's software still out of the ports tree? The article doesn't seem to know unless I missed it. So the article suffers from lack of balance. While spending great detail (about 4 full paragraphs) on the split from NetBSD, it hrdly mentions some of the most commonly cited advantages of OpenBSD, the integrated cryptography (which is not even linked to in the article, much less discussed well, and one sentence on the high quality of the documentation. So there's a lack of coverage of the important advantages and disadvantages. Overall it suffers from being edited by committee. - Taxman ^Talk 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* No apologies needed, being critical is the core of these reviews - it's how we separate the wheat from the chaff. I can't deal with your points just now, but I will be going over them in like 6 hours or so. As far as usability goes, I completely disagree - I went from using Windows 2000 to using OpenBSD with nothing but the man pages and a friend telling me to keep trying and to read the man pages, there is no special technical skill required to use OpenBSD, just the willingness to read the documentation. Performance, yes, we could even mention the lack of a UBC. Janizary 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I was going to suggest UBC as an example too :-). NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Thanks for your comments; I think your points are fair, in general. Restructuring the article layout and text so that it flows better has been on my list for a while, although I make no comment on whether it is too bad for a FA, just that there is scope for improvement. Unfortunately, it is quite a big job that needs to be done carefully and I can't seem to find the time. I'm not convinced that the text itself is as bad as you say, but perhaps we have different ideas of style; it may help if you would be good enough to list some of the most egregious examples.

I had also thought about the lack of detail about cryptography and documentation but a) as the article already covers the technical security topics in some length I was reluctant to add more, b) given the current structure, I wasn't sure just where to put them, particularly stuff on documentation, c) to my mind, they are less interesting and important than the unique security features OpenBSD has developed, but I'm not really interested in crypto so I would think that :-) d) as I'm not interested in the topic I don't really know what to say about crypto, so I was hoping someone else would do it :-).

DJB's software is still gone and will probably never reappear; the article doesn't say this, but nor does it say there was a reconciliation and it was put back in—it may indeed be better if it said this explicitly, I'll probably fix that now. The split from NetBSD was perhaps the most important event in OpenBSD's history (and a significant one in NetBSD's) so I don't think four paragraphs is too much. A section about criticism/problems is a good idea, notably, as you say, performance and usability; however, I don't think there is practically that much criticism of OpenBSD in these terms, most people (both users and non-users, and developers) seem to understand that speed and ease of use are not top priority, so I'm not sure how long such a section would be :-)... I did try to gather material for a section on criticism of OpenBSD's security record but I found it impossible to seperate real allegations and evidence from trolling :-/.

The biggest problem at the moment is probably the flow and structure. I think I'll start a discussion on the talk page to try to get a layout sorted out before trying to fix it. NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, never mind about pointing out examples in the text, I see what you mean now. NicM 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Neutral (was: Oppose.) I think the fact the article contains a sentence like "The only available records of these events are an incomplete set of emails, published by Theo de Raadt on his personal site" is a rather concerning problem. The article indicates that this is a rather critical matter, but seems to concede the source used is unreliable. This wasn't something added just now. While I hate to be picky, frankly given recent extra attention/concern lately for verifiability and reliable sources at Wikipedia, I think it would be a mistake to endorse this article, and thereby accept it's sourcing standards. I think we want to feature articles that cite reputable published sources. This is especially true when saying something that reflects on a person's character (which the relevant paragraph does). I see other notes/references that are apparently from mailing list discussions, which have never been published (as far as I know) outside the mailing list. Now admittedly, this article is better sourced than most Wiki articles, there are many worse articles, and maybe there's good justification for everything. But, we shouldn't use it as an example of what we think is best. --Rob 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, most of the OpenBSD discussion and development takes place online, so almost all of the available historical sources are mailing lists and online articles. I understand what you are saying, but I do not think this criticism can be realistically met. Without expressing an opinion on whether or not they are good enough for a FA, I think the article's standards are as good as they can be—the section in question does explain the source is not backed up and provided by one side of the events. NicM 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• So you oppose it based on the fact that we cite an archive of e-mails? That archive used to be complete, but someone edited it, back when Theo still ran NetBSD. Hmmm, perhaps we could add the bit about some NetBSD developer cracking Theo de Raadt's webserver and removing some of the mail from that archive, not the nicest bit of history - but it was one of the reasons there is such bad blood between NetBSD and OpenBSD and is part of what got OpenBSD going into security. I don't think it the best thing to go into because that brings a bit more POV than I am able to neutralize. And I'd not say the source is unreliable, that it has been tampered with is a bit closer to the truth. It's a dump of e-mails that someone with a grudge took parts out of and it's hosted by the guy who was on one side of the argument - that there is noone saying another side of the argument more lends to the validity of the mails than anything for me. Anyways, as NicM says, everything done for projects like this is done in e-mail, not press releases unfortunately, so we can only deal with what we have. As it stands there is one source of information regarding it all, and that is the one from Theo - not citing it would probably be worse than not covering the matter. Janizary 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it comes to negative characteriztions, that can harm a person's professional reputation, and be deemed defamatory, email archives, are even less adequate then normal. Now, if a investigative journalist for reliable publication were to examine them, analysis them, and publish a report, supporting what's said here, then that would be an adequate source. But that hasn't happened, and we can't do original research, which is what would be required. I've also put a note on the talk page, as I do now feel, that no only should this not be FAc, but much of it should be removed. --Rob 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral (was: Oppose.) I gave a rather complete peer review months ago, which didn't go over well with them, so I'm not going to go into many specifics this time. I can on request take a closer look if they desire.

