Wikipedia:FAC

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines 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 director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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.

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 {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, 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.

Supporting and opposing

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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, the director may ignore 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. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. 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.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

Nominations

2006 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)


This is my first FA nomination in a while, but I've been working on this for a while, and I think it's ready to undergo this most holy ritual known as FAC. I've gotten some feedback already, and so I'm ready to address any of your comments. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

I'm sure these will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lipantitlán

Nominator(s): Karanacs

previous FAC (02:25, 12 October 2008)

This article is about the third battle of the Texas Revolution, and one that wasn't supposed to be fought. The soldiers essentially ignored central command (a recurring theme in this war) and launched their own attack on a small Mexican "fort". I had to withdraw the last FAC due to real-life priorities and have since re-written much of the article. Both User:juliancolton and User:Jappalang provided a pre-FAC unofficial peer review. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as per my previous review and copyedit of the article. Good work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-written article about a battle that although small gave the Texians a strategic spot and contributed to the eventual driving out of the Mexicans from Texas. Events that lead up to the battle, during it, and after it are described, giving a comprehensive account. The only pity is an absence of photos of the battle site, but that is no obstruction for FA and can be easily changed (some kind soul pass by there and upload a free picture please). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • Image:GoliadRefugioSanPatricio Texas2.JPG - We need to include a reliable source for your map (we Wikipedians aren't professional cartographers, you know!). If you didn't copy it out of a book, but just made it with a online tool or something, we need to at least include mention of that online tool. Awadewit (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Malawi

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk)


I would like to present this article on a poor, landlocked country in southeastern Africa for consideration for FA status. I've been working on this article on and off for the past several months, and I believe it is ready to become a featured article. Africa is one of the areas where WP is lacking in featured content, and I would like to help this change at least a little bit with this article. Thank you for your time and consideration! Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support—A very interesting and well written article! Sources look good, and all the websites look like they come from reliable/reputable sources. There is a disambiguation needed for European and Sena. The link checker is having problems connecting with [1], and for lists upenn.edu link as a redirect, and redirects to [2]. And, images check out. Good luck! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I have disambiguated the two links (as a note, this turned one of them into a red link). The first website that you listed is the official government site for Malawi, and this had a tendency, in my experience, to go up and down fairly randomly. I would theorize that this is possibly due to a lack of internet reliability in the country, but I don't know for sure. I have corrected the redirect on the second link. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The article needs more information on the languages of Malawi in order to meet the comprehensiveness requirement. In many African country articles this is broken out into a separate "Languages" section. In this article, however, we only have a single sentence. Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more information on the languages in Malawi. As this article is supposed to be in summary style, with most of the information in daughter articles, I don't want to get too deep into any individual point. Please let me know if what I've added will suffice, and I'd love to hear any other comments you may have. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Query "Malawi was first populated during the 10th century" this presumably refers to the earliest agricultural communities, I think you'll find that hunter gatherers had lived in the area long long before that., suggest you review your sources and rephrase - 10th century might be earliest pastoralists, farmers, or iron workers but It won't have been the first population. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "settled"; does this work? Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for now. The quality of the sourcing strikes me as rather poor. The article is sourced heavily to the cursory BBC country profile of Malawi, as well as the US state dept profile of Malawi, which are both not terribly scholarly. Also, the ethnologue website is generally regarded relatively poorly. Are there no high-quality books written about Malawi? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the Africa 2006 and Africa 2008 books strike me as pretty poor references. Have you checked out the publisher's website? I've never heard of this publishing company before and they're barely represented on Amazon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources: My library has approximately 25 books that mention Malawi in the title alone, so I'm skeptical that the article currently has the best choices for reliable sources. There might be a wealth of knowledge missing! I believe that further research is needed. Here are a few samples that may prove helpful:
  • Pachai, Bridglal. Malawi: the History of the Nation. London: Longman, 1973. ISBN 0582645530.
  • Pike, John G. Malawi: a Political and Economic History. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1968.
  • Rotberg, Robert I. The rise of nationalism in Central Africa; the making of Malawi and Zambia, 1873-1964. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. ISBN 0674771915.
  • Williams, T. David. Malawi, the Politics of Despair. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. ISBN 0801411491.

