Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gimmetoo (talk | contribs)
14,302 edits
.
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C. in European football/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kappa Kappa Psi/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kappa Kappa Psi/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898/archive1}}

Revision as of 12:03, 8 August 2012

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 promoted by Ian Rose 12:03, 8 August 2012 [1].

Liverpool F.C. in European football

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article now meets the criteria. One of the main issues in the last nomination was the prose, the article has recently had a copyedit and hopefully these issues have now been resolved. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Not a big fan of what your copy-editor did by linking England and Great Britain in the lead. Such well-known countries really don't need the extra links.
  • "The UEFA Cup Winners Cup was inaugurated in 1960, created for the winners of domestic cup competitions." The re-wording has revealed a little redundancy; "was inaugurated in 1960 for the winners..." would be tighter than what's there now.
  • First two words can be removed from "in order to intimidate the Italians."
  • In the 1981 Intercontinental Cup summary, the score needs an en dash. The copy-editor should have caught that one.
  • "A 6–2 aggregate victory up a tie against Auxerre of France in the second round...". Missing "set" before "up".
  • Conflict between singular and plural tenses here: "This proved the club's most successful campaign since its return to European competition, as they reached the semi-finals, where they were eliminated 3–2 on aggregate by French team Paris Saint-Germain."
  • "but victory in the 2011–12 Football League Cup ensured Liverpool a place in 2012–13 UEFA Europa League." Missing "the" before 2012–13?
  • Did we ever establish LFC History as a reliable source for FAC purposes? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all the above. Regarding LFC History, it is a statistical site which provide the official stats of the club. This is evidenced by the sixth paragraph on this page. NapHit (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "...having conceded the fourth place needed to qualify for the Champions League to Chelsea on the final day of the previous league season" the sentence suggests that Liverpool were in pole position for fourth place, but in actual fact Chelsea were there since January 2003. Could be rephrased.
Agree, it wasn't the best wording, had a go at rephrasing it, should be more clearer now. NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juventus won the match 1–0, Michel Platini scoring" replace comma with semicolon
done NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liverpool faced six-time European champions Milan in the final at the Atatürk Stadium in Istanbul." would be nice to include when – the specific date perhaps.
done NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The victory also entitled Liverpool to compete" 'entitled' used in the previous sentence, perhaps find another word to avoid repetition
have changed the one in the previous sentence to allowed, should solve the problem. NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57 published on BBC News – BBC Sport Online was created in 2000.
done NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • UEFA Cup Winners' Cup is missing a apostrophe on Winners in "The UEFA Cup Winners Cup was inaugurated in 1960"
done NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liverpool entered the 1983–84 European Cup as 1982–83 Football League champions" any reason why that Football League season is wikilinked and the others aren't? Moreover, to avoid ambiguity, they won the 'Football League First Division' – Football League refers to the entire group of teams. Perhaps you can rephrase the sentence to something like "Liverpool entered the 1983–84 European Cup as league champions for the fourth time in five seasons" so it would be more inline.
done as suggested NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German team Hamburg, who had just signed Keegan." could do with a citation.
done NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their first match, in the UEFA Cup, was against Finnish side Kuusyi Lahti, which they won 6–1." also could do with a ref. Managed to find the match report from the Guardian archive (Stephen Bierley is the author) should you wish to use it. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cited this and sentence after as well, not sure if you're supposed to include the link, when its an archive, but done it anyway can always be removed if you're not supposed to. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. Happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strikes the right balance between maintaining comprehensiveness and avoiding undue weight, which in the case of a club who have played in Europe as often as Liverpool is no easy task. Football-wise its looking solid as I read through it. Just a couple of nitpicks: "KR Reykjavík" suffers PIN number syndrome syndrome. Not keen on the single word easter egg link to 1973 UEFA Cup Final, perhaps it would be better if "second European final" was the linked term. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, have fixed the two nitpicks you had. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • File:2005 trophy cropped.jpg is missing alt text.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the lead, Cup Winners' Cup ought to be written as UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and wikilinked.
  • "Shankly was the first Liverpool manager to win a European trophy" - full stop needed.
  • "following relegation from the First Division during the 1953–54 season" - they were relegated after the season, not during it.
  • A few instances of WP:OVERLINK; First Division and Intercontinental Cup are wikilinked in the History section despite already being linked in the Background section.
  • "The club won the match 3–1" - I think team would be more appropriate than club in the context of a match.
  • "Liverpool were eliminated in the second round by Bayern Munich of Germany, 3–1 on aggregate" - feels like there's a word missing before the score. Perhaps "losing 3–1 on aggregate"?
  • "they qualified for the European Super Cup against the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup" - perhaps "they qualified for the European Super Cup and played the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup" or something similar? At present it seems a little abrupt.
  • Very nitpicky, but penalty shootout ought to be penalty shoot-out.
  • "Juventus won the match 1–0; Michel Platini scoring from the penalty spot" - tense change to "Juventus won the match 1–0; Michel Platini scored from the penalty spot".
  • "the FA Cup, and the League Cup" - superfluous comma. Same with "Dutch team PSV Eindhoven, and Chelsea".
  • Not a fan of the use of red in the tables; could a neutral colour be used, as is done here on the corresponding Arsenal article?
  • I also like this on the Arsenal article; any chance of having one here too?
  • As is done here on the corresponding Manchester City article, I'd retitle the present Notes section to References and then retitle the present References section to Bibliography with a level 3 heading.

