Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 27 November 2011

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Crescent Honeyeater

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC), Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Mdk572 (talk · contribs) and I have been buffing this article for a bit. It's got just about everything content-wise and formatted out. Prose has been tweaked here and there and I think it's in line with other featured bird articles. Have at it. There are two of us nomming so we should deal with comments double-quick :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Marj got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not following the page notation on FN 5 - translation please?

Clarified citation of a plate in an unpaginated work Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Marj aligned them Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments looks good, just some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Least Concern — Is this normally italicised in bird articles?

In my experience (limited) see White-bellied Sea Eagle Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Certhia — is it worth mentioning that this is because of an assumed relationship to the treecreepers?

Added Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• 0.3 birds per hectare (2.5 acres) — Surely the parenthetical bit should be the more helpful "birds per acre" (0.12 I make it) rather than just telling us how many acres to a hectare.

Changed both to convert birds not acres. Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• London, United Kingdom — a bit too American for my liking, also inconsistent with Oz publishers which are given as "Queensland" etc rather than "Australia". For major cities like London, Brisbane, Melbourne, this style is a bit too reminiscent of "Paris, France" for my British taste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're saying Paris isn't in Texas? Will go through the refs. Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Left ststes for Kenmore Hills and East Roseville, removed them from London, Paris Sydney. Marj (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going through doing a series of minor copyedits. Feel free to check through them and revert any that you don't like. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

looks good so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Finished. The text all reads fine to me now. --99of9 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Phylidonyris_pyrrhopterus_male.jpg: I got an error message trying to load the source, can you verify? This also applies to File:Crescent_Honeyeater_Male.jpg and File:Phylidonyris_pyrrhopterus_-_Austin's_Ferry.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The photographer is JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) who used to be known as "Noodle snacks", so is an active editor. Not sure why his personal website is down but not sure that impacts greatly on state of play as he uploaded them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Noodle snacks is the old username of User:JJ Harrison, who is a prolific contributor of own work on Commons. So this is own work, and the copyright release is fine. The URL is not provided as a source, but as his preferred attribution, but obviously it's down at the moment which he may or may not know about. --99of9 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support A concern I often raise regarding articles on Misplaced Pages is their general lack of readability. One must be an expert on the topic to benefit from the article; sometimes the outcome of the FA process as authors are pushed into greater technicality and detail to satisfy the experts in field. However, I found this article to be most clear and other than a minor concern over song flights (addressed on the talk page), I feel I leave with a solid understanding of our feathered friend. It addresses all the questions that a non-expert as myself may have regarding the natural history, morphology, and taxonomy of this bird. Assuming it meets the technical requirements; I feel confident the prose and content represent the highest of standards.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that - and thanks for queries on the talk page. Looking into them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

One Tree Hill (song)

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone. You know the drill by now; I feel the article is at the FAC level, it's been through GAN and PR, etc. But of course, what I think of the article is not as important as what you think of it! I bring you yet another U2 article; this one a single from The Joshua Tree. The song was written in memory of a friend of the band, who quite sadly was killed at a very young age. "One Tree Hill" is about his funeral. I hope that you all enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: Melicans normally does these song articles well, and this is no exception. Just a few points for action or consideration:-

• A caption to the music sample, explaining what part of the song the sample relates to, would be useful.
• "On a courier run in the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." Needs rephrasing; it was Carroll, not the car, on the courier run.
• Third paragraph of the "Inspiration" section: The reason for including the stuff about Castro and Jara is presumably to explain the inclusion of certain lyrics in the song, but this doesn't become clear unril the end of the paragraph. In my view there is rather too much background detail before then, which I found distracting (it seemed temporarily as though I had strayed into another article).. What is missing at this point (though there is a partial explanation later) is why Bono thought the reference to Jara's martyrdom was appropriate to a song dedicated to Carroll's memory.
• Finally, I'd echo a concern raised in the peer review, concerning the amount of directly quoted material. I think there is still too much, and that some paraphrase and/or reduction might be in order.

I look forward to an eventual full support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review (and for the compliment)! I've made the following changes:

• I've moved the file down to Composition and added a brief description. I didn't include a reference as both events are mentioned numerous times in the prose.
• I've rephrased it to "On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. In the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." It might need further tweaking (prose is not my strong point), but I think it does at least clarify that Carroll was on the courier run, not the car.
• I've tried to rephrase this also so that it is more coherant. Please let me know if there is more needed on this aspect.

• The paragraph is better now, but I think it still needs an extra sentence indicating why Bono felt inspired to add a lyric referencing a Chilean resistance hero in his tribute song to Carroll, who has no obvious connection with the Chilean resistance. Was it simply that he was moved by the story of death, albeit in different circumstances, of another young man of principle and promise? This seems to me to be the only thing of importance still missing from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• From memory, none of the sources explicitly state why that connection was made, they simply have a variation of "The song also references Victor Jara..." I'll definitely double check them all for it though once I have a chance to go to the library for the books I rented when crafting a few articles in September/October. Should have a definitive answer for you within the next few days for that point. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've tweaked it a little, and shifted the order in the section so that the Jara material comes at the end rather than in the middle of the narrative. That way, it is clear that the Jara lyric is one element, not the central element, in the song. I think this works better, but if you feel otherwise, please revert. Can I also suggest that you reword "after the hill he saw the first time he visited Auckland" to "after a hill he remembered from his visit to Auckland"? Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that shift was absolutely spot-on; the way it was before made it seem as if it was central to the song, rather than just a passing reference. I've also made your suggested tweak, along with a few other minor adjustments. Thanks again for your sharp eyes! Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I admittedly have a habit of overquoting, both on Misplaced Pages and in my school work, out of an ingrained fear that by not rewording/paraphrasing/etc enough it may be construed as a copyright violation. I tried to reword a bit during the PR and just prior to the nomination. I've since done a bit more in Reception. Are there any specific quoted parts that you think would do better as regular prose? I'm a bit leery about attempting anything on the religious theme as I admittedly know nothing of the subject.

Thanks once again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You have addressed my concerns, and I'm happy to support now, subject to sources and image clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the improvements and for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support with the changes identified above. I did the GA review of this article and agree with Brianboulton's proposed changes that the article will meet FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not strictly a sourcing point, but be sure to check WP:MOS details - I noticed some spaced emdashes, for example
• Ranges should consistently use endashes
• Are the album notes paginated? Also, not sure the "Canada" is really helpful, unless the Canadian version is different. Applies also to subsequent album citations
• FN 17: pages? Print sources without web links need page numbers in general; there are a few others missing
• Live Nation or LiveNation? Check for naming consistency
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not
• Where is Longwood? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sourcing review, Nikkimaria.

• I think I have caught and fixed all the em/endash mistakes, but it is something I am unfamiliar with so there may be some hyphens that should be endashes and vice-versa.
• The album booklet (more a short book that was included with the boxset) does not have page numbers inside. I could count them though if that is necessary for that citation template.
• The content is not different, but the publisher id number (PID) is. These can vary from country to country, even when the record label and album contents are identical. The same is true for the singles. Because of the PID I also included the location for accuracy/completeness.
• FN 17 was a reprinted article in a magazine cobbled together by the editors of Uncut 2 years ago. Said magazine contained old articles from numerous other magazines, as well as fresh reviews on the albums themselves (FN 12 is an example of the fresh review). I'm unsure how to represent the reprinted article in that though, as it was originally published in Melody Maker, not Uncut. Do you have any advice for that instance? The remainder were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers, and which I cannot link to directly due to potential copyright infringement concerns on their end.
• I have fixed both instances to Live Nation; I think it was a simple spacing error that I missed.
• I only saw one instance of inconsistancy regarding the use of publishers for newspapers and that has now been fixed.
• Florida added after Longwood.

Thank you again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For FN 17, you could use a "Republished from..." with a nested cite template / citation (haven't checked whether you're using templates). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've nested this correctly (I don't see any errors cropping up in the Reference section from this change), but it is my first time trying to nest something like this. How does it look to you? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. My only comment on that would be to be consistent in whether editors are listed first or last name first (actually, looking again, this applies to authors too). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is all taken care of now for the print sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Is this how we really right a chord progression as in this line "...chord progression of C–F–B♭–F–C..."? I have seen some FAs and its written in roman numerals, for example in "Hey Ya!. --Efe (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware the current format is fine. I don't know of any MOS policy saying it has to be written a specific way, and other song FAs I have been the primary contributor to ("City of Blinding Lights" and "Mothers of the Disappeared") are done the same way as this article and had no issues in that regard during the candidacy process. If I'm honest, as someone who is barely literate in music (I can make out time signature and tempo and that is about it), I wouldn't even know how to convert it to Roman numerals (another editor helped me out a great deal in that particular paragraph). Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Roman numerals are one of several ways to represent chords and chord progressions, but there are other accepted ways. See WP:MOSMUSIC. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is is correctly written then? --Efe (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes (at least given the source we have for it). Sheet music from other sources may vary in some details, but what we have in the article is correct according to the source that I have. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Media review - no concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport - Hello, Melicans. This article is looking great and few people know how to write a song article so well. A few concerns and I'll be happy to give a support:

• I am not fully satisfied with the first two sentences, the first of which is very short. May I suggest putting them together so that we have a more complete thought? How about: "'One Tree Hill' is a song by rock band U2 and is the ninth track from their 1987 album The Joshua Tree." This also helps deal with the two consecutive sentences that start with "It..."
• "It was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia in March 1988, while "In God's Country" was released as the fourth single in North America." - Could this be re-worded so that the first clause does not have two "in"s very close to eachother?
• Is there a specific day in March 1988 when the song premiered?
• "The song was a hit in New Zealand" - the body of the article does not seem to say anything about the song being a hit in NZ, only saying that it charted at No. 1.
• "'One Tree Hill" was favourably received by critics..." - How about shifting "favourably" to after the word "received"? I know this is not particularly a split infinitive, but moving the adverb reads a bit better. If you decide to, I suggest to do the same in the Release and critical response section.
• "with most renditions occurring" - A controversial structure, because of the fused participle and the poor use of the work "with". Try "as most renditions occurred". Similar concern here: "with a sample of The Edge's guitar playing".
• Per MOS:QUOTE, we do not link inside quotations.
• MOS suggests that when placing ellipses in quotations, we have spaces on both sides of it, and an nbsp would be placed before the ellipses.
• "Colm O'Hare of Hot Press believed The Edge's guitar riff personified the lyric 'run like a river runs to the sea'." - I think there would be a "the" before "Hot Pres", similar to "the Washington Post".
• "All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." - how about we write this as a complete sentence?

Just nitpicks I know. But this is all I feel is needed to polish this article up to FA standards. Keep up the effort on the articles of one of the best bands of all time. —WP:PENGUIN · 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on comments

• Not sure where the March 1988 date came from. Can't find any sources to back that up, so one needs to be found. But when it comes to single release dates, it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint a specific day of the month when it was released.
• Adding "the" before Hot Press is not necessary because "the" is not part of the journal's title (unlike The Washington Post, not just Washington Post). That would be like saying "the Newsweek" or "the Time".
• "All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." is generated automatically by the {{track listing}} template. It's not a complete sentence because it is written the way it would appear in a release's liner notes.

–Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have struck through two of my queries. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedian Penguin; thanks for your comments (and thank you Dream out loud for addressing some of them in my absence). I probably won't be able to address all of your points for a few days, as I am heading back to Ottawa for my final exam of the term tomorrow morning and will be studying quite hard after I am there! I was unable to find a specific day in March that the single was released. The March 1988 date is found in the liner notes of the 2007 remastered boxset edition of The Joshua Tree. I will try to get to the rest of your points as soon as I am able. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay, and thanks very much for your patience. Here are my comments on the points that you brought up:

• Reworded per your recommendation.
• I've reworded it to "In March 1988 it was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia" which I think reads a little better.
• No specific date that we know of; even the band's official material (remastered boxset described above and I believe the U2 by U2 book) only says March 1988.
• You're right, I was probably reading a little too much into that. Thanks for the catch; I've rephrased it to "The release charted at number one on the New Zealand singles chart."
• So done.
• Looks like somebody beat me to the renditions part. Rephrased the sample part to "The song begins with a highlife-influenced riff by The Edge on guitar, which repeats in the background throughout the song."
• I only caught one instance of linking inside quotes and that's now been fixed. If there's any I've missed, please let me know!
• Wow, I didn't know ellipses needed spaces. You learn something new every day! MOS recommends the non-breaking spaces "only as needed to prevent improper line breaks". I couldn't see any portion where that was an issue and so I have ommitted them.

I think that addresses all of the points you raised. If there was anything I missed, or something further that comes to your attention, please let me know! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Supported. I spotcheck would be nice. Great work though! —WP:PENGUIN · 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll ask around and see if anyone will be willing to do a spotcheck. Thanks for the reminder! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck (I think we probably need to recruit someone who loves doing music-entertainment-popculture spotchecks and someone who loves doing science-medicine-zoology spotchecks; I find both these difficult because they use a different citation culture). I'm a labour historian, not an Irish studies scholar. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • fns 2, 4, 6, 9, 24, 32 (AGF off the quote) clear

**The quote at 4a is in the book, but it isn't at p. 157 in the same ISBN as the one you've cited.

• • 4b This anecdote spans two pages, neither of which you cite
  • 4c And the citations aren't even all on the same page
  • 4d Still different pages, and Bono describes it as a "love affair" (in the sense of an intense, limited experience; not pashing)
  • 6a Not at that page in the edition you've cited
  • 6b Again, and there's no mention of Bono's wife in the copy I read
  • 6c On another radically different page which conflicts with the page for 6b, agrees with 6a's actual page, but conflicts with the page cited for 6
  • The paragraph "On 3 July 1986..." seems to be largely comprised out of stitched together quotes of PRIMARY sources on a theme; how is this acceptable for encyclopaedic music writing? Where's the secondary source that emphasises the centrality of the Greg Experience to the creation of one tree hill, why isn't this source front an centre with the quotes hanging off it?

**9 not at these page locations with the ISBN you're citing.

• • So my concerns are about something really weird with the book citations. Quite frankly I don't understand how you're 50 pages out, and how multiple cites sharing the same footnote number are actually on different pages. From your style of writing and citing through the McCormick primary source and through the three secondaries I checked you look clear—this page number issue is curious. Similarly I'm rather concerned about the reliance on PRIMARY sources, this is the second time I've done a rock FAC and it seems to be an attempt to connect with authenticity. The problem is: when you compare this to Blonde on Blonde, BoB uses secondary sources for the narrative and then hangs primary source quotes and anecdotes "off of" secondary sources that have already established weight and narrative. As lovely as Greg may have been, I find it difficult to consider as encyclopaedic an attempt to write him in when he's not appearing in secondary sources on One Tree Hill. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • That is... really unusual about the page numbers. What are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I did a quick search on Google Books and, though what came up is the 2006 German hardcover edition (I could not find the 2006 English hardcover edition available for preview, which is what I own and used for this referencing), it confirms that everything cited in FN 4 is there on page 157. The Ali reference is cited to FN 4, not 6. FN 6b is regarding his working for U2 in Dublin and joining their tour as crew. The search link above for the German edition does not show 177, but if you click 178 and then scroll up one page you can see it is there. Likewise, all the details in FN 9a-d is shown to be on page 178. It's really weird and I'm guessing it only seems to be an issue for the McCormick references as all of the page discrepencies you pointed out come from that book?
      • Fix your reference citation and ISBN. Your bibliography says you're using a (iirc) London edition with a particular ISBN that doesn't relate to the german hardcover. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I am using the London edition (as I noted above). That's why I'm confused as to why the page numbers differ between my copy of the book and what you used to check them. The German pages were linked just to show that the information is there on the pages cited, though using a different language source to demonstrate this was probably not the best example. I ask again, what are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I really don't understand how my edition and your spotcheck source differ so wildly. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • (Fucking Amazon "Just so you know... This view is of the Paperback edition (2009) from It Books. The Hardcover edition (2006) from HarperCollins that you originally viewed is the one you'll receive if you click the Add to Cart button on the left.") I apologise, I didn't expect such seriously fucked up behaviour from a bookseller. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Oh, no worries at all! I knew something wonky was going on, but didn't have a clue where in the chain of events it was. I'm glad that page discrepency has been resolved; I was beginning to wonder if I'd spaced out and entered the wrong page numbers! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure how Stokes (FN 5a-f) and de la Parra (FN 8a-d), both of which are (partially) used in the paragraph describing Carroll's death, constitute primary sources as neither author worked with or on behalf of the band; certainly neither are 'insiders' (as WP:PRIMARY puts it). The Stokes book is mainly the author's take based on multiple interviews with the band by (other) music journalists. The de la Parra book is mostly used to source the dates and, as far as I'm aware, he never even met the band. The McCormick citations in that paragraph are undisputably Primary; but at the same time it is used primarily (heh) to relate the state of emotions felt by the individual band members at the news, and in no other source do they discuss it so candidly. PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source ... any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." As there is no analysis or interpretation occurring based on these primary sources and in this paragraph they are almost exclusively used for quotations (the one exception I saw being 9d), I would think that FN 6 and FN 9 meet the acceptable use of "straighforward, descriptive statements". Can you please clarify? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • If the first two paras of inspiration are so essensial, why are they cited to Primaries, if they're not essensial, why are they there. The story has been constructed, and weighted, out of primaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I still believe that the use of primary sourcing in the secondary paragraph, used only for quotes which I believe to be an acceptable use per my reading of PRIMARY, is not of any particular concern (especially because in no other source available have the feelings of the band members been discussed in any detail). As the quotes are "straightforward, descriptive statements" and I am in no way analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating said quotes, I think that their use is fine (save for 9d, which is covered also in the de la Parra source and shall be immediately removed).
        • Though we disagree on paragraph 2, I concur that the primary sourcing in paragraph 1 is of concern. I don't have my books on me right now (only came home last night, won't go back to my apartment until the New Year; argh!), but I'll try to find some alternate sources for those details and ping someone who does have access to a fair few U2 books so that those primary sources can be replaced with appropriate secondary sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • You don't even need to replace the primary sources, you simply need to demonstrate that the weight and emphasis is that findable in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Oh, okay. That makes it a bit easier. Since I don't have access to my books at the moment I've asked another member of the U2 WikiProject if he would be able to check through his for some corroborating citations. It's getting late here (minutes away from midnight), so I'll try to get to a search through my school's online library for appropriate secondary sources tomorrow. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I've added a few sources to the first paragraph based on a check of Google Books. I hope this makes it somewhat better. Scrolling through the Google Books pages it looks like Carroll's inspiration on the song is discussed fairly often; but alas, they are all limited to "Snippet view"! Frustrating! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 .

Live Show

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC) and User:ThinkBlue

I am nominating this for featured article because it easily passed GA and taking a look at other FA television episode articles (e.g. Road to the Multiverse), I think that this is of comparable quality. ThinkBlue helped me write this, so I'm posting to his talk as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Preliminary comment: As 30 Rock is aired in HD, it would be better to take a screenshot from a HD stream and downscale it rather than taking a screenshot from a downscaled stream. It's not a major issue; it's rather general advice regarding image fidelity, as a) I know that NBC/Universal doesn't do Blu-Ray releases for its television properties, and b) I can't tell in this instance if you've used a SD or HD stream. Sceptre 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, ellipses should not be bracketed
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines/newspapers
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:30_Rock_-_Live_Show.jpg: should mention this is the main infobox image, need to identify copyright holder
• File:SNL_stage.jpg: it is unclear to me what the copyright status of a set would be wrt freedom of panorama laws in the US. Can you clarify?
• File:11.4.10UprightCitizensBrigadeTheatreByLuigiNovi1.jpg, based on the description, would seem to require caption attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partially done Can CC-BY-SA demand an attribution on each article? WP:CAPTION says that "Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Usually not, but in this case it appears that the photographer has requested one. It also seems that he's an active Wikipedian, so you could ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved I'll swap it out for File:Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre, New York City.jpg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I am a little surprised at the lack of substantive comments during this FAC, but I'll do what I can to get some discussion going. This show does not air in England (unless it's on some remote pay-to-view channel) so I know nothing about it.

• I don't understand the hatnote: For the television terminology, see live television. What am I being asked to do here?
• I am curious to know if there is any particular reason why, from I guess 100+ episodes, you chose this particular one to push for featured status. Was it particularly well received, or does it have any particular characteristic that stands it apart from the others? This is not of course relevant to the article's possible FA status, but it would be interesting to know.
• This should be a standalone article, not requiring any particular knowledge of the series to understand it. From this perspective, as a newcomer to the show I found the abbreviated plot synopsis in the lead difficult to understand. The summary needs to be preceded by a line or two of context, indicating the general nature of the series. For example, if this was an episode from Frasier I'd expect you to say something like: "Frasier records the lives and loves, trials and triumphs of Seattle radio psychiatrist Frasier Crane and his family and friends". That way I would get my bearings.
• Another confusion: The main plot section begins: "Liz Lemon (Tina Fey)...", yet the infobox refers to "Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Liz Lemon in cut-away sequences". There is no doubt a simple explanation for this
• Prose issues
  • Why "an homage"? The "h" is not silent
  • "In the final act of the show, Jack conspires with the cast and crew to give Liz a last-minute birthday surprise which he wants to appear like they planned all along and Carol safely lands his plane." Two wholly separate events should not joined in the same sentence by an "and". Also, grammar: "which he wants to appear like they planned all along". Perhaps "which he wants to appear as though it had been planned all along."
  • Likewise, the next sentence loses control of itself: "All they can muster on short notice is a polka band and a large cake with Fonzie on it—gifts that were intended to celebrate janitor Jadwiga's (Rachel Dratch) birthday, who proceeds to ruin the TGS goodnights and tear into the cake with her bare hands." This is two sentences, with a natural break after "birthday", followed by "She proceeds..."
  • A recurrent issue in the prose section is the insertion of the actor's name after a possessive, e.g. "Dr. Leo Spaceman's (Chris Parnell) new album...", "Drew Baird's (Jon Hamm) public service announcement..." etc. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but it reads very awkwardly (try reading it out loud). Is there any other way of imparting this information that does not fracture the sentence?
  • There are other mega-length sentences. I'm not going to list them all, but, for example: "The decision was made in part due to lagging ratings for all of NBC's Must-See TV line-up, and the idea was originally conceived during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, when the cast performed two live versions of the season two episode "Secrets and Lies" as a benefit at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in New York City." Later in the section the sentence beginning "In addition, the two episodes..." is even longer. Work out ways of splitting these, and look out for others.
  • "The two separate recordings of the episode resulted in a live telecast to American viewers in both the East and West Coasts of the United States..." Why are we talking about "recordings"? I understood we had two live performances.
  • Insert "as" before "Aladdin"
  • Women don't "deliver" their children

I will check out the last couple of sections to see what else needs fixing, but perhaps you would respond to these points. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Response I'm glad that you're not familiar with the show--it will provide excellent perspective on the topic. I guess I'll go point-by-point:

• Fixed?
• Simply because I worked on it. It's a somewhat notable episode, for having been broadcast live, but it's not exactly ground-breaking. The co-nom for this has brought several 30 Rock-related articles to GA status solo, but we collaborated for this one.
• Better?
• Is this intelligible now? The joke is that the show is shot live, but there are multiple sets, so when the camera cuts away, one actress is portraying the character in one locale and a different one is portraying her in the other. Is this communicated now?
• Prose issues
  • This may be an ENGVAR issue, but I've only ever heard "homage" pronounced "oh-mahj."
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done-ish. As I pointed out in the GA process, prose is my biggest weakness. I'll keep on going through it to work on the awkward phraseology.
  • Good point. Done.
  • Done.
  • Obviously. Done.