Not to mention the works available (at least in part) via GoogleBooks, NetLibrary, journal databases, etc. María (habla conmigo) 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you, except that all of the books that you quoted are from the 1960s and 70s, meaning that they are 30 or 40 years out of date. They would probably be fine to source for part of the history section and some of the things that wouldn't change (geography, climate, etc), but other than that, most of the stuff in the article deals with more recent things, such as the economy, language/religion distribution, etc that needs to be sourced to current information. There may be, as you say, as "wealth of information missing", but I'm not really sure what that may be. Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be in summary style, and so while using the books you recommend to give an in-depth history of Malawi's economy, demographics, etc might be tempting, it's really not the point of a summary article, IMO.
I'm glad to hear that you have such a comprehensive library, but I am not so fortunate. I did do a search at my local library, and tapped out their information on Africa, so please don't think that I've neglected that avenue. I'm sure you have a response to this, and I'm glad to hear it :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't about Africa, though, it's about Malawi. Africa is a big place, and I for one prefer to see a bibliography that includes works that are specifically dedicated to the subject matter. For example, if Florida consisted of book sources about the United States as a whole, but not Florida and its individual history/culture/etc., I would be similarly concerned. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but a thirty year-old book dedicated to the history of Malawi seems more applicable than two pages from a nearly twenty year-old book about the history of the entirety of Africa. My library is actually very modest in size, so don't count me as lucky. :) But if you have access to an academic library, or even Interlibrary Loan, further research could help a great deal -- you could even perhaps enlist the help of someone who has access to such services. No need to go it alone! The examples I listed came from a quick, cursory search, but there's also a decent bibliography available on everything Malawi from the World Bibliographical Series (Vol. 8; 2nd Ed., Santa Barbara, Calif.: Clio Press, c1995). My point is that although currently verifiable, I am concerned that the article may not represent the best of Wikipedia if it neglects a breadth of available sources. María (habla conmigo) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I fortunately have access to a university library. I haven't even gotten through the 2007 and 2006 publications on Malawi and I've already encountered a number of books on politics, government, the justice system, many on the AIDS crisis, several on the Millennium goals, etc. Dana, I would suggest finding the nearest university library to you and going there. If you live in the United States, I would suggest going to a state university library - they are there to help the residents of that state (that is you!) You can ask for help from the reference librarians and they will be more than happy to help you. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

These should be quick fixes. Awadewit (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Luan Da

Nominator(s): Nousernamesleft

previous FAC (15:53, 29 August 2008)

Finally, Luan Da, the mystic and conman who became the second most powerful man in the sixth largest ancient empire simply by telling tall tales (and a little magnetic trick with chess pieces), is back at FAC. He's been through two previous FACs - premature, of course - since when he's undergone the rigors of a peer review (which unfortunately didn't get a lot of love, though Rjwilmsi helpfully fixed up some MOS trinkets for me). The article still is fairly short, though not as short as before; a brief description of the changes since the previous FAC can be found in the peer review. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I know the article's short, but could you expand the lead a bit? According to WP:LEAD this one is acceptable, but it would be wayyy too short if we were to put this on the main page as an example of "our best work". Now don't get me wrong, this really is a fabulous article, but a longer lead IMO is necessary. Just my 2 cents. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll consider it, but I think the lead does a fine job right now. Besides, the main page blurb != lead, and plenty of articles with 1-para leads have appeared on the main page before. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Images (well, image) meets criteria with appropriate license, source, date, description, author. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral--lack of ref.--JackyCheung (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If by "Lack of ref" you mean "lack of references", this oppose is not actionable. What needs to be referenced? WP:WIAFA contains no suggestion related to the number of references in an article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • SORRY,First, I haven't voted "oppose".Second,I have not mentioned any "number",I only think that the ref of the article can't support all the contents, I hope you may understand--JackyCheung (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am in correspondence with this user. He mainly peruses the Chinese Wiki, and it seems that over there, their FA criteria includes a requirement of a minimum of 20 unique references/ sources (I presume he used the number of unique inline citations as a casual gauge for this, i.e. the inline citation number must go above [20]). That is likely what he meant by "lack of ref". Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • you are wrong, "their FA criteria includes a requirement of a minimum of 20 unique references/ sources" is wrong--JackyCheung (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If I misunderstood, I apologize. My assumption was based off your statement: "You say the English Wiki's ref standards are higher than the Chinese's? That simply cannot be, this article has only 14 refs, an article that does not have 20 refs will never be a GA in the Chinese Wiki, not to say about FA there."[3] It appears a Chinese FA is supposed to have more than 20 inline citations, but that is not a rule or opposable issue here. A lack of citations is only opposable if information in the article was not cited to a source, and I have told you that not every sentence must be cited. Sentences clumped together can be cited to a single source, if appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, there are only about 14 7 ref, it can't be a GA also. --JN 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not the number of references you should base your oppose on, but if the text is fully referenced. Short articles may not have many references. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the case above, this user mainly peruses the Chinese Wiki and might be confused about the English Wiki FAC criteria for references and sources. Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so what? You can't stop my oppose! --JN 06:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no one can stop anyone from opposing, but we can point out if an oppose is misguided or if it is not actionable. This will highlight the issue for the FA director and delegates to decide on. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment--evaluation,influence??? not comprehensive--JackyCheung (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • i have found much of information, although it's in chinese--JackyCheung (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have found information, please point them out here. As I have told you, the standards of reliability are different among the two Wikis. Sources that are unreliable should be discounted. Furthermore, if the information in those new sources are already covered in the current sources used, they are of no consequence and do not constitute a lack of information; hence, not actionable on. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The study guide produced for G380 by Robert Eno is a bit suspect as a reliable source. Study guides are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked in any way. This might qualify as reliable self-published source since Eno is a published scholar in the field, but it seems that we can do better than an undergraduate study guide! Can the material sourced to this document be sourced to more reliable sources? If not, I would suggest emailing Professor Eno and simply asking him for a list of sources to use for the article. I'm sure he would be happy to assist. Awadewit (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