Thoroughly interesting read and as has been said it's very well balanced. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Matty, much appreciated. I've addressed all your comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A few follow-ups.

  • The key refers to F and A as denoting Goals for and against, but the tables themselves use GF and GA.
  • The By season table doesn't have a source.
  • I'm not sure we need the date above the By competition table, since none of the other tables use one. I'd remove it and place the ref after "Liverpool F.C. record in European football by competition".
  • In the footnote I'd use East Germany rather than German Democratic Republic, and there should be a "the" before Soviet Union. The sentence needs a full stop too.
  • The key ought to explain what is referred to by GD.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Matty, addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a fusspot here, but the new ref doesn't provide goals for and against in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup or the UEFA Super Cup and doesn't include any details for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the Intercontinental Cup or the FIFA Club World Cup. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I can use the link to this, all the information is there, although you do have to click though a few things to get there it is there, does that suffice? NapHit (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that being used, although for the reader's benefit I'd add something like "Access to record in each competition via relevant links" to the reference after the cite template, in this fashion. However, the club's season-by-season record in the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup are not included in this link, so they'll need citing from somewhere else. Also, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is given no mention at all. Perhaps one of your Liverpool books could come in handy for the older competitions? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled across this, which should do the trick for the European competitions.One of my books does have info on the Intercontitnental Cup, which I'll use, got a ref for FIFA Club World Cup, so should be alright now. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those look grand. Hope you don't mind that I've slightly rearranged their composition. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Couldn't see evidence of an image check above.
  • I have no issue with a hatnote like Main article: Heysel Stadium Disaster at the beginning of a section dedicated to summarising the topic, but it does look a bit odd in the middle of a section. In this case I'd expect the main article to be linked in-line, e.g. piping it to "caused a retaining wall to collapse" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree about the hat note, have changed as you suggested. Regarding the image check, should I ask someone to do one, or wait and see if is done? NapHit (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check I've run through all the images, and their copyright status is fine (File:Bill Shankly statue.jpg appears in line with the UK's freedom of panorama laws as explained at Commons, and the information provided for the release of File:Amicizia.jpg by its creator looks fine to me). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (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 promoted by Ian Rose 02:01, 8 August 2012 [2].

Kappa Kappa Psi

Nominator(s): Sycamore (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is FA quality and deserves to be considered as a Featured Article. The first nomination was closed with very few comments, so User:GrahamColm has issued an exemption so that this article can be re-nominated before the customary two weeks pass. Sycamore (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a fellow Greek (ATΩ), I found this article interesting as while my school has a chapter of KKPsi, I have not known a lot about them other than it is comprised of mostly band majors (and work with TBSig). Anyways, as a Greek organization, have you found any totals on how much KKPsi has raised nationally for any philanthropies or charity events (or maybe give an example of some of the biggest fundraisers KKPsi has done)? I know you mentioned something about blood drives in the article, but I cannot imagine that is it for them. I would also expand the 2011 incident where alumni was expelled from the former FAMU chapter to say why they were expelled (and also several members were made alumni due to this closing too, which wasn't noted). I would also and try and link Colony in its earliest instance in the article (under Membership pins). I would also put a photo of the badge, even if you have to claim fair use (since I know a lot of fraternity and sorority badges were put up for deletion on the Commons) unless there is something about Ritual that prevents the badge from being displayed. But other than those comments, I like the article and I would like to see it become an FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if you cannot display the badge, I suggest putting a photo of a lettered shirt in that section. I know you have SVGs of what the blocked letters look like (Mega Greek font IIRC, since I had to use the same font for ATΩ shirts) so I would put it on a shirt or something. If you cannot do this, I can. If you prefer a real shirt, I suggest Flickr or if you are a KKPsi Brother, then take a photo of your own shirt and use it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a picture of the badge (the Commons version exists but is still nominated for deletion), wikilinked "colony," and clarified the issues you mentioned with the FAMU chapter. KKPsi differs from most fraternities in that we don't have a national philanthropy, so it would be difficult to track down the philanthropic efforts by individual chapters. Generally, KKPsi chapters fundraise for the university's band program or for members of the band (purchasing/repairing instruments, offering scholarships, etc.) but how chapters do this is up to them. It would be difficult to get that kind of a number without a national survey by Headquarters. I can say for discussion purposes here that my chapter raises and spends around $2000 annually for projects that we do for our bands, but I don't know if that's a high or low number relative to other chapters. Because of this, I tried to include a variety of projects by chapters that had received media attention. Sycamore (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely understand about the lack of national philanthropy, ATΩ is in the same boat (but each chapter picks their own). I was just curious, since dealing with philanthropies was one of my main things I did as an ATΩ. I can see what I can do since Arkansas Tech has KKPsi and maybe ask around to compare. But what you did was fine and I really liked the article. Support User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:Naraht Naraht (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN3: publisher, access date?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher and location for magazines, etc
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN13: how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • FN20: publisher?
  • Be consistent in when you provide retrieval dates
  • FN36, 46: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these issues have been fixed. FN36 I do not have a page for; all information I have about the source is included in the citation. Regarding FN13, this came up in its GAN and while I realize master's theses are not generally considered reliable, the thesis cites all its material and includes an appendix of many early fraternity documents and items of interest. I would contend that its existence as the only comprehensive history of the fraternity by an outside party makes it influential. All items that cite this could be backed up by the primary Fraternity documents Jameson cited, but I would have to negotiate access to them from Headquarters. Sycamore (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With FN36, that same information was covered by another source so I think it could be safely removed. For FN46, I would put it as Cover or A1 and I can do that right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted an interlibrary loan request for FN36. I'm fairly positive the page number is 1 but I want to make absolutely sure before I change it in the citation. Sycamore (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Have you managed to fill the interlibrary loan request you mention above? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page number has been added to the citation. Are there any further comments? Sycamore (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments I'm in favor of it making FA, these comments are tweeks which may or may not be userful