I'd like to think this is a good start and that this article can be easily promoted, even if it is not up to FA status at the moment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:38, 28 November 2011 .

Olek

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the primary editor for this article. I feel it offers a fairly definitive overview of this living artist, her work, and exhibition history. I'm wondering whether this GA article might be worth of FA status.

Interesting note: despite the presumed limited audience for fibre art/performance art, it had 23900 views on the front page, when it appeared as DYK. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't want to discourage you from trying to improve your work, but the article has received very little preparation as far as I can see, before this nomination. Have you read the featured article criteria, or taken any prior steps to see whether the article meets these criteria? I'm not sure what counts as a "good article" these days, but I think you were misled by your GA reviewer; this is C-class, no more. In its present form the article has no structure, just a single section following a short lead. There is no background information, no critical or NPOV analysis of the artist's works, little in fact beyond a list of the works she has done and her future exhibition plans. Prose is sometimes telegraphic, delivered in short choppy paragraphs. There is illiteracy ("Olek has exhibiting in the United States..." is one example). Some of the references are unformatted, others (e.g. Facebook) are highly dubious from a RS perspective. It can take days, weeks or months to prepare a featured article, not minutes; I'm sorry, but at present this is nowhere near. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with the other reviewer's comments above. The article requires extensive further preparation and expansion. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, but some related text from The New York Times is now behind a subscription wall and I cannot conduct a thorough search, but I would have done if this nomination had any chance of success. Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:38, 28 November 2011 .

Otis Redding

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_TN 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

After an unsuccessful GAN; copyeditors helped to improve the prose; reviewers helped to construct the article (this was the latest version until I started to develop it on my sandbox), I now believe it meets the FA criteria and I myself don't see any issues. I would also like to see it on the mainpage in Dec 10.♫GoP♫_TN 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. I don't want to be at all discouraging but the nomination is premature. The GAN was not successful and the issues raised there have not been fully addressed. The subsequent peer review was closed after only seven days and I think more patience was required – reviewers should have been solicited. The prose, although not far off GA standard, is long way off FA standards. Here's a sentence taken at random from the article, "Redding's wife was dissatisfied that it did not sound like a typical Redding song". It's clunky, clumsy prose. And here, "The Stax crew were similarly dissatisfied; Jim Stewart thought that it was not R&B, while bassist Duck Dunn thought its sound would damage Stax". For a sound to cause damage it has to be pretty powerful. Does this mean "Stax's reputation"? There are many more examples of non-professional writing throughout the article. It needs to go back to peer review and this nomination withdrawn. Graham Colm (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I closed this peer review because I asked so many editos to review it, but nobody had time, were inactive or had no desire to perform a top-to-bottom review. 7 days is very long; I am pretty sure that an experienced reviewer is able to polish the prose of a short article like this in minimum 1 day. I don't know how much time you spent to write this comment, but if you could name just examples, why others can not? --♫GoP♫_TN 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfstevens performed another copyedit. How is the prose now?--♫GoP♫_TN 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry GreatOrangePumpkin, but as you pointed out at my talk page, it isn't ready yet. In addition to the article's problems with prose that you commented on at my talk, I'm also seeing WP:MOS inconsistencies, sourcing issues (Find a Grave, for example, is not a high-quality reliable source), and media concerns (non-free samples are meant to be no more than 10% of total song length - File:These_Arms_of_Mine_-_Otis_Redding.ogg is nearly 20%). I understand it's frustrating to struggle to find reviewers, but your best bet would be to go through a successful GAN/PR first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reduced file; removed Find A Grave.--♫GoP♫_TN 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 .

Derek Jeter

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Third time is the charm? I acknowledge that this article wasn't close to FA the first time I nominated it. The second time, I dealt with all of the issues except shoddy prose before it was failed. I felt time should have been extended because I was actively working on it. So, I took some time and I feel that now, this page is ready to be promoted to FA status. Whatever problems remain should be minor enough for me to handle in a short amount of time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why so many citations in the lead? Most of this material should be cited in the article body instead
• Source for 2002 ESPY?
• "Jeter returned to bat .324, losing the batting title to Bill Mueller, who batted .326." - source?
• "Jeter won his second consecutive Gold Glove in 2005, as his low range factor rose to 4.76 and ranked second among AL shortstops." - source? Check for other statements lacking sources
• Be consistent in how web citations are notated
• Be consistent in when publishers are included
• Check wikilinking for consistency
• Book sources need page numbers
• Don't write titles in all-caps
• Publications should generally be italicized
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
• Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
• FN 80: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

In general, citation format should be made much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I think I have fixed citations to be consistent. I may have missed a few things here and there. Regarding FanGraphs and TheBaseballCube, we do consider these reliable statistics-based sites. LoHud Blogs are written by beat writers of The Journal News and published by the same newspaper. Regarding the inline citations, (1) is it a problem to have those things cited in the lead? I am sure that those things are mentioned in the body as well. I can remove the citations if you prefer. As for (2) citations that are also external links, I added citations to in text where it was suggested in the second FAC try that statistics should have inline citations. Should I remove them and refer people to the external links section? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – These are more content-based than what I usually offer, both because I know a lot about the subject and because FAC has been called out on the carpet for not having enough of this.

• There are a bunch of paragraphs that don't have citations at the end. This means that at least some content is likely uncited, and it makes me wonder how much of the rest is well-supported by the sources.
• I think the Jeter–Chad Curtis "confrontation" is given some undue weight by having an entire paragraph devoted to it. That's longer than the paragraph on his 1999 season in general, and the incident really wasn't that significant in the grand scheme of things.
• "Jeter's tentative deal fell through, and he agreed to a one-year deal for $10 million." If I'm not mistaken, I rememeber Jeter winning a salary arbitration case that year. I don't think it was merely an agreement between he and the team.
• The performance in the 2000 World Series is kind of glossed over. We only get his statistics and the fact that he won the World Series MVP award. To me, this is at least as worthy of extended commentary as the catches against Oakland and Boston. It could at least be said that he hit a home run on the first pitch of Game 4, and another in the clincher.
• The 2001 November statistics are given, but no general playoff statistics. I'd say that they should be added, because his statistics weren't great if the World Series home run isn't considered. I've seen an explanation that he was playing injured after making a tumbling catch in the last game against Oakland. Not sure if you can source all this, but it sounds at least somewhat useful to me.
• I don't see anything sourcing that Jeter tied or broke the old Yankee Stadium hits record. The source at the end of this paragraph just covers his speech at the last Yankee Stadium game. It's crucial that what's in the article can be verified by a source.
  • Jeter tying the Yankee Stadium hits record still needs a cite; the new ref only covers him breaking the record. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Added a source of his tying the record. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• From 2009–present: "based on the rationale that Jeter has a higher on-base percentage than Damon, but grounds into double plays more often." This is sorely in need of an update, given that Johnny Damon hasn't played for the Yankees in two years.
• Something else to fix: "behind the Minnesota's Joe Mauer...". One word too many in there.
• A couple of suggestions for the Player profile section. First, I would consider moving the Postseason performance sub-section to here; it seems like a better fit here than after the season summaries. Given how his postseason accomplishments are what people really talk about when profiling him, I think there's some logic to doing it that way. Second, reference 20 has some interesting items about Jeter's confidence, how he's an aggressive hitter, and how he could still get hits even while having trouble with his swing. Adding one or two things from here would really help strengthen this section, which doesn't have that much in the way of details.
  • Well, he can't literally swing at every pitch in the strike zone, or he would never have a called strike against him. No one in baseball history can have that said about them, no matter how great they are at hitting. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point. Fixed. Although I could go inserting Derek Jeter facts in this article to really improve it... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Check refs 27 and 36 for some citation formatting bugs that should be resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • While here, it looks like refs 26 and 27 are the same and can be combined. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Whoops. Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On it. According to Cot's Contracts (which I believe is reliable), Jeter and the Yankees avoided arbitration in 2000, but I'll look for news sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay. I have ref'd up things that needed refs, including the 2000 contract. I've made sure that every paragraph ends with a ref. I took out the Chad Curtis incident entirely, which I agree is not important in the long run. I think your idea of moving the "postseason" section to the "player profile" section is a great idea, so I did it. All the other fixes are made.
  • I do wonder your opinion of the sourcing of statistics with BR using inline citations, which the above reviewer commented on. I want to know if I should make that change or if it's okay as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd definitely leave the cites, unless there's another reliable source you can easily replace the BR refs with. I can't say that it bothers me that much, but I do think Nikki's right that the guidelines discourage repeating sources as ELs. I'd lean toward taking the EL out, rather than the other way around. Oh, and you're right about him having no arbitration in 2000. The case I was thinking of was actually in 1999. My mistake. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It's hard to remember who went to arbitration last year, let alone more than ten years ago. I removed BR from the ELs. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I have read the lead and first section and have found several prose issues which make me think this article is not quite ready yet. The prose is choppy and repetitive and it is hard to follow for this reason. I have had a quick scan of the remainder of the article and see other similar issues. I would recommend a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved copy-editor. I have listed some concerns below but these are examples only and the prose needs looking at very carefully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of lead: out of 8 sentences, 5 begin "Jeter" or "He". The other three start with short phrases (The following year, In addition, Through 2011), followed by "he" or "Jeter".
• Third paragraph of lead: Three sentences all beginning Jeter. Then the first sentence of the fourth paragraph begins "Jeter". The other two sentences also begin with nouns which adds to the repetitive effect. And the last sentence of the first paragraph begins "he". Out of 13 consecutive sentences, 10 begin outright with "he" or "Jeter". This makes for very heavy going and is not FA level prose.
• I notice similar problems in the Early life section. There seems to be a simple, repetitive sentence structure of noun-verb-subject, with short additional phrases in one or two sentences. The overall effect is a series of short, choppy, disjointed sentences. I would suggest rewording a few sentences to give some variety; for example "Jeter became inspired to play baseball by watching Dave Winfield play with the Yankees" could easily be altered to "Watching Dave Winfield play with the Yankees inspired…"
• The paragraphs in this section are also on the short side: The third paragraph is three sentences, the fourth and fifth are two sentence, the sixth is one sentence.
• "earning an All-State honorable mention": jargon which should be explained for the non-expert.
• "Jeter was scouted extensively by Hal Newhouser…" I understand the intention, but the effect is a bit jargony. How can one person scout extensively? A better effect may be to spell it out: "Houston Astros scout Hal Newhouser watched Jeter play many times…"
• "and the speculation was that he would insist on a salary bonus of $1 million or more to forgo his college scholarship and sign.": Speculation from whom? To sign for whom: the previous sentence says the Astros did NOT sign him. Sign what? Why would someone of this age be worth so much? Why so much speculation?
• I'm not sure this section really hangs together to say how good he was. It mentions awards and the prospective giant contract, but nothing really says that X thought he was going to be brilliant. Dry stats do not really give this impression, particularly to the non-specialist.
• "the only place Derek Jeter's going is to Cooperstown" What is Coopertown? (Sorry for my ignorance, but there may be many readers who wonder this).
• The end of this section jumps all over the place. Scouted by the Astros, turned down by the Astros in favour of Nevin, baseball scholarship, giant contract speculation, Nevin signs for Astros, scout quits, Yankees (when did they come into the picture) sign him, will he attend college, no he's going to Cooperstown (? See above), turns professional, signs. There is no narrative behind this and that makes it hard to follow.
• Not an opposable issue, but I always have reservations about FACs for current sportsmen and women. What is to say that they will not have a huge number of events in their lives which need adding before they retire and how can be guarantee that additions will keep the standards high enough for a FA? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• I just realised I opposed this article last time as well, for some very similar reasons. I would have hoped that these issues would have been fixed before it was renominated here. To re-iterate, I would recommend a thorough copy-edit by someone who has not spent any time on this article to give it some fresh eyes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • All good points, which I will try to address by the end of the week. Regarding that last issue, I can understand that things will change for Jeter between now and his retirement, but most things will not change. He's under contract with the Yankees until he's nearly 40, at which point he's likely to retire. Mariano Rivera, which is FA, is a good article for comparison to this one, or at least it will be once I improve this article's prose enough. Rivera, like Jeter, has been an active Yankee since the mid-1990s.At most, he could try to play for another season or two after this. His status as a future Hall of Famer has been pretty well established by the first sixteen seasons of his career, and anything else he does from here would be basically icing on the cake. That said, if I can't get this passed to FA status, I probably won't try again until after his retirement. The prose at this article is certainly better than it was as of its last nomination, and I hope I can get it up to FA status soon. I'll give it a thorough prose rewrite and see if I can recruit a helper. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough on his career probably winding down. I would never oppose on this issue alone but always like to check how much "change" is likely. It is more of a concern when very young sportsmen are put up at FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've improved the prose in the first sections, somewhat. Perhaps not enough to sway you yet, but I am enlisting help and will take a deeper look myself. While I agree that sentences shouldn't be repetitive, it's hard to make many of them anything but "noun-verb-clause", which I don't think should make one oppose the FA nomination.
• After considering the content of your comments, I notice that a lot of them stem from the fact that you don't understand baseball, which is my fault because that means the page isn't accessible enough (for instance, Cooperstown, New York is the hometown of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, and since that's cumbersome to say, we simply say "Cooperstown" as a synonym for "Hall of Fame", which I've now made clear through prose). I've tried to add a little bit more to explain amateur scouting (amateur players get paid substantial amounts of money just to make them turn pro). Newhouser's quitting in protest and Groch's Cooperstown comment should indicate just how highly they regarded Jeter. I hope that's sufficiently clear now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked again in detail yet and won't until the copy-editing is finished. A quick glance seemed marginally better, but I should point out that 1a of the FA criteria states that a FA is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." In my view, sentences such as those you mention would not meet this criteria if there were too many following that structure. On your second comment, the Cooperstown thing seems much clearer now. I know it is tricky in these articles to keep it clear enough for the general reader but not diluting the baseball side of things too much. I have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the game but can follow the gist usually, and only comment about it when I am lost completely! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've started copyediting the article, and I've noticed some key things that are missing. First, no mention is made of Jeter being All-Star Game MVP in 2000, which I believe was the first time a player was MVP of the World Series and All-Star Game in the same season. In fact, no mention is made of him making the All-Star team until his 9th selection. Also, I think it would be good to get a quote from Jeter after being named captain. After all, it was his dream to play for the Yankees and here he is being named captain! Actually, a few quotes from Jeter sprinkled throughout the article wouldn't hurt. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh. Coulda sworn the AS MVP was in prose. I'll fix that and try to add quotes tomorrow. The issue there is that, as beat writers are on the record saying, Jeter doesn't give good copy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I added mention of his ASG and WS MVP awards. I will add detail on his All-Star game selections tonight, and try to find a quote or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"He just says he wants me to be a leader, like I have been. The impression I got is just continue to do the things I've been doing."

• • • I'm in the process of editing the prose to mention his All-Star appearances. However, I don't know that adding any quotes from Jeter will help. To the right is a quote from Jeter on being named captain. Pretty ho hum if you ask me. I'll look further to see if there's anything more interesting, but as Mark Feinsand of the Daily News beat said, "He's not the most interesting quote in the world; that's by design." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be worth adding something about his very scrawny build when he was first signed to the Yankees organization. Sounds like there were quite a few doubts whether he could be a big-time player in such a skinny frame. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can do that. There's a NYT article I saw where Andy Pettitte made a comment along those lines. I'll add it after lunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 22:26, 9 January 2012 .

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Nominator(s): • Astynax and Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, is widely regarded as Brazil's greatest soldier. He fought in his country's independence war and several other international wars. He also quelled rebellions in the early reign of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. Not only that, he was a member of the Conservative Party, became senator for life and was prime minister in three different occasions.

As you can see, this is a man who did a lot in his lifetime. To bring so much information in one short, single place, Astynax and I had to do a lot of homework. It took almost six months to bring this article from this to its present form. As we usually do as a team, I wrote the article and Astynax copy edited it. Not content enough, we asked Clarityfiend (from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to improve whatever was necessary on grammar, prose, or anything related to it. Fifelfoo was also kind enough to check all sources on the peer review we requested. Having said all this, we believe the article is good enough to be ranked among other Featured Articles.

The ones who had a chance to take a look at both Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil will certainly feel at home here. Have a good reading. Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Dank. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Given the command of loyal forces, from 1839 until 1845, he put down uprisings": did he have have the command of the forces from 1839 to 1845, or put down uprisings during that time? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Both. You'll see in the main text. --Lecen (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Lecen (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• "he was officially designated as the army's tutelary patron, and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition.": I'm just pulling this out so others can comment on it.
• Otherwise, the lead section looks very good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't generally deal with and don't have a good feel for referencing, but it's possible that some will argue that the article is overreferenced ... for instance, his height, hair color, eye color, and "round face" are supported by 5 references, 3 if you don't count duplicates. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• "In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the 1st and 5th year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the 1st to 7th year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the 2nd year in 1820 and the 3rd year in 1821,": I'm sorry I don't follow ... for instance, are you saying he was supposed to take certain classes during his first and fifth years at the school, but took them in his first and second years instead?
• I'm not sure how to interpret the link to "bullying"; what constitutes bullying has changed quite a bit, even from decade to decade and country to country. It might be better to say briefly what he did that merited reprimands. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dank.

1) Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprise if another reviewer appeared here and complained about how the article is underreferenced. Could we keep until the article is promoted? I'll remove after that. Is that ok to you?

I don't generally deal with refs and don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk)

2) He and his friends used to force the freshmen to handle them their money, he beated them, made pranks, etc... Isn't that bullying?

Okay, then "bullying" works for me. I'll remove the link, because I think the link raises more questions than it will answer for most readers. - Dank (push to talk)

3) The entire course in the Military Academy was ran for seven years. A student who wanted to graduate as infrantyman had to take classes in the 1st and 5th year. He could simply ignore the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th years. That didn't mean that this student had to wait other 4 years until he could take classes in the 5th year. He could finish the 1st year and start the 5th year on the following year. --Lecen (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow that, but I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Each year in the Military Academy had different disciplines. To graduate as an infranty man, Caxiad had to graduate in all disciplines of the first and fifth years. He took classes of the first year in 1819 and of the fifth in 1820. He was not obliged to take classes in the first year, then second, then third, etc... He could "skip" the non-obligatory years. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:ORDINAL, ordinal numbers up to "ninth" should generally be written out, except when they're part of a name (so, keep "1st Fusilier Battalion"). "4th" etc. generally needs to be written out. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• "one of Caxias' uncles (died 1837) joined the rebels.": This doesn't quite work in scholarly English. If you can make a case that the uncle was notable, then a link (even a red link) on his name would be best. Or, you could leave the date of death out if it's not important. Otherwise, if he was born in 1787, I'd go with: "one of Caxias' uncles (, 1787–1837) joined the rebels." - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He was actually of the same age as Caxias. I thought it was important to add him to show how his family behaved and how different Caxias was. The date of his uncle's death was given so that readers wouldn't be wondering if there was a "Lima e Silva vs. Lima e Silva" showdown, each on a different side. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• To other reviewers: note that I don't read Portuguese and I can't speak to the accuracy of any translations. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The following is copied from my talk page. The issues aren't serious enough to withhold support, but I'm hoping someone will sort it all out.
• Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:
• In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. He took classes in the Royal Military Academy that ranged from arithmetic ...
• Now it looks like this:
• The the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves was only needed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic ...
• Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to shorten it; let me know if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I have some issues with the changes. If you read it again, you'll think that artillerymen and engineers study in a different course, not on the same as the infantrymen. You also removed "...subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from..." which will lead anyone to believe that he only studied "math, geometry, tactics, strategy, camping, campaign fortifications and terrain reconnaissance". There was a lot more on the curriculum than that. Now take a look at the next section ('Independence of Brazil'). It mentions that he was about to begin the fourth year in the academy but dropped it. Without the reference to the other years, this will look weird. You must also remember that "1st year", "2nd year", etc... do not mean "his first year in the academy" or "his second year in the academy", etc... The name for each academic year was "1st year", "2nd year", etc... this is why he did the "1st year" and then the "5th year". --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Reiterating my support, given the change of the disputed section to "Youth and military education", and given the recent supports. The personal appearance stuff doesn't rise to the level of a stopper, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review by Nikkimaria - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order
• "How far their relationship progressed is unknown, but there may have been a failed engagement." - source?
• "i.e., the monarchy, his "second faith"" - where is this quote from?
• "Caxias supplanted Osório because he was seen as a loyal and dutiful officer who could serve as a role model in a Brazilian republic plagued since its birth in 1889 by military insubordination, rebellions and coups d'etat." - source?
• Please review MOS:QUOTE for formatting and other relevant guidelines regarding quotations
• Note C is missing the closing quotation mark. Please check for other omitted punctuation
• When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation? If so, please review the MOS' guidelines regarding such translation, and also please double-check grammar/formatting; if not, please provide the translator info
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• Why do some references have doubled locations?
• For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry
• Doratioto 2003: an article in Portuguese has an English title, or is this a translated title? If the latter, should be notated as such and applied consistently
• Kraay & Whigham: this is an edited collection of essays by different authors, so is not currently cited correctly. The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors
• Lyra 1977b: spacing
• Google Books and WorldCat both give a different publisher for Lyra, and both include a series that you omit. Can you explain this?

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I note that the article would benefit from further copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here it is:

1) I'll leave this one to Astynax.

2) "source?" It's there.

3) "where is this quote from?" My own. There to explain the reader what he meant by "little church".

4) "source?" It's also there. "According to Adriana Barreto de Souza, Francisco Doratioto and Celso Castro..."

5) Also to Astynax.

6) Fixed.

7) "When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation?" If they came from foreign-language sources, it could be only my own translation.

8) "Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not" I placed them exactly as they can be found in the books. Nonetheless, they are all the same now.

9) "Why do some references have doubled locations?" They aren't. The first name is the city, the second one is the state (or province, or if there isn't any, the country).

10) "For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry". Where it is said that this is necessary?

11) "...or is this a translated title?" Translated. I placed the Portuguese title, followed by the translation.

12) "The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors" I used as source the essay inside the book which was written by Kraay & Whigham.

13) "Lyra 1977b": spacing" Also to Astynax (I'm awful on anything related to these gadgets)

14) "Can you explain this?" I can't. I'm using the books I own.

Thank you for your imput. P.S.: Further info about Caxias can be found here. --Lecen (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1) "Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order" I've fixed those. Is there something in the current MOS or FAC requirements that stipulates this? I don't mind reordering and agree that it looks better, but I'm asking because I could never find anything on this point other than some old guidelines that were dropped quite some time ago.

5 & 6) Closing quote marks have been added to the quotation.

13) The missing space was added following the comma. Thanks. • Astynax 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support content on 1b Comments on content. Given some discussion of content, I decided to take a look at this military-political biography of a 19th century Brazilian aristocrat. My perspective is of a 20th century labour historian who focuses on organisations. I previously looked over this in a peer review where I looked at citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Extended content resolved and moved to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check' by GrahamColm - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62 from Cryptic C62:

• "Once again, unlike his father and relatives who either joined or supported the rebellions," Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion? I suggest shortening to "Once again, unlike his father and relatives who supported the rebellions,"
• "In 1875, old and sick, he headed a cabinet for the last time. After years of failing health, he died on 7 May 1880." The phrase "old and sick" seems somewhat redundant with "after years of failing health." I suggest removing it.
• "and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition." I don't think that "paradigm" is the correct work here. Perhaps you mean "paragon"?
• "His godparents were his paternal grandfather, José Joaquim de Lima da Silva, and his maternal grandmother, Ana Quitéria Joaquina." I realize that there is not much information available about Caxias's early years, but is this even worth mentioning? Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material.
• "there is scant information regarding Luís Alves' life prior to age 36" I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five. I think I would prefer to replace "life prior to age 36" with "early life".
• "Seven years later, on 4 May 1818," Well this is rather obviously redundant. There's no reason to precede the sentence with two time statements like this. I suggest removing one, though I have no preference as to which.

