Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2010: Difference between revisions

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:41, 11 December 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone; today I bring "Slug" to your attention as a featured article candidate. "Slug" is a little known song crafted by Passengers; a sideproject by U2 and Brian Eno in the mid-1990s which they did as a warm-up for the next U2 album. The article may appear to be on the short side at first glance, but I can assure you that it is as comprehensive as it is possible for it to be, and that it meets the notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. I have combed through every print and web-based resource I could find, and one or two that others provided to me. I believe that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and so I bring it to now to your attention. I hope that you enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there no song cover for the article? Also, can you place the music sample in the recording section like in many modern articles.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not released as a single, so no cover art exists for it. The U2 WikiProject has generally found that for song articles, the infobox is the simplest and least obtrusive place to include a sample. Do you feel that changing the position of the sample would be of value, or is it just a personal preference based on aesthetics? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Blinding Lights (today's featured article) has the music sample in the infobox, so I don't think it is necessary to put the sample in the body of the article for FA status. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs (there was one in a template, but I fixed that), no external link problems. --PresN 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1b, 2a, 1d

Its better than last time, but needs some copy editing and I think some of my major concerns from before are still there:

1b, 2a the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (no single,wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards) but you don't get that impression from reading the lead or the article. Similarly, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the critical reception and popularity; or in my opinion, lack there of.

1d There's problem with describing the song as fan's 'third favourite on the album' based on those fan surveys since it was a distant 3rd and not really statistically distinct from the other unpopular songs on the album. Without some kind of synthesis on how to derive relative popularity from web-based fan surveys of popular music from a secondary source, I think those surveys are an example of the problems described in WP:Primary.

1d/1b - for a song that ended up being unpopular with fans one would think there would be a fair amount of negative press too, and it wasn't exactly a financial success since it only appears on one album, no single. For example, when a song gets 4 starts out of 5, is that good, bad or meh?

That's my opinion; I'm open to changing my mind based on what other reviewers thing is appropriate for FA articles about popular music. Kirk (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the bit about the fan survey on various levels, therefore I went ahead and removed it entirely from the article. The survey didn't necessarily give the notion that it was poorly received by fans, since it was ranked 3rd best song on the album. But the small 4% vote does throw readers off, so it was best to do away with it. I edited the lead a bit to state how it was well received by many critics, including two major music magazines. Looking over the lead again, it seems to summarize the entire article and better state the notability of the song. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like this isn't researched well enough because I think the article should explain why the song was not popular, not a financial success, and won no awards. Removing the fan survey just addresses my 1d concern and makes 1b worse - the survey, while flawed, did explain the unpopularity of the song. I still feel like the article should address the obvious lack of financial success & fan popularity (no single, no live performances), and not winning awards because if it was a financial success, popular with fans and was nominated for awards that would be in the article. Like I said earlier, other reviewers may disagree. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you the last time around, that information does not exist. There are a variety of reasons for why that might be, but those are only speculations and can't be included. I am not sure why you are so hung-up on what you perceive as being unpopularity among fans when you previously said that the inclusion of the survey was problematic since there was no synthesis on what the results meant. You are drawing your own conclusions from those results, and there is simply no way to cite that.

I also do not see how it is possible to reference a statement saying that it did not win awards and was not played live. As I invited you the last time, if you know of a way to say and reference that something hasn't happened, please tell me. Otherwise I am at a loss as to how you expect me to address your points. Everything that can be established has been so. What you are asking for are details that simply do not exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help explain the relative unpopularity of the track if we gave a summary view of the Passengers project as a whole near the end: the release was intended to be an experimental one with Eno to fill the void between Zooropa and the band's next studio album, and because it was not marketed as a U2 release, it went relatively unnoticed and was swept under the rug in many cases (see Larry Mullen's retrospective comments indicating regret/disinterest). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting suggestion, but how would we relate that information specifically to "Slug"? If I recall correctly those sources do not mention the song specifically, so adding it might just seem like some unrelated trivia about the album that it was on. Do you have an idea on how to properly integrate it? I'm not adverse to adding it in, I'm just having a hard time seeing how it could be done so in a way that would answer Kirk's concerns. Melicans (talkcontributions,) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to respond; I got swamped with the number of term papers I had left to write. Can you provide any specific examples of where copyediting is needed? I've given the article a thorough look but nothing jumped out at me; probably because my eyes are stale when it comes to looking at this article. I think that Dream out loud's edits, in which the fan survey results were removed, to Reception and to the lead addressed pretty much all of the concerns you outlined above. Thanks very much for the feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a bit of a run-through/copyedit, and I think it is looking a bit better. I admit I have never been entirely satisfied with lumping everything together under "Writing, recording and theme", and I think this reworking improves it somewhat. Any thoughts? Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Melicans said earlier, nowhere does it say in the article that this song was "unpopular" nor can that information be cited anyhow. I don't see how a song that was praised as one of the best on its album by a couple major music magazines can be considered "unpopular". If we went into more detail about the unpopularity of the album, that would be going a little off-topic because that information should be in the Original Soundtracks 1 article, and this article is about the song, not the album. It was also said that the song was not a financial success. How can a song make money? It was not released as a single, and was only a song on the album. The album can generate profits, but the individual song cannot. But still it is being said that this article fails 1b and 1d. Criteria 1b states that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and I think it has been made clear that extensive amounts of research was done to include every possible known fact about this song and that no details have been left out. And stating the song is "unpopular" is not a detail that needs to be included as we have clearly established that that was not the case. Criteria 1d states that an article "presents views fairly and without bias", and I don't think this article has any issues with WP:NPOV as it appears to be very neutral. Again, not stating the song is "unpopular" does not affect its neutrality because, again, we have clearly established that that was not the case. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A note has been left on Kirk's talk page requesting that he return to address the replies made to him since his last edit here. However he has been on Wikipedia only intermittently since 24 November, so I'm not sure how quickly he will be able to respond. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead: "Following its release, "Slug" was praised as one of the best songs on the album by many critics, including music magazines Rolling Stone and Uncut." which begs the question, if critics liked it so much, why was there no single, it won no awards, it wasn't popular with fans (chart position, concert performances)? I'm also concerned about bias because since it seemed to be a financial flop so there had to be some reviewers who said the song wasn't that good, or the good reviews you cited really were not mediocre in music-reviewer-speak. If you don't want to answer these questions, or can't find a citation from a secondary source, or you think they are stupid questions you just have to get support from other reviewers to gain a consensus - this process doesn't have to be unanimous. Kirk (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe has already been explained by Y2kcrazyjoker4, Original Soundtracks 1 itself was not widely promoted and was a commercial disappointment. The planned second single, "Your Blue Room", was cancelled because the album was a failure. We cannot speculate if "Slug" would have been released had the album been a commercial success; but discussing the failure of the album in this article would going too far off-topic, and it's implementation would have little or no connection at all to "Slug". Drawing the conclusion that "Slug" wasn't released as a single because the album was not a success would be pure WP:OR. I still don't see how an individual song can be considered to be a "financial flop" either; as Dream out loud pointed out, an individual song cannot generate profits unless it is released as a single; which we have clearly established multiple times, in this FAC and the last, that "Slug" is not. Your supposition that the song received negative reviews based on this "lack of financial success" is the largest original conclusion that I have ever seen; the two factors are completely unrelated. Something that receives terrible reviews, whether a book, film, or album, can make a lot of money, and the reverse is also true. I've searched every single source and review that I could find, and not once did I see a negative spin on the song. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources look OK (spotchecks carried out on online sources). A little untidiness in the citations, e.g. some page numbers preceded by "p.", others not; I suspect this is a consequence of templates. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source templates have been cleaned up for consistency. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