Nominator(s): Petergans
previous FAC (23:04, 25 October 2008)

The article has been extensively revised in the light of FAC-type comments and I believe that it now conforms to WP:MOS. There has been much discussion regarding references. The current text follows Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines.

The content of this article is mostly “”common knowledge”, that is, it can be found in a wide variety of text-books on physical, inorganic, organic and analytical chemistry.. Whereas no one text-book covers all the subject matter, the advantage of WP is that it is not tied a specific teaching program and can provide broader coverage. The fact that a number of text-books are cited provides the general basis for verifiability and reduces the need to support every single paragraph with a citation. The items in acid dissociation constant#further reading provide additional verifiability support. Note also that I follow the normal procedure in chemistry, of placing the reference number close to the item being referenced, whenever it would be ambiguous as to what is being referenced if that reference were placed at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Petergans (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I supported the previous nomination already, and now the article is even better, so there's not much else I can say. --Itub (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I spent some time after the last FAC trying to identify MOS issues with the article, and everything I could find has been fixed. I also went through the content from the point of view of a layman with a moderately technical background; everything I found that needed clarification has been improved upon or expanded. The article now meets FAC standards and I am happy to support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Igordebraga


After working on this article for over a month, I believe it's ready. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I thought that the reception section skimped on criticism on the multiplayer, which was prominently mentioned in the lead. If the criticism wasn't all too common, then I think it would be better off if you dropped that. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments, since I played this game.
    • I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to opening sentences, but I think the first sentence is rather boring, and doesn't say that much. I would love if the second sentence (the general content) was used instead for the opening, since it sums up what the game is so well. The current first sentence would be a logical second sentence then, since it explains in more general terms of what it is. I don't know if everyone would agree, but on tropical cyclone articles, which I so often work on, I try and find a captivating opening sentence, with a more general sentence that follows.
    • Is the mentioning of the Zelda game important? I find it out of place, especially it being in the first paragraph, which is supposed to talk about the game itself. If it were on TFA, and the whole lede were included, I'd certainly be confused why there was a Zelda reference in its main page blurb.
      • Removed.
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede could use some tweaking. Perhaps a semicolon is needed to split the "will be released" part.
      • Edited to replicate another FA with receive same treatment.
    • Likewise, I have some issues with the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede. First, should Temple be capitalized? Second, you say Samus must travel to the temples, but you don't say why. Isn't that important? Third, perhaps the bit about the Space Pirates and Dark Samus should be a separate statement, since IIRC those battles were separate from the Ing/Luminoth battle.
      • Fixed a little. But the Space Pirates/DS is to show that the Ing aren't the only problem.
    • A source is needed for "The events of Echoes take place six months after the events of Metroid Prime."
      • Didn't find, reworded.
    • Something I notice that's missing is total number of units sold (not just in 2004, but overall since released). That is important, I would imagine.
      • I couldn't find newer data outside of forums (it says it's NPD numbers, but people normally complain when this kind of source is used...).
    • Should its place in chronology in the MP trilogy be mentioned in the lede? Just an idea...
      • Don't know, but decided not to put.
    • For the image in gameplay, should it be "heads-up display" or "head-up display"? The former redirects to the latter.
      • Fixed.
    • The first sentence of "setting" is a bit too much of a run-on; its format is "a is on b, which home c, which is doing d, which is e."
      • Did something, tell me if it needs more work.
    • Wasn't there something about Dark Samus originating from the end boss in the first Metroid Prime? Should that be mentioned?
  • That's it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - man, you really don't waste time with closing them Peer Reviews, eh? Looks close, but there are some issues with the prose that need to be addressed:

  • Lead:
    • "Metroid Prime 2: Echoes is a first-person action-adventure video game developed by Retro Studios and published by Nintendo for the GameCube video game console. It is the second game in the Metroid Prime trilogy, following Metroid Prime, and the first Metroid game to have a multiplayer feature." I dunno, personally I happen to dislike the whole wall of blue greeting people as they start reading. Is the "first person" part that important? Is telling us it follows Metroid Prime that important either?
      • The "first-person" is to denote it is like an FPS, but with less focus on shooting. I reworded to denote it's a direct sequel to Metroid Prime, so very similar to it.
    • "Echoes follows a theme of light versus dark, similar to another game published by Nintendo, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, whose development team advised Retro Studios on the concept's development. " This sentence doesn't tell me much, disassociated as it is with the other story elements, and "to another game" bit just sounds vague and bizarre as phrased.
    • "The game was released in North America, Europe, and Australia in 2004, and in Japan in 2005, and will be released for the Wii in 2009 with updated graphics and take advantage of the Wii controls as part of the Play on the Wii selection." or, put a period after 2005. And create a new sentence.
    • "Nintendo launched a viral marketing campaign to promote the game that included several websites written in an in-universe style. Echoes was well received by most critics, and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics, which was considered one of the best on the GameCube. However, the game received complaints regarding its steep difficulty level and the average quality of the multiplayer component. " 'included several websites written in an in-universe style' - ehhhhh. Not grabbing me. "and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics" - comments?
      • Yeah, Gary King is a man who rushes. The first, tried to do something; the second I had already removed, and third, changed following the previous commenter; the fourth, removed the former (no need to summarize everything in the lead) and reworded the latter. The igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • What? Gary King (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC): Article passes the GA. 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC): The FAC is started. Simple. But he's a great editor nevertheless. igordebraga ≠ 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
            • The amount of time between an article being promoted after GAN and its nomination to FAC isn't directly related to how well written it is. I'm fine if you call me a poor writer, but please don't assume bad faith and think that I tend to rush nominations. Gary King (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gameplay:
    • "The gameplay revolves around solving puzzles to uncover secrets, platform jumping, and shooting enemies with the help of a "lock-on" mechanism that allows circle strafing while staying aimed at an enemy." This is rather breathless with the lock-on bit. Try ending at enemies and starting a new sentence explaining the lock on mechanism.
    • "The game contains additions that include new power-ups for Samus, including the Screw Attack, which allows Samus to jump in midair and off of certain surfaces; and new beam weapons, which, unlike in previous games, have limited ammunition.[2][3]" Two guesses on what the two issues are with this sentence.
    • "The safe zones are either permanent or need to be activated. " How does one activate them?
    • "The game's heads-up display simulates the inside of Samus' helmet and features a radar, map, missile ammunition meter, health meter, and health bar" It's not quite clear you are referring to Samus' health, et al in this section.
    • "The multiplayer mode allows up to four players to engage in combat using a split screen. It has six arenas and two modes: Deathmatch and Bounty, the latter of which focuses on collecting coins that injured characters drop. Multiplayer in Echoes features the same control scheme as the single-player mode and includes the lock-on system.[2]" - don't go all "the multiplayer mode" on me when we haven't talked about it before. Explain the gametypes if you're going to talk about one of them.
      • 1st: considering I link to the previous game gameplay, reworded. Tried to fix the rest. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Synopsis:
    • "Echoes takes place on Aether, a planet inhabited by the Luminoth, a race that protects the planet's pure natural energy, the Light of Aether." repetitious structure
      • Added some words.
    • "One day, a meteor collides into the planet and leaves a scar that burns the Agon Plains, floods Torvus Forest, " - um, who gives a crap about Torvus forest and agon plains? It seems like by cutting out these details, the plot could be slimmed down.
      • It's just for readers not to be much lost when "Agon Wastes" and "Torvus Bog" appear in "Story"... but removed the names. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "Named Dark Aether, it forms evil creatures to balance the Luminoth, called the Ing: cruel shapeshifting creatures that can possess bodies of the living, the dead, and the artificially intelligent, and who intend to destroy the Luminoth." awkward start with an unclear subject; tacked-on sentence about the Ing, repetitious structure
      • Reworded.
    • "Failing to return the Marines back alive" - gah.
      • Removed
    • To me, it seems the entire second paragraph of plot could be turned into "Samus travels to different locations across Aether, defeating powerful bosses and restoring light yadda yadda."
      • Reduced it a bit.
    • "If the player has collected 100% of the in-game items, a post-credits scene shows Dark Samus reforming herself." This comes out of nowhere, and since it's not discussed previously doesn't make much sense. Recast to be less game-centered.
      • Added some words, but I can remove.
  • Development:
    • "Nintendo ordered Retro Studios" order eh? Who does he think he is?
    • "After the successful release of Metroid Prime" How was it successful?
      • Reworded
    • "They also created a more immersive storyline that focused less on the Space Pirates and Metroids." who are the developers to decide their succeeded in creating an immersive storyline. I'd likes some qualifier to that. Also, something should explain why focusing less on the Space Pirates and Metroids was a departure.
    • "because the game also used a light and dark concept" oh come on, you can explain it, "the game's protagonist travels between light and dark worlds yadda yadda"
      • Reworded the rest.
    • "The "Hunters" multiplayer theme is a remix of Super Metroid's "Upper Brinstar" theme" perhaps you should preface these examples by explaining they adapted music from previous Metroid games?
      • Expanded.
  • Release:
    • The I Love Bees bit should be explained out (that it was viral marketing/ARG for Halo 2)
      • Done.
    • "Despite positive reviews, some critics found problems with the game" The positive reviews part is a given considering previous text, just axe it.
      • Done.
    • the constant use of "complained " sounds a bit POV
    • "and 40,000 copies in Japan after its release there" 40,000 copies during the same time frame? it's not clear in the prose
    • "It was also rated"
      • All reworded
    • keep the same citation scheme: in "the 15th best GameCube game by IGN, and the 13th best by GameSpy.[30][31]" the IGN ref should come after the award is named.
      • I had already fixed before your post. Did you review a previous version somehow? igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to the above in a block below so I can keep track of what's being done and all. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maggie Gyllenhaal