  Removed "Seven years later".

• "(equivalent to a second lieutenant today)" Assuming this refers to the equivalent rank in the modern-day Brazilian Army, I suggest linking "second lieutenant" to Military ranks of Brazil.

  It's the equivalent on Brazilian, U.S., French armies and others. I didn't add the wikilink because there is no table for comparison between the old (imperial) ranks and present-day ranks. Thus the link would end up being useless.

• "A young man of regular features," Not really sure what this means. Are there many historical figures who possessed irregular features?

  This is how he was described by the source. It means that he was neither handsome nor ugly. There was nothing distinguishable on his face.

• "he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively" What does the phrase "of the first year" mean? Clearly it doesn't mean "during his first year", unless he did a bit of time-travelling.

  This part was changed. Now it reads "The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821." Is it clear now? --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the section title Between family and loyalty to the crown. All of the others give a clear indication of where the information fits into his life, either chronologically or politically. This one sounds like the chapter title of a historical fiction novel.

  This is exactly what happened. His father and uncles joined the protest and the Emperor asked what side he would chose. Do you have any suggestion? --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  How about something related to Dom Pedro I? A cursory glance at the content in this section seems to indicate that it all relates to Dom Pedro I's reign and Caxias's involvement therein. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Changed to "Wars and military crises". Better? --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yup, much better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's it from me. Thanks for the hard work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Great stuff, thanks. I personally don't think there's a contradiction in saying that not much is known, but then laying out what we do know ... for more modern subjects, a lot more will be known, most of which we don't report because it's not important enough. The writers are saying: this is pretty much all we've got. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention, but it might be. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cryptic C62. Good to see you here.

1. "Paragons" and "old and sick": fixed.
2. "Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion?" His father and an uncle gave their moral support for one rebellion. Another uncle of his actively joined the rebellion. That's why we used "joining" and "supporting".

   But the uncle who joined the revolution must necessarily have supported it. Thus, shortening "joined or supported" to just "supported" is not incorrect, and it is less likely to result in the reader thinking "That seems a bit redundant. What's the difference?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Forgot to answer this one: you're right. I removed the redundant word. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

3. "Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material" It made more sense before I removed huge pieces of the article and removed them to the talk page. They gave far more information Caxias' ancestry and his grandfather's life. I kept them in case in the future a researcher or another editor has interest on working wih that information. I kept the information that his grandparents were his godparents because both are mentioned later on the article. His grandmother, who possibly educated him and his grandfather, an officer who remained loyal to the crown and to the law and served as a role model to him.

   Fair enough, struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

4. "I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five." Another editor correctly remarked on the talk page that it made little sense that we claimed that there is little information about Caxias prior to age 36 but then there are several sections on this article talking about his life prior to age 36. But here is the problem: what looks full of info in an article looks mediocre at best on a 400pg book. All biographies of Caxias spend 80% of their pages talking about him after he went to Maranhão. The reason is that there is simply not enough information about what he did before. It is known that he fought for three years in the Cisplatine War, but exactly where? What did he do there? There are no surviving letters or memories of this period. All that has been used as source was taken from official documents ("Cadet Lima e Silva was removed to X base" Why? We don't know). However, I opted to remove this information since it won't matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Mark Arsten I just read through the article and while I'm not experienced with the FA criteria, I think the article is pretty solid. I made a few small changes to the prose, overall it was in pretty good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum. This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough in too many places. A few examples:

Birth and childhood

• "He may have learned to read and write from his grandmother, Ana Quitéria." Unidiomatic: "He may have been taught to read and write by his grandmother, Ana Quitéria."

Military education

• "A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height, and had a round face, brown hair and brown eyes." What has any of that to do with his military education?

Independence of Brazil

• "Luís Alves would normally have begun the Fourth year at the Royal Military Academy sometime in March 1822." Should be "some time", not "sometime".
• "On 18 January 1823, Pedro I created the 'Emperor's Battalion', a handpicked elite infantry unit ...". Why is Emperor's Battalion in scare quotes?
• "During the Bahia campaign, high ranking officers mutinied against Labatut ...". Missing hyphen: should be "high-ranking".

Balaiada

• "For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted on 18 July 1841 to brigadier". Rather awkward: "For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted to brigadier on 18 July 1841".

Liberal rebellions of 1842

• "... he was appointed as military commander of Minas Gerais". He wasn't appointed as, he was appointed.

War of the Ragamuffins

• "When the republican secessionist rebellion known as War of the Ragamuffins began in Rio Grande do Sul in 1835 ...". Missing "the", as in "the War of the Ragamuffins".
• "Caxias had made a short trip to Rio Grande do Sul in 1839 to inspect the war effort against the Ragamuffins". How do you inspect a war effort?
• "A year later, Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he quarreled with Pedro II". The subject, "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas", does not match "he".

Platine War

• "The army commanded by Caxias crossed into Uruguay in September 1851." Was there another army commanded by someone else?
  • Always glad for your help, Malleus. Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here. Malleus, I'm not 100% sure I agree that I was wrong on some of these after looking them up as best I can ("some time" is less common in AmEng, except in sentences like "He waited for some time", and constructions like "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he ..." are okay with Chicago, although I think it's a little better with "his"), but otherwise, I'm quite happy with all your suggestions, and I'm implementing them now. Lecen, I don't think I've seen descriptions of height, eye color and hair color in our bios; usually we let the image suffice. What's the shortest description you're comfortable with? - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, there are other FAs that give physical description such as in Augustus ("He was unusually handsome ... He had clear, bright eyes ... His teeth were wide apart, small, and ill-kept; his hair was slightly curly and inclining to golden; his eyebrows met. His ears were of moderate size, and his nose projected a little at the top and then bent ever so slightly inward. His complexion was between dark and fair. He was short of stature ..."), Queen Victoria ("Victoria was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall—but she ..."), etc... I wasn't aware that we are not allowed to do that anymore. --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • And do they do that in a section entitled Military education? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm just saying that I don't remember seeing detailed descriptions in any of this year's Milhist bios at FAC. "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." would be fine. Readers can see the brown hair and eyes in the image in Failed presidencies of the Council of Ministers. Malleus, we can rename the section if you like, but I can't see a place to move the description; that's when he looked like that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
          • They don't have a section called "military education". They do it in a section called "Legacy" (see Queen Victoria) and you could ask the same question to DrKiernan: "What does her physical description has to do with the Legacy section?". In my case, I did it because the section describes the moment he became an adult and acchieved full maturity. And I also wasn't aware that I have to follow closely other Milhist bios. --Lecen (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
            • You don't have to do anything other than to explain what the duke's appearance has to do with his military education. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I changed the subsection title to "Adolescence". I also shortened the description as I mentioned above, but this is just a recommendation, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I had to revert it. It doesn't make any sense saying that I'm not allowed to give his description on this section or any other. Worse: that I have to change the name of the section because of that. --Lecen (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Okay, I don't think the description is an issue so far, that was just a recommendation. On the subsection title, see below. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • It's an issue for me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                      • Okay, if the subsection title is "Adolescence", does this work for you? "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't demand that the changes I suggest are made if a reasonable counter-case can be made. And I'm not about to start yelling at anyone, but I do think that the prose is (or was, I haven't looked at your changes or the whole article yet) a little on the rough side. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for spending time on this. I made the changes I think you were asking for except for that one question to Lecen, and I've just changed around that last sentence to: "After Honório Hermeto quarreled with Pedro II a year later, he and the saquaremas resigned." - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Much better, at least in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is the subsection we're talking about, in full:

On 22 May 1808, Luís Alves was enlisted at the age of five as a cadet in the 1st Regiment of Infantry of Rio de Janeiro. Historian Adriana Barreto de Souza explained that this did "not mean that he began to serve as a child, the connection to the regiment was simply honorific", his perquisite as the son of a military officer. This infantry regiment was informally known as the "Lima Regiment" because so many members of the family served in it, including his father and grandfather.

In 1811, Luís Alves moved with his parents from his grandparents' farm to Rio de Janeiro and was enrolled at the Seminário São Joaquim (Saint Joachim's School). On 4 May 1818, he was admitted into the Royal Military Academy. On 12 October 1818, he was promoted to the rank of alferes (equivalent to a second lieutenant today), and to lieutenant (nowadays first lieutenant) on 4 November 1820. A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height, and had a round face, brown hair and brown eyes. He was considered a very reasonable and honest person. Historian Thomas Whigham described him as someone who "learned the art of giving orders early in life. Immaculate in his dress, he was soft spoken, polite, and smoothly in control of himself. He seemed to radiate calm composure and authority."

The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821. The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic, algebra and geometry to tactics, strategy, camping, fortification in campaign and terrain reconnaissance. Though an accomplished student, the young lieutenant was often reprimanded for bullying new students.

Note that none of the first paragraph and only the first half of the second paragraph are about his military education. I agree with Malleus that that's not the right title for this subsection. Since this subsection covers his life from ages 8 to 18 (with a brief reference to age 5), "Adolescence" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose it. It's not about his teenage years, but about his early military career. I know where this is heading to and what Malleus Fatuorum really wants. If he was smart enough, he would have ignored my nomination, since he doesn't review all nominations. He picked this one for one sole reason. Let's finish this once and for all. Malleus Fatuorum, you may place your "oppose". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As am I. Lecen's demonstrable inability to deal with criticism is something the FAC delegates have to deal with, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read this article a couple of times in the last few months, the article is looking very good in my view. Astynax and Lecen worked very hard on this one, well done. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read the article and I find that it is well-written and very informative. It is structured in a well-done fashion and has no bias. It clearly envelopes the life of D. Luís Alves and covers all important topics on the duke's life. The article is well sourced and I support its candidacy for featured article status. {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}

Comment: Reviewing Criteria #3--Media

• I counted 8 portraits of Luis Alves. Overkill? His father was an important influence--can we get a pic of Francisco? Could the article benefit from a family tree?
• Captions are fine per WP:CAPTIONS.
• Question about public domain: the description page at commons for File:Angela fuerriol gonzalez 1832.jpg indicates that the image was published in 1832, but the source O Duque de Caxias was published in 2003. How do we know if the image was originally "published" in 1832? – Lionel 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Lionelt. Good to see you here. There is one picture for each section, although the early ones have none. I didn't add a picture of his father because I plan to create his own article (as a former regent he had a certain importance historically). Do you really think there is the need to for a family tree? After all, the article only mentioned his father and paternal uncles.

The book "O Duque de Ferro" ("The Iron Duke"; not "Duque de Caxias", I made a mistake, sorry) was originally published as two separate books: "O Duque de Ferro" and "Novos aspectos da figura de Caxias" in the early 20th century. The oval pictue of Angela Fuerriol Gonzalez was not published in 1832, but created in that year. All it says was that it was made by a person called "Odogerti" in 1832. This person has certainly died a long time ago. All pictures used on this article (with the sole exception of the last one) were made in Caxias' lifetime. The lithographies seen in the Paraguayan War sections were in fact published by news magazines. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 .

Giraffe

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now ready. Since it gained GA status and it's last FA nomination, it has been expanded, peer reviewed and copyedited. It now has a fairly complete overview of the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should use endashes

Where? LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 1: which volume is being cited here?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I've restored it in corrected form. {{MSW3 Artiodactyla}} is the standard way to reference it, and implies the volume. I've corrected the page number. Grubb published in 1971, so hardly supplants MSW3 as a reference for current views on subspecies. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how page ranges are notated

Please be specific. They look fine to me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Replaced with hopefully better sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 10: need more info. What kind of source is this?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Will work on that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Working. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Johns Hopkins University Press or The Johns Hopkins University Press? Check for consistency in naming. Nikkimaria

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria, (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Who chopped Nikkimaria's sig and what else was chopped here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 27 has a link to dab page doi - may be best to convert to {{cite book}} template to match others. Keith D (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're looking at the right one? Ref 27 is already a {{cite book}}. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - Well-written and seemingly well-sourced. ceranthor 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads. - citation?

Mammal encyclopedia I believe. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• In comparison with other ruminants, such as deer and cattle, the giraffe has proportionally larger eyes, with which it can locate food and distant predators from its great height. - This comes from Mammal Anatomy, I assume. Could you clarify?

Yes it does. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• In Southern Africa, giraffes feed on all acacias, especially Acacia erioloba. The tongue and lips are tough enough to allow them to feed on trees with sharp thorns. - Do these both come from Mammal Anatomy as well?

The latter does. I can remove the former if it will be a problem. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the name of the tree means Camel Thorn or Giraffe Thorn, but if you wish to use a citation one's available at -- simply type 'giraffe' in the search bar provided. ceranthor 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments this is looking a lot better than when I last saw it (I was trying to read it on my android). I do think we're in striking distance of FA status at first look. Will have a proper read-through and jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Now one of the interesting issues about a subject with a broad body of material to draw from is that we could keep expanding this article to a huge size, so obviously we have to draw the line somewhere. It currently stands at around 4800 words/29kb of prose, which could be a little bigger if we found content worth including. It'd be good to get a consensus on optimum size here.

The giraffe has been prized by various cultures.. - "prized" sounds really weird in this context - I am trying to think of a better word "The giraffe has intrigued by various cultures..." maybe...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite its popularity, it has been extirpated from many parts of its former range, and some subspecies are classified as endangered... - I think a great many "popular" animals have suffered..including just about all megafauna. I'd lose the first bit and flip so we put the sentence which says "least concern" first followed by the one with extirpation and vanishing subspecies. More sober and depressing that way..

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked some convert templates - it looks funny if you have one unit abbreviated and other not. I suggest you abbreviate the rest.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Neck section you have both the word and symbol for "per cent" - I'm not fussed which one you use but it should be consistent for the whole article.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary, it is looking much better on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I am just thinking about that again and reading over. These big articles are tricky when trying to figure out what else we need including. I am waiting a bit to see what others think too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The episode on the giraffe for Inside Nature's Giants mentioned that the giraffe's neck is held up by elastic muscles that make the neck revert to it's default position after it is done lowering it's head to the ground. Unforunately I could not find this fact in the literature I have. I also wish there was more information on the portrayals of the giraffe in African cultures. Also, atleast two sources say that the giraffe has to breathe more regularly than expected for an animal of it's size but other sources suggest that the giraffe breathes slowly and it's anatomy prolongs the time it takes to inhale and exhale. I don't know if there's a contradiction here. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree that those three points are worth including in the article. I might be able to find something with fulltext/uni access and will try a bit later today. I'd definitely feel more comfortable on comprehensiveness-grounds with those items in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• might help, it includes: "The histological data also indicated that the elastic fibers of the nuchal ligament of the giraffe are the thickest among the various mammals (Bianchi 1989)." --99of9 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I managed to solve all three isolves. I contacted Graham Mitchell and he informed me that the studies now show that the giraffe is a slow breather. The Mammalian Species mentions the ligment and I managed to find a little more information on the giraffe's role in African culture. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. There is a lot of matching content here: but most of this site's content seems to have been copied form Misplaced Pages without attribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking the sexual selection paragraph against the sources: :*The other main theory, the sexual selection hypothesis, proposes that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests (see below) to establish dominance and obtain access to sexually receptive females.

*Supported by the source

:*In support of this theory, males have proportionally larger necks than females,

• Possibly worded too strongly (I would strike the word major). Reference replies with "However, sexual selection does not directly predict allometrically longer necks but more powerful ones for males.", and "The critical point is that males need only a long neck to reach high-level leaves (natural selection hypothesis), not a massive and ever increasing one to do so. For sexual selection, this is required and predicted for males and not for females.". But hmmm... isn't the whole point of the theory to explain why the neck is LONG???

• I'm happy to discuss this further, it seems the mass/length issue is subtle, and hard to summarize. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced and fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• necking is the only form of combat recorded

• I thought I read in one of those sources that they sometimes stare one another down. Does that count as combat? --99of9 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether it counts as combat or not, it's interesting. Physical combat is expensive to both animals; no point doing it if the outcome is a foregone conclusion; so many species size each other up and only fight if they must. (But I am guilty of WP:OR here; please don't use it unless there's a source). --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Combat requires physical contact. Staring would be just intimidation. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It stands 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall and has an average weight of 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) for males and 830 kilograms (1,800 lb) for females." I'm not sure why males are weighed in "kg" and females in "kilograms". Axl ¤ 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They are also nearly invulnerable to predation, although lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs prey on calves, and lions take adults in some areas." The list of predators that eat calves appears to contradict the the claim of being "nearly invulnerable". Perhaps adults are "nearly invulnerable" to predation? Axl ¤ 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males mate with multiple females." Each male mates with multiple females? Axl ¤ 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have added the word "each": "Dominant males each mate with multiple females." Axl ¤ 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", paragraph 2: "Mathurin Jacques Brisson erected the genus Giraffa in 1762." "Erected"? Axl ¤ 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  You deleted it? Okay. Axl ¤ 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", the picture "Genetic subdivision in the giraffe based on mitochondrial DNA sequences" is rather complex and needs a more detailed caption. Axl ¤ 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have tried to simplify and clarify the new caption, including internal links. Despite this, the explanation of the phylogenetic tree is really only intelligible to a biologist. (A similar problem arose at the FAC for "Slow loris".) I wonder if the image would better with the phylogram cropped away? I'm not sure; I welcome other opinions. Axl ¤ 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  I think only a few sentence have that problem. I give it more internal links. LittleJerry (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Since Axl invites other opinions, here goes: I am not a biologist; I understand all but the last two sentences; but also, I'm quite happy when articles have some tough stuff -- it's an invitation to explore it if we want. So my vote would go for keeping it (but maybe link "paraphyletic" too. "paraphyletic haplotypes" is by far the hardest thing to understand in this). HTH --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. camelopardalis, G. c. reticulata and G. c. angolensis use the passive present perfect: "It has been estimated...". G. c. tippelskirchi and G. c. giraffa use the passive present "It is estimated...". In my opinion, the passive present is preferable. Axl ¤ 22:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", I am surprised to see that every subspecies has a population of "fewer than x". While this is reasonable for small populations such as G. c. peralta and G. c. camelopardalis, it becomes meaningless for large populations such as G. c. tippelskirchi. "Fewer than 40,000" means "somewhere between 0 and 40,000". Why didn't the authors of the source include lower limits for the populations? In my opinion, this is a cynical ploy by the conservationist authors to mislead naive readers. Axl ¤ 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that means that the number is in the ball park of the stated figure but lower. LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  Is that a guess? Are there any other reliable sources around with subspecies population values? Axl ¤ 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Those are the most reliable we can find. LittleJerry (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. tippelskirchi: "It occurs in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania." How about "It lives in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania."? Axl ¤ 23:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Whats wrong with "occurs"? LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. rothschildi: "It may also occur in South Sudan." Perhaps "It also lives in South Sudan."? Axl ¤ 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 1: "The giraffe's fur may serve as a chemical defence, as it is full of antibiotics and parasite repellents that give the animal a characteristic scent." "Antibiotics" refer to chemicals produced by micro-organisms. Axl ¤ 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The giraffe has the longest recurrent laryngeal nerve." I believe that's true of living animals, but extinct sauropods had longer recurrent laryngeal nerves. It's worth clarifying this in the article. Axl ¤ 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The shape of the skeleton limits the static lung volume of the giraffe." This is true for all animals with skeletons. How is this different for the giraffe? Axl ¤ 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have removed the word "static". That isn't relevant here. Axl ¤ 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "Its long neck and narrow windpipe give it a high amount of dead space." The long neck does indeed increase the dead space. However the narrow windpipe actually reduces the amount of dead space. Both factors increase the resistance of the airway and lead to increased energy expenditure during breathing. Axl ¤ 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  After reviewing the source, I have also added the following sentence: "An increased tidal volume also tends to compensate for the high dead space volume." Axl ¤ 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 3: "The giraffe has one of the shortest sleep requirements of any mammal, averaging only 4.5 or 4.6 hours of sleep per day." When quoting an average, why use two different values? Axl ¤ 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  The change doesn't help. When stating an average, a single value should be used, not a range. What exactly does the source say? Axl ¤ 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  The range "4.5-4.6 hours" means "4 hours 30 minutes to 4 hours 36 minutes". This narrow range surely doesn't reflect the sleeping hours of all giraffes. Nor is it appropriate as a "typical" sleep duration. LittleJerry, can you please quote here the exact text that the source uses? Axl ¤ 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I don't have access to the whole article and I don't remember puting it there. I fixed it though. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I've added a little extra info from the source. I have full access, but the abstract is a good summary. Key sentences include "The 24-h sleep profile had a main bimodal nocturnal sleep period between 20.00 and 07.00 hours, with a trough between 02.00 and 04.00 hours, and several short naps between 12.00 and 16.00 hours. Total sleep time (TST), excluding the juvenile, was 4.6 h, whereby PS comprised only 4.7%. TST was not age dependent, but the lowest amount of RS and the highest amount of SS occurred in the oldest and the two oldest animals, respectively. Sleep was fragmented, as indicated by the predominance of RS episodes lasting less than 11 min.". --99of9 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you. Axl ¤ 02:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "The nerve starts at the brain, runs down the length of the neck and crosses over a blood vessel at the top of the heart before looping back up the neck and ending at the larynx." I now have a copy of "Mammal Anatomy". "Mammal Anatomy" does indeed state "the giraffe's laryngeal nerve ... measures around 15 feet (4.5 m) long. It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." I believe that this is a common misconception. The recurrent laryngeal nerve actually begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. The left recurrent laryngeal nerve crosses under the arch of the aorta. The right nerve crosses under the right subclavian artery. I believe that "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx" by Harrison states that the giraffe's left recurrent laryngeal nerve is about two metres long. Perhaps it could be argued that the nerve fibres run from the brain, around the aorta, to the larynx. Axl ¤ 02:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. I believe the book was measuring both the left and right nerves together. LittleJerry (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I do not believe that "Mammal Anatomy" was measuring both the left and right nerves together, because it states "It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." As I already stated, the recurrent laryngeal nerve begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. Indeed you can clearly see this on the diagram that you added to the article. Axl ¤ 13:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I added in this information with a new source. I find it hard to believe that the nerve is only 6 feet long. That's the length of the neck itself and if the nerves runs down the neck and loops back up, it would have to be much longer. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  The recurrent laryngeal nerve does not run down the neck and loop back up: that is my point. Look again at the diagram that you added. You will see that the recurrent laryngeal nerve arises from the vagus nerve, near the aorta. Axl ¤ 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Graham Mitchell informed me via e-mail that the nerve is 15 feet long. I presume he means the entire vagus nerve since the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of it. So I made the appropriate changes. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I decided to remove it altogether. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  The most recent text still wasn't quite right. I understand why you deleted it. On the other hand, the information is often used by proponents of evolution (notably Richard Dawkins) as evidence. I'll see if I can draft a sentence or two that is both accurate and supported by a reliable source. Axl ¤ 00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  How about this: "In mammals, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer than the right; in the giraffe, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is over 30 cm longer than the right one. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer in the giraffe than in any other extant animal; the left nerve is over two metres long." The reference is "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx, DFN Harrison, page 165".

