Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunil Chhetri/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive5}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive5}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Madgwick/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Madgwick/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:57, 22 September 2013

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sunil Chhetri

Nominator(s): RRD13 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has greatly improved over the past few months.This article also passes all the criteria for FA.Also Sunil is one of the best footballer of India .RRD13 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest speedy closure/withdrawal. This is nowhere ready, as the grammatic horror that is the third paragraph and structural horror of the numerous tiny sections make clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me which section you are meanin? RRD13 (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Any section. The most blatant is Personal Life. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is almost nothing in "Personal Life", and the article begs a thorough rewrite. It is simply not ready. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's not altogether the nominator's fault that he/she was misled by a premature GA grading into thinking this article was worthy of FAC nomination, but it's a terrible advert for the GA process. The article is a candidate for a swift GAR, but is seriously misplaced here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Man. What happened with this one? The article was in alright shape when it was reviewed and promoted for GA. Due to the popularity of the player (I suppose) the article quickly unraveled. Needs a rewrite. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'll be archiving this shortly. In addition to the above comments, RRD13, pls note that information in a Featured Article (and indeed GA) needs to be fully cited to reliable sources, which this is not. If you are able to address the shortfalls, pls consider taking it to Peer Review before returning to FAC. In any case, per FAC instructions, pls do not nominate this or any article here for at least two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after leaving the article alone for a few years, I had found the time to perform much needed suggested pruning and general cleaning up. Also, the article has just completed a copyedit from the guild. It's ready for the final march... the final funeral death march, that is! (rofl) Red marquis (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of POV and conjecture in this article - original research technically. For example, one sentence says "Instead, they opted to use quiet web updates on their website while they worked on the record." Where does the source itself say Manson used "quiet" updates? Another from the same paragraph: "The band elected not to utilize the considerable marketing tools that a major label act has at their disposal early on." Says who? Not all bands signed to a major label have "considerable marketing tools" etc. This is more conjecture, and another thing which isn't supported by a citation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Red marquis hasn't edited since 3rd Sept. BencherliteTalk 12:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal - That's 18 days now without the nominator active on-Wiki, suggesting that any review will go to waste. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Robert Madgwick

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, own work). Sources and authors provided (one unknown).

  • File:Robert_Madgwick.jpg - caption could be trimmed, especially for an infobox image: "Colonel Robert Madgwick as Director of Army Education, Melbourne, 1944" contains all necessary information (Toorak is not mentioned in the article, the exact day of year makes no difference for the image, Australia is clear from the intro). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this later but can you separate notes from the citations like Nostradamus? I just think it looks clearer and tidier. Retrieved dates aren't needed for books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have read the article twice, and support on prose. Suggestion: "Madgwick" appears more than 100 times in the article, at one place four times in three sentences. Can that be varied? I may have more suggestions but as a whole the article meets the standards for FA. In reply to the comments just above: the handling of explanatory notes and cites is a matter of personal preference, not FA criteria (and I don't read Dr. Blofeld to state otherwise), and I agree there is no need for accessdates on convenience weblinks to works in print. I would eliminate those links unless the website in use reproduces all relevant parts of the book, but that too is personal preference. Please review WP:HONORIFIC for use of "Sir"; it is not entirely clear to me, but "Sir" probably should not be in parens if used. Kablammo (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Combine identical cites like FNs 6 and 7
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate single footnotes to multiple sources (compare for example FNs 12 and 13) and footnotes that include an explanation (4 vs 27)
  • FN19, 38: page formatting
  • FN82: which Spaull?
  • 404 error
  • Be consistent in how you deal with editions
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked or abbreviated in References - for example, compare the treatment of Armidale. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

1924 Rose Bowl

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It received a peer review from WWB Too and an extensive copyedit from Baffle gab1978. It was listed as a good article back in February, and I have been working on it since. This is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic. This is also my first time at FAC.

A short background: The 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—focusing on citation formatting and sources at the moment only.

  • Footnote 1: normal practice is that for newspapers that don't include their locations in their titles that the location is provided.
    • The OCLC doesn't match up. The one provided is for a newspaper in Providence, Rhode Island, not the newspaper in San Diego.
  • Location added and OCLC corrected.
  • Footnote 2 is apparently using "96 Years" as a location, yet that isn't a location reference in the linked webpage. Also, the website appears to be named "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", not what it is credited as.
  • Changed to "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", removed 96 years part.
  • Footnote 4: the Detroit Free Press doesn't currently include "The" in its title. Apparently it has never used the article on its masthead.
  • Well, this is from the edition that the article cited is in, and it uses "The Detroit Free Press" for its masthead, so I'm going to refrain from changing it for now.
  • Footnote 10: International News Service is a newswire agency; it should be included, without the abbreviation, in |agency= instead of |author=. This goes for the sources that credit the Associated Press (footnotes 13, 15 & 19). Also, footnote 10 should include a location.
  • Changed author stuff for refs 10, 13, 15, and 19 to agency parameter. Also added location to ref 10.
  • Footnote 11: like the Detroit Free Press, this paper also doesn't include "The" in its title. Also, the location should be included. Ditto footnote 24.
  • Fixed both.
  • Footnote 12: the publisher is linked here, but it's not the first mention of that publisher. If it's going to be linked, it should on the first mention.
  • Fixed. Sorry about this one, when I first added the footnotes, current ref 12 was the first occurrence. I forgot to fix this after it changed.
  • Footnote 16: the link to Images of America redirects to the publisher, and that name should be included in the |series= parameter and not the title.
  • Switched Images of America to series parameter.
  • Footnote 19: can you verify if the title of the paper at that time was The Gazette? It appears that the print edition (linked from the OCLC) never used the city in its name, but the electronic edition (linked from the ISSN) did. At the worst, you have conflicting identification numbers in your citation.
  • Corrected. It was The Gazette at the time. I messed up inputting the footnote. But it's fixed now, and Montreal is now added as the location.
  • Footnotes 20 & 25: these should include |format=PDF to indicate the format, as was done with footnote 14. Not all web browser can or will display the PDF icon with the links.
  • Added PDF parameter.
  • Footnote 21: I would omit the |at= information; the cited section is right up top on the cited link.
  • Removed