• Uncut should be linked in 'Reception' section
• Refs 1, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are missing publishers

Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Uncut, but publishers are not necessary unless for major publications (ex: printed newspapers, magazines, popular websites). In fact in a previous FA review, an editor told me to remove the publisher parameter from most of my references for that reason. I mean, they could be easily added in, but there wouldn't be much purpose. Anyone could click on the link of the publication and get the publisher info right there. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I don't really mind, I just thought that it was common practise. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the removing publisher parameters for that reason. First of all, according to WP:CITEHOW, you should use a citation style, and you should be consistent applying that style. In many styles you can omit publishers for well known newspapers/magazines because its usually the newspaper or magazine (i.e. New York Times); for others it adds credibility. I don't think Uncut is in the same league as the NYT; I would second adding a publisher. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 December 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has undergone significant expansion, copy-editing and a peer-review since its GA promotion two-and-a-half years ago. It is extensive in its coverage of not only his NHL career, but his Swedish career, early life and personal life. I prepared this article for FAC in lieu of his Canucks jersey retirement taking place on December 11. I would greatly appreciate any comments/reviews. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a general rule of thumb that images with faces should look into the text, this is particularly important for infobox images, but otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what is the rationale behind this? Could you please direct me to a guideline or previous discussion? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style Fasach Nua (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the images in this article follow this pattern (except arguably the last one). However, I feel that the infobox should contain the best image to illustrate the subject, which, in my opinion, is the current one. The guideline also notes that there is considerable leeway when adhering to it ("images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines"). –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 08:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely err on the side of common sense, have a look on flickr for images, in the advanced search option you can specify creative commons, you may find an equally good picture facing the other way. However I certainly won't oppose on this issue. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All available pictures on flickr are already uploaded. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Support all concerns resolved. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The city with a population of 30,000..." Awkward sentence. Rather than note the population, I'd mention the fact that it is known for producing several quality hockey players in a little better detail.
• "After a season of junior, Näslund joined Modo's professional team in the Elitserien..." Instead of saying professional, it should say something about it being their top-tier team, as that is more notable.

Later on in the sentence though, it mentions that the Elitserien is the country's premiere league. Does that accomplish the same thing you're thinking of or no? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "...Näslund did not participate in post-season play and watched as Washington eliminated Pittsburgh in the first round." Need to clarify what it means by him watching; some reference to him being a healthy scratch (which I presume is the case).

I had originally written that he was a healthy scratch but it was replaced by the current wording by a copy editor because it was deemed too 'jargony'. What I've done before is link healthy scratch to a wiktionary listing or add footnotes. Thoughts? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 14 games with Pittsburgh, he scored two goals and four points..." WP:MOSNUM says not to mix written numbers with digits.
• "...he was named to his first NHL All-Star Game in 1999." An awkward sentence. Would be better as "first All-Star game, held in January 1999." This is repeated again in regards to the 2001 All-Star game.

Ok, I've changed that. I'm wondering how I should go about linking now. Should I link the year or the word "All-Star Game"? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "On March 27, he scored his 100th point of the season..." Seems to be the only highlight of his career where the opposition is not named. Why not mention it was the Coyotes (only know that because I was there).
• "...but was surpassed by Avalanche forwards Peter Forsberg and Milan Hejduk." Add "respectively" after Hejduk, otherwise it implies they both passed Naslund for goals and point.
• This may be personal opinion, but I don't think you need to mention that the Pearson Award was renamed in this article.
• ..."capturing the inaugural 2008 Victoria Cup." Since its the inaugural Victoria Cup, the year is not needed.
• ..."Näslund was named an alternate captain to Chris Drury for the Rangers." Don't really need to include Drury here, as alternate captains don't really work for the captains.
• Prague doesn't need to be linked as it doesn't help the article at all, but if you want the link to stay I'd expand it to read as Prague, Czech Republic and look less awkward. This is repeated a few more times.
• "...1989 Four Nations Tournament in Russia." Russia didn't exist in 1989.
• Wrist shot should be linked.
• Good article, well written aside from those details. Nice to see another Canucks-related article up at FAC. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I addressed all the above concerns, with the exception of the a few that I commented on. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to him being scratched, I'd say a link to the term would suffice. As for the All-Star Games, I would link the term itself, unless the context requires different. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As in, All-Star Game, held in January 2001? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even just go with All-Star Game, held in January 2001. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, one external link problem- this link is dead. You're using it in ref 106. --PresN 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the dead link.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

• General point: there is significant repeat referencing, where a single citation would do. For example, the third paragraph of the Early Life section has three successive cites to [4]. There are other examples of successive citing that should be attended to.

Just to clarify then, I should remove the previous two citations in the third paragraph and have just one at the end of the paragraph? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strings of four citations are unnecessary to support simple facts.

Are you referring to the first paragraph from the "West Coast Express" section? I cited four sources, as I thought this was a more a matter of opinion and would have needed multiple citations from difference sources to support that this was a widely-accepted notion. The same goes for the third paragraph of the "Playing style" section. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement "He matched that points total the following season before helping Modo to the quarterfinals of the Elitserien playoffs" is cited to Ref 13. I don't see any reference to this in the source.