  The exact text from Harrison is: "All mammals, however, have recurrent laryngeal nerves longer on the left than the right. Differences may vary from 0.8 cm in the rat, 13 cm in dog, 11 cm in humans to over 30 cm in the giraffe.... The left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the longest nerve in the animal kingdom being over 2 m long." Axl ¤ 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion. I put it in. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Cool. Axl ¤ 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have added some more information with a good reference. Axl ¤ 20:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 1: "This elongation, which occurs in large part after birth, is a 150 percent increase in vertebrae length over similar-sized animals." Does this mean that the length of the vertebral column is two and a half times the length in similar-sized animals? Axl ¤ 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it means an increase in neck vertebrae length. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  So the neck vertebrae are two and a half times as long as those in similar-sized animals? This is not clear in the article. What exactly does the source say? I'm not even sure which source is being used here. Axl ¤ 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  I see that you have deleted it. Okay. Axl ¤ 16:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Habitat and feeding", paragraph 1, the information about the tongue should be in the "Physical appearance and anatomy" section. Also, I believe that the tongue is dark blue in colour? It's worth mentioning this. Axl ¤ 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed for the first. I've heard about the tongue color and that its meant to protect against sunburn but I can't find a source. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. Would this web page be suitable as a source? Axl ¤ 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "During courtship, dominant males will displace subordinates from the presence of the females by staring and walking towards them." The subordinates are males? Axl ¤ 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Okay. I have clarified this. Axl ¤ 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male." I thought that necking was their form of combat? What is "non-combative necking behavior"? Axl ¤ 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. Axl ¤ 09:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "Within a few hours of birth, the calf can run around and is indistinguishable from one a week old.... The horns, which have lain flat since it was in the womb, become erect within a few days." These two statements are contradictory. Axl ¤ 09:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 2: "Giraffes only defend their own young; they form calving herds for selfish reasons." What are these selfish reasons? This statement seems to be rather speculative to me. Axl ¤ 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• See Herd_behavior#Herd_behavior_in_animals. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if this is suitable as part of this discussion but since it involves a known mistakes in a potential FA article: How about a corrected map in the taxobox? The person that made the current taxobox map made a misinterpretation of the IUCN map. (IUCN have since changed their maps to a format that perhaps will be more useful in the future but presently has some fundamental usage problems.) IUCN divided the range into subspecies but subspecies names were not written over every single dot on the map. The two small dots in Uganda are Rothschild giraffe (not Nubian giraffe). There should also be a small Rothschild giraffe dot in central Kenya at Lake Nakuru. 212.10.91.63 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, map was outdated. I contacted the author of the current map. LittleJerry (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Author of the SVG map (me) has corrected herself now  ›mysid (☎✎) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question What exactly were you trying to do with citation 1 (instance a)? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It was like that before. Other animal articles have the same. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It verifies much of the information in the taxobox. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Hip-hop dance

Nominator(s): Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it gives a thorough overview of an urban dance style that has had a big commercial impact not just in the U.S. but also on an international level. I'm actually surprised at myself for nominating this article for FA because when I first started editing it, that was not my intention. At the time I began I just wanted it to be accurate. Last year, an editor translated the article to Portugese and it received FA status on the Portugese language Misplaced Pages. Earlier this year a large portion of it was reprinted in a book and the publishers correctly attributed Misplaced Pages for it (see talk page). Last month I found another book that copied a small portion of the article almost verbatim without mentioning Misplaced Pages or creative commons at all. I do feel this article meets the criteria and for this reason added to the Portugese FA and the two publications (the second book being the catalyst), I felt it was time to take this article to FAC. I do not think any details have been left out but please note that this article has been split twice into History of hip-hop dance and Hip-hop theater. As a reviewer if you feel the article is lacking in either area be advised these topics needed to be split off in order to keep the Hip-hop dance article from becoming too big. // Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - thank you for your work on this article, but unfortunately I don't agree that it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be at minimum 3 paragraphs, more likely 4
  • Working on it... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• The last two sentences of the current lead suggest potential OR and neutrality problems
  • May I ask why. I have a section in the article for all that is mentioned in these sentences. "To some, hip-hop dance may only be a form of entertainment or a hobby (entertainment and dance crews sections). To others it is a lifestyle: a way to be active in physical fitness (fitness section) or competitive dance (international competitions section) and a way to make a living by dancing professionally (dance industry section). Further down you gave me feedback about the flow. This sentence flows (well, transitions would be a better word) into the rest of the article. If you insist, I'll remove it. I'm only asking because I want to understand why it's OR/NPOV. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the tone of these sentences that bothers me, not that they're unsourced or irrelevant. The tone used here is very journalistic, whereas we would prefer a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Internationally, hip-hop dance has a particularly strong influence in France, South Korea, and United Kingdom." - aside from the grammar and overlinking problems here, you've not yet mentioned the US
  • Removed the extra comma. The paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted from talks about the U.S. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Still a grammar problem - should be the United Kingdom. However, the main issue here is globalization - en.wiki is an international encyclopedia, so when you say "internationally" as meaning countries outside the US, that's assuming a US-centric viewpoint, which not all readers will have. Furthermore, though it's implied, the preceding paragraph doesn't mention what country is being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Can't believe I missed "the". //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Unlike toprock, uprock was not performed to break beats" - but you have the emergence of toprock preceding the invention of break beats?
  • I can definitely see how this could be confusing. Toprock at that point was still elaborations on the "Good Foot" dance but that isn't clear in the paragraph. Changed/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• WP:MOS issues - overlinking, dash/hyphen problems, etc
  • Removed several wikilinks. Not sure what to do about dash/hyphens. Can you provide a specific example of where these are used improperly? Another editor fixed the dash/hyphen problems. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Still problems here. For example, in International competitions (and there's that word "international" again), you link the UK but not London - if anything, should be the reverse. A couple points down, you mention a "Dutch based international breaking competition" - should be "Dutch-based". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Why it's bad to use the word "international" for this section when five different countries (including the U.S.) are discussed? Of the 11 competitions listed four of them are based in the U.S., two are held in France, two in the U.K., one in the Netherlands, one in Korea, and another that changes countries every year. In addition, the participants at these competitions come from several different countries not just the host nation. This is why I didn't put Vibe Dance Competition in this section. It's only held in the U.S. and only crews and dance teams from the U.S. compete. That is not international. I don't get why I shouldn't call this section international competitions when it's about international competitions. It's a direct description of what the section is about and it goes along with the globalization view that you (constructively) criticized me about not having earlier. I don't get it. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I think I got it right this time when it comes to the wikilinks. I went to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking and found out why this article had problems. I don't know why I didn't read this before. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• POV/informal phrasings - for example, "it was the Latinos (specifically Puerto Ricans) that kept the momentum of breaking alive". Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
  • ? Is this really POV? I have a sources for this. This is actually true. How can it be POV if it's supported with citations? It's the same as saying African Americans created breaking, locking, and popping. I thought it would be appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I rephrased it slightly and took out the word "specifically". I hope this is better. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, it's the tone here, not the sourcing, that is at issue - specifically, "kept the momentum of breaking alive". Like the sentences in the lead, this phrasing is journalistic, almost editorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Article is in need of a thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow
  • Working on it. I wanted to get this copy-edited before submitting it for featured article but as you may already know there is a huge backlog so I didn't. Instead I actually paid a professional to do it via smarthinking.com. I got the mark-up back today and will incorporate the changes he made into the article. He mentioned comma splices and flow but didn't say anything about dash/hyphen problems which is why I am asking for feedback. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I really don't mean to be discouraging here, but...maybe you should ask for your money back? There are still considerable problems. I've copyedited one section as an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • ... Is it really that bad? I see a few improvements like how you changed the sentence about Toni Basil winning an award from the passive voice but it looks like you replaced a lot of what I had with synonyms (consistently vs. frequently, brief vs. quick, distinguish vs. identify, at the same time vs. simultaneously). Why is one word better than the other when they mean the same thing? I saw the change from "other than" to "in addition to" which I thought was a good catch considering they can have different meanings but at the end of the day the sentence as a whole has the same meaning: members of The Lockers who are not Don Campbell. Then there was "a dancer" vs. "dancers". Why is the plural better? Are these really ce problems? It looks like preference. So I went to the wikipedia article on Common English usage misconceptions#Grammar to figure out why I don't understand some of your changes but instead I found out there's nothing wrong with using the passive voice (fourth bullet point). I do appreciate you providing an example but I don't understand why the ce in this article is so bad based on your example. The best I can do at this point is resubmit the article to the copy-editor I had at smarthinking.com with your mark-ups highlighted and wait for feedback. He has a degree in this stuff. To answer your hidden question, yes, "locker" is an appropriate term to use for a dancer who performs locking. Other examples: popper for a dancer who does popping, breaker/b-boy/b-girl for a dancer who does breaking, krumper for a dancer who does krumping, etc. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I got the second mark-up back from smarthinking.com as well as an additional mark-up from a separate company I found. I started implementing the ce changes yesterday and will continue to do so until complete. Hopefully these revisions are better. I will update this page when I'm done making all the changes. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Magazines and newspapers should be italicized
  • ?? They are. The publications I mention are LA Weekly, Dance magazine, the Bronx Journal, and Dance Spirit magazine. They're all italicized. Did I miss one? Found them. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Not done consistently - for example, Las Vegas Sun. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay. I thought you were referring to publications in the body of the article. It's fixed now and I went through all the refs three times to make sure they were consistent so hopefully I didn't miss any. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Don't need wiktionary links for common terms like "illusory"
  • Removed/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Being a part of a crew was the only way to learn when these styles began because they were not taught in studios. Forming and participating in a dance crew is how you practiced, improved, made friends, and built relationships. In the beginning, crews were neighborhood-based and would engage in battles in their respective cities. Today, crews can battle in organized competitions with other crews from around the country and around the world." - source?
  • Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Crews still form based on friendships and neighborhoods. They also form for other reasons such as theme, gender, ethnicity, and dance style. Crews are not exclusive. It is common for street dancers to be involved in more than one crew" - source? Check for other unsourced statements
  • Hmmm, I guess I missed those. Will look for a source and update this page when I find one. Done, sort'of. I gave examples. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Use ""pp." and endashes for ranges
  • Good catch. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? this? Check for other potentially problematic sources
  • Replaced/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• When I try to access , my security software informs me that it is a known attack site
  • Well that's not good. I don't know how that happened. I also receive this message when I go to the website but I did not when I archived the page last year. I use Firefox and according to Firefox this activity has happened in the past 90 days so I guess this is recent. Anyhow, I removed it. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Don't assume an American-only audience, or one familiar with the topic. Be accessible to all readers as much as possible.
  • My copy-editor gave me specific feedback in the article about this bullet point so I will incorporate his changes and update this page when complete. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Not done, gave you a few examples above. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The examples have been addressed. However, I will revisit this point after I receive the second mark-up from smarthinking.com //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Avoid WP:PRIMARY and self-published sources where possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ? Can you please be more specific? I think of birth certificates, death records, deed records, and marriage licenses as primary sources. I don't use any of those in the article. Which ones are you referring to? //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • In this case, primary refers to sources "written by people who are directly involved" that "an insider's view" - for example, citing a competition's website for information on its history. Obviously this isn't always a problem (the example I give, for instance, is fine), but you a) need to be careful in how you use such sources, and b) prefer independent sources wherever possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what to do with this feedback considering you said there's nothing wrong with the way I use primary sources here. I can't tell from your response what is actually incorrect. So I went to WP:PSTS and based on the primary sources bullet point there's still nothing wrong with the way I use these sources. Done (I think?). //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it would be a while before someone would comment on the article considering the length so thank you for reading it and leaving feedback. I wasn't expecting a reply just two days after I nominated it. I guess I'm use to the wait time at peer review. Thank you for being patient too as far as waiting on me to respond. I was celebrating Thanksgiving so I did not respond to your comments as quickly as I normally would. Once I implement the changes that my copy-editor provided on the mark-up he sent back to me, I will strike through those comments so that you know they are done. // Gbern3 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the excess bolding for readability. Please sign your comments, and also, don't strike reviewer comments (see WP:FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

? I didn't strike my reviewer's comments. Confused. I actually thought making my comments bold helped with readability because it distinguished my comments from Nikkimaria's. I guess not though. I didn't know I was suppose to sign each bullet point; I thought one signature at the end would be sufficient so my apologies on that one. I will go back and fix this... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This is very jumbled and rather poorly written, with many basic errors such as the grocer's apostrophe in "Puerto Ricans maintained it's development when it was considered a passing fad in the late '70s". And what on Earth does this word salad mean? "Other than San Francisco bay area pride, turfing maintained its endurance due to local turf dance competitions and local youth programs that promote turfing as a form of physical activity." Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I think the major issue is the page needs some copyediting to get it up to encyclopedic standard, as there are a lot of wording issues. Some other specific concerns:

• "It would be historically inaccurate to say that the funk styles have always been considered hip-hop." - this would need a cite
  • This sentence is an introduction to the rest of the paragraph—a topic sentence. The sentences that immediately follow this statement, one of which you quoted directly below, prove this sentence to be true. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Due to the amount of attention locking and popping were receiving, the media brought these styles under the "breakdance" label causing confusion about their origin." - "Media" is a very nonspecific term, and more analysis on this point, I think, is necessary to explain what kind of media and how the confusion took place and impacted things.
  • This is a good observation. I will try to look into this and see what I can find out. I'm not sure I'll be able to deliver anything considering the citations I used for those statements came from books which also used the general term "media" rather than a specific publication. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• They were created on the west coast independent from breaking and came out of the funk cultural movement rather than from the hip-hop cultural movement." - this also needs a cite,
  • This sentence has already been proven true. Similar to the first sentence, this sentence closes that paragraph. It was proved true earlier in the section with this statement --> "The funk styles refers to several street dance styles created in California in the 1970s that were danced to funk music.". //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• The article is primarily written in US perspective, though the international competition section is helpful, but I fear it might be better suited for a list.
  • ?? It's already in a bulleted list. Why move it (<--I honestly don't mean that in a rude way)? //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree it's a bit jumbled. I think you've got some of the basics down, but I'd try to reorganize it a little. I hate to suggest this given the article's history, but it could use another split so "Impact" isn't so prominent, and there's a more even coverage of history, technique and impact. —Ed! 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You want me to split the International Competitions section off to a separate page to be a stand-alone list and then split off the Impact section to a separate article?? I realize you clearly have much more experience than me on FAC but doing that would make this article immediately fail criterion 1b. Furthermore, there is already another article about the history of hip-hop dance so making the history section larger in this one would be counterproductive to splitting off the history part of the article in the first place (I think, but I've been wrong before). I appreciate your comments because I believe you are trying to be helpful. However, everything in me says this is not a good idea. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Tetrabiblos

Nominator(s): -- Zac Δ 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because it provides a comprehensive and well-researched report of a famous book by a notable name in the history of science. The book has held a position of great influence historically and although its subject matter is quite complex, it continues to be of interest to many scholars. Astrologers still refer to it, and historians of the classical culture need to be aware of its arguments, the extent of its impact, and the principles that extended into the other 'liberal sciences' of that era. The creation of this article ranked high on the ‘to-do’ list of a number of wiki:projects for several years, but it wasn’t created until September this year. It has had a lot of time and effort invested into it over the last 3 months to ensure it is clear, comprehensive and based on the best available sources. I believe it now meets the criteria necessary to achieve FA status. -- Zac Δ 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Source comments - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. If possible I'd like to get a reviewer more familiar with the topic to take a look at sourcing, but here are some preliminary comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• "In this topic his logical arrangement of complex considerations gives sufficient clarity for an astrologer to apply the techniques in practice without reference to other texts." - source?

I felt this was sufficiently demonstrated by the following example of how the topic is fully explored; however, the comment was not integral, so it seemed safer to remove this (so done). -- Zac Δ 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't use blockquotes for short quotes

Done - the shortest blockquote is now 52 words.-- Zac Δ 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should use endashes

Done. -- Zac Δ 16:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Done - I have replaced this with a reference to the Liddell Scott Jones ancient Greek dictionary at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, which is the standard, authoritative source of reference.

• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such

Done -- Zac Δ 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why the duplication of dates in some Works cited entries?

Fixed -- Zac Δ 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced

Fixed -- Zac Δ 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books

Fixed: I have ensured that locations are provided for them all. -- Zac Δ 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be linked

I believe I have fixed this although I wasn't certain what you meant. They are all now linked through to their entries in book catalogues (like World cat). If this is not what you meant, could you point me to an example please so I have a better understanding of what you need?

I fixed this the other day, not knowing about this page. You just put ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, it automatically makes a link. The links weren't there because there were colons after ISBN, which breaks the linking. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is JHU?

Fixed;I hadn't realised this was an abbreviation for Johns Hopkins University Press - I've put in the publisher's full title now. -- Zac Δ 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, reference formatting could be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been through them all carefully, and believe I have picked up the last of any inconsistencies. -- Zac Δ 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks for taking the trouble to review. I will happily fix all these problems. I have done some today and will have the rest done by tomorrow night. I appreciate your critical eye. -- Zac Δ 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I now believe all the above points have been corrected, please let me know if anything remains. Thank you -- Zac Δ 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't have the expertise of most of the contributors to this article, I have studied the life and works of Ptolemy and read parts of my own copy of Tetrabiblos. Nearly two thousand years after publication, Tetrabiblos remains the most significant book on astrology and is still used as a reference point for certain key definitions such as the Tropical Zodiac. The article appears to be of a very high standard, well ordered and illustrated and the sources appear to be solid. Robert Currey talk 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, I had to undo many of Zac's fixes to the Works cited section above (locations?), because he mixed in changing Misplaced Pages automatic ISBN links to searches of Worldcat. He did it not as a single edit, but as multiple edits, then continued to make changes to the Works cited section. There was no way to simply reverse this one inappropriate change. Yworo (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, I hope you don't mind but I will revert your edit and then change the ISBNs manually. This will be easily done and otherwise I lose too much work on details that have taken me most of the day to get right. I wasn't sure about the ISBNs as you can see from my comment above, because I was under the impression that they were already linked this, so I thought there must be something more specific required. Please give me time to overhaul the works cited again and I will make a note here when I am done. Thank you -- Zac Δ 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok , that's been fixed again, with the ISBN's put back and the other changes I listed above. -- Zac Δ 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I specialize in Hellenistic astrology, and the article seems to be in good shape to me. I would only suggest a few minor changes:

• Change effects to "effects" (with quotes) in original title paragraph.
• In the first sentence under Introduction of Principles I wouldn't say "Aristotelian logic" but I would explicitly refer to it as Aristotelian or Peripatetic "philosophy." Aristotelian logic is a specific category of its own that doesn't necessarily imply Aristotle's cosmological paradigm, which is what was important for Ptolemy.
• Change "No other ancient text offers a comparable account of this topic, in terms of the breadth and depth of detail offered by Ptolemy" to "No other surviving ancient text..."
• Change "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of an individual horoscope." to "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of a horoscope set for the moment of the birth of an individual." The genethlialogical art is the art that pertains to births. Additionally, it should be "genethlialogical" here rather than "genethliaogical."
• At the end of the section on book 4: add "annual profections" just before "ingresses": "The book ends with a brief discussion of astronomical and symbolic cycles used in the prediction of timed events, which includes mention of (primary) directions, annual profections, ingresses, lunations and transits."
• Centiloquium: may want to add that it was known in Greek under the title "Fruit" as well (Καρπός). See James Holden, Five Medieval Astrologers, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, 2008, pg. 69.
• May want to emphasize a little more that the Centiloquium was not written by Ptolemy, or at least that there is no evidence to indicate that it was.

Since these changes are all rather minor I will go ahead and add them in myself now. I think that this will make an excellent featured article. --Chris Brennan (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the article is significantly weighted and written out of a primary source—the subject of the article (in a scholarly translation). Secondary sources appear to not drive the narrative or interpretation: compare the discussion of chapter 10 at footnote 93 where two secondary sources explicitly authorise the reliance upon the primary source; with the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 at footnote 96 where no secondary appreciation is relied upon for weighting, significance or interpretation. The article is comprised largely of the latter; as an attendance to the runs of footnotes reading "Tetrabiblos (Robbins ed. 1940)" in sequence demonstrates. This is an important article for the encyclopaedia; but, as it stands the research is deeply flawed. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In addition works are not correctly cited, "Burnett, Charles and Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler, (eds.) 2007. The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology. Bristol, UK: Culture and Cosmos, Vol.11 no 1 and 2, spring/summer and autumn/winter. ISSN 1368-6534." is not a work; nor is " Burnett and Greenbaum (2007) 'The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation' by Deborah Houlding, p.266, footnote 12". There are very clear ways to cite journal articles in the style you're using; and you're not citing them correctly. In the bibliography Author, Year. "Title" Journal Volume number. page range. Compare to Riley 1988 where you get it right per your own style. Debra Houlding deserves to be recognised as the author of "The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at this. I have a question whether this applies to books that present chapters by guest authors as well as journals. I'll place the details on the talk page shortly. -- Zac Δ 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. With books, we cite (and add to the bibliography where appropriate), chapters which are authored by an author other than the author or editor of the book as a whole. So Jone Joneson, "My dog Fred" Book of Dogs Robert Robertdaughter ed.; or Kevin Spacey "Introduction" Don't confuse your Kevins Kevin Bacon (author). Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • This "Ptolemy's Terms and Conditions by Deborah Houlding, 2007; The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology, pp.261–311. (Bristol: Culture and Cosmos). Presents a history of transmission of manuscripts and texts and a detailed analysis of Ptolemy's table of planetary terms." isn't further reading btw, you cite it twice, and both times poorly and out of style. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In good news, Corensearchbot shows clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You may wish to look at how you're using your sources, as I noted this at RS/N in relation to a query, "compare Wiki "the fact that the Tetrabiblos presents one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" and Houlding 1993 "Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology, - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'." That's close paraphrase out of the box (bold), plus misrepresentation of opinion as fact (ital)." The bolded sections appear to be too closely paraphrased for me. The central noun phrase "oldest complete manuals of astrology" has moved from the source to wikipedia unchanged. Close paraphrase constitutes plagiarism, even when acknowledged as it takes the words out of anothers mouth. You can, of course, quote reliable sources: According to Houlding, "modern astrologers…manuals of astrology." and with short quotes that is fine and good scholarly practice for attribution of opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say, it is attributed to Houlding, but I will take a look at this and all your other points. If there are other points, could you add them to the talk page please? -- Zac Δ 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo's remarks - I am confident that this has been impeccably researched and the narrative is completely reliable. A full range of secondary sources has been utilized and referenced, and although I am very familiar with all of the English language editions (as well as possessing many of the the Greek and Latin editions) I have offered most of the references to the Robbins’ edition specifically because the online edition is known to have an excellent reputation and the pertinent points are able to be specifically hyperlinked, (hence the reader can check any point if required).

It was not necessary to refer to a secondary source for the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 because the narrative does not make a controversial point, but merely presents a brief summary of what is found in those chapters – this is easily verifiable by reference to the Robbins edition text (and there is no controversial difference between the Robbins text and the other texts editions on this point). Fifelfoo, if you feel there is any point of unreliability, please explain on the talk page, because I am unaware of any content that could be considered controversial. If there is, I am sure it can be easily fixed. -- Zac Δ 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response, but I still feel obliged to oppose. The weight, focus and nature of the explanation of these chapters is derived from (or is seen to be derived from) personal synthesis, rather than appreciation in secondary literature. Imagine King Lear if I summarised Act III based on reading Act III of King Lear. While this is a scholarly account; it appears to be and is readily seen to be derived from a personal reading of a primary source—it appears to be and to me is Original research. It is impossible to pass OR as encyclopaedically relevant. I would suggest you consider the introductions and scholarly appreciations, and add citations to indicate that your narrative is broadly synthetic of the scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have asked you to specify any concern on the talk-page, because exceptional pains have been taken to ensure there is no area where OR could be suggested. If there is, then concerns can be easily answered or addressed of course. On a specialist topic like this it is easy to mistake effective summary for synth, but here the article is seen to be reliable by the fact that every point has been qualified by a reference to a secondary source or the text itself, whether controversial or not. Please appreciate that reliable summary is not frowned upon by Misplaced Pages. In addition to the policies on OR and SYNTH this is also clarified in WP:SYNTHNOT which states

"If it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Misplaced Pages policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

I am confident that this article adheres to those standards but if you are able to identify any part of it that you feel is controversial in its summary of the book's content please do specify so concerns can be seen to be addressed. -- Zac Δ 12:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• More work needed. Per Fifelfoo there is too much summary just relying on the text itself rather than on what scholars have said about the text. The nominator could ask for advice on sourcing at the various WikiProjects to which this article belongs, not just WikiProject Astrology. WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome may be able to find experts who can help. Deborah Houldings' work doesn't appear to be scholarly, and the nominator would need to make a case that she has been widely cited by historians if she is to be used as at present in interpreting the material. She might be a good source for how the Tetrabiblos is used by contemporary astrologers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting an independent view from someone in the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome might be sensible. The reason is that Itsmejudith and Fifeldoo were involved in recent controversial arguments about whether Ptolemy’s work on the theory of astrology can be quoted at all on Misplaced Pages! This may have influenced their decision to oppose. (In the same thread it was proposed that “The Loeb translation is available at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius, here, … We should use this translation, I'd say, and definitely avoid earlier ones” – this source appears to have been used throughout.)