I didn't notice the duplicate link to Colony. I agree that it's far enough apart, but if someone disagrees I don't have a problem removing the second link. Google News doesn't have a whole lot of useful material, but your link and query about the NIB inspired me to look at OSU's library, and sure enough they had archived the OAMC paper that discussed the first NIB concert. I might be able to gather up enough information on the NIB to spin off a new article, but that's secondary to this. The Eta Eta revocation didn't get very much media attention and didn't result in a lawsuit like the Theta Delta situation, and since I haven't been able to find a modern source that discusses chapters with no music department, I hesitate to add something like that to the article. Thanks for the comments and support! Sycamore (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the source saying that "The Purdue band is the only band to have a chapter of Kappa Kappa Psi without having a music school", I don't think that's the case. As far as I can find, the University of Cincinnati (Upsilon chapter installed 1928) didn't have a music school until the Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music became part of the university in 1962. It looks like Georgia Tech (Iota chapter installed 1924) didn't even get a music department until 1963, which only became a school of music in 2009. That's two, with just a few minutes searching; a more in-depth search could probably turn up more. cmadler (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_Crest.svg: I'm assuming KKP holds copyright to this? Should say so explicitly. Also, why the doubled licensing tag?
  • File:National_Intercollegiate_Band_1947.jpg: use of this image doesn't meet the criteria for "unique historical image" fair use, particularly given the deficient "purpose of use" statement
  • File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_recognition_pin.png: when was the pin pictured created? Same with File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_prospective_pin.png and File:Kappa_Kappa_Psi_Badge.png
  • File:KKPsi-TBSigma_District_Map.svg: what base map was used to create this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the badges--I assume you mean when the physical badges were created? The badges were designed in 1920, and these badges were purchased from the jeweler between 2010-2012, but none of them have jeweler's marks denoting their creation date. The dates on each image are when the pictures were taken. The Coat of Arms and District Map issues have been fixed, and I am waiting for a reply from the National Executive Director about releasing the NIB image under a free license. Sycamore (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the prospective member pin, recognition pin, and badge all survived a recent deletion discussion on Commons, where it was determined that the underlying works were all created in 1919-1920 and are unchanged since then, therefore PD. The same is true of the crest. cmadler (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to say the same about the coat of arms. The design has changed pretty significantly since the design seen on the 1923 Baton: http://podium.kkytbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Baton.jpg Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after thinking about it, I think the crest/coat of arms has not changed at all, but the fraternity primarily uses a different image. As with traditional heraldry, a specific image of the crest is copyrighted (by the image creator) but the blazon (description) is not, and a new free image can be created from that description. Perhaps a participant at commons:Commons:WikiProject Heraldry could create a free version? In this case it can be based on a written description as well as any PD images (pre-1923 or published without copyright notice). cmadler (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the coat of arms (and any version that could be created from its blazon) is trademarked and it would make the most sense for us to use the actual image that the fraternity uses so we don't confuse people or misrepresent the fraternity, especially when they're talking about developing a brand (as was mentioned at this year's NCD convention). Sycamore (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it has changed significantly, the text underneath if nothing else, and there are other changes which appear to be significant to me...Naraht (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The National Executive Director has told me that the NIB photo is actually in the public domain due to its publication without copyright notice. I have updated the file's licensing information to reflect this. Sycamore (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, upon a thorough search through copyright records and fraternity documents, I can't find any evidence that the Coat of Arms image currently in use was ever registered for copyright or published with a copyright notice. It was first published well before 1977 and I have therefore updated its license to reflect its status as PD-US-no notice and transferred the file to Commons. Sycamore (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Could you update the image description pages for the pins/badge to include the approximate design date, rather than the upload date? Other than that, images look good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sycamore (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check and comments – Checked seven sources and found a few issues, namely with refs 23, 43–45 (over districts), and 53. A couple of them may be my lack of familiarity with the topic, to be fair. Also noted a few other things I saw in the process.