It's mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the article. Did you want a reference for "He matched that points total the following season" as well though? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 45: "Canadian Broadcasting Company?
• Ref 143: In Swedish
• Ref 144: In Swedish (check for others)

Above three issues addressed. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Vancouver Canucks: "Stojanov, who had been drafted eight spots ahead of Naslund in the 1991 Draft went on to play 45 games." Hate to harp on the punctuation, but there should definitely be a comma after "1991 Draft".
• "prompting him to request to a trade once again." Remove the second "to".
• What is sourcing the sentences on his season statistics that are ending a couple of the paragraphs here? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the first two issues. In regards to sourcing stats, did you mean you want a source for each season statistic? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What I meant is that when something like "He finished the year with 14 goals and 34 points over 76 games" is in an article, it should be cited like everything else. If the stats are all covered by present references, feel free to leave things as is. If not, which appears to be the case in several spots, those stats need to be referenced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I've gone ahead and referenced all the season stat totals. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a, for the moment: This looks to be a thorough and well researched article, but I'm afraid at the moment it seriously needs a copy-edit. There are several problems with prose and it does not read well. I've read as far as the Modo hockey section so far. Normally, I would try to copy-edit myself, but I don't have time at present. I would suggest a non-hockey editor has a look, and I imagine the sections I have not read properly need copyediting as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References seemed to check out, up to end of Modo hockey section. However, this one was a little close for comfort (ref 4):
  

Original: For most of his youth he played organized hockey on outdoor ice in his neighborhood.

Article: In his youth, he played most of his organized hockey on an outdoor rink in his neighbourhood.

• Lead
• Three successive sentences begin with "he" in the first paragraph. In fact, the prose in the whole lead is not good. Out of 15 sentences, 7 begin "he", 3 begin "Naslund" or "Marcus Naslund" and 3 begin "in".
• The lead also uses lists of information too much, for example "Näslund was a three-time First Team All-Star, chosen in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and a Lester B. Pearson Award recipient, winning in 2003" and "in two European Junior Championships, two World Junior Championships, four World Championships, two World Cups and one Winter Olympics". This could be summarised more for the lead.
• Could something be added here (I assume it is later in the article) about his ability or reputation, as well as the awards he won?

Started to work on the lead a little bit, but I'd welcome anyone else taking a crack at it. In regards to having a more concise summary, would it help to remove the years? Also, pretty much all his major awards have been mentioned in the lead, including team awards, so I'm not sure how much more I can add in that regard. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Early life
• "The city is known for producing numerous NHL players..." I'm sure it is known for more than that, so what about "The city has produced..."
• "including childhood friend and former Modo Hockey teammate Peter Forsberg, as well as former Canucks teammates, Henrik and Daniel Sedin.": Not sure about "former teammate": presumably they are former teammates now (is it teammate or team-mate?) but weren't when he was a child, which is when this section is describing. I would prefer "future" team-mate or simply "Modo players"/"Canucks players".
• Any details about his organised hockey? For example, how was he selected for the regional team?
• Three sentences in a row begin with prepositional phrases ("growing up", "in his youth" and "at age 14") Then later, two sentences in a row begin "they".
• Any more details about his upbringing and education?

Details about his early life has been hard to come by, but if I encounter anything about his upbringing or education, I'll be sure to add it. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modo hockey

• "a mark which stood as the highest points total for a 17 year old in the history of the league for 12 years until Robert Nilsson broke the record in 2002–03 with 21." Clumsy sentence, particularly "with 21" at the end. What about "a record points total for a 17 year old in the league until Robert Nilsson scored 21 in 2002–03."
• I usually have this problem, so feel free to ignore it, but I think drafting needs explaining to those outside of North America who are not too familiar. Is there a link, or a simple one sentence explanation?
• "He compared Näslund to the Los Angeles Kings' Swedish forward Tomas Sandström, though not as aggressive..." Not sure about "though not as agressive". What about "although he did not consider him as aggressive a player".
• "a purer goal-scorer": How can a goal-scorer be pure? Maybe "a natural goal-scorer" or "more natural goal-scorer".
• Lots more "he"s starting sentences in this section.

• I also scanned through the rest of the article and noticed that although there is a playing style section, nothing really seems to mention how good he was, for example opinions of critics, journalists and coaches.

• Thanks for your comments.. I've been pretty busy lately, but I hope to begin addressing them soon. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - I can't tell who the oppose above belongs to. Nominator, can you figure it out and attach a signature? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, I had my signature after my comments but I've added one to the oppose now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:21, 11 December 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica, one of the most intense storms in Australian history, was about as "perfect" of a cyclone as you can ever get. The storm broke the satellite intensity estimate scale, exceeding an 8.0 on a scale of 1-8, and struck land at this strength. Despite its extreme intensity, there was relatively minimal structural damage; however, catastrophic environmental damage took place. Thousands of square kilometres of trees were destroyed by the storms' 360 km/h (225 mph) wind gusts, some of which were over 200 years old. According to studies of the region, it will take another 100 years for the region to recover from Monica. That said, I believe that this article meets the FAC requirements and is ready for nomination. All comments on the article are welcome and encouraged. Hope you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met, up to the usual standards of the wikiproject hurricanes Fasach Nua (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you mention the bit about Monica possibly being the strongest SHEM storm twice, with very similar wording.
  • "Using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 mbar (hPa; 25.66 inHg); if accurate, those measurements would have made Monica the most powerful cyclone ever recorded worldwide. At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded.[12]"
  • "using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 hPa (mbar). At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded. Although unofficial, this would make Monica the strongest known tropical cyclone in history, eclipsing Typhoon Tip of 1979.[12]
• The former (in the MH) asserts the uncertainty, although it doesn't include a source about being the "most powerful ever in the world". Likewise, the source is just a stream of data, so it doesn't say anything "the storm was more intense than could be recorded", so that could use explanation. You should eliminate the redundancies, first of all, and you should also explain these sections better, and with more sourcing. You say that the JTWC estimate would have made it the most intense in the SHEM, but you don't say how the JTWC is unofficial. Officially, the strongest in the SHEM is still Zoe. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've started to clear things up, just need a bit more guidance from here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

• Ref 22: Italicise The Age
• Ref 24: Italicise Travel Weekly (I assume this is a journal)
• Ref 26: Publisher lacking (CBS News)
• Ref 36: What physical form does this source take?

Limited spotchecking on available sources didn't identify further problems. Other than the above issues, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Does not meet several WIAFA criteria, in my opinion: Sasata (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1(a) well-written: here are issues I found from just the lead. There are similar problems throughout the article:

• lead sentence: "Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica was the most intense tropical cyclone, in terms of maximum winds," What is meant by maximum winds? Maximum wind speed?
• "The storm quickly developed into a Category 1 cyclone" could we non-specialists have a link to explain cyclone categories?
• deep convection - link?