Turning to the specific sources used:

  • All of the newspaper sources are good.
  • The Sports-Reference citations, I will assume are ok. I will defer to others if necessary on the quality and reputation of the website.
  • Footnote 16 is a book from a reputable publisher.
  • The remainder are from various college- or Rose Bowl-related websites that also pass muster. It would be better to directly cite the book that is excerpted by the website in footnote 26, if possible.

All in all the sources are fine if the formatting glitches are cleared up. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all concerns above, save the Detroit Free Press issue, which might need further discussion. Thanks for the source and ref formatting check (although, just for the record, you forgot to include the book by John Charles Hibner [Ref 17] in the overview part above). Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I was excited to review this one because we haven't had a good bowl game article come through here in a while, and I have fond memories of reading strong articles in this category in my early days as an FAC reviewer. Unfortunately, I found too many problems early in the article to ignore.

  • In the infobox, note A 1 is causing Washington's record to not fully appear. I don't know if anyone else is having the same issue, but it is a problem for me.
  • I don't know how to fix this. It's displaying fine for me.
  • Records in the infobox should have en dashes instead of hyphens.
  • Fixed.
  • Bold links are discouraged by the Manual of Style. For the link in the intro, it will need to be moved to later in the first paragraph.
  • Moved the link to the end of the paragraph.
  • "which had first been played in 1902 but was replaced until 1916." As far as I know, it wasn't replaced by any other game; it just wasn't held during those years.
  • I changed the sentence, and tried to explain it more.
  • En dash in "two-yard" should be a simple hyphen instead. A couple of other stray dashes need similar fixes in that paragraph.
  • Changed the en-dashes to hyphens for all similar cases.
  • "before attempting a game-winning field goal. The field goal missed...". Try not to begin a sentence with something that appears in the conclusion of the prior sentence. Here you can use "The kick" as a substitute.
  • Changed to "The kick".
  • "For his performance in the game, Navy quarterback Ira McKee was named the game's most valuable player." The double use of "game" is a prose redundancy, and I can't see any need to have two of them. It should be easy to chop one.
  • Removed the latter occurrence in the sentence.
  • The "team named desire" nickname should be explained somewhere, preferably in the body of the article. I just looked down there and saw nothing indicating why Navy was called that. I can imagine non-college football fans feeling completely lost right about now.
  • I tried to give a short explanation of the nickname down in the aftermath section.
  • "with the Huskies winning three of the games." This is known as a noun plus -ing sentence structure, and is something that should be used infrequently in good prose. You could try the semi-colon plus "the Huskies won three of the games" as a fix.
  • Changed to "times; the Huskies won three of the games"
  • Looking ahead to Washington: I see "Rose bowl", which is improper capitalization.
  • Fixed the capitalization. I searched the page, and that was the only case of "Rose bowl" occurring.

I was surprised to find that the article was copy-edited before being brought to FAC. The lead didn't feel polished to me, and my impression is that the rest of the article needs another copy-edit. I just don't think that FA criterion 1a is met right now. I do hope that these issues are fixed and that the rest of the article is worked on because I'd like to see it succeed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the concerns you had above. I'm going to look back through the article and try to make additional copy-edits. I'm debating on whether or not to relist this at WP:GOCE/REQ, since the last time I listed it there it took a few months for someone to finally get to it. If you find more issues, I'll be happy to fix them. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't relist this at the guild. If you want this to pass FAC, it will probably take too long for an interested editor to finish work, and you don't know if the copy-editing will be up to par. If you know a talented writer, I'd recommend asking them directly for copy-editing help. If no one else comments in the next couple of days, I'll put more comments up, but I don't want to find a bunch of issues at that time. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navy: En dash needed in "Army-Navy Game".
  • Fixed.
  • Statistical summary: One word too many in "but missed the his only field goal attempt."
  • Removed the "the".
  • Aftermath: Period needed at the end of the photo caption.
  • Added punctuation.
  • I still don't see any punctuation there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: Another en dash is needed for the record. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—As Awardgive mentions above, I reviewed this article earlier in the year, and I've been asked me to look it over again. I believe the article is carefully written and does an exemplary job of writing in detail about an issue for which sources are limited due to reasons of era, and it has improved since my last read. That said, I do have a number of recommendations and questions which should be addressed before I think this is ready, and I should add that my FAC experience is relatively limited, so I'll ultimately defer to others on whether this one should pass. For the record, I hope it does!