  • Ref 23 is dead, so I couldn't check it. That will need to be dealt with in some fashion.
  • Ref 31: "The national chapter of Kappa Kappi Psi closed its FAMU chapter because of hazing and uncertainty." Article: "After the conclusion of both the police and fraternity investigations, the national council closed down the chapter because of its violations of fraternity policy and the uncertainty of the future of the FAMU band program." The source also mentions "uncertainty over the leadership and direction of FAMU's music department", so that part's covered.
  • Ref 31 again: "28 members of the fraternity have been expelled. That includes all undergraduates and pledges from the spring of 2010." Article: "As part of the chapter's termination, twenty-eight members, including all active and prospective members in spring 2010, were expelled from the fraternity." No problems here.
  • Ref 32: Covers the same material as ref 31. Neither ref 31 nor 32 mentions the investigations, but there are two other sources covering that sentence that I didn't check. Maybe one of them has that covered.
  • For refs 43, 44, and 45, I don't see a mention of districts X and XI. Is that the same as Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma?
  • Ref 45 covers the second sentence it sources adequately, with no close paraphrasing concerns. The third sentence it sources must have material from page 4, which I don't see on Google News. I assume good faith that this is sourced adequately, based on what else I've seen.
  • Ref 53 says that the caboose was purchased by the director of Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma, not by the group itself. Also, it mentions a museum, not a history program, although perhaps they are one and the same. I haven't read enough of the article to know that.
  • While I'm here, ref 25 needs a publisher and access date.
  • Also, ref 33 needs the publisher (Tallahassee Democrat) italicized.
  • Last word of the Early 21st Century section heading should be decapitalized, as that isn't a term that should normally be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 23: I have found a copy of the original article at http://www.insidehazing.com/headlines.php?idno=685&headlines2Page=4. Would this be acceptable as an archived version of the original article in lieu of a Webcite archive? The archive from Archive.org does not seem to be working.
      • As a rule, I'm leery about using non-official websites like this for archives. That makes it dependent on how reliable insidehazing.com is. Is an offline cite possible? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, but I can't find a reliable archive anywhere and don't have access to an offline copy. I have removed the section in question for now but if I can find an acceptable archival copy or get a physical copy through interlibrary loan I'll readd it. Sycamore (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 32: As you guessed, refs 33 and 34 refer to the investigation.
    • Refs 43-45: These sources refer to the "Atlantic Coast Intercollegiate Band" performing at the "First Annual Atlantic Coast Convention" at the University of Virginia in 1958. That sentence also cites ref 18, which clarifies that this was at the District X and XI Convention: "Both Districts agreed to meet together for Convention in 1958." "1958 District X and XI Convention held the first ever District Intercollegiate Band." "Convention Site: 1958 University of Virginia (Districts X and XI)". I'm not sure why the newspaper references refer to an "Atlantic Coast Convention" rather than Districts X and XI because there has never officially been an "Atlantic Coast District" of KKPsi or TBSigma. I hope this is adequate. As for the Google News problem, I tracked down page 4 which was mistakenly included with a future issue here. What would be the most prudent way to include this link?
      • I'd pipe it to page 4 in the citation's page numbers. That way you don't have to make another reference and split the cites up. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 53: The caboose was purchased by the fraternity, but Col. Bonner is the specific person who, as executive director, made the purchase. I think putting that Bonner purchased it in the article would be splitting hairs. The museum and history program are essentially the same.
    • Ref 33 and Early 21st century: Fixed. Sycamore (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't strike the spot-checks, to keep them visible, but I'm satisfied that the concerns have been taken care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article looks good enough and satisfies the FA criteria. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 8 August 2012 (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 promoted by Ian Rose 00:22, 6 August 2012 [3].

United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. From the bad old days when state legislatures elected senators comes this tale of pressure politics, money, and influence starring Senator Mark Hanna and men putting themselves and their careers on the line to give or deny him another term. And, perhaps, their money. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to source and image issues. One of my recent peer reviews; all my concerns were addressed and I am now happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image and technical check and Support Wow. Superb initial submission. Images check out except the McKisson photo needs an author. You can list unknown if that's the case. Consider a support when source check complete and that author is added. Technical aspects look outstanding. PumpkinSky talk 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've noted that the author on the McKisson is not known.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose. Interesting read although it is probably one of Wehwalt's shorter articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Next one's twice as long. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source comment - how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to consider all the circumstances. It is a master's thesis, yes; however, it is thoroughly footnoted, it is cited as a source by William Horner's book, which I've used extensively per here, and Warken went on to be a published historian, see his obit here. The policy is not hard and fast, but depends on the circumstances. It's higher quality than a lot of stuff we work from, it's cited to proper newspapers and to the then current biographies of the principal actors, and I have no issue with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for caring enough for digging that deep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article refers to policy debates about "free silver versus the gold standard". Then at some later point the article refers to "Silver Republican" and "Silver Democrat". But the two are not explicitly linked. I'm assuming that the term "Silver Republican" refers to republicans who favoured free silver, but that needs to be explicitly stated. Also, given that the issue is a recurring theme in the events described by this article, I don't feel wikilinking "free silver" is enough - without visiting that article, I had no idea to what it referred. Furthermore, I note that the "free silver" WP article says that supporters were referred to as "silverites", yet the Ohio 1898 election WP article refers to them as "Silver". This could use a tidy-up. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in a bit when discussing the 1896 election. I don't think "silverite" was a formal term. I'll also put in a hatnote, perhaps, to Cross of Gold speech#Background, which contains thorough background on the silver issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Silverite is a term for a silver supporter, but it is not the only such term. I hope this is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have obviously no previous experience with the subject dealt in this article, but the fact that I was able to read it from top to bottom and fully understand it reveals that it has been well written. I believe it's a great choice for a new FA and I can only wonder how much work Wehwalt probably had doing it. It was certainly worth the reading. --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good words and for the support. It took about a week to write.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes:

  • Wehwalt, is it standard for such article infoboxes to duplicate candidate name/party links under "Senator before election" and "Elected Senator"? If so, leave them; if not, looks like blue overkill.
It's consistent with all other Ohio Senate election articles, though none are featured, example. The only other featured article on a Senate election, United States Senate election in California, 1950, did not involve an incumbent gaining re-election, however, the victor in the race, Richard Nixon, is of course named and linked in the candidate information below his picture and above his vote total. So I would say that it's consistent with existing articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian and PumpkinSky, can you clarify whether your requests for source checks have been met by Nikki's review, or were you after spotchecks for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (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 promoted by GrahamColm 03:57, 8 August 2012 [4].