1. POV/comprehensiveness issues - and I'm particularily dissapointed with the history section as I really wanted to see more here. A lot of the conspiracy theories are gone, which is great, but for such a pivotal event it is really kind of bare... also, IIRC the DARPA grant was revoked because Theo was working in Canada and grants were techinically supposed to fund US-only endeavors.
2. writing issues - i.e. "The reasons for this event have never been fully and publicly explained"
3. flow problems (esp. in the "Highlights" subsection).

• History was a lot less bare about the fork but was reduced because of repeating damaging claims with lack of sources. I've made a lot of structural and flow changes, and efforts to reduce the length, at User:NicM/OpenBSD that I'm going to use if nobody objects within the next few days, detailed comments on it would be appreciated if you have time, on my talk page for preference. NicM 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• GREAT! The beginning history is a lot better in terms of comprehensiveness but the writing isn't too good though :\. I'll try to change it myself if I have some spare time.
  T | @ | C 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks, any improvements are welcome. I do my best with the writing but I know it can end up a bit clunky :-). NicM 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It looks a lot better now...

T | @ | C 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Neutral (was: Oppose.) The article is too focused on the social circles and personalities involved in the early history of OpenBSD, and not enough on its technical qualities or its architecture. OpenBSD is not a social club; it's an operating system. I've made a first shot at cleaning up and summarizing some of the history, but this article needs a lot of refocusing before it's featured. --FOo 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personalities, particularly that of Theo de Raadt, is a very important and widely known aspect of the OpenBSD project, and most people do think (with some justification) that the fork was due to social issues (the core NetBSD world was small and tightly integrated at the time, and Theo was a skilled and very active contributor). In any case, I've already made a lot of alternative changes here, which I intended to merge this evening, please let me know what you think. I'll take a look at your modifications and see if I can include them, I do prefer parts of your simpler text. NicM 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • On another note, OpenBSD may not be a social club, but Wikipedia is equally not a technical manual, it is important to discuss social aspects where they are relevent. Particularly as so much of OpenBSD, and open source in general, is social. It is analogous to Wikipedia: the goal is to produce an encylopedia or operating system, but since it is being done by people, often in their spare time and often based on their beliefs, it can develop a large social component and personalities and relationships can become very important. NicM 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I keep rereading my comments above and I'm not convinced I have really made my point: forgive me if I have and seem to be trying to hammer it home, I'm not. The thing is, OpenBSD is a
      BSD, all of which have basically the same architecture; I think this article should focus on the specific history of OpenBSD and what makes it different and noteworthy, namely license purity and security. This is not to say I'm not interested in seeing technical material added (although the emphasis in my restructuring was to remove material, not add it), I just don't think the current focus (my new version at least) is too far off the mark. NicM 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply
      ]
      • I agree that Wikipedia is not a technical manual, and the history of OpenBSD as a project is interesting. However, the personality politics of Theo de Raadt are not nearly as interesting as the details of what OpenBSD is and how it differs from other BSDs and Unix systems. I think your recent changes are a definite improvement, and I withdraw my opposition. --FOo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments and withdrawing your objection. Its slightly difficult because, as far as opinions go, Theo de Raadt is the project, so to explain the project's, especially the early history, you need to explain his, but I take your point, somewhat. I was just going to write a list here of how there weren't many differences and most of what there are, are things that are missing in OpenBSD, but I think I've just convinced myself to write a short section on technical differences: things, aside from security enhancements, OpenBSD has (pf, bioctl, there must be more), things it hasn't (a UBC, rc.ng, dynamic /dev & no *devsw, UFS2, SMP on non-i386) and things that are different (native threads, encrypted disks, supported platforms (<NBSD >FBSD)). Although, the reason for most of these being missing seems to almost always be one or more of the same three: no convincing reason to change existing solution, lack of developer time, or dissatisfaction with the solution of the other BSDs. I'll have to think see if I can come up with any more and where to put it in the article. NicM 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment Alright, the article