Reference to Deborah Houlding’s work is essential as a well-known reliable secondary source on some key details. Her work was peer-reviewed by experts in the field (Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum) and its reliability has been commented on by independent and influential academic sources. See here, where Stephan Heilen – in the most authoritative account of Ptolemy’s work to-date (Ptolemy in Perspective, edited by Alexander Jones) refers to her contribution and how it influenced his own theories. He describes her work as “rigorous research” which was conducted with “painstaking accuracy”. This is obviously an excellent testimony which demonstrates that her work is treated seriously, discussed and deemed worthy of consideration by the other notable historians who work in this specialist area.

I cannot imagine what additional work could go into this article at this stage. Perhaps Itsmejudith could itemise any points that she feels are unreliably reported so that other editors can review them. To my mind, there is no doubt this is a scholarly and reliable article in its present condition that should receive featured article status. Robert Currey talk 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of floating this to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and will add a notice to their project pages. It is important that any reviewer who suggests that this may not be reporting what the scholars are said, is actually aware of who the influential scholars are, and what they have reported - such a person would, I'm sure, be both capable and willing to specify what pertinent source has been omitted, or what point needs further development (and why). As Robert Currey has noted, Houlding's research is taken seriously and is seen to be influential in that it is discussed and referred to by leading scholars in highly respected academic works. -- Zac Δ 19:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think you will get some comments worth considering. On Houlding, I think you may still be setting the bar pretty low for scholarly acceptance, but we will see. Robert Currey misunderstands the argument about Ptolemy as a source on Misplaced Pages. Regulars on RSN have pointed out to you that Ptolemy is a primary source in Misplaced Pages terms. This issue comes up all the time, as you can see if you look through the RSN archives, and the reponses are consistent. We write articles up from reliable secondary sources. That means recent scholarship, scholarship that meets today's standards. Ancient texts are never regarded as reliable secondary sources. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not qualified to interpret them, and we need recent scholars to do this for us. Even to summarise ancient texts requires a level of competence that we do not necessarily have. Students in higher education are taught never to use a text that they have not read and understood. To read and understand the Tetrabiblos means reading it in ancient Greek. If you can't do that, then you need to use not Tetrabiblos itself, but the comments of the learned editor who presents it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(To continue the standard RS/N response to attempts to use primary sources: even if an editor can read ancient Greek, when they're on Misplaced Pages they're an encyclopaedia editor, not a historian of science, nor a religious studies academic, nor an academic research astrologer) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat this point: it is not problematic to summarise content when the translations are trusted and there is no controversy attached to the point being summarised, or to refer to the primary source when quotes or direct reference is being made to its contents. The article reports what the notable secondary sources say wherever interpretation of meaning or assesment is made. I have requested review from members of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and if there is a problem of unreliability in any comment in the article, I am sure that someone on Misplaced Pages will be able to specify this. -- Zac Δ 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly not yet. Collation with the learned preface to the Loeb edition, conveniently available here suggests a certain level of carelessness, and the presence of a fixed idea.
  • As an example of the first, Robbins quotes two titles found in the MSS. and says that one is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy. Our article says that the formal title is "unknown", and then proceeds to discuss the other, citing Robbins. This is misunderstanding.

But that’s not actually the case: the article cites Robbins, Jones and Helien, and shows by the footnote references that the text in the article is based directly on the comments of Jones and Heilen. This is because Robbins wrote his introduction in 1940, and our knowledge of Ptolemy’s work has advanced since then. Alexander Jones, Professor of the History of the Exact Sciences in Antiquity, is the author of the Springer edition of Ptolemy in Perspective (2010), which presents nine recent scholarly studies of Ptolemy’s work, including one by Stephan Heilen, a Professor of Classics. Both Jones and Heilen discuss the title, and what the article reports in the section entitled 'Original title' can be seen to be closely and carefully based on their comments by reference to the quotations given in the accompanying footnotes: 1 and 2. This is supported by the detail in footnote 1 of the page cited in Robbins, where he reports that the anonymous author of an ancient commentary on the work “says that some considered it a fictitious name”.

Therefore, it is correct and more reliable to give the emphasis to Jones and Heilen on this point, which the article currently does. I will, however, add more detail on what Robbins wrote into the footnote, so that the reader understands more clearly that what Robbins says is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy is the fuller title found in the Norimbergensis manuscript ‘Mathematical Treatise in Four Books’ than the common title (which Jones refers to as the “nickname”) Tetrabiblos: ‘The Four Books’.

-- Zac Δ 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is now done. I have added information to the footnotes, and also to the main article text to cover all relevant scholarly opinions. As can now be seen more clearly, the opinion of Robbins is no longer considered authoritative. -- Zac Δ 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• A far more serious misunderstanding is this:

  • Robbbins says Though the Tetrabiblos enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more, its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century.

    What millennium does Robbins mean? The 1800 years from Ptolemy to himself? No, the 1300 years from Ptolemy to the High Renaissance after which Ptolemy was absorbed into the Latin astrological tradition.

    This has been quoted incompletely and misleadingly by ending at "...more," probably through a sincere misunderstanding of the case.

I don’t accept that there is any point of misunderstanding here, because:

1. In the introductory section (General overview and influence) the article merely states that the book is said to have "enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more".(ref to Robbins). This is used only as a demonstration of the book’s indisputable notability. Robbins was not specific, but only said “the writers of a thousand years or more”, so it would be WP:OR to speculate on what he meant specifically, and unecessary to elaborate further at this point of the article anyway.
2. The section on Editions and translations explains the reproductions in detail – and this is where the reader can establish when there were periods of increased attention in the work. It is very clear that the book's influence in the West did not collapse at the end of the High Renaissance but increased dramatically following the flurry of 16th century Greek translations by Camerarius (who produced two of the Greek editions Robbins’ refers to) Allatius’ Paraphrase, the publication of the Anonymous Commentary by Hieronymous Wolf, and the highly influential inclusion within astrological compendiums of leading astrologers such as Junctinus (another reproduction of the Greek text) and Cardan.

In addition, Robbins’ comment, that “its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century”; is no longer correct. Following his own publication of the Greek text, a Greek edition was published by Boll-Boer, and then there was the Hübner edition of 1998. So in fact omission of the comment that it has not been reproduced in Greek “at all since the sixteenth century”, leaves no misunderstanding, since this is not the case. The more relevant point however, is that the quote is only demonstrating notability, and it is not in any way misleading to suggest that the book did hold this position of notability and to refer to Robbins' comment as an example of how this has been commented upon. -- Zac Δ 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The text on this point is greatly improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The article is a paean on Ptolemy's direct effect on modern astrology. This would be inappropriate if it were supported by sources, and it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean ‘appropriate’ where you say ‘inappropriate’ and build my response in relation to that.

No. Campaigning for a POV is inappropriate even if the sources are polemics for it, which (aside from Ptolemy himself) these are not. Stating their claims as facts (provided they are consensus, which the assertions of polemics often are not) would be a different matter. But the accuracy of judicial astrology is not a consensus position, so that does not apply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point which requires consideration: I realise that this article touches on issues that arouse feelings of discomfort from some – in fact, probably many - WP editors. Astrology is a controversial subject, and as a fringe topic the general attitude towards its presentation on WP is that it should not be treated with respect. The article aims to be objective and explains the topic as it was presented in the Tetrabiblos, according to the viewpoint of its author. Since Ptolemy’s philosophical defence of astrology was one of the reasons why this book, and as a consequence astrology itself, generated such historical significance, it is impossible not to discuss those arguments. On the other hand the article makes clear that Ptolemy held an ambivalent attitude towards some principles and practices of astrology, and was highly critical of others.

At an early stage of the article’s creation it was featured in a DYK entry because of the fact that the Tetrabiblos remains an important text book for modern students of astrology. The attention given to this point has since been toned down, although it is acknowledged in the lede and demonstrated by inclusion of footnote 6.

It would be easy to add more references of a similar nature to support the point, but this would increase the prospect of controversy, I believe, as many WP editors would not like to see an increased emphasis on modern astrological works. However, a substantial percentage of the WP readers who refer to this article will be students of the historical and modern practice of astrology. At the end of the day this was Ptolemy’s astrological work and astrology is its theme. The article therefore includes reference to the points that remain most notable in the subject, discussing where its core principles are evaluated or established, (for example, the article text that is referenced by footnotes 65-66) and points that have caused notable astrological controversies are introduced (for example: the discussion of the Lots made in the introductory paragraph to Book VI). It is necessary to give a clear explanations of the book's contents and to show how it is has had an effect on modern astrology, although I am wary that this, whilst to the liking to those who want to understand what the book was teaching, will also be to the disdain of many who dislike the whole concept or practice of astrology, historical or modern. -- Zac Δ 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for being so frank. Now I must straightforwardly oppose; that is an argument for an in-universe POV, which is contrary to policy. That is not unreasonable when summarizing Ptolemy, and may be unavoidable - but those are not the sections under discussion. I shall be tagging the article accordingly.
• On the matter of fact, if what the article said or implied was that Ptolemy had been indirectly influential since the Renaissance, that would certainly be defensible, and might well be unquestionable - although it would require a secondary source which said so explicitly, which Robbins does not. But it says something much stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• For more, see Talk:Tetrabiblos#POV_and_in_universe and Talk:Tetrabiblos#Accuracy. These are smaller than the declared intention to violate core policy, and may be resolved rapidly. I have no objection if somebody brings them here, but it seems unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with the above comments. My two main problems with the article are that it's not backed up by reliable sources and there needs to be a section about its impact and which texts it subsequently affected. I understand the majority of the article dealing with the content of the book needs to be sourced to the documents, but most of this needs to be backed up by other sources, in context of an analysis. —Ed! 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, two failed FACs, and one copy-edit by by an experienced copy-editor. Most importantly, "Single Ladies" documents one of the most culturally significant pop songs of the decade... Many people around the world know this song for its catchy hook and its viral dance video. The fact that it is still in the top 400 of US iTunes nearly four years after its release in late 2008, further supports what I mentioned. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. You help and suggestions are most welcome. With that being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "All the singing ladies, all the singing fellas " - don't need that ellipsis

done I have removed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 4: do you have an album ID or catalog number?

Well, i cannot understand why you are asking me about this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Album numbers are a good thing to include where possible as they make the source easier to locate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a physical copy. Can i ask someone else or it is necessary that i own one? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ask someone else. You might also be able to find that info online. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is 0088697417352. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, could you add it to the citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers

May I remove all the locations? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

done I have removed all the locations to maintain consistency. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspaper, and if so how these are notated. Compare for example FNs 31 and 33

Well, this is difficult to do. Simply because it depends on whether I use cite web or cite news. The Times is a magazine, which means I should use cite web while The Guardian is a daily newspaper, which implies i have to use cite news. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

done I have removed the locations and checked for correct usage of cite news and cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The Times is a UK newspaper; it publishes magazines and supplements. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I have fixed that.Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Can you please exemplified this? I actually did not understand. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?

Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• This?

Please provide the FN. This has over 200 references. Actually, the website is down temporarily. I started feeling dizzy searching for it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Need a bit more. What are the author's qualifications, and what is the magazine's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikki, what exactly do i need to provide? Things like where the author has worked before? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

These are all i could find. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Urlesque has been replaced everywhere. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• This?

I have removed this reference along with its associated prose. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• This?

Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• This?

Comic Book Resources has been described as "the premiere comics-related site on the Web" by by the University of Buffalo's research library. It is also the favored research and news site on comics and graphic novels by American Libraries and Universities. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• This?

I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 44: this doesn't match the formatting used for earlier Billboard refs

I replaced cite news with cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check wikilinking for consistency

done Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid using leading zeroes (ex. FN 85)

Good? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you format TV episodes

Please explain further. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. You have two citations to TV shows: one with season/episode at the beginning, one with it at the end. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide me with the FNs. Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk)12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently FNs 126 and 168. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher listed for this source seems to be incorrect.

done I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some notes: Jivesh boodhun, please read the WP:FAC instructions and refrain from using "done" marks. Also, please revisit WP:WIG and your sig, which makes this FAC utterly dreadful to view. On an article's third time at FAC, we should not still be seeing a long list of reliability of sources and MOS issues-- presumably, by the third time through, these kinds of things should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Sandy. I will change my signature temporarily. By the way, the sources i have defended above were already defended in the first and second FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Not sure why a whole sub-section is devoted to Kanyegate, which is very, very tangentially related to this song. Also, avoid single-paragraph sub-sections and lists such as "Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom", especially in the lead ("Many countries" will suffice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indopug (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 November 2011

With all respect i owe to you, did you read that paragraph and did you know what happened at the VMAs in 2009? Do you know about the coverage it received?

I don't see why i should avoid "avoid single-paragraph sub-sections"? Do you think it is better to present a whole lot of information under a same section? Our aim on Misplaced Pages is to facilitate reading. That is why we have sub-sections.

And it is better to list the countries that way. Do you realize saying many countries will be confusing? What if people start thinking that the song made the top 10 in Europe when that's not the case? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you write "very, very tangentially related to this song"? Well, let me explain now:

While Taylor Swift was making her acceptance speech for winning Best Female Video for "You Belong with Me", Kanye West got onto the stage and interrupted her; he took her microphone, saying: "Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!", referring to the music video of "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Angered, he flipped off the crowd. His behavior was not appreciated at all. Celebrities, bloggers, newspapers, and even U.S. President Barack Obama complained. This whole situation, which has a direction connection with "Single Ladies", was termed as Kanyegate. You can go on Google any type Kanyegate and see the number of articles that will appear. All of them will mention "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Support — I read the article a few times and really impressed me with all that information that it possesses. From the concept, recording and release to the composition, critical section and etc. I also had a look at the references, but as I seem there is also not a problem with them. The only thing that I found slightly disturbing is the repeating of "Single Ladies" in the lead. Instead it could be use, the song, the single or eventually it. All in all the prose is good. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I will address your concerns shortly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All in all good, but you could also change this:

• As of November 2009, "Single Ladies" had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. → As of November 2009, it had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, i think it should remain as such because i previously mentioned "Single Ladies" as The song and then listed a number of countries, followed by the use of a connective and. So, just to avoid confusion, it better remain like that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it's obvious that you are talking about "Single Ladies", but nevertheless ... my support still remains — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on issues with prose, layout, and media. - As I told you before, in all good faith the prose is still rough and shall I say sloppy.

• Writers in the infobox are credited with birth names.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Critics praised the song for its smooth production and noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single 'Get Me Bodied'." – What is "smooth production"?

Let me quote the seventh edition of Oxford dictionary. Smooth in a musical context means: nice to hear, and without any rough or unpleasant sounds. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "As of November 2009, 'Single Ladies' had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide." – November 2009? It's been two years.

Well, the sales have not been updated. Is that a problem? If yes, may i know why?Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If there has been no update since, then I will not question it. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The song's accompanying music video, directed by Jake Nava, was shot entirely in black-and-white." – I do not see that use of "entirely". Without the word, it means exactly the same thing.

Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk)

Well, it s done but i feel i need to explain why i put that word. Actually, during the I Am... Sasha Fierce era, several videos were shot in black and white but not all of them wore shot entirely in black and white. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "People from around the world have parodied and imitated the routine, including US President Barack Obama and pop artists Justin Timberlake and Joe Jonas." – Similar thing here; "from around the world" is just exhausted. I suggest the sentence be re-worded like: "There have been parodies and imitations of the routing by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas."

Wait, "by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas"... that seems as if only celebrities did the routine. Pardon me but it does not read well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, i attempted to rephrase it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "According to the Toronto Star, the music video started the 'first major dance craze' of the internet age." – Why do you have a specific quote in the WP:LEAD, which is supposedly a general overview of the topic?

Please have a look at the first and second peer reviews and the previous FACs. Such mentions (similar to worldwide sales) have to be sourced in the lead. I hope that was what you are referring to. If ever it was to this, "'first major dance craze' of the internet age", i hope you know that the dance craze "Single Ladies" started is not just an overview of the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If i remember well, the lead has been criticized many times for being lengthy and over-detailed. In the first and second GAN, the peer reviews, editors posting on my talk-page and i think even in one of the FACs. So please, with all respect oi owe to you, do not expect me to re-write the lead. Because every time it is the same thing, someone say A, the other one says Z. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The video won several awards, including Video of the Year at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards." – Is it important to say in the lead which year ceremony the video won the award? Can't we just way "The video won several awards, including the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year." Maybe throw in a few other amazing achievements into the sentence as well?

Yes it is. Simply because the song did not win awards only in 2009. Please help me with this, "a few other amazing achievements"... A few examples? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Artists such as Katy Perry have covered "Single Ladies", and television shows and other media have used it." – Could you expand on other cover artists?

Expand but why? Please explain. As you said previously the lead is just an overview and the word overview fits here best because the covers did not really receive the attention that the song itself received. They were just covers. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like quotes from specific publications in the lead. I don't see the problem listing a few other artists who have covered the song. Maybe two more? —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overall, the lead looks a bit dry as a summary. It focuses little on the lyrical meaning and production.

I have responded to this above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Passive voice is overused in the Background and release section. "Was produced by" this, "was written by" that. It is much preferable to say "This wrote the song, which that produced."
• Your use of quotations in this section is too much. The flow is disruptive and there is little original prose, sorry.

Okay. I will try to do this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please check and let me know if you are satisfied by how it is now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are awkward formations such as "Speaking about marriage, The-Dream said". They need to be re-worded so that you do not use both "speak" and "say". Otherwise, just cut "Speaking about marriage".

These will be taken care of soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "It appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song." – What appears? Using "this" is awkward and rather unencyclopedic; it also does a bad job specifying what is being referred to. "This reinforced the theme of the album" What is "this"?

It means releasing two singles simultaneously, each taken from either discs. So do i need to replace this by what i wrote? Don't you think it it will be repetitive? Jivesh1205 (Talk)

Iunderstand what it means. I don't like the use of "it" here. Why not "The song"? Note: Do not say "The single" because it does not make sense for a single to appear on a disc, it can appear as a disc though. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "'Single Ladies' contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; Andy Kellman of Allmusic called "Single Ladies" a "dire throwback" of that song." – A sentence that can easily be condensed. "'Single Ladies', according to Andy Kellman of Almusic, is a "dire throwback" of Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"."

To tell you frankly, the first sentence helps me to understand what the second sentence means because i am not a native speaker of English. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "what responds to" – What does that mean? I'm not looking for a reply, I want you to paraphrase the quote so that it is better understandable.

Hmm how am i supposed to do that. I left it like that because of the source. Please read the article from People magazine. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The song has been compared to schoolyard chants, and has been said to feature "playground vocals"." – By who exactly?

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Remember you should also be trying to shorten sentences as much as possible without loosing meaning, and make the prose dense. You can do this by re-wording or taking out redundant words that are too vague to give added meaning. (ex various, a number of, multiple, from around the world, etc.)

Excuse me but my English teachers say quite the contrary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, different communities and organizations have a different perspective on this, But here on Misplaced Pages, making wordy prose ruins the flow. You will see strong copy editors like Baffle gab trying to "condense and clarify text". —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• What in the world is "danceability" and is it even a real word?

Will dance beat be a good replacement? Or "ability to urge people to dance"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"dance beat" sounds good. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Background section in Music video is awfully small and I question its raison d'etre as a standalone subsection.

I am merging it with concept. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Music video screenshot needs fair use rationale to be expanded.

With all respect i owe to you, it is more than enough. Please have a look at the PRs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you get a bit more detailed than "To demonstrate the use of J-setting choreography in the music video"? FAC is different from PR, Jivesh. Havea look at File:4MinutesVideo(G3).PNG.

Oops, my sincere apologies. I just realize what you really meant. I did not understand at first that it was in fact here that i needed to improve the rationale. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Like a reviewer above, why does Kanyegate need its own section? The info can stay, but I really don't see the need for a subsection. It looks really cluttered.

I will not remove this. If i remove Kanyegate, the whole incident will fall directly into the Response and accolades section. Do you realize that it will be hard to find the ideal place to fit that because you need to understand that it was not a common kind of response. It is not every year (i have not written everyday because i am trying to be reasonable) that Mr X will get on the stage and interrupt Miss Y; saying: "Yo, Miss Y, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Mrs Z had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!". Is it clearer now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem removing this. You could then say where the word "Kanyegate" came from? Right now, it's just not pretty.

I understand with such a long article it is hard to polish it to perfection, but that is the only way you will get a featured article. Note that all prose issues I have listed were only from sections up to Composition. Thorough copy editing is required. —WP:PENGUIN · 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well i understand but this is discouraging. Every time, i am told the same thing. It has already received several copy-edits. I have responded to all your issues above. Except the Background and release section which will be re-written soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The copy edits should have been more thorough. And you can have several of them and still not satisfy the criteria. At FAC, if we see prose issues, we will definitely bring it up simply for the best of the article. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have resolved all the issues except the quote in the lead, which i strongly believe should remain as such. There is nothing wrong in having a quote in the lead. Please do not get me wrong but ever since since this article has been nominated, whether it was for its numerous PRs, GANs, FACs, it has always been condensed. This time, nothing more will be removed. It has already lost more than 22 Kb. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the lead (just to give the third paragraph more volume) that SL remained at number one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart for twelve consecutive weeks. I believe such things do not happen very often even tough it is just the R&B chart. But if you think it is not necessary, then i won't. By the way, i just expanded the lead a bit more. I tried my my maximum to follow "Love the Way You Lie" but you know, "Single Ladies" does not have so much information about recording and/or production because most often, Beyonce does not talk about her songs nor she lets her producers or writers talk about them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And will i have to remove Main article: Kanyegate as well? Penguin, i still do not understand why we need to remove it. I mean, it received so much coverage. That incident prompted more people to watch the video. It was notable enough to merit its own article on Misplaced Pages. And look at the sub-title, it is Response and accolades. It will look horrible if merged directly. Imagine someone knowing absolutely nothing about music, Beyonce, Kanye West or Taylor Swift reading the article. Having that section tiled as it is right now, will help the viewer to understand what impact that the incident left and coverage it received. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, the heading stays. :) I still do not understand what's is so important about the quote that it has to be in the lead... —WP:PENGUIN · 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know it was not a quote before but i was told to change it to a quote + add a source to that. The one who reviewed it, could not believe that "Single Ladies" had really had that impact as he knew nothing about music. Look at what he wrote. That's why i always say that when we write a song article, especially one that had a cultural impact (like "Single Ladies"), we should keep in mind that not everyone may have across the song or its video (for various reasons). So, sometimes it is better to quote and cite. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The article has improved thanks to the well-done copy edits. I have struck through my Oppose and am looking forward to support this article eventually. Further input from other reviewers is always appreciated. One question; I am uncertain about why the image in the Chart performance section was moved. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The copy-editor asked me clarify the US chart run. I had to add three more sentences and that completely disrupted the structure of the article, mainly because of the image placement. That's why i moved it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the previous revision, and it looked fine. What do you mean when you say "completely disrupted the structure of the article"? Maybe a re-sizing to the default could help? —WP:PENGUIN · 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done it the way you want. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, you will support only if more people support? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do what I did at "Rehab" and try and make as many fixes myself until I reach the point at which I can do no more, Then I feel that it is ready and will support. Won't take time. By the end of this weekend hopefully. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - My issues have been addressed, article has been thoroughly copy-edited and the prose is looking much better. I will be happy to see this article one day at the main page for all readers to celebrate the music revolution known as "Single Ladies". —WP:PENGUIN · 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I currently have some personal problems (in real life) which i cannot share. I will not be here from Friday 06 00 UTC to Sunday 17 00 UTC. Please bear with me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm back now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

@Penguin, since i have fixed all your issues apart from that 'another thorough copy-edit' one, is there a possibility you may change your opinion if SL gets another c/e? I read the article two times on Thursday and did whatever i could but i do not know if it is satisfactory (according to you). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the copy edit. If I am satisfied with the prose (which will not be easy), I may change my opinion. 'Till then, my oppose stands strong, sorry. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So am i right to consider that you opposes only on the prose? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see atm, yes. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Penguin, the article is being copy-edited. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments I will post some comments before I decide Support or Oppose, as I can't go through the entire article right this minute.