Same thing as convection (which is linked) basically, just more of it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Early on 22 April, the Bureau of Meteorology assessed Monica" what Bureau? Australian? (link)
• "The JTWC also upgraded Monica" What is the JTWC?
• "… barometric pressure of 916 hPa (mbar)" shouldn't units be wlinked on first usage (especially in the lead, which should be especially accessible to all readers)?
• "Less than 24-hours after landfall," why the hyphen?
• "the storm had weakened to a tropical low." link tropical low
• "No injuries were reported throughout the storm's existence" But were any reported afterwards? Might be better to say "… were reported to have occurred during the storm's existence"
• "However, severe environmental losses took place." Losses took place? Awkward.
• "In the Northern Territory, about 7,000 km2 (4,349 mi2) of trees" The first number looks like an approximation, and contrasts with the converted number that has 4 sig figs. Also, I'd suggest rewording to (something like) "In the Northern Territory, an area of about 7,000 km2 was defoliated by …", as the expression 7,000 km2 of trees doesn't parse well. Maybe "snapped and uprooted" if you don't like "defoliated"
• why does this article about an Australian cyclone not use British English?

• 1(b) comprehensive: There are several articles in the scholarly literature that have not been used as sources that should be used to expand the impacts and aftermath sections:

Title: Resprouting responses of trees in a fire-prone tropical savanna following severe tornado damage

Author(s): Franklin, DC; Gunton, RM; Schatz, J, et al.

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 35 Issue: 6 Pages: 685-694 Published: 2010

Title: The impact of wind on trees in Australian tropical savannas: lessons from Cyclone Monica

Author(s): Cook, GD; Goyens, CMAC

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Pages: 462-470 Published: 2008

Title: Estimates of tree canopy loss as a result of Cyclone Monica, in the Magela Creek catchment northern Australia

Author(s): Staben, GW; Evans, KG

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Pages: 562-569 Published: 2008

Title: Short-term effects of a category 5 cyclone on terrestrial bird populations on Marchinbar Island, Northern Territory.

Author(s): Palmer, Carol; Brennan, Kym; Morrison, Scott

Source: Northern Territory Naturalist Volume: 19 Pages: 15-24 Published: June 2007

• 1(c) well-researched: I carefully checked the citations to reference #1, the source used most frequently. I'm having trouble verifying the following information in the article:

• Article: "Late on 17 April, Monica intensified into a Category 2 Cyclone, with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained).[1][3]" Cannot find in the cited sources where is Category 2 Cyclone is associated with this date; is the "10-minute sustained" implied in the tracking info of reference #3?
• Article: "Once back over water, favorable atmospheric conditions allowed the storm to quickly intensify.[1]" where does the source say that?
• Article: "Within six hours of passing this town, the Bureau of Meteorology downgraded Monica to a tropical low, no longer producing gale-force winds." is this derived from the source sentence "…by the time it passed through Jabiru only 9 hours later, it had weakened to a Category 2 cyclone. At this point the cyclone began to track in a more westward direction towards Darwin, but weakened to below cyclone intensity only 3 hours later." ? Does the latter mean the former?
• Article: "The remnants eventually dissipated on 28 April over central Australia.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.

Shown in the track at the top of the report Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article: "Wind gusts up to 108 km/h (67 mph) were recorded as the storm traversed the peninsula.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.

"109 km/h gust at Lockhart River, 3pm EST 19 April" - Under Maximum reported wind gusts Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive review Sasata, I'll continue to work through these when time allows. So far, I've addressed the issues regarding the lead. If you have the time, could you give further comments on the quality of the rest of the article? It would be best for someone other than myself to look through and find places that need fixing (since I would likely be biased towards less errors). I'll see what I can do with those scholarly articles in the coming days as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a lot of time to commit to another in-depth review in the near future (it took me about an hour to come up with the above last night); I've already committed to 3 GA reviews, have an active GAN, and have a number of articles on the backburner that I'm working on. If this nomination gets archived, I'm be happy to help out with a thorough proofreading without any time pressure from FAC constraints. If it helps, I can email you the PDFs for the three Austral Ecology articles mentioned above. Sasata (talk)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no real external link problems, though ema.gov.au is currently timing out (I'm inclined to believe that's temporary) and one of the bom.gov.au sources is slightly redirecting, as is the bloomberg link. --PresN 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:47, 11 December 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is complete. All available sources were used. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This appears unprepared, especially with regard to the quality of writing. It needs a thorough copyedit at the very least, to bring it up to a professional standard of writing—it contains basic grammatical errors. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Leszek, you will always need a native speaker to give your stuff a good copyedit before sending it to FA. In addition the context of the MS and the meaning of the technical terms used would need a fair amount of expansion for FA. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 03:05, 6 December 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a completed article about a major figure in the history of cricket. --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't like to be negative about an article that has clearly absorbed a huge amount of effort, but...

• 16,000+ words of text is far too many. Have you read WP:LENGTH?
• A WP biography should summarise and discuss the main events of the subject's life. A section for each of Sutcliffe's 20-odd playing seasons is extreme overdetailing. A comparable article, Wilfred Rhodes (which is featured), deals with the player's career in broad phases, not season by season. The article comes in at 8,000 words - and Rhodes had a much longer career than Sutcliffe's.
• The article has never been subjected to a formal review. A PR or GAN would, I am sure, have identified the main problems of length and overdetailing. FAC is not a suitable place for the initial review of an article of this length, which the edit history shows to be overwhelmingly the work of a single editor.
• There are image issues, too: oversizing and some licencing questions (e.g. the "unknown" authorship of some of the photographs)
• References: Although I would expect Hill's biography to be a major source, in this case it is overwhelming - 110 citations (there are about 40 to all the other books combined). This suggests a lack of balance. I would have expected a broader use of available sources, including the biographies of Sutcliffe's contemporaries, and one or more of the available Yorkshire county histories.

There are some excellent cricket biographies that have made FA: apart from Rhodes we have Sid Barnes, Donald Bradman, Douglas Jardine and others. You could look at these as useful models. My advice is to withdraw this nomination, put it to peer review, contact editors with experience of cricket articles, and work with them before bringing this back here. This is not intended as a put-down; the amount of work you have done is awe-inspiring, but FAC has strict criteria which must be met. I'm sure that with appropriate help you will be able to meet them. Brianboulton (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I think your views about article length are outdated: browsers can now cope easily enough with large pages and I fail to see why information should be limited because a few people are still using IE2 or whatever. The length guideline needs to be updated: 500k is a long article, not 100k. This article is one of the site's 1000 longest but I wonder how many more of the 1000 are featured?

Your main objection seems to be the season-by-season approach. You are entitled to your opinion but have you considered the readers who are looking for information about the subject? We are not here to "fashion" articles according to the views of some small internal group like yourselves or the similar one that inhabits the CfD pages, but to provide information for the readers. You think the article should be "in broad phases"? Well, I strongly disagree. A sportsman's career is seasonal and his experiences, his successes and failures differ from season to season, each season being a microcosm of the whole and each needing a review in its own right. It would seem that the "FAC strict criteria" were not formulated with the needs of the readership in mind but rather with the opinions of some committee in mind. I suggest that you and your fellow members contact editors with experience of writing articles for the benefit of the readers and also contact readers for their views before you define your "strict criteria".