Introduction
  • Is a semi-colon the proper punctuation to place after "Washington Huskies" in the first sentence? I would typically think to use a comma here.
  • Changed to a comma.
  • Would it make sense to say, upon first reference to the stadium, "Rose Bowl stadium" to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the event and the building?
  • Added the word stadium after first mention.
  • I'd suggest commas around "nicknamed the 'team named desire'", as it's a subordinate clause.
  • Commas added.
  • Should most valuable player be capitalized here? It is capitalized in Statistical summary below. Perhaps this is a generic mention of the type of recognition, and the one further into the article is a specific reference to the award. I don't know what's best here, but figured it was worth flagging.
  • Capitalized.
Team_selection#Navy
  • "Navy were selected..." sounds like British English; shouldn't this be "Navy was selected..."?
  • Changed to "was".
  • I think "...were eligible to be selected." could simply be "were eligible." considering the word "selected" was already used in this sentence.
  • Shortened.
Team_selection#Washington
  • "Washington were selected..." again seems like British English, and should be "Washington was selected..."
  • Changed to "was".
Pre-game buildup
  • The sentence about how a Navy fleet was called to service the day before the game seems to me like it might work a bit better as a clause separated by semi-colon from the previous sentence. This would join the cause-and-effect that the two sentences produce, and would solve the small problem that the first sentence alone doesn't explain why the schools' ticket-selling led to lower attendance.
  • Combined with a semicolon.
Game_summary#First_half
  • Change "under 100–yards" to "under 100 yards"; no hyphen is needed, and anyway this is an en-dash.
  • Removed dash.
  • In fact, throughout this section, every construction describing the number of yards in a play uses an en-dash, though it should be a hyphen. Note, of course, this does not apply to the score by the end of the half, which should be an en-dash as it currently is. Also, "23–yards" should not include a hyphen, either.
  • Corrected all cases I saw.
Game_summary#Second_half
  • Same issue with en-dashes where hyphens should be is found here.
  • Fixed all hyphen issues I saw.
Statistical_summary
  • No en-dash or hyphen should appear in "175–yards", and "12–yard" should be a hyphen, not en-dash.
  • Fixed both.

I'd be happy to look at this again after these suggestions have been addressed. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of your concerns above. I'll be happy to fix anything else you point out. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, but I read through your changes and compared with the live article, and all of my concerns are now addressed. Great work. I would support this article for FA status as I believe it meets all requirements. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom has remained open for six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Sicilian Mafia

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now meets the FA criteria, and is a fine article with no major failings. Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid that this falls well short of the FA criteria. Substantial amounts of text are not referenced, and the article has a rather unfinished feel (for instance, the significance of the "Ten Commandments" section is unclear, the "Vote buying" section is amateurish and sexist and the "Protection rackets" section doesn't note the growing resistance to paying protection money). I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn given that the article is not ready. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, and urge withdrawal. Referencing is really not adequate, including the presence of [citation needed] tags in several places. The lead isn't an adequate summary of the article, and the several citations and large quote included there aren't really in the spirit of MOS:LEAD. Tone and style issues are pervasive; many sections are simply not written to an encyclopedic standard, much less the brilliant prose expected of FAC. There are a number of problems with linking as well, from massive overlinking (I lost count of how many times Palermo is linked) to at least one self-referential link (violent succession). There are referencing issues as well, including a bare URL link to Youtube as Reference 125, but given the state of the article, I didn't do a comprehensive reference review. To meet the FAC standards, this article would require a sufficiently thorough rewrite that I would then oppose on the stability criterion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

You Lost Me

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) and 11JORN (talk), 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we thinks it meets the FA criteria. Several unreliable links have been removed, and more information has been added. Thanks — Simon (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal. This has not been adequately prepared. There are basic grammatical issues in the lead, and it appears that there is at least one other major contributor to the article that has not been consulted. That editor should possibly be a co-nominator as well. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've named the editor as the co-nominator — Simon (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—per criterion 1a, with sample from the lede

  • "'You Lost Me' is a song by American recording artist Christina Aguilera for her sixth studio album, Bionic (2010)."—not sure about "for"... maybe "from" instead?
  • "It was written by Aguilera, Sia Furler and Samuel Dixon, while its production was done by the latter."—"latter" refers to the second of only two items on a list, not three.
  • "The track is a pop ballad which talks about a cheating man, who has left Aguilera's world 'infected'."—misuse of "which". Also, "cheating man" is too unencyclopedic and informal.
  • "However, it failed to gain impact on charts worldwide"—I've never heard this before; can you "gain impact"?
  • "It was successful on the Hot Dance Club Play chart, where it reached number one."—why not just get to the point and say "It reached number one on the Hot Dance Club Play chart". From that, we can infer that it was successful there.
  • "The video gained positive feedback from critics, who sees it as a return for Aguilera..."—I'll assume good faith and say the "sees" is a typo? The tense is incorrect too; should be past tense.
  • "...who sees it as a return for Aguilera from the video for Bionic's lead single 'Not Myself Tonight' (2010)."—this is an odd construction in general.
  • "The song has been covered on numerous occasions."—I wouldn't say "numerous"; the article body lists five.

There are reference issues too, such as inconsistencies on how publishers are notated (parentheses vs no parentheses) for newspapers and magazines. Sorry, Simon/HD, but this needs a lot of cleaning up and polishing until it is ready. I know you've worked hard, but keep at it. You can get there. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it again. Please bare with me. — Simon (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section was fixed — Simon (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Simon, but this article needs work from top to bottom. English is indeed a difficult language, but nothing's unachievable. I have highlighted some examples from the lede, but there are issues elsewhere, like "Prior to the release two days, a sneak peek of the music video was revealed," and "According to Billboard writer Monica Herrera, the clip is opposite to the music video for Bionic lead single 'Not Myself Tonight'". These and many others are sentences that need to be rewritten to sound better and pass the first featured article criterion, which I quote asks for prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". From here on, I'd recommend that you work with an experienced editor, possibly someone who commonly works with pop music topics, and ask them to run an eye and help you tidy things up. And while this next suggestion is no obligation, I highly recommend you take this article to GAN after the copy editing is finished. This is a stepping stone to seeing how far your article has come. If you ping me on my talk page, I may be able to review this if it is nominated there.
TL;DR – There are issues throughout. I suggest this be withdrawn and be looked at by an experienced writer. Then take this to GAN, where I can assist you. I hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again, as per criterion 1a. Here are just some instances where more attention is needed:

  • "However, it failed to gain success on charts worldwide." Please rephase.
  • "peaking within the top twenty in both countries." I assume you're talking about the singles charts?
  • "The song was described as "the heart of the album" by Aguilera." The use of passive voice is heavily discouraged unless the subject is not present. "Aguilera described the song as "the heart of the album"."
  • "Aguilera wanted to collaborated more further with Furler for on the album."
  • "via her official website." It is not immediately clear who her is referring to, since the subject (Aguilera) is missing from the previous sentence. In that case I suggest you rephrase "On June 22, 2010, "You Lost Me" was announced to be released as the third single in the" to "On June 22, 2010, Aguilera announced that "You Lost Me" would be released as the third single in the".

I don't think the article is ready for the star. It failed to make it to GA status, and the PR I don't think has yielded much fruits. I suggest you ask somebody else, if you haven't already, to have a look at the article; I would recommend Nikkimaria and Jivesh boodhun, who also contributes to music articles and has taken Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) and Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) to FA status. I appreciate that you can only contribute to Wikipedia with an intermediate level of English. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Botany

Nominator(s): Plantsurfer (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as a "vital" article. Several users have worked hard for months to get this article ready for featured status. It has just completed a detailed peer review. 512bits (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basic question: what is this article about, botany or plants? After the History section, the article goes on extensively about plants—their importance, their internal chemistry, their genetics, how they interact with the environment and how they are classified. But all this belongs to the plant article. The focus of this article should be the meta-aspects (for want of a better phrase) of botany. For eg: how is botany subdivided? (it is telling that branches of botany is relegated to the See also) what are the different approaches to studying it (for eg social sciences have a structuralist approach and a Marxist approach etc)? Are there any ongoing debates? What are the major prizes awarded for stellar work in botany? And so on.—indopug (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Indopug. The article covers aspects of botany and plants in depth while failing to give the reader the least idea of what the science of botany is. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Withdraw' I withdraw myself from this FAC and request it be closed.512bits (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Rapunzel (Disney)

Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured article status because, after spending several months proofreading, referencing and completing it, I now believe that it is of substantial quality. I strongly believe that it is the most sophisticated Disney-related fictional character article on Wikipedia. Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a nice article but the infobox—with its "Species: Human | Gender: Female | Title: Princess etc"—is, frankly, extremely silly. Those sections are better off for an animal's or an officeholder's infobox, not a cartoon character's. It also provides an overly WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. I feel removing the infobox would improve the article, but even if you disagree you should at least trim it significantly.—indopug (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the species, gender and title from the infobox. However, I must disagree with your idea to remove the infobox completely because I have yet to come across a well-written (FA, GA or B-class) article that does not use one.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I think none of the in-universe stuff (i.e. under the "Information" header) should be here. It overemphasises fictional aspects, which is discouraged by WP:WAF-INFO.—indopug (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstanding, nothing to see, move along please ladies and gentlemen. BencherliteTalk 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you think that there are no FAs without infoboxes, you can think again (and perhaps ought to read the TFA more often, plug plug!) From August TFAs alone, we have Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860, British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War, Social history of viruses, Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, and Parity of zero. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were obviously offended by my previous comment which, by the way, was not my intention. What I meant to say was that I have yet to come across a well-written FICTIONAL CHARACTER article that does not use a FICTIONAL CHARACTER infobox. Please note that there is a difference between "there are no", which I did not say, and "I have yet to come across", which I did say.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not offended in the least, so don't worry about that. If you had limited your observations to fictional characters in the first place, I wouldn't have felt the need to comment. Anyway, on with the FAC and good luck. I'll hat this to avoid disturbing the FAC further. BencherliteTalk 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - infobox:

  • Others may disagree, but the "title" parameter, or maybe better the "occupation" parameter, is useful here to summarize the character's general role.
  • A completely ignorant question, but is Rapunzel really depicted as "German" in the Disney franchise? Or is she merely a fantasy princess in a fairy-tale country? "Nationality" as infobox parameter looks strange here, it would be far more useful to note, that her "Origin" is Germany and the character is based on the Brothers Grimms' fairy tales. If i understand the infobox docu correctly, lbl1-3 may be used for such information (?). GermanJoe (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the character is not depicted as "German", the "Fictional German people" category should also be removed or changed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with you, I will wait until the actual review process begins to further discuss the "title"/"occupation" infobox issue. And no, Rapunzel is NOT German; she is from a fictional kingdom from Corona. I have removed it from the infobox several times. However, an anonymous user (as in one who does not use an account) insists on re-adding it to the infobox despite the fact that I have explained to him/her why the information is incorrect several times. I will remove the information once again.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German" is in there again. Have you tried directly talking to the IPer, talk page-style? If you have, and they refuse to discuss the issue, it may be worth contacting an admin. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments (leaning to reluctant oppose) I saw this on television recently and found the article was at FAC, so I will make some review comments. By the way, concerning the "I will wait until the actual review process begins" comment above, I would say the FAC review began with Indopug's first comment above.