Nominator(s): ThinkBlue


I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller
  • Maybe I'm being grizzly here, but I'm puzzled by the partial use of sourcing in the Lead. Either source all the information there, or none of it, on the basis that it's sourced in the main body. This way, it makes the information presented seem less reliable. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University." Unsourced. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "she worked a summer job as a waitress" To an Englishman, this comes across as less than formal language. Unsure about American English, so left it. I fixed another more definite informality. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • lacuna re her high school. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you are being asked to put the name of her high school into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "break-out role" Do you mean break-through role? Even so, it seems POV unless someone said so in RS.they did --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, "break-out" is OK - my English dictionary includes "a great success" among its meanings. We would say "breakthrough" in the UK, but perhaps break-out is a more usual Am-Eng form? Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead looks a reasonable length - could add fiancé to it. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't put the sentence you suggest into the lead. It has one "and" too many. I have restructured in the Personal life section, where I think it belongs. In the lead, I advise you limit yourself to a minimal "Since 2006 she has been engaged to actor Peter Sasgaard". Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Got everything. The reason I left the references in the lead was to support the information stated there, so it wouldn't become a problem, but seeing how it was brought up, I removed them. I got your concerns, except for the high school thing; Hardvard-Westlake was the high school Gyllenhaal graduated from. Also, would this, for the lead, ---> "In her personal life, Gyllenhaal has been in relationship with actor Peter Sasgaard and announced their engagement in 2006 and together they have a daughter", work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: I helped peer-review this. During and after the review, a great deal of work was done to bring the article up from what was a fairly raw state to its present form. This is now, I believe, a comprehensive and well-written biography of an interesting up-and-coming star. I have just one quibble, and one caveat:

  • Quibble: Could a more easily-understood term than "poverty non-profit advocacies" be found, to describe what she is supporting here? This is a post-peer review addition to the text, and although I can roughly guess its meaning, I'm not sure, and other readers might be likewise confused.
    • I removed "non-profit", don't know if it helps. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • No! - "poverty advocacies" makes no sense at all - sounds as if she is advocating poverty. The best wording I can suggest is "anti-poverty campaigns", if that describes what she was doing. But don't leave it as it is! Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Has been added and yes that's exactly the cause she helps out in. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Caveat: My support has to be dependent on the sources being checked out as "reliable" by FA standards. I'm afraid that identifying reliable sources isn't my strong point, especially in the movie world where I know next to nothing. So I will require assurance on this point, after a sources check by Ealdgyth or another sources specialist.