Problem of religious language

Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for a little while. It was listed as a good article in March this year; I've since had it peer reviewed and had additional feedback from other editors. I feel that it is now ready to be nominated as a Featured Article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Definition

There are at least two other meanings of "Religious language" that this article doesn't seem to cover. 1. "a language used in worship in a particular religion (e.g. sanskrit, latin, classical arabic etc.)" 2. A speech register of any that is reserved for use in religious functions. This article treats one particular definition of "religious language" found in analytical philosophy as if it were the only meaning of the phrase. I don't even think it is the most common one - at least not within linguistics where the two other ones are the only one's used. I know of several books that use "religious language" in one of the previously mentioned senses. I think that if this article wants to treat only the topic that it currently treats it should be moved to Religious language problem or something like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to religious language problem (and slightly changed the lead to fit with the page move). I think you're right about the scope of the article, and that title seems to better fit the topic. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a 'problem' though? The problem isn't necessarily in the language itself but in the interpretation of it. When faced with, say, Ayer's views of religious language (and metaphysical and ethical language too), the orthodox believer need not conclude there is a problem with religious language but rather that there is a problem with Ayer's presuppositions! I'd be very cautious about suggesting something is a problem in the title unless it actually is widely acknowledged and described as such in the sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. I was hasty in changing the name last time, so I'll wait for further discussion. Tom, I think I agree with your view about the word 'problem'; however, as Manus said, I religious language on its own is to broad in scope. Would a religious language (philosophy) be appropriate in this situation, do you think? ItsZippy (talk • contributions)
Not at all sure. 'Religious language (philosophy)' might be okay, or indeed 'philosophy of religious language'. I'd probably have to be slightly more familiar with the sources to know. Maybe even 'Philosophical accounts of religious language', although that's a bit of a mouthful. Perhaps WikiProject Philosophy and/or WikiProject Religion might be able to help. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is normally phrased as a problem of logic and semantics. I don't think the "philosophical accounts" works.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy of religious language might work: the topic falls under the wider scope of philosophy of language, and is specified to the religious aspect. I'll leave a note at the Philosophy WikiProject (though they tend to be slow to comment on things). I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the FAC or withdrawing it, resolving the name issue and renominating it in a month. As an irregular here, advice would be appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're convinced of what the name should be, move it and continue the nom. If you're not, open a RfC/RM/whatever to get more input, and in the meantime withdraw and renominate once the name issue is resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've moved the page to philosophy of religious language which I believe is both neutral and more refined in scope. I am now hoping that this FAC can proceed as normal. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Schweid & Levin or Levin & Schweid? Taliafero & Griffiths or Griffiths & Taliaferro?
  • How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
  • Fn32: formatting
  • Missing citation information for Hoffman 2007
  • FN42: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
  • No citations to Fasching & deChant 2001, Stiver 1996
  • Missing last name for Lacewing's coauthor
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate publisher names
  • John Wiley & Sons or John Wiley and Sons? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think I've resolved all those problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer reviewed this a month or so ago, and all my comments were dealt with. The subsequent edits seem to have improved the article further. This is a tough subject, but I think the nominator has done a commendable job with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose I tried to read this article but my brain was hurting in the middle of the first paragraph. I think at least the intro needs to take a step back and be more engaging to a casual reader if this were to be a FA. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked again, and I noted that the lead does seem to be longer than most articles of its length. Perhaps trimming it down could help its readability? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have a look and see what I can do. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have substantially reduced the length of the lead, and also attempted to simplify and clarify some of the more complex bits. Does that look alright, or does it need further work? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks better but to be honest I think you should aim to trim another quarter of what is now (3 para instead of 4?). Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • FWIW, I just read the lead and I think it is perfectly clear and appropriate. Before reading it, I knew nothing about the topic. Leonxlin (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nervous of taking too' much out of the lead, because I don't want to over-simplify the issues. To me, four paragraphs seems much more appropriate than three (and I think it breaks up the lead nicely into: an outline of the problem, classical and alternative explanations, challenges, and language games/parables). What do other people think on the length and clarity of the lead, since I shortened it yesterday? Nergaal, are there any specific parts which are less clear or overly long that you think I could work on? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Late reply, but I agree with the changes to the lead, looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I set out to verify every seventh note. I ended up verifying items 7, 14, 21, 35, 42, 49, and 56, using Google Books preview and Amazon's "Look inside". These features were not provided for item 28 (Singh 1990). For 63 and 70, the specific pages cited were not available, but the sections those pages were in fit the context.

Overall, pretty impressed. Often the article has clearer language than the sources themselves. Leonxlin (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose concerns

  • The parenthetical "lacking substance" gloss for incorporeal is somewhat patronizing since the word is nontechnical. Though I wouldn't want it changed if editors have come to agree on its being there.
  • Religious language is a philosophical problem because of the difficulties in accurately describing God: May I suggest arising from in place of because of?
  • For example, God may be described as incorporeal or ineffable (without substance and indescribable). This sentence is a bit odd. First, because God's being incorporeal has just been identified as a problem, and now it is being touted as a solution to the problem. Second, it says God may be described as ... indescribable. Perhaps this was intentional.