  • I am an admin, if you want I can semi-protect the article so IPs cannot edit it. Please ask here or on my talk page if desired.
I believe that semi-protecting the article is unfortunately the best way to approach the situation. Thank you.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that there are no FAs on fictional characters without an infobox is pretty easily disproved. I looked at the first 12 articles listed at Category:FA-Class fictional character articles. About 41% (5/12) of these do not have an infobox: Brunette Coleman, Characters of Carnivàle, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (which has a navbox in the upper right corner), Flood (Halo), and Hardy Boys.
  • I have a lot of problems with the current infobox. It does not provide context to the reader - if all someone saw was the infbox (as can happen on some smart phones), it would not tell them this article is about a Disney character (as opposed to the fairy tale or even the version in Shrek films), and it makes it appear that the general character of Rapunzel first appeared in the world in 2010, sprung full-formed from the mind of Glen Keane. For an example of an FA infobox that does a much better job of making clear this is a character in a specific fictional universe, see Jabba the Hutt.
  • The current infobox also has problems from an in-universe perspective (see WP:IN-U). A reader who has not seen the film will not learn much from "Relatives: The King (father); The Queen (mother); Mother Gothel (adoptive mother)". Since there are no articles on her royal parents, what does it add to include the king and queen (and I think most readers will be sufficiently familiar with biology to know the king is her father and the queen is her mother). Since "Mother Gothel" kidnaps Rapunzel and holds her captive, I think calling her an "adoptive mother" is very problematic (since adoption is a legal process and kidnapping is not). I am not against an infobox here in general, but the current box detracts from the article it should add to (if included).
  • I am not going to comment on everything else in detail, but I do have some other pretty major concerns. FAs have to follow the WP:MOS and the relevant policies and guidelines. However, the lead here does not follow WP:LEAD; the lead is supposed to be a summary of the content of the article. My rule of thumb is to include each section / subsection in the lead in some way (even if it is just a sentence or phrase). The current lead does not mention the following sections (as far as I can see): Hair and technology, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Accolades and recognition (at least no awards).
  • The most difficult of the FA criteria for most articles to achieve is 1a 1.It is ... well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
    • Just in the lead, the first two sentences could be combined, tightening the prose: Rapunzel is a fictional character who appears in Walt Disney Pictures' 50th animated feature film Tangled (2010). The character subsequently appears in the film's[, and in its] animated short sequel Tangled Ever After (2012). The word "appearances" could be omitted from the next sentence to tighten it.
    • Problem sentence Created and animated by Glen Keane, Rapunzel is based on the title character of the German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. First off, no one person does all the animation on a modern feature-length animated film. Second, since much of the character's story is taken from the fairy tale (long hair, held in a tower, falls in love with a man who climbs her hair into the tower, even being naïve), I am not sure the article can honestly say Keane "created" the character. Finally, the Brothers Grimm collected the fairy tales and edited them, but were not strictly speaking the authors of them (though they did make editorial changes and chose which version(s) to print). So perhaps this sentence would be better as something like Animator Glen Keane based the film's version of Rapunzel on the title character of the German fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
    • Another problem sentence In the Disney film adaptation, Rapunzel, a princess born with long, magical golden hair, is abducted at infancy and raised by a vain woman named Mother Gothel, who exploits her hair's healing abilities in order to remain youthful. First off is abducted at infancy is not grammatically correct (infancy is not a single point or place). This whole sentence could be tightened too. Perhaps something like In the Disney film, the vain Mother Gothel abducts the infant princess Rapunzel and raises her, using the healing abilities of Rapunzel's long, magical golden hair to remain youthful.
    • Although based on the heroine of the Grimm fairy tale, Rapunzel was developed into a less "passive" character for the Disney film adaptation. The lead has already said she is based on a Grimm fairy tale, why does this need to be repeated? Also, why does passive need to be in quotes? If it is a direct quote, then I think by WP:MOSQUOTE this needs a reference.
    • Be consistent in how information is presented. The lead says Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon prior to Moore's involvement, Rapunzel's personality was inspired by those of actresses Natalie Portman and Amy Poehler. The article makes it clear that all three women were actually cast as the voice of the character (though the caption of the three actresses' photos confusingly says they were the top three actresses considered for the role of Rapunzel). Cast (in a role) is not the same as planned (for a role) which is not the same as considered (for a role). Plus the sentence is clunky Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses... could just be something like "Actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon were briefly cast in the role before Moore... and I think this could be tightened too Rapunzel's personality was inspired by those of actresses...
    • Another problem sentence: Her physical appearance and personality have caused much comparison to be drawn between her and preceding Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), by whom she was also inspired. First off, avoid the passive voice where possible, so perhaps Critics have compared her physical appearance and personality to the Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), whom the filmmakers cite as an inspiration.
    • Not from the lead, but just too bad to not mention here under failing to meet 1a As directors, Greno and Howard aimed to ensure that Rapunzel resembled a less "passive" heroine than how she is depicted in the original fairy tale.
  • Another FA criterion is that the article be complete - could a comparison between the Grimm fairy tale version of the character and this one be made? The fair tale character becomes pregnant by her suitor, her hair is not magical, but she does have magical healing tears.
  • While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, I am leaning to a reluctant oppose as it does not meet the FA criteria and it seems as if too much work may be required to get it to FA standards while at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I semi-protected the article. Sorry about the FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to admit that you are right; there is far too much work to be done in order for Rapunzel to reach FA status. Please feel free to close/end the nomination process.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:48, 11 September 2013 [9].