• FN1: Billboard and PGM need to be wiki-linked

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN38: Yahoo! linking needed.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN55: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN111: Publisher?

Calvin, it is a press release. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN115: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN146: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• "A sample of "Single Ladies (Put A Ring on It)," a dance-pop" → There is a double space there.

Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Something I've been told to do on S&M FAC, is to remove every instance of the word "also", according to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing.

This was mentioned in the first FAC and it has been removed where necessary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would change "Commercial reception" to "Chart performance", it seems more appropriate to use that title.

I prefer to leave it like that because this was the title proposed. It was Chart performance previously. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Critical reception and Commercial reception work well. Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am changing it then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." Why is this so notable in this performance? She does it in every performance.

Well not really. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

She always points to her ring at the end of the performance and during the middle. Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

She does not always wear the roboglove Calvin. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I've always seen her wear it. Calvin • 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Search for each performance on YouTube. She does not always wear it though she never forgets the ring. After all, it is her wedding ring. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "the line "Put a Ring on It"" Technically it's a lyric, this is a music article.

Well, i don't understand you here. They used that line where the ring is the female condom and the 'it', well you what it is. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Female condom?!!? I mean't change "line" to "lyric". Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How on earth did you arrive at female condom?!?! haha. Calvin • 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why i understood. It was a campaign for women. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Calvin • 14:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article and to be honest, I can't see anything else wrong with it. This song deserves to be an FA due to the impact it's had as well as its success, and the information in the article clearly provides this information to a high level of competence and coherence. Only four points to address from me now, but you have my Support.

Support Calvin • 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Penguin, the article is being copy-edited though the copy-editor himself told me that there is not much to b e done here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm done, and I've left a few notes on your talk page for the remaining things I think need to be dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I can't see any problems regarding prose, or any other aspects pertaining to FA criteria. Happy to support. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Two Hearted River''(paddle /fish) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

–Comprehensive/amount of detail

• Nothing is said about the recording of the song. There are a few sentences about its writing, one sentence about Knowles' not wearing a ring while recording it, and then it's released. As the subject of this article is a recorded song, I don't see how the article can be called comprehensive (FA criterion #1b) without some discussion of the song's recording.

• Beyonce does not talk about her songs very often. For instance in 2011, she gave only two interviews; one in Australia in October 2011 and the other one in the US in December 2011. Though she has both a new album and a DVD out, she did not mention a word about them. That's all i could find. And if you see the source, the title is The Making of "Single Ladies and that's all a magazine like People knows about the making of the song. I cannot add something which does not exist (on the web) or not supported by reliable sources, can I? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do we need to know that this song swapped chart positions with "Live Your Life" a couple times? Why isn't it enough to summarize, as done in the next sentence, that the song was at #1 for four non-consecutive weeks?

• If you see how the page was yesterday, that information was not there but a reviewer asked me to put it. Now you tell me, to whom should i listen? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem in commentary about a song's commercial performance. It is interesting from a reader's point-of-view how a song went up-and-down a chart. Let's face it, general public lives for commentary, not overt technical details. Jivesh, keep this information. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• How does knowledge of when Knowles first, and later, wore the roboglove further the reader's understanding of this song?

• I've retained the first reference to her wearing the glove, but removed the second mention.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• How does knowledge of what Knowles was wearing in various live performances further the reader's understanding of this song?

• I guarantee you that there will be people who are wondering what Beyonce was wearing during her performances, so I don't think it would hurt if the information regarding her performance apparel was included.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Second that. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

–Prose issues (not exhaustive):

• "The-Dream was inspired to compose the song as it explores an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." – Suggests to this reader that if a song is to explore men's fear of commitment, one couldn't help but be inspired when writing it.

• Please clarify. --Sp33dyphil © •© 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please explain and if possible use shorter sentences. Did you mean that there should be something like according to him?

• No, that didn't change the meaning. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but surely you didn't mean it the way I read it. Did you mean that Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected...? That would make sense. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lots of critical comments creep into the Composition section, which is distracting. In fact, almost everything after the first 5.5 sentences ought to be moved to the Critical reception section. Noting the lyrical theme is fine, but that should be summarized without quotation instead of rattling off a bunch of critics' characterizations of the theme.

• Composition sections for recent songs are crafted using material from critical reviews. It is preferable to quote to avoid copyvio issues as i have been told numerous times in the past. And frankly, i don't see how i can fit those pieces of information into a critical reception section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Again, THR I have to agree with Jivesh. These are not mere pedestrians commenting about the song, these are well-respected critics who have opined about the composition. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting that you say that, because my point is that the writing style treats their characterizations as just some people's opinions that we don't want to stand behind, which is less respect than they deserve. This section would work much better if the source material were synthesized and written in the editor's own words, without naming the writers but with citations to back it up. The last sentence of the second paragraph is how the entire section should be written. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Did you write without naming the writers? But that would be like stealing from them. I have done this in the past and in less than a day, i saw someone adding by who templates at the end of each sentence. I don't want that to happen again., And whoever did that was article as that avoids copyvio issues. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The music video for "Single Ladies" was shot immediately after that of "If I Were a Boy", to reinforce the concept of conflicting personalities..." – Is it the filming date proximity or the release date proximity that reinforces the concept?

• Should we go by what the source says? Every time one video from I Am... and another one from Sasha Fiercewere shot immediately one after the other though they weren't always released at the same time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jivesh, the videos were indeed shot and released also simultaneously. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What am I supposed to correct? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just think about my question and which possibility would make more sense. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The release date as they premiered on the same date, exposing people to two videos, each from a different disc. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "with whom Knowles had worked on her previous music videos" – the inclusion of "her" suggests that Nava was the only person to have directed Knowles' videos to that point

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "they were released to major outlets on the same date" – What constitutes a "major outlet"? Was the video released to minor outlets later? What constitutes a minor outlet? Are there minor outlets?

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, now I'd like you to replace "outlets" altogether in the name of clarity (and lest the reader think you mean outlet store). My guess is that "outlets" means TV networks and perhaps certain websites but not brick-and-mortar/internet retailers where a physical/digital copy could be purchased. Is that right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am changing it to media outlets. No need to complicate things. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots..." – "numerous different" as opposed to "numerous same"? How about just "multiple"?

• Numerous shots can mean a whole heap of the same camera shots, so the addition of different here is spot on.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Numerous different camera shots and cuts" still seems quite ungainly. Would "multiple camera angles and cuts" convey the same meaning? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "One of the most viral videos..." – There are levels of viral?

• Viral is an adjective, so most is applicable. --Sp33dyphil © •© 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "YouTube" could be an adjective that modifies "videos" --> One of the most YouTube videos? Nah. One of the most-viewed viral videos? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "...it addresses a serious issue that women experience everyday" – "everyday" is an adjective

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• ""Live Your Life" by T.I. featuring Rihanna climbed the top spot of he Hot 100 chart issue dated December 20, 2011." –spot the error

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

–Fair use issues:

• A music sample is not necessary to illustrate the corresponding caption.

• Really? Frankly, i would have never known what robotic effects feel like to the ears. Nor would i have known what a song compromising of R&B, dance-pop, and bounce as well as dancehall influences altogether may sound like. I don't see how the reader will understand the prose fully without the music sample. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can agree with this, reading the section and the rationale with which it is being used. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The boxed quote from Ann Powers is excessive and doesn't really further our understanding of the theme of the song beyond what's written elsewhere in the article.

• With all the respect i owe to you, that analysis is simply perfect. Please read it again. What is easy for you may not be easy for everyone else, especially youngsters who have just began discovering music. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Same with the second boxed quote.

• I echo the same thoughts here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

–MOS issues (not exhaustive):

• In American English, ", " constructions not ending a sentence require a comma after . (", " constructions do, as well.)

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in the Chart section: "number 72", "number twenty-eight". Check throughout.

• Please see WP:ORDINAL. "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either '5 cats and 32 dogs' or 'five cats and thirty-two dogs', not 'five cats and 32 dogs.'" (A must) It also says "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words". (Editorial preference). --Sp33dyphil © • ©02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

":*Thanks for this. I have fixed them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

THR is right in this case Sp33dyphil. WP:ORDINAL does not apply here. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are quoted phrases in successive sentences and only one citation at the end of the series. I believe citations are required after every quotation.

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• You need to cite each one. That's my understanding of WP:QUOTE and what is routinely called for in FACs. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "American rock band, A Rocket to the Moon, covered..." – commas not warranted here

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• – order numerically

• Done. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

–References that don't support the text (not exhaustive):

,

• Sourced properly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• still not fixed. Nothing is said about what bloggers noticed. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What do you specifically want? Should i add in the sense that the dance steps of Knowles her two female dancers were similar to those of Gwen Verdon and her two female dancers? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The reference doesn't mention bloggers at all, so you can't use it to back up a sentence about bloggers.

• Someone did this days ago. didn't . Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please tell me what i can do? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend removing that sentence and moving the detail about "Mexican Breakfast"/"Walk It Out" to the previous section where Knowles discusses the inspiration for the video. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

–Text not supported by references (not exhaustive):

• "However, the main intention is to attract the viewers' attention toward their hands and ring fingers."

• Sourced. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The quoted claim from Miklós Jancsó Scott Cudmore (which is misattributed to Kate Carraway in the article, as is the source article in the reference) that this video inspired people to seek out artful music videos seems dubious. How could one draw that conclusion?

• I wonder how the author changed when i archived that source. I don't see anything dubious. It is very easy to understand. "Single Ladies" was inspired by "Mexican Breakfast". As a result, people (especially youngsters) searched for "Mexican Breakfast after having watched "Single Ladies". Evidently, after watching MB, they would want to watch other artful music videos. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Where would Cudmore have found such evidence? I think he's making stuff up and the quote should not be used. (Also, attribution problems remain.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, with all the respect i owe to you, who are you to question what he said? Do you think Eye Weekly is has no editorial policy and is unprofessional to the point to publish any nonsense people will say? Try to think about it with a cool mind mind. You are stressing on the matter too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Who am I? I'm a person with a brain. Reputable sources need not establish the veracity of every statement they wish to quote before printing it. (Here's one from The New York Times today: "'Congressman Jackson acted honorably at all times and did not violate any House rule or federal law in connection with the Senate appointment process,' the letter says.") Consider my original question. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by Reputable sources? Are you referring to politicians, celebrities, ect? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I mean NYT and Eye Weekly, etc. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am confused now. The article is from Eye Weekly, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do you want to say Cudmore is wrong and you are right? What exactly don't you like in what he said? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos. Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe Cudmore has any basis for saying the "Single Ladies" video "made people consciously look for music videos because of its art". Three facts would need to be established: 1) that people were consciously looking for videos at the time, 2) that "art" was the driving force for the previous fact, and 3) that "Single Ladies" was the catalyst for it all. The second and third are impossible to prove absent a survey or maybe some highly detailed YouTube statistics, and I'll eat my hat if the former exists or if Cudmore were privy to the latter. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can see everything is here

YouTube killed the video star. Yet Toronto director Scott Cudmore has a plan. They Shoot Videos, Don’t They? a bi-monthly music-video screening series debuting July 9 at Trinity-Bellwoods gallery 107 Shaw (107 Shaw), features some of video’s best and brightest auteurs — most of them Canadian — proving that the art form can live on long after Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze take to bigger screens.

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos,” says Cudmore, whose films for Timber Timbre, The National and Brian Borcherdt boast a wintry melancholia that recalls Hungarian filmmaker Miklós Jancsó. “Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.”

• Aren't those enough? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• And how can you question someone who has accomplished so much in that field? I cannot understand your claims. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am unswayed by the responses to my concerns about comprehensiveness and fair use and cannot strike my oppose at this time. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wait, who told you that Comprehensive/amount of detail is about details. Here it says, it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. How do you want me to get details that do not exist on the web? Do you how many times i have contacted Columbia records and Beyonce on her official website. But they won't reveal the details. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have explained the fair use and i still cannot understand how you can figure out what robotic effects are. Don't just think about yourself. Also think of others who will read this article and will not understand what robotic effects are. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Two Hearted River was notified on two separate occasions on December 3 and December 16 that his comments had been addressed, but he has yet to revisit/respond. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Legolas

• Another point Jivesh, the image of Kanye is simply not needed. Its not a major section of the article, and Kanyegate has its own issues. The image simply overlaps and disrupts two free flowing sections. I would strongly recommend removing it.

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• "It has a basic chord progression of Em–C–Em in the verses, and Em–C–Am–C–Am in the chorus" – That's not exactly a basic chord progression is it. I would recommend removing the word "basic".

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kinda hung-up sentences like "Nick Levine of Digital Spy particularly lauded its beats" --> Readers are left wondering how did he laud and what beat?

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The recognition and accolades section needs to be separated into what it is. Recognition "and" Accolades. At present you have two paras devoted to recognition while the third starts with awards. Merge the first two for a clearer picture.

• Should it be a stand alone section? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is that what you meant? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• No what I meant was to have a para for recognition another for accolades. — Legolas 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think i have already done that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please substitute that (ugh) Twitter link.

• Nikki said as long as the account is verified, there is no problem. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I removed it for peace. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• When you are mentioning certifications, you have to mention the shipment for which the song received it.

• Done. Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• During her tour in Melbourne, Australia, on August 13, 2010, Katy Perry performed "Single Ladies" --> Which tour?

• No name was given to the tour. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• song as part of Billboard magazine's --> the word magazine is unnecessary here.

• Removed Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the cover versions, that whole section appears pretty stale. Can you try to find some critical info regarding those covers? At present it looks like a WP:DIRECTORY.

• I will try. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It still looks the same. — Legolas 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I replied to this below (it was unintentional). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, Trish Crawford's commentary on the impact can really be changed into prose and merged into the first para of the Cultural impact section. It really does seem unnecessary to put it in the quote box.

• I don't know how to do that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The quote paints a powerful picture of people from many age groups performing the "Single Ladies" dance, which is a distinctive aspect of the song. @Legolas Do you mind if I trim the quote to half its current size? --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, i think what he wants is for it to be "changed into prose". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, a cultural impact and legacy section loses its weight if the prose part is less and the quote box part is huge which was the case here. That's why I asked to change it into prose or shorten the box. You removed it altogether? — Legolas 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much text was removed. Should we add the quote box back then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything about the Glee performance in their concert added to the prose. So what is that image doing there?

• Let me see. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Legolas, most often, we learn about covers through YouTube and you know better than me how difficult it is at times to find reliable references to source the covers. In all the sources i have (all are reliable), the reviewers do not leave a single critical commentary worth mentioning. Click on them one by one, you will see. What should i do then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• If their only availability or notability is YouTube, then I'm afraid they are not notable. Performances and other usage will only be recognizable and noteworthy, if aided by critical or journalistic interpretation. — Legolas 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I got one for Sara Bareilles. The rest seems hopeless to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you can't any sources, I suggest removing the photo. 10:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have already added and sourced that. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Critical commentary has been added where possible (after you asked for them). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please have a look now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all at present. I will look for more later. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Legolas, all your issues have been addressed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I think all my issues are addressed plus the article has grown much and reads like an ideal FA for Misplaced Pages. Best, — Legolas 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaning to Oppose Comments Oppose

For reasons that I cannot keep up with Jivesh's pace, I am changing this to "comments" only. --Efe (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Place inline citation for direct quotations such as "consciously look for music videos because of art." --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the same, please be consistent where to put the closing quotation mark. See WP:LQ for guidance. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the quotation is factual, better paraphrase and get the most essential. Regarding the video for "Single Ladies", Knowles said, "Out of all my videos, it was the least expensive and took the least amount of time. And it ended up being the most iconic. I just wanted to keep this one really minimal. But once we got on the set, it was like, wait a minute. This is something special." --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Second paragraph under "Response and accolades" is read like the staccato notes towards the end of her song "I Care". Its not written well, doesn't flow well. Needs trimming perhaps and transitions? --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• What are transitions? Can you help me because frankly, three copy-editors and I have done our best to make that section look good. The list is too long and we cannot help it. I will really appreciate if you help. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is really a piecemeal list, and it's difficult to present such things well if each entry gets its own sentence. I've tried a different way of presenting it. What do you think? This issue arises quite often in popular music articles, so it would be good to know if this works or what else might. --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is the Kanyegate worth a subsection? Its part fancrufty. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have explained this above twice. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Very verbose structure: Knowles said that she wanted to keep the video simple. She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots and cuts, without alterations to hairstyles, costumes, sets or lighting. She focused only on the performance. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I get the viewpoint of Nava, or whoever is quoted here: He deliberately used lengthy shots so that viewers "would connect with the human endeavor of Beyoncé's awe-inspiring dance". --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Nava said that on the day the video was shot, the song was divided into three parts. This lacks explanation, or elaboration. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I sincerely don't think so. The explanation is already there though i have not used connectives as "because" or "as". And i have made maximum use of the source. I cannot put something which is not there. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why is J-setting discussed under "Synopsis"? --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Simply because it is the best place to include it. The plot of the video (synopsis) has a direct connection to it. It is one of the many styles to which the dance routine exposes the viewer. There is no better place it could be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are a lot of COIs and POVish quotations here: "Nava later wrote to MTV, stating: "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract. It's a testament to Beyoncé's mind-boggling talent and to the fact that sometimes, less really can be more."" Of course Nava would always promote the interest of the artist. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I partly reformulated this. But i definitely agree and won't remove that it is a testament to Beyoncé's talent. What guarantee do you have that if Mariah Carey, Lady GaGa, Katy Perry or Rihanna was in the place of Beyonce, the video would have had the same impact? And Mark, the video may seem simple to you but that choreography is very hard to tackle. I bet that any of the four artists i mentioned above could have never done that choreography. And it is not for nothing that so many reliable sources credit Beyonce as one of the best dancers (i mean singers who also dance). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about Beyonce's talent here. Just focus on the facts. Not anyone else's opinion, much less those not disinterested to the subject in question. Nava is the director. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• We are not talking about Beyonce's talent, are you sure? Then whose... Nava? Was he dancing in the video? Would the video have existed without someone dancing in it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we are not. That introduces POV. And as I have said, do not introduce opinions by "interested" parties. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:POV also states published by reliable sources. And this is the case here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do you think when Nava said that he is not being biased? Or readers might construe it as being biased? --Efe (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I think Mark is correct. The article is not supposed to focus on Beyoncé's general "talent", but the song itself or its video. The article must be neutral and focused. "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract" is enough. —WP:PENGUIN · 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, i don't think so. You are trying to remove something which is sourced. Why? Because according to you he is biased. For me, this (what you think) is a WP:POV because your opinion cannot be sourced. What about MTV News? Do you think they are biased and have no proper editorial policy? But i am removing it for peace and as evident as it is , you will never agree with me and i will never agree with you. Nevertheless, i am removing it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jivesh, I again would like to repeat and reestablish my point that quoting somebody who is INTERESTED to the subject introduces biases, unless critics agree. Even so, we handle it with so much care so as not to breach anything around here. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are interrelated in some respect, but are completely independent from each other. Just because Nava's statement is sourced by Rolling Stone, MTV News or Time Magazine doesn't exempt it from being biased. --Efe (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• What matters now is that i have removed it since three days, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Live and performances. There's no need to mention all those. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please be more specific. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• And why is there no need to mention all live performances? What's your reasoning behind this? Is it a rule? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note to EFE (Mark): I have asked for a user to help me fix some of the issues to which i have not responded. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check if all your concerns have been addressed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

• The section "composition" is poorly written. I don't understand why almost every song article has this chord progression stuff when it doesn't even add value to the section as a whole. Just a passing through of that single fact, which is very technical to average readers. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then how can it be improved? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry Mark but i think it is not to be removed. I know i should not cite other examples as that will fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To tell you frankly, i do not understand a single word here... set in common time. ... Morse code beeps. According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, "Single Ladies" is written in the key of E major with a moderate groove of 96 beats per minute. Knowles' vocals range from the note of F♯3 to D5. but that does not mean i should cut off those sentences. It sure is a technical term but is that a valid reason for removing it? Having such term may motivate people to open their dictionaries or learn more about music just for the sake of understanding what was written here. Think about this from a broader view. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove those not very important, or those which do not give value to the readers. --Efe (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It has been re-written. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Efe, you seem to think none of our readers can read music, or know even very basic musical terms. In fact these are very common skills, and those who don't have them can just skip. I hope not much of this material has been removed, as it all "gives value". Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Introducing POV: "Knowles displays much attitude in her voice", "Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce". This needs attribution. Who said these? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay i will add it back. Sorry but it really disturbs me when someone says A and another one says X. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• An attribution added to this Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce will be an inappropriate thing to do as it is obvious Knowles is doing that. It has already been explained in the Background and release section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "playground vocals" in quotation marks while 'schoolyard chant' is not? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Schoolyard chant is a common term while something like "playground vocals" was obviously formulated by the writer. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What is the importance of the very long quotation (Ann Powers)? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It helps the reader to understand the lyrical content. Again, i have already explained this above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The article is going somewhere, but I still see so much issues. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• "showcasing the contrast between Knowles' persona as herself and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce." I think we also need to add something about her "persona as herself"? Parallelism should be applied here because her alter ego is being described. --Efe (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• And what do you think should be added? If you are suggesting it, I assume that you have an idea as well... because to me Knowles as herself is more than clear and easy to understand. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