Re the images, can you be specific about oversizing and I will attend to that? As for ownership, the photos were all taken more than 70 years ago so how do you expect their ownership to be known? There is no dispute about licencing with photos this old. The photos in the article are widespread across several cricket books and there is no indication in any of these that so-and-so has copyright. The same is true of the photos in the other articles you have quoted above.

As for references, there is only one major biography of Sutcliffe whereas there are two of Rhodes, for example. If you look at the Rhodes article, you will see that those two combined have a similar majority over all other books combined. When you say there are c.150 citations, I presume you have excluded the online citations?

What exactly is the problem with a single editor doing the work? Is there some "rule" formulated by the committee that says articles must be collaborations?

Re other review processes, the GAN process is pointless because the guidelines are unclear and open to interpretation: e.g., does it accept short articles or not? It depends on the individual reviewer and so it has no standard. Although a peer review may be useful, there is no obligation to do that before the FAC process, as you seem to imply. The FAC process should be robust enough to perform first reviews rather than relying on others to do the work for it: typical committee mindset. I would point out that the article has been reviewed, perhaps not "formally", by at least two members of WP:CRIC who may be considered subject experts.

Finally, can you justify the FAC process to convince an experienced editor like me, who has created hundreds of articles for the benefit of the readership, that it is worth my time and effort? I note, incidentally, that very few people seem to have interest in taking part in the process. The overwhelming majority of members seem to have voted with their feet. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Your response leaves me no choice, since you are basically saying that the article has been prepared with your own criteria in mind, rather than what you think are misguided and outdated FAC criteria. Unfortunately for your argument, your article has to be judged within the FAC framework. In particular, I would refer you to criterion 4 and its reference to "summary style". You should also remember that you are writing an article for a general encyclopedia, not for a specialist cricket magazine, and this has to be reflected in your approach. I don't know for sure, but I think if this article was promoted it would be the longest or second-longest FA; when Nikita Khrushchev was promoted last year its 13,700 words made it the 4th longest FA. Khrushchev was a world statesman, and with all respect to Sutcliffe's stature as a cricketer, he is not in the world league. In short, this article is far too long to be within the "summary style" criterion, and could easily be made into a shorter and much more readable article. Lack of summary style is my principal grounds for objection, but the following are also problems:-
• Images: The fact that a photo was taken 70+ years ago does not automatically mean that it is free under US copyright law, which is what matters here. I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP image policy in this respect.
• Sources: Over-reliance on a single source can affect the NPOV of the article. There may be only one recent biography of Sutcliffe, but he has figured in many books. For example in the biographies of his contemporaries (Hobbs, Rhodes, Holmes etc) and in the three Yorkshire county histories (Woodhouse, Hodgson, Stevenson). I believe that use of these would add some variety and extra dimension to the prose.
• Collaboration: there is nothing wrong with articles being mainly the work of one editor, but some form of review process is in my view an essential part of any article's development. Articles that come to FAC without any prior review often fail; an editor may stand to close to his/her creation to be aware of faults that are obvious to others. Preferably this review should be from someone outside the cricket project to ensure objectivity, hence my suggestion of PR.

I do not think that all the necessary work can be completed within the span of a normal FAC and I repeat my advice that the article should be withdrawn from the process for the time being. It is not my job to justify the FAC process to you; you made the decision to bring the article here. Regrettably, the tone of your response was unnecessarily aggressive; you are not under personal attack, and no one is disparaging your work. Rather than making accusations about "some small internal group like yourselves" and "fellow members" (of what?) you should assume good faith. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Because there is a dispute over the format of the article, I suggest that you ask for a [[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Review%7CWikiProject:Cricket Peer Review]], saying that you are proposing it as a featured article, and linking to this discussion. Bluap (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of my oppose is that the article fails criterion 4. The chosen format, I believe, contributes to this, but the substantive issue is the length. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The dispute as such is about the FAC criteria which I believe should be challenged. How many people were involved in determining these criteria and have they, as I suggested, consulted the wider editorship and sought the views of those who are essentially readers of the site? The point of the encyclopedia is to provide information and not to write summaries. Does Encyclopedia Britannica present summaries in its macropedia? Certainly a few "featured articles" I have read do not contain enough information and I have seen similar comments made by other people. It means, assuming Mr Boulton speaks for all concerned in this process, that articles are not judged on how well they provide information to the readers but on how well they comply with criteria that has been formulated by a handful of people who are more interested in the details of their process than in the essential purpose of the encyclopedia. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jack, I hope you don't mind if contribute my perception of Wikipedia's aim. I am just a regular Joe and do not consider myself in any way to be part of any special internal group. But just from having been somewhat active in contributing to Wikipedia in the last few years it seems clear to me that what Wikipedia sets out to do is to provide information for the general user, not the specialist. That means the average person on the street who reads, say, an article about a cricket player, or any topic, will want a more general outline. Then, for the few people who are especially interested in the finer details of the subject, there are references pointing the person to further sources of information. If I may be honest, I find the Herbert Sutcliffe article much too long myself and for me, who is not necessarily interested in cricket in particular, but who nonetheless is open to reading a little about any topic, the article's length makes it too daunting to tackle. To tell you the truth, I have put up an article for FA before that some editors considered too long. I think people, myself included, may easily lose sight of the fact that one's area of specialization is not necessarily fascinating to the whole world, and a more digestible dose is what is appropriate for Wikipedia. In my case, what I and my co-nominators decided to do was to put some of the information in a sub-article, after which the article ended up passing FAR. You could consider doing the same thing: having a more outline-oriented main article and then have sub-articles focusing on different time periods of his career, for example. That way no information will be lost, and those with just a passing interest (likely the majority of people) can get the essentials in the main article, and then those who are especially interested in the topic can delve deeper. Just a thought. Regards, Moisejp (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moisejp. A very worthwhile thought which I'll take forward. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the nominator look at Sid Barnes and Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, part of the featured topic Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which uses the suggested style of a broad summary biography article on each player with sub articles on their play during 1948, as well as sub articles on each test game. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this excellent comment, Donald Bradman is an excellent model as well, which also has a featured sub-article. Notice that, while Bradman's a famous player, the article still maintains that summary style while remaining compelling to read (I think). At the same time, I doubt any reader would feel cheated upon seeing the length of the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems, though do note that all of the "cricinfo.com" links are being redirected to "espncricinfo.com", so it might be worth doing a search/replace on that. --PresN 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 16:33, 5 December 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated and failed twice a few years ago, but since it's coming up, I figured we may as well take another look and decide if it'll make it this year. If yes, then it'll be a fun featured article for Dec 23rd. If no, then at least we gave it a chance. aido2002talk·userpage 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Has anything changed since it failed FAC last time? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and, sorry, I suggest this is withdrawn. There are large unreferenced sections (for instance, the pole and dinner sections), the references are very badly and inconsistently formatted, the bulleted list in the pop culture section looks a little tacky, and the writing is pretty poor in places ("The person may decline if they have something else to do, such as pull a double shift at work.") If it was given a solid cleaning, it could head towards GAC, but this is a long way from FA standards. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral To respond to the above, I can't say for certain if things have changed, but it's been two years; I'd think so. Like I said, I proposed it just because it'd be nice to have it featured on the 23rd, I have no opinion one way or the other on it. I'm not going to withdraw it, though -- if nothing else, this process will create a list of needed fixes for the article. aido2002talk·userpage 13:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, just because it has been two years does not mean the article has improved. Secondly, FAC is not the place for an article to be improve; it is the place where articles are awarded a status because they do not need improving. Thirdly, only articles that are of a high standard will pass FAC, not articles that it might be "nice" to feature on a certain day. wackywace 14:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If the nominator doesn't think it is FA quality, then I see little point in this process Fasach Nua (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Clearly not ready, relies too heavily on quoting copyright material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 19:49, 2 December 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article again because I have fixed the given issues in the previous FAC. As stated in the previous FAC, not much known about Fee's geology because it has not been studied in detail and its age and timing of volcanic events are not exactally known either because they remain undated. Volcanoguy 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. No significant movement since the last FAC, even though opposition was brought based on the quality of writing. At the least, this should have received a peer review or a thorough independent copyedit. Just from the "Monitoring" section:
  • "Like other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Belt, Mount Fee is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active their magma systems are." Ungrammatical—pronoun agreement
  • "This is partly because the field is located in a remote region" Field?
  • Plagiarism/copyvio:
    • Your text: "no major eruptions have occurred in Canada in the past few hundred years"
    • Source text: "no large eruptions have occurred in Canada in the last few hundred years"
  • Quite a bit of use of the ambiguous "this"; ex. "This includes clusters of minor earthquakes" This what? The last thing you were talking about is "warning signs". This warning signs?