Calculus

Nominator(s): Benison talk with me 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about one of the most important branch of mathematics. The article is complete, having good exemplary pictures, complete history of its development and the mathematical derivations on its major components. Benison talk with me 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This article is almost devoid of inline citations (as indicated by the tag at the top of the page), and is nowhere near being ready for FAC. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Sasata in urging withdrawal. This is not referenced in a way that meets current FA expectations. The prose needs work throughout. And there's a further reading section that includes more sources than are even cited! This is a big, complex, core topic, and I would love to see it reach FA level. This isn't it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing - As I told you after your previous nomination of a different article, nominators must consult with the principal contributors if they wish to nominate an article they have not edited. Nominators are expected to be intimately familiar with the article's content and sources, so that they can respond to queries and make any necessary improvements to the article; this is not possible if you have never edited the article and are taking a wikibreak for the next month. Please read WP:FAC and the featured article criteria before making any future nominations; this is not a productive use of anyone's time. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Sourav Ganguly

Nominator(s): DebTheGangulian (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article covers the criteria for FA and a good article.The person is also one of the most influential personality in cricket history.I have also contributed significantly to it.DebTheGangulian (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal This not yet FA-worthy material. There are several problems with the article, such as:

  • 3 [citation needed] tags.
  • Poor prose, MoS inconsistencies and grammatical mistakes:
  • "he currently hosts a Bengali show Dadagiri Unlimited"
  • "Ganguly's place in the team was assured after successful performances in series against Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia, winning the Man of the Match awards"
  • "academics came in-between his love for sports"
  • "The magic of Indian cricket: cricket and society in India": book titles should be italicised per WP:MOS.
  • Sachin Tendulkar is linked thrice in the lead and five more times in Records.
  • Lack of comprehensiveness and flow of information:
  • "Ganguly's father Chandidas Ganguly died at the age of 73": extremely abrupt 41-year jump in the prose.
  • Surely there's more about his childhood and family than the short section here? Also "Born into an affluent Brahmin family" is not repeated in the body (per WP:LEAD).
  • "delivering messages, were beneath his social status.[16] Ganguly purportedly refused to do such tasks as he considered it beneath his social status": why the repetition?

Tragically, this article seems to have been in pretty decent shape when it got GA status. It has deteriorated significantly since then.—indopug (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reverted a huge amount of content copied wholesale from other websites by the nominator,—indopug (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest closure – If we have the nominator inserting blatant plagiarism into the article, I don't see how this can possible continue. What other damage has been done to the article that we don't know about? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For good or for ill, KFC is a global icon and thus is a worthy and interesting topic for Wikipedia. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe I have addressed all complaints from previous nominations and that the article is now ready or very near to promotion to FA status. Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest finding a picture of the most recent store design. I swapped out the KFC/Taco Bell pic for one showing the most modern store design, but if you can find a pic of a recent-build standalone KFC to complement it, that'd be nice. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the old style KFC in the UK section to a new style one.Farrtj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

  • "Whereas KFC management had previously allowed franchisees to serve any soft drink they wished, PepsiCo stated that it hoped it would be able to convince franchisees to stock Pepsi products". The sentence seeks to contrast two things, but they are actually the same: previous management had "allowed" franchisees to serve anything, while Pepsi said "it hoped it would be able to convince franchisees" to do something - implying that it remained a choice - they weren't changing the franchise contracts. So why "whereas"?
Edited to improve clarity.Farrtj (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overseas operations often flourished while ignoring or even defying orders from Louisville headquarters: management attempted to force KFC Japan to switch from corn and cottonseed oil to cheaper palm or soybean, but local management refused to compromise the quality of their product with a lesser quality oil". I'm worried that a POV has been 'swallowed' by the source and then reproduced here. what evidence is there that the cheaper oil was lower quality? It was used in other countries without any problems? Perhaps "local management stated that they would not compromise the quality of their product with a lesser quality oil" at least attributes the argument to managers without elevating it to objective fact.
Changed.Farrtj (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KFC also began a back to basics makeover of the brand image..." That phrase 'back to basics' is marketing magazine colloquialism that has no particular meaning. Edit it out and just describe the changes.
You're right. I've now removed the phrase.Farrtj (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 2012, the chain was struck in China when it was discovered ..." I don't understand this use of the word "struck".
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest deleting the whole para that begins "In April 2013, KFC announced the roll out of boneless Original Recipe across all of its United States outlets". First, the article should not be a platform for every single product announcement from KFC. Second, the first reference to "Original Recipe" is to a burger - which one would hope was boneless! So it cannot be being rolled out for the first time at any rate. Third, the Sanburn quote is classic 'nothing text': is describes the innovation as "modest" and then says it "may not" (and therefore by implication "may") be the latest in a long line blah blah. It is of no consequence and shouldn't be included. Then we have this concept store - a single store in a chain that has nearly 10000. See WP:UNDUE. It doesn't matter whether it is a concept store, it is still largely reproduction of KFC marketing announcements in news outlets - and it is so good to know it has a patio! Just delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed.Farrtj (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now addressed all of the above comments.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing those. I will come by later and see how things are progressing.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A quick glance suggests that this needs a good copyedit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • two spellings of travel(l)er
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • two capitalisations of Kentucky colonel
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamaica mentioned in the lead but not in the main text it is supposed to summarise.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did KFC initially only open locations in England and not the rest of the UK?
I have no idea.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louisville, Kentucky, United States, which specializes in fried chicken—Is there another Kentucky not in the US? Why does the town specialise in fried chicken?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • pressure-fried
Removed hyphen.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bucket", which has become a signature of the chain—can't literally be a signature, needs a noun
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the age of seven, his mother taught—she was very young!
Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • product hailing from Kentucky—is hailing not informal in the US, and applied mostly to people?
Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • who didn't know —informal
Copyedited.Farrtj (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • restaurants East of the Mississippi—why cap?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come
No responses for six days, is this nom still live? If not, no point my continuing review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for you to complete your copyedit.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, It will be a couple of days before I restart Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say thanks for the comments so far. They've been really helpful, and I really appreciate you going through an article of this size! Farrtj (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • bulk of funding—in BE it would be "of the funding", is your version OK in AE?
sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-branded with a distinctive red-and-white striped color pattern, cupola roofs and the company expanded—roofs can't expand, replace first comma by "and", add comma after roofs
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company also reneged on their contract with Sanders... their own operations there.—
  • until his qualms were met.—I think you address rather than meet a qualm
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zantigo stores were closed or converted to Taco Bell—in BE it would be Bells, is your version OK in AE?
Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His standards were high, commenting "perfection is just barely good enough",—standards can't comment
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • takeover weak franchises,—the verb is two words
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • while in the U.S. sales were struggling, where the chain was the weakest link in PepsiCo's restaurants division.—the adverbial clause should follow its subject, the US
I think I've addressed this one.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • through the growing El Pollo Loco restaurant chain, and also with the introduction of Burger King's BK Broiler, a grilled chicken burger, both of which were poaching sales from the company.—your two subjects for "both" are a restaurant chain and a burger, which don't sit comfortably together
I've changed this now.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • have been protesting KFC's treatment—in BE it would be "protesting against", is your version OK in AE?
Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • take out, dine in, sit down, drive through—hyphenate all (not done consistently at present
  • research & development—Ampersand is informal (linked article has "and" too)
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • China is one of the only countries—"one of" or "the only"? Doesn't make sense as written
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We're in the first inning of a nine-inning ball game in China".—in BE, it would be "innings" both times, is your version OK in AE?
Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • three executives, that latter of whom—you need at least two different things to point to a "latter"
think I've sorted this one out.Farrtj (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this nom seems to have stalled after remaining open a month and receiving no comments since mid-August. Pls wait the usual two weeks before nominating this or any other article at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