has been restructured. This is the second time we've done one of them, hopefully it leads to a better overall article. Please everyone who's voted take another look to make sure you still agree with your previous opinion. Those interested in that further discussion and are looking for a quick-link, see here. Rob's change is marked in the history page, so I changed the image to make it easier to follow at a glance. Janizary 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dysprosia 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support The article is to the point and informative. Overall this is a good article and a great reference. I also enjoyed reading the "history" part. Cmihai 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• e Ong 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Lots of references and information. Gflores ^Talk 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would determine what other articles an OS novice would have to read to understand this article and use the {{subst:preq}} prerequisites template. In addition, I would suppose that even if someone knows enough about operating systems to understand "BSD," "kernel" and similar terms, he or she might not know the background of NetBSD. For that reason, I would remove the mention of that OS from the lead paragraph and instead briefly explain it at the beginning of the history section. ("Theo de Raadt had been working on NetBSD, another open source operating system, when...") You also might want to spell out Berkeley Software Distribution on first reference just to be safe. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. I've made a few changes to the first paragraph, is this any better? I'll have a think about a list of prerequisites, have you got any particular suggestions? NicM 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Okay, I've added a prerequisites box. Not entirely happy with its contents or position. Is it possible to make it appear beside the infobox? NicM 08:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • I've removed it again as the combination of it and the infobox is broken in IE6 and I don't know how to make it work. NicM 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • It does work, I had an extra blank line was screwing it up. NicM 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
          • Yes, that was the kind of thing I was talking about. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject matter to cast a vote, but it looks good to me. -- Mwalcoff 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually added to the history of NetBSD for that purpose, but really I thought the articles linked in OpenBSD gave most of the information needed to know what's going on in it. I'll see if I can convince a few random people on #wikipedia-en to read the article and see what they didn't understand to see if there is anything to add to the prerequisites. Janizary 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, of the three people I convinced to read the article, none seemed to think it was too over-the-top or complex, one didn't think the prereq box was needed, since those were linked in the article - with the exception of
      computer insecurity. Janizary 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Computer insecurity is linked in the article. It is about what you and I would call computer security (and is linked as such in the article), but that term has more specific meanings that are covered in the computer security article and mostly don't apply to OpenBSD (they do apply to the ACLs and MAC features in, eg, FreeBSD but not to most of OpenBSD's features). NicM 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply
        ]
        • I think the prereq box is a good idea. Someone who doesn't know anything about operating systems would wind up on a wild link chase trying to understand the article without it. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epaminondas

Self nom. I've researched this extensively, and its been polished up with help from a peer review. It draws on every major ancient source and several modern ones, and I think it covers the topic as comprehensively as an encyclopedia article can. --Robth^Talk 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Lead as one paragraph probably would be best broken into at least 2 paragraphs, and websites should be properly cited. AndyZ 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead: done.
• Citing websites: I've changed the format to list the source website for each of the texts. I didn't want to describe them as being from those webites first and foremost, since they're originally print format, and I was using many of them in print form, but I also wanted to provide an online option in the references, since one was available.

• Oppose. Unsourced, weasel terms, makes judgements that would be better left to the reader. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've addressed your specific requests as best I can below. As far as sourcing, there are links in the footnotes to almost every passage from a major ancient historian that deals with him--anyone perusing the footnotes is a click away from the vast majority of the material I used to write this. I tried to minimize footnote clutter by using a few notes to cover large chunks of text, but I can put more in if people think that would be appropriate.