I have done a little more copyediting, and have also commented on some of the points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

World Science Festival

Nominator(s): Markus Poessel (talk)


World Science Festival has been a good article (see review) for a few months now, and it underwent a helpful peer review in October. I think it's ready for its FA candidacy. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial comment Images are fine, and my first reaction is very positive. This is an event the nominator clearly cares about, and he wants to do a good job sharing his experience with the world. Personal involvement with the subject matter isn't in WP:FA?, but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, and it makes a positive impression. Doing some copyediting now. Since there are around 1600 words, it's likely that someone might bring up comprehensiveness; others are much better at figuring out those questions than I am, and after I finish my copyediting, I'll sit back and watch the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Done with copyediting. I've got to run, but I'll be back with general disclaimers after lunch. As always, feel free to revert anything. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and helpful copyediting! Markus Poessel (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - (Note: I peer reviewed this article.) This article is a bit short, but I think it covers all of the aspects of the festival: history of, planning, event, and reception. The only thing that I can think to add is a history of science festivals and public demonstrations of science, a phenomenon which began during the eighteenth century but became extremely popular during the nineteenth century. However, I think that might be too far afield for the article and my interest is probably personal. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! As for the more general history of science festivals and public demonstrations: shouldn't that be a part of the more general lemma Science festival? Markus Poessel (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
More concretely, if you have any good references for the history of science festivals, feel free to either put them somewhere on science festival or its talkpage, or if formatting them would be too time-consuming, to dump them on my own talk page. The science festival article is definitely also on my list of articles I want to improve, and any good reference helps, of course. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that science festival is going to have a "history" section of some sort, but I was wondering whether one or two sentences about the tradition of science festivals might be appropriate for this article. As for references, that would take me a while to track down. Could you leave me a note and I'll try to do some looking after finals? Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Williams (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured status because, guess what, I think it fits the bill, telling the story of the guy considered most responsible for the foundation - and the survival in its early years - of the Royal Australian Air Force. Currently rated A-Class on three projects, prior to which it had a peer review. Believe all comments from those reviews have been actioned. Since then I've added additional info but the basic format is unchanged. There is one red link in the article which will be gone when I've put the finishing touches on a new article in the next few days. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:WilliamsPacificIslands.gif - Could we get a more specific link to the source of this image?
    • Heh, yes, our friends at the Defence/RAAF web site have made a few changes to things lately - updated the link now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:A04565Williams.jpg - Are you sure this image was taken before 1 January 1955? Could it have been taken during 1955?
    • Yes, it could have been taken during 1955, but then I think criterion E of PD-Australia would apply. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Richard Williams.jpg - I feel uneasy making any pronouncements about this image. It seems to me that the email correspondence would need to go through OTRS rather than just be posted here. I don't think we can accept "Wikipedia only" publication rights (see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission) and the fair use rationale here would not work, since there are free images of this person.
    • Yup, I actually held up nominating this article for FAC while I tried sorting this one, since I considered the image important enough to justify some effort. It was originally uploaded as PD but was undated and, looking at him, I thought it had to be more recent than 50 years ago. In fact, I suspect it was taken around 1971 as part of the RAAF's Jubilee celebrations, though neither the RAAF webmaster nor Defence Copyright have been able to date it for me. Therefore I asked permission to use it, as you see - I wasn't aware of WP:OTRS by the way. As far as the fair use thing goes, I wasn't entirely happy with it either, but then I think our policy here is a little odd. To me, logically, if you have permission to use an image, you shouldn't need a fair use assertion. Similarly, if you're making a legitimate fair use claim, you shouldn't need permission. However I decided to go ahead and do it according to other examples I've seen since, while I agree that there are free images of Williams, there are none at this stage of his life, with all his regalia, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you show me somewhere onsite where it says these sorts of permissions, which are limited to Wikipedia, are acceptable? I was under the impression that we could not accept such permissions. I was also under the impression that we could not just post such permissions ourselves - I thought we had to have them verified through OTRS (otherwise we could just make them up). The fair use claim here is extremely weak, so let's just focus on sorting out the permission bit. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Discussion, with link to an example, here. Any other advice on the best way to get this image compliant more than welcome, also happy to put the permission through OTRS, if that's the next thing to do. That said, I don't intend to allow this one to hold up the FAC process so if we can't get a reasonably speedy resolution then I'll remove it and substitute something else - won't be as appropriate but will be PD - until or unless we can sort this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm just getting a userpage. I really would suggest OTRS. That seems the safest route to me. Awadewit (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Actually, I've checked with someone more knowledgeable than myself. Apparently, OTRS won't make a difference here. Since the fair use rationale can't be supported (there are free images of this person available), we need to delete the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
              • As I said earlier, I agree fair use doesn't logically apply here because we have at least one decent PD portrait of the subject, I only included a FUR because the Wikipedia-only permission I obtained apparently requires it. If I felt fair use was justified, I wouldn't have bothered obtaining permission. Similarly, the permission should logically negate the need for a fair use claim. Anyway, I don't want this to bog down the FAC, it appears you're saying that only a free release would satisfy the permission requirement so I'll pursue that with the owner and in the meantime will remove this image from the article and substitute another PD image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm striking this since it has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • All of the AWM images have little logos and website addresses along the bottom of the images. I would suggest removing these from the images.
    • Those watermarks don't really fuss me but I'm happy to remove; I know we've done that for other AWM images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we can straighten out these issues rather quickly. Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Tks for your comments, and tweaks to some of the images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • Not terrifically importaint, as the award wasn't made, but it might be worth mentioning that he was recommended for a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1918. (See here)
    • Have to admit I'm not too keen on adding it, mainly because I can hardly read the source...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Lol, I was thinking the same thing ... I gave up on trying to read it! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Upon establishment of the Australian Air Board on 9 November 1920, Williams and his fellow AAC officers dropped their army ranks in favour of those based on the Royal Air Force, which had come into being two years earlier." - this sentence is slightly confusing, as in a way it implies the RAF was established in 1918 or the ranks were. I know the RAF was established in 1918, but was not their ranking system developed in 1919 or 1920? If so, this needs to be clarified.
    • I might just drop "which had come into being two years earlier" to keep it simple. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Williams spent much of 1923 in England, attending the British Army Staff College in Camberley and RAF Staff College, Andover, followed by further study in Canada and the United States the following year. Goble acted as Chief of the Air Staff in his absence." - Wasn't Goble appointed CAS during this time, not just acting?
    • I suspect I used "acted" because I'd run out of similar words in the vicinity but will look at something else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This meets all the criteria. On the topic of the disputed image, I discussed this with Ian when he first contacted the RAAF for permission to use it, and don't see any problem with including it. The RAAF has granted permission for its use and it adds value to the article by showing Williams in the uniform of a senior and highly decorated officer. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The permission granted by the RAAF is inadequate - they must grant a GFDL or CC license of some sort and one of these must be granted through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Truong Dinh