More clearer to you as a Beyonce fan. How those not so fanatic about her? Do you think they are getting the point you are trying to convey? What is in her self that is being portrayed??? --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "beat's arrangement"? And upon reading the source, I can't find it saying such. --Efe (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Were you able to spot, the beats just don't quit? By the way spotchecks have already been done. And I am changing that phrase for peace. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not. But I was looking for and interested in "arrangement", because its a technical and broad term, and I don't get what do we mean by beat's arrangement. Its like the word is taken literally. --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I still feel some of the facts are littered with POVish additions or the way it is presented. For example in this sentence: "Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." It seems it is being presented as a general fact, agreed by the majority. I suggest rephrasing this as to convey it as something that is an opinion of the composer. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Listen to me now., I cannot add something which is not in the source. I can all add information which is in the source. So please do not ask for impossible things per the rules of Misplaced Pages. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not asking what is not found in the source. What I am trying to say is that the fact is being conveyed as being a general truth. The source just quoted the composer, and therefore should be paraphrased here as his own opinion about the issue, to which people might have different take. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am wondering why there is such no ample discussion about Knowles as herself, except in the lead. Why Sasha Fierce is discussed heavily. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• With all the respect I owe to you, you are asking for too much. This article is about a song not about I Am... Sasha Fierce. You can go there to find more details about Knowles as herself. Coming to the song again, it concerns Sasha Fierce and that's why Sasha Fierce is discussed here. This is not "If I Were a Boy". 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Balancing is just what I asking Jivesh, as much as I want to have that portion in the lead to have parallelism. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• What parallelism are you bringing over and over again? I asked for your help but you did not even propose something while all the other reviewers have helped me so much. Why aren't you suggesting something? Efe, don't you think you are weighing too much of your personal opinion in this article? I cannot, in fact, no one can write an article the way you want it o be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this important? "At the 2008 World Music Awards in Monaco, Knowles performed "Single Ladies" while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." And what about her pointing to the glove? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Have you ever watched the video? What does Beyonce wear in the video? What does she do in the video? Do you think she does the same thing in all her live performances? And please read everything before posting. All these things have already been discussed above. Please, this is a humble request. You are repeating the same points over and over again and this FAC is getting longer for nothing new. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believed that parody on SNL gained attention. It is being mentioned? No. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Can you summarize some of them? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gained attention? And where do I need to put that? In the lead? If that was you you meant, a NO will be my answer. A lead is only supposed to summarize the content of an article, not to give particular attention to only one parody. You are indirectly encouraging favoritism here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Discussing a well-known parody is actually a good way to show the song's lasting cultural legacy. A mention in the lead is probably overkill, but something towards the end of Reception - or whatever section best described the song's lasting impact - wouldn't go amiss. {{cite video}} would work. It will probably only give one more sentence and not seem like it is worth adding, but SNL is a fairly big show so a parody by them is pretty notable and a good indicator of lasting notability. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• But the fact remains that all this information is in the article already. Please read it. Melicans, if i understand well, you are telling me to write a description of the performance. But you know, the video itself is very simple. It does not even have a story line. It is only about dancing, hip shaking, wrist twist and jazz hands. So, the word parody is more than enough. A parody in other words means an imitation. And what did they imitate? It was the dance. It cannot be described. Frankly, tell me yourself... what will I describe in the dance? The way they were dancing? Well that will be very tricky. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm afraid I omitted part of response when I was typing it (I seem to do that a lot, thinking something in my head and then forgetting to actually say it). With the above I only meant that it should be included if it wasn't already being mentioned (which now that I re-read the article, I see that it is). Taking a second look at Efe's comments, I think that by "gaining attention" he means it received a lot of discussion (from music journalists, from pundits, commentary from Colbert or the like); though again, if I am incorrect in this guess, please correct me! If there is any mention out there on her performance and the parody it would be a good thing to include. Live reception is more than useable, especially if she was in on the joke. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• So you mean I should add a few critical commentaries? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, if any exists. Based on the links you showed me, I think a little background on the skit could easily be added. It just helps to give a little more detail on what went into it; a more complete picture if you prefer that phrase (I think I do, XP). Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Melicans did it and there are no reviews. Sorry. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• "and its deployment of jazz hands with a wrist twist". Why is this mentioned on the legacy section, and not on the analysis of the video? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Check in the dictionary or online, hand twirl and wrist twist are the same thing. I am not going to explain anatomy to you now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• "It has been credited with starting the "first major dance craze of both the new millennium and the Internet"," I think this is where the attribution (Toronto) is best added. I personally removed the one in the lead. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Care to read WP:LEADCITE? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• "critics have compared the song to Aretha Franklin's "Respect" and Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive"." What about these songs? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Can please be more explicit when you post... because you usually reply after a couple of days and each time, I have to wait for you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm interpreting Efe's comment right (and Efe, please correct me if I am wrong)... I think what is being asked is what aspects of those songs are being compared. It isn't enough to say that it has been compared. Put simply, why are the critics comparing them? That information should be in the reviews themselves and easy to find.

For an example, here is how the comparisons are discussed in "City of Blinding Lights": The sound of "City of Blinding Lights" has been compared to U2's 1987 single "Where the Streets Have No Name", prompted by a similar style of guitar playing, as well as to the atmospheric tone of the band's 1984 album The Unforgettable Fire. The melding of guitar and piano in the introduction was likened by the Edmonton Journal to the Coldplay song "Clocks". Rolling Stone described the song as "building into a bittersweet lament", while Uncut said it was "beautiful but slightly sinister", comparing the quality of the lyrics to the George Harrison song "The Inner Light".

I hope that this explanation and example help. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes... both your explanation and example helped. That's why I like your style of reviewing so much. Thanks. :) The clarification has been added there. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Support (after these are addressed or are replied).

• Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the first sentence of the lead be "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American R&B recording artist Beyoncé Knowles from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).?

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Otherwise the lead is well-written and flows very well. The infobox for Length should be in {{duration}} template.

• Can you please do i for me? I cannot understand. 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• fixed. Best, Jonayo! 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• For the Released, I see no country listed there; however, in the "Background and release" section the release reads The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008 and Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008.

• That's because a radio premiere is not a radio add. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also in this section, what does this mean? "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1.

• It means impacted. It was formulated this way to avoid repetition. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Aren't all publications supposed to be italicized? If so, Slant Magazine isn't in italics in the "Composition" section. That's all for now.

• Slant Magazine is never italicized. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Slant Magazine is a web site, not a printed publication, therefore it's not italicised. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with this nomination and happy holidays, Jonayo! 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish you and everybody here the same. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. This has no doubt been a tough gig for Jivesh, and to be honest I had no great hopes for it when I first looked at it. But a lot of work has been done since then, and I now believe the article to be a worthy example of its type. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I've read the article several times and I couldn't find any mistakes. A very nice article. Nice job. My love is love (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that this section has been re-written and the big quote box has been removed as some of you (THR and Efe) asked for. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, with just a few minor corrections/suggestions:

• In the lede, Composed by Stewart, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Knowles... – Stewart who? Christopher Stewart?

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I know dealing with people's stage names and real names is hard, but it's a little confusing in the lede and "Background and release" sections. Could you do one of these the first time names like that are mentioned: Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, etc.?

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this already, but you might want to add a reference to and a sentence about the minor scandal that broke out when a group of pre-teen girls covered the video. That generated quite a bit of buzz in the news. The most logical place I can see for it is in the "Parodies" section, though it actually wasn't a parody (and some of the other stuff in there doesn't seem entirely parodic to me, either... maybe "Parodies and homages"?). I'd be happy to add it in if the author is currently too frazzled fixing the 500 other suggested corrections :)

Great work and good luck! Accedie 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sure fell free to help. I am a bit overloaded. I was told to remove that incident and just summarize it as such. Reviewers told me to add it only if the girls one day become singers. However, tell me yourself... should i add it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that in this long, long thread. Yes, I think it's definitely as notable as the baby parodies! I'll just stick it in there, and if anybody complains, feel free to remove. Accedie 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support per Malleus. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards Support Hi Jivesh, very good article. A few smallish comments:

• I'm not a big fan of the ", as stated by so-and-so" structure. It doesn't seem very elegant to me. I edited one, about Sarah Liss and the CBC, but I noticed two or three more cases of it: "She displays much attitude in her voice, as stated by Nick Levine of Digital Spy."; "Knowles goes out to celebrate with her crew in a club, where she is snaring a new man, but her old one is watching, and the song is directed to him, as commented by Powers."; "On the bridge, Knowles affirms that she wants her new love interest "to make like a prince and grab her, delivering her to 'a destiny, to infinity and beyond'" while "Prince Charming is left standing there like the second lead in a romantic comedy, Beyoncé lets her new guy sweep her off her feet", as noted by Powers." If nobody else objects to this structure, I won't insist, but all things considered, I think it'd be better if it was changed.

• Very good point. This point is repeatedly brought about. Well, I do not know whether you usually edit music articles (preferably material released after the 2000s). I will not change it. Let me explain. When we write music articles, we have to take care of mentioning each and every attributions. This is what I have learned through all the articles I have been promoting since 2009. Actually when we do not attribute, some editors (I do not know them personally but I can assure you that they are very quick at noticing such things), leave {{by who}} templates through the article where attributions are missing. Music articles are different; they are NOT written the same way other articles are. (Well this is obvious, right?) We rely 75% on critical commentaries to write them (recent ones). Since we do not own those critical commentaries, we have to attribute them appropriately. The rest (mainly chart performance has a major weighing in the remaining percentage) are independent of what critics write. Even if I change it as per your comments, the nine other reviewers who have supported my FAC will not appreciate it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the way the attribution is presented could improve it. Instead of " of ", try varying the way it is presented. I know attribution is particularly annoying when it comes to music articles, but there are little ways to tweak it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have no idea. Can you please help? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't proposing you remove the attribution altogether (and, yes, I do regularly work on music articles, and I know how that attributions are important). I was just saying maybe they could be reworded. For the Sarah Liss one, I rewrote it as "The instrumentation includes a bass drum, a keyboard and spaced out synthesizers which occasionally zoom in and out; one commentator, Sarah Liss of CBC News, noted that their arrangement surprisingly comes as light, instead of dense." By using the semi-colon, and starting with the vague phrase "one commentator" (but still attributing the commentator) the emphasis is still on the idea rather than the person saying it, which is what I think you probably want. I'm not proposing that you change all of them to this exact structure, because that would get repetitive, too, I'm just agreeing with Melicans that with a little creativity, there are other ways to express the same idea and keep the right emphasis. Right now I have to do some other stuff, but maybe later today I can try to have another look at the three other instances and see if I can reword some of them effectively. If you don't like my new version, you can always revert them. :-) Moisejp (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't end up coming up with anything better for those three lines, and now that I read them again, they don't bother me as much as they did. Anyhow, I am changing my Leaning to Support to Support. This is an excellent article, which covers the topic very thoroughly and contains really good prose. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune noted that the lyrics reflect "post-breakup" situations." Would this line be better moved to after the "call and response" one, to where other sentences are talking about break-up?
  

• No, simply because before doing a break-down of how the song proceeds, we have to mention the general points, among which is the lyrical meaning of the song. In this case, it is post-breakup situations. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Is the Greg Kot reference needed? "Single Ladies", and his perspective on the song's lyrics, isn't discussed in his article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it is but he did not comment much. This how we get to construct an article about song. I mean we have to use a large number of references and make things connect without ruining the flow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Like Melicans, the first time I read it I was also wondering if that quote was necessary. It doesn't seem to flow (in the spot where it is at least) and it doesn't seem to add much. It would be easy enough to remove. Moisejp (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lol. It's only now that I understood what you were asking for. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got to leave the computer right now, but I might have one or two more small comments to add later. Moisejp (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if this has already been brought up in the discussion above and I missed it, but should the Parodies section maybe be called Parodies and Imitations? It doesn't seem like everything in the section is about parodies per se. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Accedie had suggested something similar above—that we rename the section to something along the lines of "Parodies and homages". I agree that not all the acts were necessarily parodies or mocks. —WP:PENGUIN · 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WP: Penguin. I thought I maybe remembered seeing something about that before but I guess I didn't look hard enough for it just now. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "on May 31, 2011, Matthew Raymond-Barker sang the song on the seventh prime in live of the second series of the X Factor France." I assume "on the seventh prime" is a phrase used in X Factor? How about "in live"? Should that just be "live"? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I present my heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Pretty much ready to support, but given that the lyrics give an unusually coherent story for a pop song, the lead should say more than "the song explores men's unwillingness to commit". The section below should be expanded with some more quoting of the lyrics. Too many journalists are credited in the main text, rather than footnotes, for my taste. For example, do we need the "authority" in the text for: "According to a critic for the Daily Mail, in the second verse, Knowles "urges women to dump their boyfriends if they don't propose", and tells her ex-lover that, as he did not attempt to make things more permanent when he had the chance, he has no reason to complain now that she has found someone else."? The 2nd part is referenced to someone else anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I cannot make extensive use of lyrics because they are copyrighted and that would be knowingly committing a copyvio. I can remove the attributions. I have no problem with that. But every time I do it, bots place {{by who}} templates on the article. We do not own those critical commentaries and that's why we need to attribute. Can you suggest something that could be added to the lead about the lyrical content? Everyone seems satisfied with how it is at the moment. What specifically do you want me to add? Hmm, a suggestion please... :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have made some changes to both the lead and the composition section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I changed a bit. In a piece this long, you would be able to make more use than you do of quotation for the purpose of commentary without breach of copyright. The lyrics seem rather more ambiguous than you say - whether the former lover is wholly rejected is unclear in the "Don't treat me ...." section, but you need sources. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly, I need sources and I don't have them. I filtered +50 search pages on Google, Bing, Yahoo. And that's all I got. I hope my efforts are appreciated. I gave my best. I cannot add my personal; interpretation when I don't have the necessary reliable sources. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• And what exactly aren't you understanding? Do you want me to narrate the story that the lyrics contain? I can do it. Feel free to ask. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't treat me to the things of the world / I'm not that kind of girl / Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve / Is a man that makes me, then takes me / And delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond / Pull me into your arms / 'Say I'm the one you own / If you don't, you'll be alone / And like a ghost, I'll be gone

The lines are directed to her former love interest. She is telling him about the kind of lover she wants. But I did not find a reliable source for the first three lines. But I have sources for the last six lines and they are in the composition section. Please... this is a humble request. Don't ask me to put things which I cannot source. This goes against Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. How do I know that you can't source them? Can I predict that none of the numbskull pop "critics" have performed a basic textual analysis? There is a pretty clear ambiguity as to who "Your" and "you" are, and what he is supposed to do, but as you say that needs sources. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Listen I am totally unaware of what Keep your hair on could mean. And if you ever thought I was being rude, then I am sorry. I was not trying to be rude. To tell you frankly, there is no ambiguity. It just depends on how many songs you listen... What type of song you listen to... if you are familiar with the artist, etc. And the analysis you are talking about... Well this is something I have told in the past. Every article has its own style in which it is written. When you write a music article, there is only a very small chance that you will have a source which will do an entire composition analysis. Most of the time, we have it for old songs... that also in books. And "Single Ladies" is not old yet. I did my best to take one line from this source, one line from there and so on in order to make things connect. I cannot do more unless I can find another source. But there is none. I mean, there are many sources but they are blogs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Keep your hair on" is an idiom that means don't get over-excited or upset, nothing more. I know this has been a tough FAC for you, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it restarted, but faint heart never won fair lady. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Do song lyrics need to be sourced? Aren't they analogous to the plot section of a novel, in that they're the source for themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted. They should not only be sourced but also very limited usage of lyrics (quoting) should be made. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support The article is not perfect, but I think meets the FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Media review

• Infobox image has detailed rationale and is acceptable for use.
• File:Tricky.jpg was produced by the uploader, so is fine.
• File:Singleladies.ogg - I'm not too picky, but if the file could be reduced to 64 Kbps, then it would be nice for compliance with WP:SAMPLE. Length looks good. Source should be I Am...Sasha Fierce, not "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)".

• Is being done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary? What you are asking is not being successful. I have never seen a sample the same size of that of "Single Ladies" which is 152 Kb. I have only seen bigger ones here. And much bigger than that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The file is currently at Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 18s, 68kbps. I hope it is good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not too fussy. If it's too difficult, then fine. It was always 68 Kbps. —WP:PENGUIN · 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Penguin... look at all the attempts of the editor. He/She really tried but it was in vain. It is already lowest quality. It can be lower... She did it but the sound quality was full of accentuation and unpleasant noises. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's okay. It can be lowered but is very difficult and sound quality is messed up. I think a 4 KBps higher quality won't hurt. I just raised the issue so that if it was possible, it could be done. Thanks for trying anyway, Moisejp. :) —WP:

PENGUIN · 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• No problem! Moisejp (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• It has been lowered to 64Kbps. :) But the audible quality is now meh. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg's rationale looks sufficient. However, was this image cropped from a frame? If so, then it would be a good idea to say so in the "Portion" parameter.

• No, it wasn't. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Glee - Single Ladies cropped.jpg - Could the URL be provided for the original link to the flickr source?

• Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• All other images look fine as well.

—WP:PENGUIN · 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• All concerns have been addressed.

—WP:PENGUIN · 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick additional note; I'd say that the rationale on File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg isn't quite there yet. Could the purpose be expanded a little to tie it in with the text? What's the image showing, and what part of the text does it illustrate? There seems to be a very good case for the image, but the rationale isn't quite 100%. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. How is it now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Better. I'd say that the key to writing a strong explanation of the purpose of an image is to tie it to the text- say what is said in the article, and how that cannot be fully understood without the picture. I'm happy with that rationale, and the images generally, but it's a good thing to know. If you can't tie the image into the text that way, it's more than likely that it's not needed. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank you. I am happy to see some positive notes. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:59, 12 December 2011 .

Mark Satin

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this biography for featured article status because I believe it now, finally and truly, meets all the FA criteria (it recently received "B-class" ratings from the Biography and Journalism projects). I first nominated it for FA status three months ago (August 11), and after some initial resistance on my part, learned to take advantage of some wonderfully detailed critiques. Last month I put it through a productive peer review, and have spent much of my spare time since then getting it ready for this moment, as you'll see if you click on its "History" page.

One reason I've stuck with it is I feel it covers underreported ground. Its subject played major roles in three noteworthy but unconventionaal political movements over five decades: Vietnam War draft dodging in the 1960s, New Age politics in the 1970s–80s, and radical centrism in the 1990s–2000s.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

So, enjoy. - Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nice work since last time! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and for these very useful comments! - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspaper sources

Done: Because you want me, as indicated below, to use the formal name for The New York Times (i.e., to insert the "The"), I decided to use the formal name for all 13 newspapers I've referenced. That left four without locations in their titles, and for those I placed the nane of the relevant city or region in parenthesis immediately after the papers' names every time I mentioned them in the "References" section - thus Daily Herald (suburban Chicago), The Globe and Mail (Toronto), National Post (Toronto), and The Province (Vancouver).

In order to be more thoroughly consistent, I then made sure I was using the formal names for all magazines and organizations as well. I had to change a couple - e.g., The Washington Monthly, not Washington Monthly. I saw no need to identify the home offices of of the magazines or organizations, though. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 12: is this the correct formatting wrt publisher?

Done: Your suspicion was well-founded, the APSA puts a colon after the PS (on the copyright page and on its website). So I changed it accordingly. APSA does not use a colon in the cover design, and the title of Misplaced Pages's page on the magazine does not use a colon either, though the first sentence of Misplaced Pages's article does include the colon. APSA does use the ampersand. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 37: can you explain how this source is compliant with WP:SCHOLARSHIP, specifically the point about theses?

Done: Roth's master's thesis on the draft dodgers is so good - so much better researched and less ego-driven than most of the books I've read on the subject - that after a while I stopped thinking of it as a thesis, ansd stopped thinking about MOS. Sorry!

I have now removed six of the seven references to Roth (and substituted other sources or material where necessary). The last reference, at the end of the Manual sub-section, simply uses Roth as an example of contemporary graduate-student interest in the Manual, so I assume he can remain there. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The New York Times, not New York Times

Done: Have now changed this every time it's come up in the text and references. Plus, this comment led to a substantial change in how I've cited newspapers and other periodicals; see first point above. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 67 and similar: not sure the "newspaper (Canada)" is needed

Re: "newspaper". Done: In my "References" section, I stated whether periodicals were newspapers, magazines, or journals whenever it was not obvious from the information given. Your comment plus my gradual immersion in Wikipediana makes me realize this is unneccesary (and in some close cases probably POV). So I have eliminated all 22 instances of this, including the one you cite. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "(Canada)". Done: This is embarrassing: Thanks to your comment, I see that I tried to identify countries for all publications from outside the U.S. And I like to think of myself as a global citizen! Sad. I have now eliminated all country references. (Anyway, nearly all the publications and publishers I cite have Misplaced Pages pages.) - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 77: page(s)?

Done: My error. I added pages (actually, chapter numbers) to Ferguson, and did another page check for all my references. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 80 and others: use dashes for page ranges

Done: Thanks. I re-checked every dash, and found two more hyphens ... they're dashes now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 90 and similar: should note language rather than country

Done: There were two instances of this. I took out the countries and added the words, "____ language publication." - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how magazine issues covering multiple months are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done: I decided on closed en-dashes, and made sure they're between all months (and seasons) now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your great help. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Babel, avoid {{done}} and other templates on a FAC page. It slows down the loading time when all the FACs are pulled up on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed tick marks, pls see WP:FAC instructions, and pls thread responses correctly to minimize size of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, SandyGeorgia and Dank. I have cut back the threads and bolded the Dones. - Babel41 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(Later.) Nikkimaria, - Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've copyedited this a couple of times. It's different, but all good biographies are different, and they're a welcome addition at FAC, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going through this a third time, and making a few minor edits. WT:FAC#Mark_Satin may be of interest.
• I'm not sure what "inductive" means in context. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• You have Satin referring to Americans alternately as "we" or "they"; try to standardize this.
• Done. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support on prose. Jim's comments are right on the money, I think ... there are a number of places where the article doesn't mesh with the "house style", the tone we look for at FAC, although I feel that much of it is strong writing nonetheless. I may be biased on this one; I'm happy for others to make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dank, - Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Noleander comments - I spent some time reading it, and I'm having a hard time finding any suggestions for improvement. Great article!

• Sentence "He was not even against the draft, telling reporters he would support it for a defensive army ..." could be better. "Even" sounds too informal; and the sentence seems at odds with the rest of the article. Maybe a better wording would be "He was not entirely opposed to the draft, explaining that he would conditionally support it for ..."
• External links: the link for "New World Alliance and New Options Correspondence Files, 1977–1992" goes to a search page result. Better would be for the link to go the actual page (after clicking on the link in the search results).
• Tense: The tense seems to shift back and forth between present and past. Examples: "Satin presents..", "Satin devotes ..", "he moved..", "He gave a .." "proposal drew significant...". Since he is still alive, there is some justification for present tense. But my personal preference would be to be consistent throughout the article: primarily past tense, unless there is a compelling reason for present tense (e.g. stating his current opinions).
  • Please see WP:TENSE ... that's not in the Manual of Style, but it's linked from those pages, including WP:WAF. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to WP:TENSE ... I was not aware of that essay. It suggests that sentences about works of fiction should use present tense, but sentences about history should use past tense. The Mark Satin material strikes me as more of the latter. Is there some WP guideline on biographies, which discusses tense? In any case, my comment is not a big deal: I'm just pointing out that switching tenses back and forth struck me as peculiar. --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I found Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Tense which says that bios of living persons should be in present tense, but bios of deceased persons in past tense. Sounds good to me. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, - Thanks for your kind words, and for your very useful comments. Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This looks an interesting and comprehensive article. I note that it has been through FAC before, and more recently underwent an extensive peer review. However, in reading through the first few sections I identified a number of issues which I think require further attention:-

Lead

The lead's function is that of a broad outline summary of the main article, and at present I think there is too much detail, for example in the following extract: "Satin wrote the book New Age Politics, published by Dell in 1979. Despite what some see as its off-putting title, New Age Politics is widely recognized as the first, most ambitious, or most adequate attempt to construct an original political ideology out of the social movements of the post-Vietnam era. It identifies an emergent "third force" in North America pursuing such goals as simple living, decentralism, and global responsibility." For the purposes of the lead I would reduce this to: "Satin wrote New Age Politics, in which he identifies an emergent "third force" in North America, pursuing such goals as simple living, decentralism, and global responsibility." Likewise in the third paragraph, there is scope for summarisation.