Sorry, this is a long way off. Recommending withdrawing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not a long way off if it's minor issues in one section. And all of your points are easy to fix. Just because it has minor issues means it should be withdrawn? Sheesh, bullshit. Take a look at other FAC and they can be worse than this one. Volcanoguy 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went though your list and fixed the issues. Volcanoguy 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you consider my good faith review "bullshit". My comments are meant to be representative of the whole, and not a comprehensive list; FAC is not an article improvement service. I won't be leaving further comments, but perhaps other reviewers will be more willing to tolerate your hostile attitude. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be "hostile". I just find it a little extreme that a candidate should be withdrawn just because of minor issues. And I never said your good faith review was bullshit. I was refering to your statement about recommending withdrawing. Like excuse me, but minor problems do commonly "leak" through reviews. I am sorry if I attacked you by saying bullshit. Volcanoguy 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not minor issues. As I said, I listed a few samples that are indicative of article-wide problems. It needs an independent copyedit. Additionally, since I found copyvio in the first few sentences I checked, additional auditing against sources will be needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I misunderstood you. Feel free to remove Fee from FAC. I will list it for a peer review.Volcanoguy 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree this article has potential, but the nomination is pre-mature. I'd advise a 3rd party to review the article, either through a formal process, such as WP:Peer Review, WP:GAC, or just asking someone to review it. This shouldn't be taken personally, few of us (myself included) are able to write a flawless article without help. Dave (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I did not fix the problems Laser brain mentioned in the first place was because I thought User:Avenue fixed them during the first FAC. I just re-read the article and it reads quite smoothy. Volcanoguy 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for File:Canada_British_Columbia_(no_subdivisions)_location_map.svg should indicate the national entity, seas and territories should also be indicated Fasach Nua (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:56, 2 December 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I think it meets featured article criteria.It is well written and divided into different sections to explain the subject throughout.It has images that follows licensing policies.Overall, it's an excellent article to get part of Wikipedia main page Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is not ready; I think it is something that would benefit going through GAC first. The licensing/information on the lead image could do with improving, and the same is true of File:Waltdisneyco1.jpg, for which the sourcing is a little... Odd. All three of the non-free images are unwarranted (two lack even an attempt at a rationale- I have removed one and tagged the other for deletion). The sourcing is weak- there are many pargraphs that are completely unreferenced, and many of the references used (wikinvest? Many primary sources? secinfo.com?) are of questionable reliability. Considering the high importance of this subject, and the existences of plenty of books focussing on the subject, we really should expect better. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themaxviwe, this is your second ill-prepared nom in a week; please read the instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 15:28, 1 December 2010 [9].

Nominator(s):The Writer 2.0 (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is withdrawn for consultation, most likely a peer review, and possible discussion about the permissible level of idiom in sports-related articles. To avoid possible disruption, it probably won't be back until the Jets complete their current season, so with luck that will postpone its return to February. I don't entirely agree with all the comments, but this is a community-based process, and the community has spoken and I respect that. Any delegate, including Andy who reviewed it, should feel free to archive it on the next runthrough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...We believe it meets the criteria. The Jets are a franchise with a long, mostly tragic history, but with a moment of glory, that as the sportswriter who chronicled their history points out, has frozen them in a moment that will not change until they reach another such moment. In the meantime, and as they try yet again to match the glory of the Namath era, we can appreciate the depths of despair that they so often have sunk to, that we hope will make the moment of glory, should we live so long, all the sweeter. It has passed GA and been worked over extensively. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest title change to New York Jests—this coming from someone who brought the Patriots article to FA nearly 5 years ago, before it basically fell downhill. In all seriousness, I'll try to get a look at this during the weekend. If Tony, Andy, etc. get to this before me, then all the better. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – Yes, this is FAC's resident fan of the other New York (New Jersey?) NFL franchise. I saw the article and, despite my Giants leanings, quickly took an interest in it. After making some small, mostly dash-related fixes, I've taken a look at the sources for you and came up with the following comments. Most of them are relatively simple, but the last few have me somewhat concerned, the last one in particular.