• • It's not unsourced, I don't see many weasel words, and any judgements made don't seem POV to me; they just seem a way to write in a style that isn't so dry. We shouldn't complain about
    brilliant prose. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Upon reflection, I think I might have come across as rude there. I realize you wrote that about the article before several significant improvements were made, and although I disagree with your comment, I don't want to be dismissive. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article draws on a wide variety of sources, ancient and modern. The referenced web links work and provide valuable information on the subject. I see no weasel words or preemptive judgments, just a solid, scholarly effort at a balanced presentation. As I said in peer review, this is an interesting, comprehensive article that will appeal even to those with little or no knowledge of ancient Greece. Definitely FA quality. Casey Abell 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1."He revolutionized Greek warfare"

• Changed to more descriptive wording.

2."Epaminondas, perhaps one of history's greatest idealists and liberators..."

• Changed to factual statement about contemporary opinion.

3."His musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor."

• This one is just a factual statement; he had the best teachers available, according to our sources.
  • Then the factual statement is: "Source A says that his musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor". We cannot assume the opinion of one source as truth, no matter how highly regarded it is. We simply present to the reader and let he judge for himself. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if it's disputed. If the statement is sourced, and there is no conflicting source, then it's not a POV problem. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4."Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess"

• Again, this is a fact, recorded by Nepos.
  • Then say: "Nepos said that Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess", or "Nepos praised Epaminondas for his physical prowess". Same as above. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See comment on sources below.

5."At this hour, Epaminondas's tactical genius first manifested itself."

• This was too judgemental; I've removed it.

6."he rebuilt the ancient city of Messene on Mount Ithome, with impressive new fortifications"

• Changed to "formidable." The point I'm trying to get across is that the new Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece.
  • Then just write it. Say that Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece, and cite your source. Don't you think this is better than vague adjectives like "impressive" or "formidable"? JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. Done. I didn't add a new cite, since that section is already cited to Fine, who is my source for that statement.

7."who had been imprisoned by the ambitious Alexander of Pherae"

• Removed.

8."only the grateful Messenians remained firmly loyal"

• Removed.

9."Epaminondas ranks high among the great men produced by the Greek city-states in their dynamic final century and a half of independence."

• Changed to a factual statement about contemporary opinion, as above.

10."Some sources credit this innovative thinking to his early philosophical training."

• This is a factual statement regarding sources; Victor Hanson goes on about this at great length.
  • Then say which sources. Atributing something to "some sources" makes it a
    weasel term. Say that "John Doe and Mary Doe credit his innovative thinking to his early philosophical training". JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Done.

11."His voluntary poverty, insusceptibility to bribery, and unquestioning generosity won him great praise."

• This is a factual statement, but I've reformulated it to make it more neutral.

12."In some ways, Epaminondas utterly altered the face of Greece during the ten years in which he was the central figure of Greek politics."

• This is factual. The breaking of the centuries old Peloponnesian League, the creation of the Arcadian League, and the refounding of Messene were all his doing. He radically altered the political map of Greece.
  • Is this opinion yours? If it is, it's original research. Please mention in the article which scholars think so. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Hanson, Fine, and the OCD are all in agreement on this. It also represents the broader modern historical consensus. We have to draw a line between a totally unsourced article and one where every single statement is presented in the context of its source, which would be completely dry and unreadable. See comment on sources below.

13."He was celebrated throughout the ancient world as one of the greatest men of history."

• Factual. See the Cicero quote in the paper; Nepos records very positive contemporary opinion. It's also clear from various scholiasts and other minor sources that Plutarch's biography of him was very laudatory.
  • Then say so in the text. It is more informative. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The next two sentences do exactly that. One is the Cicero quote, and one is his epitath, from Pasusanias. See comment on sources below. This statement, again, reflects the modern historical consensus.

I don't think there's any "modern historical consensus" that "the ancient world" consisted mostly of Greece and Rome. Monicasdude 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14."Beyond a doubt, the career of Epaminondas brought welcome relief to the numerous Greeks who had suffered for centuries under Spartan domination."

• Reformulated to more neutral statement, but it is factual that the Messenians nearly worshipped the man.