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 Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

GateKeeper (roller coaster)

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets all the criteria to be a Featured Article. It has received a copy edit from User:Baffle gab1978 and was GA reviewed by User:The Rambling Man. This article was originally a draft in my user space months before it was announced and I have been contributing to it ever since. The roller coaster is very new so there are many sources available for the ride and most have been added. For only being open about 3 months, the article has just as much information that any other roller coaster article has. This is also my second FAC, my first being Millennium Force in which I learned a lot about the process. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—in full disclosure, I happen to have ridden this coaster back in June and enjoyed the experience. However, there are issues with the citations that need to be addressed.

  • There is no need to repeat wikilinks in the footnotes; The first time that a footnote cites the Sandusky Register is the only time that it needs to be linked. Ditto all other such links.
  • Some footnotes list items as the publisher when they should be the "work". Take footnote 6 for example. Crain's Detroit Business is the name of a publication published by Crain Communications. In footnote 2, Popular Science is also the name of a publication that is published by Bonnier Corporation. Please audit and correct these.
    • Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publisher names aren't needed in those cases though... You didn't list publishers for other notable publications, so there's no need to list them for Popular Science or Crain's Detroit Business. (I only mentioned them as part of the point that the publication names aren't the publisher.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well which ones need them?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, I don't think the publisher is needed for Popular Science, which is a pretty well-known magazine. Crain's Detroit Business probably doesn't need it either. Additionally, you've included the publisher (person) for the Los Angeles Times yet that's not equivalent to the other publishers listed here which are companies... Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as publication locations are normally listed for newspapers that omit their location in the title, we normally would list the publication location for a TV station. Please add the missing locations, which allows others to help judge the reliability of the sources. (The location for a student newspaper would be the university, not the city where the campus is located.)
  • Double check newspaper titles; the current name of the paper in Toledo, Ohio, is just The Blade. The name was changed in 1960. (Yes, they use toledoblade.com as their website address, but the paper is still just The Blade.)
  • If the original links still work, you should add |deadurl=no to the citation templates so that we aren't sending people to the archived copies. (I would also advise that you continue to pre-emptively archive as many of the rest of the news articles as possible.)
  • Footnote 57: the all caps should be reduced to match the case of the rest of the article title/headline per MOS:ALLCAPS.
  • Footnote 59 has the work (Mad Money) and the publisher (CNBC) backwards.
  • Footnote 61 as the TV station listed as a work, when the work would be a TV program they produce. The station itself is a publisher.
  • Also, there is a vast inconsistency between listing TV stations as "WKYC", but "WWJ-TV". Either they all are listed with the "-TV", or other appropriate, suffix, or they aren't. Honestly, they should have the appropriate suffix applied.
    • Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to double check... you should be citing these stations by their call letters consistently... and you aren't.
  • New issue introduced: I wouldn't link the locations in the footnotes. Judicious linking in footnotes steers readers to two things: the source itself (or an online convenience copy) or a wikipedia article to allow them to judge the credibility of the source. Linking to the name of a publisher, newspaper or a TV station does this second function, but a link to the location of publication doesn't. It's still valuable information to include, just not to link. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on reliability of sources:

  • Footnote 4: what makes PointBuzz a reliable source? This looks like a fansite/blog to me. The suitability of this source will impact many other footnotes.
    • This has come up in the past, most notably here and here. In both cases, the decision was made that they were acceptable.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the next point below for the crux of this issue; the second FAC didn't address the reliability issue, and the first FAC didn't quite answer the questions posed below. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this article, PointBuzz doesn't really cite any content. Most of the PB footnotes are used to cite posters or pictures. Also, one of them is a Press Release. That is not written by PointBuzz, it is released by Cedar Fair/Cedar Point. PointBuzz is just the one that published it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then in that case, you have a bigger problem. I had looked at the first footnote to them that was an article published on their site. The posters, etc should not list them as the publisher because they are not. They are a re-publisher in those cases, yet you're attributing them as if they were involved in creating the content. I don't advise that people list Google Books when using convenience links to books hosted on that website; in this case, these are convenience links to a website hosting content originally published by others. (And that re-publishing may or may not be a copyright violation.) If you are citing posters, cite the poster, not the website. For the others, you still have the issue of whether or not Point Buzz meets our requirements for sourcing at the FA level.