Reading through the article, I don't see any obvious problems.

  • Leaning to support. Leaning (and not full) support because I was not able to read the full article. On first reading, the lead seemed difficult to me (I am completely naive about the topic). However, as I went on to read the text, the concepts gradually cleared. There is no doubt that it is difficult to summarize such a difficult and vast topic in the lead. The author has done a good job.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Leonxlin, I have resolved those three issues. For the last one, I used the source to cite the definition of the via negativa, then found a better one as a source for the example I gave, which is now clearer. Dwaipayan, thanks for your support; is there anything I could do to further improve the article? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, I do not know how to suggest further improvement in this case. Admittedly the article is difficult for casual reading; it needs rapt attention. The topic is difficult, and I do not know what to suggest to make it more lucid. However, on repeated readings, the text gets easier to grasp.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Hare described a madman" - Perhaps a term more technical and less slang than "madman" would be more appropriate.
  • "Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed a 'calculus' theory of language" - I suggest losing the "scare quotes".
  • "Wittgenstein believed that religion is significant because it offers a certain way of life" - "a certain way of life" seems vague to me.
  • "Peter Donovan criticises religious language for failing to recognise that religion..." - This paragraph contains eight references to "religion" or "religious". Perhaps something can be done to break-up the redundancy.
  • "Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein" - This author is introduced twice this way in relatively close sections: "Logical positivism" and "Analogies of games" just below. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment Why you state that it talks about "a deity" and then you mention God. You need to clarify if this is about monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Since I don't think this article is about paganism you need to change it to "talk about God", otherwise it is confusing. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you both for that; I've dealt with all the concerns. With Hare's madman, I've changed the word to lunatic, which is what the sources use. Similarly, I've changed a 'certain way of life' to a 'particular way of life', which is used in the source. For all the rest, I have done what has been suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ItsZippy has done an excellent job with a very difficult subject. I think the article reads particularly well considering the material and it appears to be quite comprehensive (though I do not claim to be an expert on the subject). The article is well-written, researched and is quite neutral. Well done, great work and thanks for this fine contribution to wikipedia! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (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 promoted by GrahamColm 03:00, 5 August 2012 [5].

Marshall Applewhite

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Applewhite was a soldier, singer, and teacher, but is best known for his role as the leader of the Heaven's Gate group. In 1997, he organized their mass suicide—the largest to occur inside the U.S.—expecting to be transported onto a passing spaceship. I've found him to be a fascinating individual, simultaneously racked with guilt over his sexuality and convinced of his status as the chosen messenger of the Kingdom of Heaven (which he believed to be an actual kingdom on another planet). Quite a bit has been written about Applewhite, but after a lot of reading I think I've used nearly all of the high-quality sources. The article is a GA and has been copy edited and peer reviewed by a number of helpful editors, so I think it's time to take it to the "Next Level". Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I took part in the peer review a few weeks back and found this to be a well written and very engaging article. -- CassiantoTalk 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very funny and interesting article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Was another participant in the peer review and thought it was in very good shape for FAC. Given my comments have been addressed since then, I would be happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reviewed this one for GA, I felt then it was ready to move up here and the subsequent PR has only improved it further. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images - File:Ottheinrich_Folio289r_Rev6B.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for taking a look, I've added the tag on Commons. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A great article and I'm glad to support its nomination. I read through the peer review and I agree with what the editors above said. --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably don't need to comment here... but anyways,
  • Be careful of overlinking, I had to nuke a link to occult
  • "It is the largest group suicide that has occurred inside the U.S." - That might be better near the end of the paragraph
  • "(Most of the dead had been members for about 20 years, although there were a few recent converts.}" - Do you really need the parentheses?
  • I did a copyedit (mostly non-breaking spaces). You should double check.
  • Support - none of these are deal-breakers, but I expect it to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've really been slacking on the nbsps lately, huh. I like your suggestion about the lead and parenthesis and have done both; I could go either way on linking occult and capitalizing "theosophy", but I'll leave them unlinked and lower-case. Alright, thanks to everyone who has supported the article thus far, and Nikki for the image review, I'm glad to hear that you all like it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just going based on the article (Theosophy uses the lower case "t" in-sentence). I left one link to occult but removed a second one which occurred about 2 paragraphs down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see about Occult now, I just picked off another dupe link. To muddy the waters a bit on the other issue, our Theosophical Society capitalizes "Theosophy" in each occurrence. Will think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fun fun fun. As it isn't a proper name nor is it derived from a proper name (unlike Calvinism, for example), I'd expect it to not be capitalised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I vaguely remember asking for it to be lower-case at GA ("Theosophical Society" probably treats it as a proper noun because it's part of that group's title, much as USAF would use title-case Air Force when referring to itself), or did I miss that? GRAPPLE X 01:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, you remember right, you did say that on the GA review (I just checked). I think Accedie or Lfstevens capitalized it afterwards. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I also peer reviewed this article, and feel like the others do that it is a very high-quality piece. The article is well worth the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 3 August 2012 (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 promoted by Ian Rose 15:58, 4 August 2012 [6].