• References 20, 38, 40, 41, 90, 91, 114, 115, 116, 119, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 147, and 152 all need publishers to be included.
• Ref 150 is in all caps, which the Manual of Style says is a no-no.
• Ref 35 gives the page number as pp. 62. For single-page cites, they should be in the form p. 62, like the other similar ones in this article. Fortunately, this is an easy fix; just drop the one letter and you're done.
• Ref 164 looks like an archived version of a story from the Colorado Springs Gazette. The newspaper name isn't given in the citation. I'm thinking it should be, as the work.
• The references generally look to be reliable. Many come from books, with most of the others from major newspapers. The only question I would have is whether people think the Huffington Post is reliable. It seems like more of a political site, and I'm not familiar with how reliable it's considered in Wiki terms. In any event, it's only citing a game result, which isn't too controversial.
• There are 34 references to the team's website. That may not be overwhelming in an article with almost 200 cites, but it is a decent amount of primary sources. Worth noting for the sake of other reviewers.
• This is simply too close to the source: "Joe Namath announced his retirement from pro football following a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of the Manhattan bar Bachelors III". From the source: "Namath announced his retirement from pro football in a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of a Manhattan bar, Bachelors III".
• Reference 76 doesn't say anything about Namath signing with the Rams. Also, I don't see anything on Richard Todd or Matt Robinson, who are mentioned in the article.

*Reference 90 (on the Mud Bowl) doesn't say anything about Don Shula not placing a tarp on the field, or about the effect of the weather on the Jets. These are the exact facts this citation is supposed to support. Why doesn't it? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the citation concerns; the publishers will be added. I'm sorry, I goofed on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on it: the problem seems to have been with the "Year in Review" Jets pages. I have now gone through them in detail, and we should be good to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy to see that an effort has been made to fix up the source issues. I finally got a chance to read some of the article and came up with a few prose concerns:

• I believe the MoS discourages links that are bolded, like the one in the intro.
• Tenses conflict here: "posting their first winning record in 1967 before winning its only American Football League championship in 1968." Either "their" or "its" should be exclusively used, not both.
• Minor, but the Orange Bowl link goes to the game, not the stadium of the same name. The link you're looking for is at Miami Orange Bowl.
• Organization and first season: I'm pretty sure the hyphen in the middle of "highly-successful" doesn't need to be there.
• Grammar fix needed here: "as the team sought to fill its the 35-man roster."
• Super Bowl III: "Namath alleged that there five AFL quarterbacks better than Colts quarterback Earl Morrall". Missing "were".
• Decline, Namath departs: "completing 15 of 28 passes for 49 yards and six touchdowns." That's an average of about three yards per catch, which can't be right. In fact, I recall hearing that Namath threw for 400-something yards in this game (don't know the exact number off the top of my head).
• "but for Bills running back O. J. Simpson's attempt to become the first NFL players to rush for 2,000 yards in a season." "players" → "player".
• "and former Cardinals coach Charley Winner. Winner...". This is a repeat in the form of a comment below.
• Not sure if "behind a decrepid offensive line" sets the proper tone. I can handle "blowing a lead" and such (as a sports fan), but this is a bit much.

I'm going to stop here, but this is a lot of issues for this stage, several of which are simple things that further copy-editing before FAC would have taken care of. I can certainly see where the reviewer below me is coming from. If you don't mind, I think I'll go through the rest myself as time permits. I may not be the best at fully reconstructing sentences, but I can wipe out whatever little issues like these that remain. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for whatever assistance you could give.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have by the way made the changes you mention. I should add that I am reluctant to change phrases like "blew a lead", I could probably come up with a formal way of saying it, but this is a sports article and some jargon is not going to be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's one last thing I wanted to add, which I should have picked up on when I was doing some cleanup work on the article: the reference publishers that are not printed publications shouldn't be italicized. This covers the references to the Jets' website, along with the Pro Football Hall of Fame and ESPN, among others. More important issues than this one exist, but it's something to consider for the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I didn't see the withdrawal message until after I wrote the above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not feel criterion 1a has been satisfied yet. Here are spot checks from the first few paragraphs; these concerns, nitpicks, and grammatical errors show that we need a series of copy-edits by multiple users unfamiliar to the text.
  • In January 1965, the Jets were able to sign University of Alabama quarterback Joe Namath to a then-record contract. "were able to" can be omitted, as long as "sign" is replaced with "signed". The impressive feat is best left clarified in the appropriate section, not as a redundant phrase in the lead.
  • The Jets beat the Colts in the game, establishing the AFL as an equal to the senior football league.—just my opinion, but I think "as an equal to" should be replaced with something like "as a legitimate competitor to", something along those lines".
  • After the two leagues's merger became effective in 1970—I believe the more common style on Wikipedia is "leagues'". "Became effective" is redundant.
  • The following year, the Jets hired two-time Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcells. Parcells...—Repeat words like that are usually frowned upon here.
  • The team would enjoy enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009...—"in franchise history" is technically redundant, but in this case I think it helps the flow and power of the sentence.
  • In 1959, young oilmen Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams sought a National Football League franchise. They found that there was little likelihood of convincing the NFL to expand (which required a unanimous vote of team owners)—the content in the parenthesis seems relevant enough to be included in the sentence proper. Comma, transition, and tense change would do the trick.
  • and mentioned the names of a number of other wealthy bidders seeking to acquire the Cardinals.—especially redundant in this already lengthy sentence.
  • ...the oilmen realized that if so many wealthy people were seeking an NFL franchise, the time was right to start a rival professional football league."—there are several ways to restructure this sentence; in its current state, I feel that it's not as fluid and logical as it could be.
  • Shea suggested Harry Wismer, a minority shareholder in both the Washington Redskins and Detroit Lions as a...—missing comma after "Lions".
  • Same with the word "Marshall" in the next sentence.
  • I'm also a little iffy about using informal terms such as "well-to-do" and "blowing/blow/blew a lead", but that's mostly just preference.
• These examples from the first 5-6 paragraphs demonstrate a need for further copy-editing. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll see to it that is done. Give me a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, I see no alternative to using some football parlance which may come across as informal, due to the nature of this article, and that includes "blowing" a lead. Perhaps one would not use it in a political biography, but in a historical football article, especially one about the Jets, it very much has its place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose Oppose - three non-free images, not even a hint as to why they are used! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't magically make it ok. What are they adding? There's no kind of automatic entitlement for every article about a club to have the logo, the helmet and the kit. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationales are on the image pages, if there is objection, I will simply strike the infobox. The article didn't used to have one, so no biggie. I tried taking the images out of the infobox, but that leads to problems with the parameters I can't cure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, upon study, that the fair use rationales are insufficient, as the logo in a helmet is not going to help anyone understand the subject matter. Thus, I have stricken the images in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any response from Fasach Nua on this issue? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I've dropped a note on his talk page. FN often takes a bit of time to revisit issues, I'm just afraid the oppose is turning off possible reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met with those images removed Fasach Nua (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Improvements are definitely being made—not sure if I'm ready to support yet, but maybe I'll get some time to go through myself. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hope you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose From a glance, I can see that the writing is still unimpressive in a lot of places and I'm worried about the coverage in certain areas.