15."Some modern historians have suggested that Epaminondas may have planned for a united Greece composed of regional democratic federations"

• Strictly factual statement of a modern opinion (to which I personally don't subscribe).
  • Then say which historians in the text. Ascribing this opinion to "some modern historians" makes it a weasel term. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

JoaoRicardo^talk 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All interspersed bulleted responses in the sections above are mine. With regard to the wording concerns, I see where you're coming from. It has to be remembered though, that much of what I'm doing here is relaying the information we have from the sources we have, which tend to say a number of positive things about him. J.V. Fine's book gives a balanced and scholarly account, and I've modeled my approach on his in many regards. I just checked, and the Oxford Classical Dictionary describes him similarly. --Robth^Talk 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The life of Epaminondas by Cornelius Nepos, already referenced in the article, lends strong support to most of these items. It's available for inspection through the web link. I agree that the bolded adjectives could be dropped with no impact on the article. Casey Abell 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robth has responded to the objections ten thousand times better than I could, because he knows ten thousand times more about ancient Greece than I do. But even a novice like me can look at the Nepos link and the other web links provided in the article and see strong support for most of the disputed assertions, not to mention the rest of the article. The ancient sources do give Epaminondas a lot of credit for his intellect, integrity and military ability. I think Robth has gone the extra mile in making some verbal changes, and I support the article even more strongly now for FA status. Casey Abell 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Abell, I would like to point out that I notice a certain aggressiveness in your comments above that is verging on the personal attack side. Please respect the opinions of others who disagree with you. Thanks. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no aggression intended. I agree we should both back off from the use of loaded phrases like "weasel terms" and "weasel words." A much better way of expressing this idea would be "unnecessary qualifiers," followed by a list of specific qualifiers that could be removed. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia, not fight over the quality of articles. Anyway, I think your suggestions have been well-received by Robth and the article has benefited as a result. Casey Abell 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm, I wasn't aware "weasel terms" was a loaded phrase. I'm not a native speaker of English, and I came to know this term through Wikipedia. I didn't think it might sound aggressive or derogatory. I apologize if you or any other perceived my attitude as aggressive. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support, Outstanding article on a great, if a bit tricky to pronounce, name of Ancient military history that should be better known. Not only a brilliant tactician but a master of strategy, diplomacy and the relationship between the three. One point, though: Nowhere in this otherwise well writ and thoroughly researched work do I see mention of the fact a young prince named Philip from a, then, minor kingdom called Macedon, was Epaminondas' pupil. He was very much Phil's "Yoda" in teaching him the arts of war and statecraft, and hence argueably was Alex the Great's grandfather in a military sense. Also, and this is only a suggestion and in no way effects my support, if you could find or add an illustration showing Epami's maneuver at Leuctra, it would help. Most general readers are unfamilar with tactical terms and unable to visualize deployments, maneuvers and formations based on words alone. Some maps would be nice too. For Ancient Greece was a small, crowded, complex place full of Greek names...getting lost is easy even for those with some familarity. But still, GREAT JOB!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about putting the Philip thing earlier, but decided against it at the time. The problem is that although there's been a fair amount of modern speculation on the subject (most notably by Victor Hanson), the only real ancient support for Epaminondas serving as Philip's teacher is a line in Plutarch where Plutarch states that he's merely speculating, and a rather ambiguous passage in Diodorus (who gives two completely different accounts of the matter at 15.67.3 and 16.2.2, undermining his reliability). The approach of most modern scholars has been to leave it out of their accounts (c.f. Fine and the OCD). If people think it should go in, I'll find somewhere to put it, although it'll have to be described as speculation rather than fact.
• As far as illustrations, I've put in a diagram of Leuctra, which I think does a good job of showing what happened. I also added a map that I made from the one on the Peloponnesian War article. It's less than ideal, since it uses archaic spellings for many locations, but I think it does what it needs to do. --Robth^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on both the illustrations! I was going to recommend some diagrams I found on the Spanish and Polish Wikis, but you one you made is just as good, in some ways better. As for the Phil II reference, even if he was'nt a pupil of Epami per se, he clearly studied his campaigns and had a great (no pun intended) influence upon him. The use of cavalry (which had previously been largely the bastard child of Ancient Greek warfare), the deep-Phalanx, the Oblique or Echelon order of battle....In fact all the important hallmarks of his art of war were taken from Epami. So more than just creating the circumstances for the Macedonian conquests, he provided a blueprint for the means to achieve them. So it would'nt hurt to mention him, even if it is only speculation. Again, Great job! Sapere aude--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until thoroughly copy-edited. It's well written in many ways, but someone needs to go through it and weed out the odd turns of phrase (e.g., 'his skill as a warrior and as a general'—a general is a warrior) and ambiguities (e.g., 'disdaining the wealth he could easily have secured by using his powerful position'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) [13]
  • First off, sign your comments. Secondly, a general is not a warrior - a warrior is one who fights directly while a general directs others in a battle, and they require very different skills. Many generals in history were poor soldiers (warriors) and very few soldiers would make good generals. The latter comment doesn't seem all that vague, either - wealth is easily secured through holding positions of power. - Cuivienen 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until copyedited. It's a great topic and a comprehensive article, but a strong copyeditor is needed to simplify some of the language and remove unnecessary qualifiers. --NormanEinstein 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks better now. --NormanEinstein 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I attempted to copy-edit the article, but was unable to find anything that needed changing. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I can see on this issue are a few long sentences with semi-colons that could be broken into shorter units. An example would be splitting:

It seems certain that Epaminondas enjoyed the company of young men; given the fluid nature of Greek sexuality, however, drawing conclusions from this fact is difficult, and attempts to apply modern notions of sexual orientation to ancient Greek historical figures is an endeavor laden with pitfalls; only the facts as recorded may be stated with certainty.

into three (or even four) sentences at the breaks. I could go through the article and do that, if Robth wouldn't mind. But I have to admit, I like the prose as is. I'm a Henry James fan, and he wrote some long ones, too. (No sexuality implications intended.) As for the qualifiers, I'm not qualified (sorry) to decide if they're necessary or not. We're dealing with a guy who lived about 2,400 years ago, so some qualifiers would seem to be in order. Casey Abell 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robth just split this sentence up, which is a quick response by any standard! Right now the article looks to me like a brilliant blend of shorter and longer sentences, very easy to read and always moving forward like one of those phalanxes. Casey Abell 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've gone through and given the whole thing a copyedit, and I think the most confusing sections are now much clearer. Another user has contacted me on my talk page to say that they're going to look through it in a little while. Anyone who wants to go through it or who sees something awkward should feel free to change it or tell me what they want changed. And now I'm going to make myself stop working on this (for a little while) and go do some of the things I've been neglecting while this has had my attention, like, say, buying my coursebooks for this semester... --Robth^Talk 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just noticed this article spent 14 hours on Peer Review, from 7h (PR nom) to 21h (FAC nom) yesterday. I would have made all my comments above on the PR page if only I had had the time to do so. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I jumped the gun on moving it over here. I saw that several other articles which had been on peer review for about as long had been put over here as well, so I did the same. --Robth^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 weeks is usually a good amount of time to leave an article on peer review before moving it here. That guideline isn't always followed, but it's a good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Comments copied from Peer Review). Wow. That's some
  brilliant prose. I can't see anything that would prevent it from being a FA as is, although I would request that the "Battle of Mantinea" section be expanded. (It seems shorter than other sections, when considering its importance.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I can see why you're concerned about the "good teachers" statement in particular, since calling something "good" seems to be passing down a judgement. We have to consider the seriousness of the judgement we're making, though. We use somewhat judgemental words all the time. "Decisive defeat," for example, is a judgemental statement, but we can use it so long as we're not editorializing on our own; as long as we're reflecting a sound consensus opinion, we can do it. In the new comment I made on Messene's fortifications, I refer to "strong fortifications," and I think we can agree you can say that. Why? Because the archaeologists who dug them up have looked at them and said, yup, strong fortifications alright. A balance has to be struck between strictly, literally, stating only self evident facts and writing a smooth piece.. The logical chain: 1. Nepos says his teachers were good, and 2. Consensus among historians says that Nepos can be trusted on this, so 3. The teachers were probably good is one that we don't need to write out in full. Its a small enough point that we can just say it, producing a more readable text. --Robth^Talk 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One of my acid tests of FA worthiness about a subject I know next to nothing about is whether an article - assuming it is properly referenced, which this one is - makes me feel like I know a lot by the end. This one certainly does. Outstandingly written, expressing an overall NPOV in exciting but non-"potboiler" prose. An excellent article if you know nothing, something or a lot about him. Some nice pictures, which is sometimes hard for an article of this type. I agree with you about the judgements; of course Wikipedia needs to be accountable, but not at the expense of readability. If an article uses a combination of inline citations and external link sources that is fine for me. Also, writing "scholar X says" before every statement would just make articles read like academic papers. Note that even the Britannica does not do this. Anyway, overall whole-hearted support. More classical civilisations articles like this and you never know I may even take enough of an interest to start writing them! Batmanand 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is good stuff, but I suggest it spends its time on
  WP:PR first. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]