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!)


Vietnamese militant leader, fought against French invasion in the 1860s... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The image license claims "life of the author plus 70 years" but we don't have an author listed. Also, we need a more specific source than "museum in Paris". Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was hoping that discovering the specific museum might lead to specific author information, but apparently not. I've marked the author as "unknown". We'll work on the presumption he died at a normal age. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Tu Duc.jpg - Can we get some verification that this is indeed a 19th-century drawing? Does one of your books discuss it, for example?

These should be easy issues to rectify. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first and commented out the second. It's probably scanned from some old thing but not used in any books I could find. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

SS Montanan

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


I believe that this article meets the featured article requirements. It has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • What makes http://water.worldcitydb.com/matanilla_reef_2198331.html a reliable source?
    • My guess is that their information comes from some sort of (probably PD) database, but I was unable to find it duplicated anywhere. I added it only for a map link to show where the reef is, so not being an essential detail, I've removed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Any way to spell out DANFS in the short notes?
    • Same answer as from the other FAC: I updated the {{cite DANFS}} template to allow for a "first" version of the short form and set the parameter in its first invocation. Can you take a look and see if that is satisfactory? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comments — Good work overall. Some minor concerns:
  • While in another eastbound convoy in August 1918, USAT Montanan was torpedoed and sunk by U-90 some 500 nautical miles (900 km) west of Le Verdon-sur-Mer, France. - Remove "some".
    • Removed.
  • Provisions of the deal allowed that some of the nine installments could be converted into longer-term notes or mortgages. - "Allowed that" is slightly odd.
    • Changed to: "The deal had provisions that allowed some of the nine installments to be converted…"
  • On 2 December, The Washington Post reported on an incident involving Montanan. - Remove "on".
    • Removed.
  • The majority of the cargo was rice—from Japan, China, and California—which was destined for the United Kingdom to feed Indian troops then fighting in Europe. - Not sure "then" is needed.
    • Removed.
  • Montanan departed with her group on the morning of 17 June for Brest, France, steaming at an 11-knot (20 km/h) pace. - Needs a conversion to mph. There are a couple more of these farther down.
    • One reason I don't often put miles per hour conversions in addition to km/h conversions is that, using {{convert}} you get the weird double slash thing going, like this: 11-knot (20 km/h/13 mph). Also, in the speeds discussed for this ship (as opposed to, say for a tropical storm or hurricane) knots end up being very close to mph and, in my opinion, do not add much understanding. However, if you think them necessary, I will add them in.
  • Not a big deal, but is there any info on the shipwreck after it sunk? For example, have any efforts been made to recover it or any part of it?
    • Nothing that I came across. Since it wasn't reported as carrying, say, gold, or something, I'm not sure anything it carried would be valuable enough to attempt a salvage, especially since the area where it might be as deep as 4,800 meters (16,000 ft).