Triangle (The X-Files)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Grapple X's successful nomination of "Squeeze", I present, "Triangle". This episode is regarded by many as one of the best entries the series ever produced, as well as one of the last great episodes created. "Triangle" recently underwent a peer-review and was already promoted to GA status, earlier this year. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, and the page has sections for filming, themes, broadcast numbers, and critical reception. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, and one video, to demonstrate the episode's unique filming style. To anyone who would like to do a spot-check, I'd be willing to email scans of the books and articles in question. Thank you for looking at this and considering it. Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's a link to the Peer Review.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I am known as the "X-Files Guy" around my friends, as I own every single season and the movies on DVD. While I personally feel that X-Cops is the best all around episode, if for no other reason than the acting and camera work were absolutely superb, I agree that Triangle is in the Top 5 best the series has to offer, and should be treated as such. Upon my reviewing of the episode in question, I agree that it is some of the Wikipedia community's best, and deserves to be featured. - User:Haon 2.0 (talk)


Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how page notation is spaced
  • FN14: what kind of source is this?
  • FN15: should use endashes
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the pages consistent, fixed the dash/endash problem, and removed the dubious sources. If anyone is interested, I can send scans of the books over.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I totally forgot to mention that during the Peer-Review, the reviewer did a sourcecheck/spot check because she had the books.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I copy-edited half the article to cut down on redundant wording etc.

  • The guest actors list in the infobox is excessively long—it is not intended to be replacement/replica of the end-credits of the episode.
  • I haven't ever seen this episode so the first part of the Plot is completely unclear to me. Mulder is found unconscious in the sea—on a boat/raft? In what year? If the ship is commandeered by the SS, why do they suspect him of being a Nazi spy?
  • "Carter designed the episode in a style similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s film Rope." why does this need three refs?
  • Great video: but, in the spirit of minimum use, could it be shortened as the key bit comes only at the end of the thirty seconds?

More later.—indopug (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of the plot issues and removed the three refs. I'll try to shorten the video when I have a bit more time later. As for the infobox, I just matched it, stylistically, to all the other X-Files episodes, including "Squeeze", which recently became a FA. Are there certain individuals that should be removed?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Squeeze's cast is only a third as long, so I didn't notice it during my review. My problem here is with listing extras (First Mate onwards); Wikipedia is not IMDb.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—
  • "The sailor, however, turns out to be a German spy, and a man strongly resembling Kersh takes control of the ship and steers it back towards Jamaica. Mulder tells them to turn around and go back to where they came from, but he is taken down to the ballroom by Nazis." — I'm not sure what the connection between the sailor being a German spy and '30s Kersh taking control of the ship is. Who is Mulder telling to turn around and go back where they came from — Kersh, the Nazis (it's not made clear Kersh is a Nazi)? Wouldn't "turning around" involve taking the ship back to Germany?
  • Series creator Chris Carter developed the idea for "Triangle" while working on fifth season episode "The Red and the Black."[2] For the latter, Carter had used more film than any other director but Kim Manners. The crew made Carter a mock trophy, which inspired him to write an episode that featured continuous action as a way to minimize film usage.[3] — Used more film than any other director of the series, correct? Needs to be made more specific, otherwise it sounds like he used more footage than any director of all entertainment or something.
  • "Triangle" was filmed in one continuous shot, so that when the actors entered the stage elevator, the set that they would move onto had to be constructed behind the closed doors. — This statement contradicts the rest of the article and common sense. It clearly was multiple shots that were edited together; how else did they cut from Scully to Mulder? This needs to be cleared up.
  • Davis was given the cassette two weeks before schedule; he noted that the method "seemed to work pretty well—at least to non-German-speaking people! It was a little more challenging because there were some real German speakers on the show, which I thought was a little unfair."[11] — Unclear what the thrust of this is; did he use the cassettes to learn his lines phonetically? Did they dub him?
  • In addition, when the episode aired, it was shown letterboxed, the first X-Files episode to receive this treatment. Carter reasoned that this method would allow for more action to be viewable in each frame.[8] — This doesn't really make sense without context. Was the episode shot with anamorphic lenses? If it wasn't, then letterboxing would be losing visual information from the 35mm stock (in essence cropping the image).
    • It doesn't say in the source. What I assume is that the episode was filmed like a movie, so probably with with an anamorphic lens. Then, instead of cropping it like was normally done, they just left it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: they filmed it in "movie format", and then instead of cropping it to fit TV, they left it. Thus, it was letterboxed. How's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of showing them as "real Nazis"—as portrayed in third season episodes like "Paper Clip"—this episode portrays them as "dream-nazis". The following sentence suggests that what they mean is that they are deliberately more hokum, comic-book or exaggerated caricatures, but this sentence doesn't really make anything clear. The passage should be clarified.
    • I stole your "more hokum" as I feel it fits perfectly. Does it seem better now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's fine, but if the source doesn't describe that as nonsensical or cliched characters, you can't really call them that yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source does call them that, thus the whole "dream-Nazi" and "comic book nasties" thing. I just reworded (by stealing your line) what they were saying.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • But if they didn't explicitly say that, it's original research. I think using language like that is going beyond what can be common-sense understood from the passage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've changed this to "deliberately exaggerated", though I also considered "stereotypical" and "stylized"; those wordings to me seem more in line with the sources and I'm happy to use any of them depending on what reads best. GRAPPLE X 18:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all reviews were so positive; Alan Sepinwall, noting it as the episode "that turned out to be a dream", called "Triangle", "technically impressive but dramatically murky".[27] Before, you said there was only one exception to the positive reception. Which one is it?
  • While I think you've done a compelling job in the article for including the video clip (it's interesting to see the proliferation of these things since when it was uncharted territory back when I started :D), there's much less of a defense for File:XFiles-Triangle-screenshot.jpg. The difference of character's appearances is not that important to the article, is already described in text, and applicable comments about characterization are not evident from the screenshot. I'd say it should be lost.
  • Unable to do checks on most of the referencing, given that are OTN.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. I'll take another look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck addressed comments, left one inline above. I think the prose still needs some work so I'm going to go through it myself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried to fix the remaining issues. What do you think now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After confronting Assistant Director Alvin Kersh (James Pickens, Jr.) and Agent Jeffrey Spender (Chris Owens), Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) provides Scully with information from the Pentagon and Scully leaves with the Gunmen to find Mulder. - So Skinner confronts Kersh and Spender, or does Scully confront the aforementioned and Skinner is the one who finally gives her the information?
    Rephrased.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sailor, however, turns out to be a German spy, and a British sailor strongly resembling Kersh takes control of the ship and steers it back towards Jamaica. Mulder tells them to turn around and go back to where they came from, in order for the ship to pass back through the time warp and bring them back to 1998. Mulder, however, is taken down to the ballroom by Nazis. Ok I'm still a little confused. Mulder tells the Nazi what they're after, that I get; but why is that connected via semicolon to a (presumably Allied) British guy taking back control of the helm? And does he lose it again, or are the Nazis only in control of the ballroom?
    Ok, I tried rephrasing the section. Mulder tells them to turn around and they remain in control. To be honest, the episode is kind of logistically fuzzy, so I'd assume they stay in control, but we're never told.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning support—I've gone through and done another pass, and I think most of the issues I have are addressed. Indopug brings up a good point about the "later reception" section, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments

I think this article is good to go, but for "Later reception", which needs a rewrite. It's a rather dull read and needs to be made more compelling. There are endless variations of how the episode is "one of the best/highlights of the season/show"; there's no need to include a review just because it exists, try to make sure a review contributes to your narrative of why it is so good, even after so many years since its release. With this mind, many sentences—namely, the declarations of the episode's awesomeness from DVD Talk/Journal/etc—can be culled outright. Further, I think the section can be structured better: separate the reviews about Carter's unique direction, the kiss etc.

Also, prose: the section uses the word "episode" 32 times.—indopug (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on this tonight. Hopefully will be better tomorrow.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm working on it in my sandbox as well speak (type). It should be up by tonight.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much re-written the last section, and organized it according to: general praise, comments about directing, comments about conceit, and finally, the kiss. I also cut down on the use of "episode" and tried to make the prose better. Tell me how it looks now!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Good job.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Not sure how much weight this carries as I'm an active member of the relevant wikiproject but I feel that the article meets the criteria; I'm glad to back its promotion. GRAPPLE X 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- didn't see an image check above but from my own scrutiny the licensing appears okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2012 (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 promoted by GrahamColm 18:50, 1 August 2012 [7].

Clarence 13X

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other Americans who founded religions, Clarence 13X is a very interesting character. He was a gambler, a community activist, and the founder of the Five Percent Nation. Although he is not well known today, the group he founded, though often controversial, has survived and prospered. I think this is a well-researched, balanced account of his life, thanks in large part to the help of Crisco 1492, The Rambling Man, and Acdixon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492
Images are fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thankfully I had a skilled image reviewer do the GA review :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose and images. Stellar work as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all your help, glad to hear that you like it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one comment. The article notes that Clarence 13X had two sons with Willieen Jowers, one son with a follower named Gusavia, and "several sons" with Dora Smith. It further notes that Gottehrer said Clarence 13X offered to let him sleep with his teenage daughter. Where did the daughter come from? All we have mentioned in the article are sons. Otherwise, the article has been improved substantially since I peer reviewed it, and it was in pretty good shape then. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your thorough peer review and stopping by to support. Funny about the daughters thing, I recheck the page about his sons with Dora and it said they had daughters too. I must have overlooked that because the page was mostly about his thinking that sons were better than daughters. Hopefully this was one of those teachings that his followers adjusted over time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's hope so. Switching to unqualified support, as the issue above has been addresssed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few nitpicks from me—overall, this is a well-done article.

  • "and also disagreed with the NOI's teachings that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a divine messenger." The "also" is redundant to the previous word, and can safely be removed without altering meaning, which would make the sentence a shade tighter.
  • Early life and Nation of Islam: "In 1946, he moved to New York City with his mother, where they settled in Harlem." "where" is modifying "mother" with this positioning, not the city as is intended. Moving "with his mother" to before New York City should fix this little issue.
  • Founding the Five Percenters: The last four sentences of the section refer to Clarence 13X as "he", and three start with "He". A little more variety in both aspects would be good.
  • Death: "and the mayor later visited the Five Percenter's school to express condolences." "Percenter's" → "Percenters'"? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the read, those are great comments. I think I've taken care of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – I made one spacing fix while checking the responses. With that and the above out of the way, I'm satisfied that this meets all of the FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (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=prev&oldid=506381253

Leave a Reply