• There's a couple instances of awkward use f the "would be" construction. In some cases its accurate and acceptable, in some cases it should just be "was" and "were".
• "A 10–1 start in 1986 was wasted as the injury-plagued Jets lost their last five regular season games, eventually blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead and losing in double overtime to the Cleveland Browns in the playoffs." This sounds like it was written from a fan's perspective, and "wasted" and "blowing" is not formal, encyclopedic language.
• "The team enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009, appearing five times in the playoffs. In 2009, after an indifferent regular season in which their own coach, Rex Ryan, ruled them out of playoff contention, they won in the final game of the regular season and advanced to the playoffs." I find this awkward too. I think "in the 2000s" is less awkward of a way to delineate a decade than "between 2000 and 2009". That would be like saying that flappers were an integral part of the most raucous decade of the first half the the century; the roaring "between 1920 and 1929" years. I understand you may be apprehensive that someone would think you're referring to the 21st century, but once you put decade into the sentence, I think you're fine. Also what exactly is an "indifferent season" I'm an avid sports fan and I've never heard that term used nor know what it means. Are you saying the players were indifferent, in other words they were not playing hard? Or the fans were indifferent, in that they didn't care about the team? "Uneven" would probably just be better. Also I would think the "five times" would be better after "in the playoffs".
• "Wismer, while well-to-do, was not nearly as rich as the other potential team owners." This would be stronger and more formal if you just wrote "Wismer, while wealthy, was not as rich as the other potential team owners." At a quick glance I see a couple of other instances of needless adverbs. "In 1988, the Sack Exchange era effectively ended as Klecko failed his offseason physical and was waived, linebacker Lance Mehl announced his retirement during training camp, and Gastineau retired midseason, citing personal reasons." "The Jets attempted to trade him, but were unsuccessful. As a result on May 12, 1977, they simply cut him from the roster." There's more than just those examples.
• "November 24, 1959, the AFL held its first draft, with the newly named "Titans of New York" selecting" This one might be just me but "newly named" bothers me. It sounds like they already had a name and then got a new name. I think the quotes establish that the name is new, if the franchise is new then of course the name will be new as well.
• "Racked by injuries, the Jets lost their final five regular season game, but still made the playoffs.[101] In the wild card playoff game against the Chiefs, the Jets started Ryan at quarterback, and won 35–15." Besides the minor problem of the missing s in this passage, you've already mentioned that Ryan is a quarterback in this section, so saying he started "at quarterback" is redundant. If he started a game at nose tackle then mentioning the position he started at would be necessary.
• "Steinberg eventually hired Bengals offensive coordinator Bruce Coslet as the team's head coach." "Instead" would be better than "especially" in the context of this paragraph.
• "He set Parcells free from the Patriots; the Jets gave the Patriots four draft picks, with the only first round selection given up to be in 1999." The last part of that sentence is awkward.
• "Parcells, who was never fully confident of O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." Awkward as well, I would go with "Parcells, who never had full confidence in O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." That's still a little awkward. "personal favorite" is pretty weird as well, and "an early interception in a low-scoring game" might be better with specifics, for instance: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a tied game versus the Panthers" for example. Mentioning the score might be unnecessary: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a game versus the Panthers"
• I think "rest of the season" or "rest of the year" would be more formal than "rest of the way" which I see used a lot.

I'm gonna stop at this point. I think this article probably needs an independent copy-editing. Maybe if I have time I can help out later but I'm not Cormac McCarthy myself tbh. AaronY (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to make any changes that you think are advisable. I will look for a copyeditor, but if you would like to do it, that is good too. I think your comments are about the tension in this article between football lingo and formal language. Reasonable minds could disagree about where the line should be drawn. Regarding the Ryan, I have switched that to "replaced O'Brien with Ryan". Ryan has been mentioned only once, there is another Ryan in the article (current coach Rex) who has been mentioned in the lede, and I feel the reader needs some reinforcement of who Ryan is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also say you are worried about coverage. Are you worried about something other than prose? I would not think comprehensiveness would be a concern in such a lengthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I must concur with my colleagues that it is not up to scratch yet, but definitely workable with a firm hand. Some areas are fine, but some seem to suffer from lack of attention. I often start reviewing from the bottom for this reason, and I found some of the nether sections less than spectacular. Random pot-shots:
  • Return to Respectability? More than a little subjective.
  • "For his success in leading the Jets to the playoffs, Mangini received the nickname "Mangenius" and a cameo appearance on The Sopranos." Well, this sentence draws a causal relationship between the playoff appearance and his cameo on The Sopranos. Reading the source, none is stated or implied.
  • "The victory, with other results, put the Jets's fate in their own hands" Unsure what middle clause is doing. I'm assuming you mean "the victory plus the other stuff they did leading up to it" but that goes without saying, I think, and this is inelegant.
  • "The Jets played the Bengals again in the playoffs" Here begins a series of sentences that all begin with "The Jets", the first two of which could be combined in my opinion. There isn't much variety to the writing here.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles are a problem here. I am open to suggestions. Some time periods suggest themselves, for example the Namath years, some are necessarily arbitrary. I have changed the specific things that LB mentions and appealed for a copyedit from outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have agreed to copyedit this, in the hopes that an improvement in the prose might turn the opposes. It's a long article so this will take a little time and I hope the delegate will stay their hand.. It is a question of "prose only" as I am not at all knowledgeable in American football. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further discussion the request for a ce has been withdrawn, so I won't be doing this after all. As Graham suggests below, it might in any event be better if someone with topic knowledge does the deed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*Oppose - sorry. As some of you already know, my knowledge of American Football doesn't exist. But I thought I could bring an outsider's viewpoint to the discussion and that this might be useful. Reading the article was hard work. I think the prose suffers from unnecessary colloquialisms, which prevent its reaching FA standard. Some examples from the Lead include, "the Jets made the playoffs" – I assume this means the Jets reached the playoff stage of the competition. And does "blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead" mean "despite having achieved.."? Here should "losing" mean "but lost" or better "were defeated": They reached the AFC Championship Game in 1982, losing on a rain-soaked Orange Bowl field to the Miami Dolphins. This is odd, "after an indifferent regular season" - what is meant by "indifferent"? Is there redundancy here "After the merger became effective in 1970," - if not, why is "became effective" used? Last, I see a lot of "winning" in the first paragraph. I think the article would benefit from another, thorough copy-edit by someone who understands this mysterious game. Graham Colm (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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