Early years

• Beware POVish phrasing. e.g. "Satin appeared to be a model citizen" and "But another side surfaced..."
• We need a clearer picture of Satin's undergraduate career. He drops out of the University of Illinois, and is then told to leave Midwestern State University (how did he get to be there?), before we find him dropping out of State University of New York at Binghamton – again with no information as to how he came to be there. Apart from these frequent shifts, what was he supposedly studying at these places – surely that must be on record somewhere?
• The third paragraph reads somewhat mawkishly. This is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia, though maybe for the Ladies' Home Journal

Toronto Anti-Draft Programme

• "He added that he was "tired of" talking to the press". I don't know what this adds to the article, or why "tired of" requires quotes
• "valorizing"? Is there a verb "to valorize"? (If there is, there shouldn't be)

• Correcting myself! There is a verb "to valorize", but it means something completely different: "to fix and maintain an artificial price for a commodity by government action". So the word needs changing here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Instead of emphasizing the difficulties of emigration, Satin emphasized..." Repetition
• Consecutive sentences beginning "Instead of..."
• Over-complex sentences, e.g.: "Instead of refusing to "baby sit" Americans after they arrived, Satin made post-emigration assistance a top priority – the office soon sported comfortable furniture, a hot plate, and free food, and within a few months, 200 Torontonians had opened their homes to war resisters and a job-finding service had been established". Apart from two "ands", the construction is made awkward by the use of the ndash in mid-sentence.
• Some of the phrasing is overelaborate, e.g. "exuding indifference"
• "He was 21 years old" at the end of the subsection looks gratuitous; what purpose is this information serving?

Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada

• There is a tendency towards the overuse of quotation marks, especially for unremarkable terms like "useful", "detailed advice", "warm welcome", "ecourage" etc. These words or terms aren't worth putting in quotes, which should be reserved for rather more striking comments.
• "re-envision"? Is that the word used in the source? If so, I think that is a case for using a direct quote, not just of this rather dubious word but of the context in which the source uses it.
• What is "House of Anansi"? Publishers?

That is all I have time for at present. I will try to add comments on the rest, but it looks to me as though a little more work is necessary before this article is ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with some of that, but I have to pick my battles ... I've got my hands full copyediting historical narratives, and much of this article isn't a historical narrative. Hopefully we'll get a bunch of reviews, and I'll be happy to accept the consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to have some response from the nominator. But if the article is still in such a state of flux, it probably has no business being here at FAC. It's not up to "a bunch of reviews" to lick the article into shape. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note from the nominator (and principal author): I appreciate your comments about my article, and the constructive spirit behind them. They will not go unattended! Please see my note (to you and others) at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from Jim You've put a good deal of work into this, but I feel there are still some issues with the text — I know nothing about the content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the lead is too detailed, book publishers, synopses etc
• In high school, Satin appeared to be a model citizen – for example, he wrote a regular column on teenage affairs for the Moorhead newspaper. But another side surfaced within months of his leaving for university. — It's not my experience that people who write to newspapers are "model citizens"; quite the opposite often. The whole of the quoted section feels a bit popular biography rather than encyclopaedic
• for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the United States Constitution. — As a Brit, I'd welcome a link or explanation here. Is this a federal requirement, Texas, only or a maverick university? Do non-Americans take the oath too?
• trimester — which means?
• The night Satin arrived in Canada, he struggled to hold back tears — More Mills & Boon than encyclopaedia
• valorizing — My dictionary says it's to do with stabilizing prices, ao I can't see what it means here. In any case, such an obscure word is best avoided
• Throughout the article instead of is overused
• Androgynous — needs link
• Biblical Christians — I thought all Christians were biblical? If this means fundamentalist or literalist, perhaps a gloss or link, similarly if it's a campaigning group
• Among Biblical Christians... I struggled with the whole of the para, particularly as the unlinked authors aren't given a nationality. Are we just talking about adverse views in the US? If so, that should be made clear. Was there no criticism from eg Sweden or Germany — it doesn't sound like the sort of book to be accepted uncritically in any country.
• woundedness — not in my dictionary, best to avoid neologisms or obscure words

Dear Nikkimaria, Dank, Noleander, Brianbouton, and Jim: Thank you for your many thoughtful comments above.

It is clear, from reading them all together, that my article cannot be "patched up" by making a couple of individual changes here and there. Rather, the whole article needs to be adjusted to reflect what Dank refers to above as Misplaced Pages's "house style," as exemplified by all your comments and the sensibility behind them.

I am more than willing to do that, and I feel capable of doing it. However, it will take me longer than the couple of days I have left on the FAC page, and I probably (according to one friend, certainly!) will need to get some psychic distance on the article first. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my article from FAC consideration at this time, and re-submit it to you at a later date. I will adopt the changes you suggested, and if I can't go along with any of them I will explain why in my introduction to the FA nomination. I hope you will all choose to revisit my FA submission at that time. I will give each of you a heads-up. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:26, 6 December 2011 .

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and The ed17

Completed during World War I, the ship did not actively participate in the war. She was used for a vacation by President Herbert Hoover and spent most of the 1930s assigned to the Pacific Fleet. She was berthed in Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and suffered the greatest loss of life during the attack when her forward magazines detonated and she sank at her moorings. The iconic Arizona Memorial was built over her remains in the 1960s and she has come to symbolize the attack. We're a little late, but we believe that if we can get prompt reviews we can whip this into shape in time for a WP:TFA appearance on the main page on 7 December, the 70th anniversary of her sinking. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
  • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
    • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
      • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now?
          • Better, though I don't think that the date Arizona became a state is needed - this adds some scope for confusion for no benefit. Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) should be linked, and the years seem unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Agreed and I forgot to link Greco-Turkish War earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
    • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not as sanguine about the state of historical knowledge among the general populace as you seem to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
    • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it.
      • Done.
  • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
    • Reworded.
  • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
    • Reworded.
  • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
    • Deleted, TMI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
    • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
      • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I understand that. My point is that the current wording doesn't help readers to understand it. Why not word it as something like "To acknowledge the ban on alcohol which had been imposed by the Arizona state government, the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam" - this makes it a bit clearer to readers, though the governor seems to have not really acted in accordance with the letter of the law here ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
    • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
      • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • My concern is really the use of the phrase "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though." in association with this. When I read this at the end of a paragraph about the ship only engaging in training I expected it would describe some kind of operational deployment. Instead it discusses a sports event. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • • I'm still not really sure what to do here; I've rewritten and combined the sentences to mitigate any thoughts about a deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
    • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
      • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
          • I don't agree - the article discusses why the ship wasn't sent to European Waters during World War I, so it should also describe why she was deployed after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I believe she was deployed to protect American citizens and interests during the Grecian-Turkish War. If I remember right, there was a bit of speculation in one of Stillwell's interviews that she was deployed to protect Standard Oil's facilities, but there was nothing scholarly on that point. Also note that the oil shortage was due to problems supplying oil to the UK (a) during a war (b) over a route frequented by submarines and (c) when more useful items could be shipped. I believe all that eased with the war's end. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I was referring to the 1918 deployment to France rather than the 1919 deployment. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
                • Ah, my bad. It says why in the next sentence; essentially it was a diplomatic show of force. Ed  10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
    • Idle when anchored, mostly. How would you suggest rewording that bit?
      • Replace "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona's service was filled with training and idleness" with something like "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona only put to sea for routine training exercises". Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
    • True, the offending bit has been excised.
  • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
    • How does it read now?
      • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Supplies of fuel were not limited, per se, only the money to purchase them. I suspect that the normal cruising to anchored ratio before the Depression was on the order of 1:1, but these numbers show 1:2. Unfortunately, there's no handy tally anywhere to make the comparison with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, but the sentence's wording is still a bit awkward. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Due to the Navy's limited budget, the ship spent most of this period in port as a fuel-saving measure". Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
    • Agreed, let me find a source as to why.
      • Samuel Morison's official history would be a great source. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Found one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
    • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
      • A straightforward account of the damage would also act to debunk the mistaken accounts and would be much easier to read. You could add a footnote discussing the confusion over the reports if this is notable enough to cover as it's not really necessary in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • • Done, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
    • I've deleted the Japanese bit as unimportant, but I've reworked the awards and recognition section a bit. How does it read now?
      • Looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
    • Probably just the latter, but I'm just repeating the verbiage from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • Deleted.
    • Thanks for taking the time to enumerate these issues. I agree that it was a bit rushed and I'll start addressing them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I think that this now meets the FA criteria. Great work Sturmvogel. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) "the only known color photograph from the attack" - source?

• • It's sourced already.
• Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
  • Done.
• Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
  • I think that this has been cleared up.
• No citations to Hone or Jones
  • Moved.
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • There is no requirement that an article have one or the other. However, in this article, there's an issue with periods versus commas in citations, and I will address that next time I am at a computer. Ed  19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • They should be consistent now. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 27: linking
  • Done.
• FN 23: italicization
  • Done.
• Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Not sure what you're referring to here. If it's USS, we're replicating the usage in the source documents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• FN 58: formatting, missing date
  • Not sure what you're referring to here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
• Further reading should use same formatting as References
  • Done.
• Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
  • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
    • See next reply. - Dank (push to talk)
• "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
  • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
    • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
  • Yes, evolution.
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, I'll be happy to support this one on prose after my final pass, after other reviewers' issues get resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looks to me like Nick is almost happy, and everyone else is supporting. I did more tweaking; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spotcheck clear 4/7 sources, 8/64 citations clear and supporting. I did not check content coverage or weight, only sources supporting their assertions as indicated below. One citation fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 20e DANFS (MIL sources are not propagating to Australia correctly tonight, cached copy used) clear and supports
  • 49 Friedman clear and supports
  • 39 Wohlstetter clear and supports
  • 56 Stillwell clear and supports
  • 25 NYT clear and supports
  • 48 NHHC clear and supports; this is despite the complex opinion being made, the wikipedia article accurately reflects the complexity of the military opinion (well done)
  • 62 clear and supports. Miscited: cite the lowest level organisation responsible for production in a bureaucracy; in this case the student's union.
    • I don't think that the Student's union wrote or published that page; it's just in that section of the University's website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 63 is clear and supports. (and uses the right bit of that god awful source: the reliable bit that was edited, wow... I never thought I'd pass a source like this, but the editors correctly use only the reliable section, and the editors of the reliable section are experts at roadside attractions by dint of publishing)
    • If there hadn't been a photo I don't think I'd have used it at all. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: a made a few tweaks as I saw them, but I also have the following suggestions (feel free to ignore anything you disagree with):
  • "and a full naval review by Secretary of the Navy Daniels". Per WP:SURNAME it can probably just be "Daniels" here;
    • Pretty sure I'm going to stet this, but I've asked at WT:MOS#WP:SURNAME just to be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries, you know what goes at FAC better than I. It seems this point gets raised in most Milhist ACRs, though, so I'm a bit confused. Nevertheless, its a relatively minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships". What's a "total battleship"? Would the fleet consist of "partial battleships"?
    • "In company with many of the ships of the fleet (seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships)," changed to "In company with six battleships and eighteen destroyers,". I don't know how many "many" is; I guess if it's "most", it wouldn't hurt to add that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistencies: "the navy" and "the Navy". In most cases, I think it should probably be "the Navy" as it is being used as a substitute for a proper noun, i.e. the United States Navy;
    • Most US style guides recommend lowercasing it, but there's some support for uppercasing, and it's uppercased more often than not on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy either way as long as it's consistent.
      • All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "before 8:00 am" and "08:00" and "07:55";
    • Fixed.
  • this seems a bit awkward to me: "Arizona was hit four times, plus three near misses". Perhaps try: "Arizona was hit four times; in addition she experienced three near misses";
    • "Near miss" is a really difficult phrase; it would be great if no one ever said it, since sometimes it means nearby or minor damage was done and sometimes it means the opposite, i.e. no harm done. In this case, you get a sense of what was meant by the sentence that follows this one. I went with: "The bombers scored four hits and three near misses on and around Arizona."
  • there is some repetition here: "The explosion killed 1,177 of the..." followed by "The explosion touched off fierce";
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this: "This theory is attractive because..." The theory is attractive, or is it "plausible"?
    • Fixed.
  • "The problem is that smokeless powder is..." The problem with what? Do you mean: "This theory is problematic, however, because smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags would have required a black powder pad to ignite the powder, making this theory improbable. As such, it seems unlikely..."
    • I changed "the problem is that" to "however".
  • Passive voice: "Acts of heroism on the part of Arizona's officers and men were many". Maybe try: "There were many acts of heroism performed by Arizona's officers and men during the attack."
    • That's not passive voice. Since it's the topic sentence for the paragraph, and since the paragraph is about acts of heroism, it works for me to lead with that phrase, though your suggestion is fine too.
      • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I really don't think it works, but that's just my opinion and we don't have to agree on everything. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I like Rupert's wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems tantalising to a layman like myself: "The latter battery fired its guns for the first and last time in August 1945". As a reader it makes me wonder at the circumstances: did they fire at a Japanese ship, or was it just in practice? If the sources are specific, may be you might consider adding a footnote explaining this (would only need a short sentence or two)?
    • Anyone?
      • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this seems a bit flowery: "men of her crew lost that December morning in 1941". Perhaps just: "men of her crew lost at Pearl Harbor";
    • I think it's fine for two reasons: the phrase itself is not flowery (though it may sound that way in context), and this is the topic sentence of a section dealing with the memorial; a tiny amount of emotion is not out of place, I think.
      • Fair enough, again you have more experience with what's acceptable here. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Navy, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has..." The wikilink here for "National Park Service" probably should be moved to the mention in the previous section (link on first mention). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. Thanks for making those changes, Dank. Good work as usual. I've added my support above. I would like to see a note about the battery firing its guns, but it's not a warstoper for me if it's not put in. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Are all the links in Further Reading really necessary? And couldn't you just cite Conway? NO DANFS?
  • I might be able to fit a reference to Conway's in somewhere, but I really don't see any necessity to do so. Your reference to DANFS is confusing as it's the third ref in the references section.
    • Whoops - read this one too fast...if you can't tell I'm not a fan of Further Reading sections.
• Similarly, the first 4 links in External Links don't seem necessary (you could cite #1 but I don't think that source is credible enough and note #57 has the relevant info). The 5th link I would cite; the 6th is unnecessary, the 7th is unprofessional but have a semblence of citations and interesting photos, I'd cite 8 and drop 9. That leaves you with one external link which may not be worthy a section.
  • You have a higher standard for the external links than I do. I've kept a couple which offer pictures or something useful.
    • Pretty good I guess.
• Merge one sentence paragraph in the Awards section.
  • Done.
• I would expand citation 7 to specify which facts (number of rounds, 5" guns which were wet) came from which page. Same for 6. I suspect I would find more of these but I'm out of time, sorry! Kirk (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Friedman doesn't specify which 5-inch guns were wet, but uses a blanket statement that they were considered wet. I bundle page numbers together when citing from a single source as much as possible and see no need to break them out. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand that's the way you do things but just to be clear page 116 of Freidman is in Google Books so my spotcheck revealed it says the Penn. class in general had "wet anti-torpedo batteries." (Which reads: guns for shooting torpedoes...does anyone edit these books?). I don't know what's on page 440 - if its duplicated, I would switch to #3, but if not I would switch #7 to just page 116 and put another #3 on the previous sentence. Its a minor detail.
      • That might be anti-torpedo boat batteries. Sturm, I think they were all wet to some degree, no? Ed  06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Overall, its very good. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image review—all images are from the US Navy, and as part of the US federal government, they're all in the public domain. All captions meet the appropriate criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia:

1. On the first occurrence of "the annual Fleet Problems", we have to click to see what those are-- can't we somehow define that here (fleet exercises or something)?

   Done.

2. Is "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged ... could not be fully salvaged" supported by sources? It couldn't be salavaged or the Navy decided not to salvage it? What do sources say?

   Stillwell says, "The Arizona was considered to be so badly damaged that she would not be suitable for further service even if her remains could be salvaged. At that time the priority was to salvage ships that could be used in the war effort. In addition, the harbor bottom around the hull was so porous that Navy salvage experts didn't consider it feasible to build a cofferdam so that the hull could be pumped out and bodies recovered."

3. Organization: Ship preservation is a subsection of Attack on Pearl Harbor-- that's not intuitive, and suggests article organization may need attention. How about combining Ship preervation with Memorial and honors?

   Reworked.

4. Description: are the water-tube boilers oil fired? We later encounter mention of fuel oil, which leads us to believe so-- clarify in text? I've seen other ship articles mention that some coal-fired ships had oil added.

   If a ship uses mixed firing, I always mention it. Generally I don't specifically state if the boilers are oil fired or coal-fired, as I let the fuel storage answer that.

5. Construction and trials: "The builders set a goal ... " and so on. I got all balled up in the chronology and long sentences here. Might you say, "... but the ship was only half done after 12 months, and not launched until 19 June 1915. Then the next thought about the naming should be a separate sentence.

   How does it read now?

6. Construction and trials: "After acclimating the ship's magnetic compass ... ": do you think acclimating is the correct term for the adjustment of the ship's compass? Is that the term the source uses? How about "compensating" instead? Link to magnetic deviation for compensating.

   Good catch, my eyes had slid right over that. The term is actually declination.

7. "She towed targets for Pennsylavania while outside ... " what's going on here? Why was she towing targets? For example, "she towed targets for Pennsylvania's training exercises ... or whatever it was. In other words, why does the reader need to know this?

   Deleted.

8. The turbine could not be fixed --> repaired maybe better ?

   Agreed.

9. the yard workers were forced to cut holes ... were forced to is redundant, they cut holes.

   Reworded.

10. "World War I": "... the wreck was sometimes used as a target for the 14-inch guns." The reader doesn't know that the wreck refers to the San Marcus (we don't know it's a wreck). "She rarely ventured into the ocean", then we don't know is the Arizona (fix both at once).

    Done.

11. "... easier to supply coal ... " wouldn't "obtain" coal be better here? Would the reader understand better if you point out that the ships that were sent were coal-burning? Is that what you mean to say?

    Good idea.

12. The war did not end on 11 November-- the fighting did.

    True

13. "1920s": "interspersed with a liberty visit" ... strange to use the word "interspersed" for one event ... seems to imply more than one thing going on.
14. "... Greek ground forces arrived in transports and landed troops" ... the forces didn't land troops ... how about "were landed"?

    Rewrote the whole sentence.

15. "Modernization": "... thickness of STS ... " do you think you should tell the reader what STS is so they don't have to click out?

    Done.

16. "Attack on Pearl Harbor": To say that the Japanese struck, and that there were then two ensuing attack waves, is confusing. Why is that -- ... -- even needed? Especially since the Arizona was sunk in the first wave.

    Rephrased.

17. "Ammunition magazine explosion": "Ironically, the blast ... ", why ironically, I'm missing the irony, sentence is fine without it.

    Few people expect a massive explosion to put out fires rather than create them.

    Changed to "Fortunately,". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

18. "Ship preservation", see above, why is it part of "Attack on Pearl Harbor", and the last paragraph of the section discusses the National Park Service, which really begs to be in the enxt section.

    I've restructured these sections along the lines that you suggest.

19. "Memorial and honors": "The wreck of ... ", three uses of the word "memorial" in one para-- suggest others like "commemorate".

    Agreed.

20. The whole sentence, "As of 2011, 70 years after ... " is awkward. Suggest: Seventy years after ... oil leaking from the hull still rises to the surface of the water. The as of 2011 is implied.

    I like that phrasing better. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all from here-- I'll ping Raul to look in here per potential Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All good (and fast!). I found one wayward "that", and I suspect that Special Treatment Steel needs to be all uppercase, per The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia entry on Armor, which means that article needs to be moved. It's a shame that, if we run this article on Dec 7, readers will (hopefully) click through to USS Arizona Memorial, and find ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mucked with a couple of these without seeing this here, but I think you'll be okay with anything I did. On the flip side, I did capitalize Special Treatment Steel. Now I'm going back to writing my paper because it's my 21st birthday and I'm going out tonight come hell or high water. ;-) Ed  09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:58, 15 February 2012 .

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I've done so much work on it in the past 4 months to make sure it meets the criteria this time-SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The toolbox gives the wrong edit count; this is the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• FN 7: can this be split? That's a huge page range for verification pursposes
  • It's all for the system requirements
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • They're notable-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I've never heard of any of them, and I spend even more time with video games than I do with Misplaced Pages (as if that were possible). That however, is a poor argument. A stronger argument is that none of those sites are built into the video game reviews template, and none have their own articles. It shouldn't be hard to find replacements from more notable sites, considering that this game was heavily, heavily covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, even if they are notable that doesn't matter - notability does not equal reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Firing squad is a gaming site started by Dennis Fong. A rationale for its reliability is at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness in the collapsed section titled "Issues resolved, Ealdgyth".
        The VG project considers Square Enix Music Online is a situational source, in that only content posted by the site's staff is considered reliable. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII/archive2. I'd say that the reliability here depends on what the source is being used for.
        I wouldn't consider the others reliable, and also recommend that replacement sources be found or the content removed. (Guyinblack25 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
• FN 23: formatting
  • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• BethBlog or Beth Blog? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, it was actually Bethesda Blog-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Image review - Nothing has changed since my last image review, so this is still good.
  
• Comments A few things I'd change:
  • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, with the remainder termed minor." - this statement, while correct as is, should specify that there is a difference between major and minor skills, or failing that, be removed from the lead. Consider "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." or something else along those lines.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "praised for its impressive graphics at the time" in the lead - I would consider removing "at the time", as it's automatically implied. We don't dis on Halo 1 because Halo 3 had better graphics.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Jauffre tells the player that the only way to close the gates permanently is to find someone of the royal bloodline to retake the throne and relight the Dragonfires in the Imperial City." - it needs to me mentioned that the Amulet of Kings is used to light the Dragonfires, thus implicitly informing readers unfamiliar with the game that the amulet is more than a MacGuffin.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Same section (generally) as the above quote, consider mentioning that Jauffre is the grand master of the Blades.
    • DoneSCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Oblivion features dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, and sunny and overcast skies, along with the darkening red sky near Oblivion portals." - the second half of the quote, after 'skies' is awkward, mostly because the way it is worded, it assumes that people would have already know about that feature.
    • Removed-SCB '92 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Wherever this was not possible, the screen displays a message stating "You cannot go that way, turn back". However, the team still built in viewable landscape several miles in." - the second half of the quote, starting with 'However' is awkwardly worded. Consider replacing "in" with "past the point in which the character can no longer proceed", or something less wordy than that but which conveys the same information.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Soule had worked with Bethesda and Todd Howard back during the creation of Morrowind,..." - this sounds unprofessional. Consider removing the word "back"; I think that's all that's needed as the article has previously established that Morrowind came right before this game in the TES chronology.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "he soundtrack was generally positively received, with GSoundtracks awarding it 4/5 stars, calling it a "conventional but atmospheric fantasy score", and Square Enix Music a 6/10, criticizing its "monotonous action tracks"." - Here we have a positive review and a mediocre review connected by an 'and'. I don't feel that structure works well. Consider using a 'however' or 'but' type connector (which will necessitate a bit of tweaking to at least the second sentence.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the stuff in the "Further Reading" is either a) already entirely covered by the article, b) rendered incorrect by the article, or c) a boring stub written by someone know one's ever heard of about something no one really cares about. My recommendations: remove the 3rd, 7th, and 8th items on the list. The third is behind a freewall, and isn't worth getting an account for, and the 7th and 8th are kinda useless. Also, consider axing the whole section.
    • And done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's it. In the future, please remember that the audience hasn't necessarily played the game you're writing about, you can't make leaps of inferrance that assume that they know the game. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)