            As a side note, I'm not in favor of listing PR Newsire as a publisher, since they're republishing press releases, not initiating publication. Press releases are truly self-published sources, so unless there is a specific person or department of the organization to attribute authorship, author = publisher. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

            • I have used a different cite template for the posters. What if we used Cite Interview for the videos with Rob Decker then didn't link it?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 5: what makes this a reliable source? (Also note, if the source is retained, it shouldn't normally be re-listed in the "External links" section of the article.)
    • I guess I'll assume you didn't watch the video. The information that is cited in the video came directly from Rob Decker, the park's VP of Planning & Design.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen that video, but like the source above, it's about the reputation of the publisher. Do they have a history of accuracy in their publications? Are they known for providing editorial oversight of the items they publish? We're naturally quite skeptical of videos published on YouTube for a number of reasons as well. As for PointBuzz, it's not quite enough to state they're quoted in other media; an assertion like that comes with a [citation needed] tag for me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand being skeptical of items published on YouTube but this is an interview with Rob Decker. The information is coming straight from him. If you have an issue with that particular video, we can remove it because he says the same thing in another video that is used in the article. As for PointBuzz, see above.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the review of a candidate for Feature Article status; part of that is not just ensuring that articles use "reliable sources", as Wikipedia uses that term, but that they are using "high quality reliable sources". Inherent in that difference is evaluating the reputation of the publisher, not just the interview subject. You've used four videos on YouTube as sources, one of which produced by Cedar Point and three not. The reputation, quality and reliability of those other three creators are at issue. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess I don't understand why it matters who creates the videos. How can a video of something happening or a higher executive saying something not be reliable? It happened or it didn't. He said it or he didn't. I don't get why it matters who posted it. The information is there, it is coming from a reliable person. Here's a quote from User:Figureskatingfan, "I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability... However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality." She made a very good point about comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I'm not trying to be a pain, I've just followed this article from day one. I wrote this article with all the sources available and I don't see the issue in the few YouTube or PointBuzz links that are used.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • See above for an idea about the Youtube interviews.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 17: the website is called Trademarkia, and it appears to be a wiki. Can we replace this with a better source for trademark data, perhaps something from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?
  • Footnote 24: this appears to be to be photos from a roller coaster fan posted online, which doesn't support the information in the article about the arrival date.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely removed the sentence.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Imzadi1979:, I just want to make sure you haven't forgotten about this review.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have much further to add here. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the reliability or suitability of videos and let the delegates make that final determination. FAs have to use "high quality reliable sources", but personally, I can't support some of the sources used here as meeting that standard, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "with the keyhole towers being the centerpiece." This is one of those pesky with ... -ing sentence structures that are often found to be 1a issues. Since this is in the lead, I'd recommend a minor rewrite to fix this.
  • History: "The memo also said the new coaster will have a 'Front Gate Statement'". Since the construction of the roller coaster is no longer a future event as "will" implies, that should be "would" instead.
  • Same goes for "A section of the coaster will go over the front entrance...". Not sure that "would" works here, but I'm sure another alternative can be found.
  • Period after "Not even a Jumbo Jet soars like this!" is overpunctuation because of the exclamation point in the quote. That takes care of the end-of-sentence punctuation.
  • Not sure the year is needed in "The auction ended on May 6, 2013." Based on the previous sentence, it's obvious to the reader that the auction had to end in 2013. I feel the same way about the year of the media day in the next sentence.
  • Construction: "an United States Senator from Ohio". "an" → "a".
  • Layout: "the first element of the coaster which similar to the dive drops on The Swarm at Thorpe Park and X-Flight at Six Flags Great America." Needs "is" after "which".
  • I'm a little bothered that the non-free image of the track layout says the purpose of use is "To show what the GateKeeper roller coaster at Cedar Point will look like once it is completed for 2013" when it is no longer uncompleted. Since it has been completed, other pictures could be taken, which calls into question whether the image is replaceable according to the rationale.
    • I have removed it, I'll find a new image when I get some time.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manufacturer: Space before the em dash needs removal.
  • Trains: Semi-colon before "a first for a roller coaster at Cedar Point" should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- This review has been open a month and had little activity for the past few weeks so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Ain't No Other Man

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets FA criteria. Plus, several users and I have done WP:COPYEDIT for it. I also added more information to the article, so I hope it will get the gold star this time. Thanks HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose

Laser brain's (talk) comments from the last time this was nominated (closed July 14) still apply: the prose is not close to being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".

e.g., 1st para: "with Roane and Aguilera serviced as co-producers" (very unusual verb choice); "Following the release of Stripped [...] in her next record" (unclear if Stripped was the album before ANOM); "The song was inspired by Aguilera's marriage with Jordan Bratman in 2005" (is "the song" the same as "her next record"? Did the marriage begin and end in 2005?); "It was serviced as the lead single from the project" (odd verb again; which project?).

e.g., last para: are these really cover versions if they were just on TV?; "of the eight season British" ('eight-season' or 'eighth season of the'?); "chose the song to perform at the show" (the song performed?); "making three coaches [...] turn their chairs" (what did that indicate?).

I've addressed all. I'm still fixing it. Please wait for me until it's done. — HĐ (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many of these: copy editing (to a higher standard) and/or peer review are recommended. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The article has many issues which should be fixed before it attains a feature level. Try a peer review editing. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment: it would be very helpful if those suggesting a peer review would undertake to carry out the review. WP:PR is desperately short of active reviewers at present. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573984310&oldid=573893503