Close to supporting. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - Both images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent work. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)


I am nominating this article, the first of a short series dealing with the youthful Mozart. This one covers the family's Grand Tour of the European capitals, 1763–66. Mozart was seven when the tour began and ten when it ended, and it saw his development from an infant prodigy performer to an accomplished composer across a range of genre. Thanks to those who have assisted this article's progress thus far. "Mozart in Italy" comes next, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this article and made the map of the tour, and find it meets all the FA criteria. I do have a few minor quibbles on rereading it.

  • Augsberg is a redirect - the article is "Augsburg" and that is the name I know the city by (and I imagine is the name most would know the city by). Is there any reason for using the alternate name?
  • The next extended stop was at Mainz, from which the family took a boat journey down the Main to Frankfurt, where several public concerts were given. Frankfurt is on the Main River upstream from Mainz, so should it be "journey up the Main"?
  • I do not always understand the MOS here, but it seems this is a complete sentence in a quote and the full stop / period should be inside the quotation marks: "Howbeit, neither mine host nor the postmaster are to be contented with kisses".[28]
  • Would it make sense to give translations of this Très mediocre – Un miserable italien detestable – Asini tutti – Un racleur (a scratcher) – Rotten.[69] in the footnote, perhaps?

Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you for these comments. I have fixed the first three. With regard to the translations, with the exception of the "scratcher" my thought was that Leopold's meanings were pretty clear, even untranslated, and I didn't want to patronise readers by appearing to assume they wouldn't understand. However, if you think the footnote important, I'll add it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the other fixes. I do not speak French or Italian. I know tres is very. It took me a while to figure out tutti is all (from tutti frutti ice cream, then recalled it is also used in music). I am guessing Asini is something like ass(es). My guess is most people will have to guess, but I am fine with leaving this for others to weigh in on. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Can I please use the tutti example in my class? That is priceless. Using what we know to figure out what we don't. I'm still smiling. Awadewit (talk)
          • Sure, feel free. "All fruit" ice cream - yum yum. ;-) I guess my point is that while some will know right away, there may me be many who do not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
            • I've put the footnote translations in. I can't help feeling the insults have more bite in their original form, but please feel free to use them in any way you think appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
    • Fixed (I think, ever hopeful) Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.classical.net/music/composer/works/mozart/ a reliable source?
    • There are three Köchel catalogues on the web. By far the best is the Mozart Forum one, here, but this site appears to be run by a group of amateur enthusiasts on a kind of chatroom basis, so I imagined it would not pass muster. The other one also seems like the work of an amateur compiler. That left ClassicalNet, which is a commercial but professionally run site with a wide range of musical information. I can easily replace the web source with a printed one, but that would be less accessible to the reader. But what if I transfer ClassicalNet (or the Mozart Forum) to External links, and use a printed Köchel as the main source? Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that Classical.net was commercial, which makes it slightly more reliable (in my mind at least) but I think your solution is probably the best one, or you can double cite it. Do the printed for ultra-reliablity and the online for us lazy folks. Sorry this took a few, I'm still recovering from the show last weekend, I've picked up some sort of crud or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I've done what you suggest and double-cited. Sorry about the crud - a plague on both your horses?? (ho ho ho) Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — I helped copyedit this article a few days ago, and I found little to fault. I was especially impressed by the prose, which is clearly up to standards. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - (Note: I peer reviewed this article.) It is so refreshing to have a classical music article! This is a comprehensive, well-researched, wonderfully written, and excellently illustrated article. Mozart had a riveting life and this taste of it is carefully and evocatively explained. I particularly like the quotations from the Mozarts themselves. Awadewit (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of title - IMO 'Mozart family Grand Tour' (MfGT) needs to be changed to 'Mozart family grand tour' (Mfgt). The Grand Tour, as explained in that article, has a specific meaning. In the case of the Mozart family, they did a grand tour, not the Grand Tour. Regards. --Kleinzach 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this. I agree the family did not do the cultural "Grand Tour" as described in the article of that name. On the other hand, my main sources use the capitalized form (Blom excepted). The family tour was a tremendously important event in Mozart's development. When I tried out the non-capitalized form as the title of this article, it looked wrong - the title had lost force, and the tour seemed minor and perfunctory. So while not arguing against your reasoning, my own preference would be to leave the capitals, in compliance with the main sources. I would be interested to have the views of others, however. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the majority of the sources use "Grand Tour" as discussed here and in the peer review, I am fine with the current title's capitalization, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Do the sources use the same capitalization rules as WP? (A print editor could probably opt for an unproblematic MFGT.) --Kleinzach 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's follow the sources. Wikipedia's MOS is ever-changing anyway. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas 1994 nor'easter

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone


Well, according to WT:FAC, some people have gotten bored with the usual nomination statements, so I'll try something new. Did you know ... that that nor'easter may have been a tropical cyclone? Considering that most reviewers won't even know the difference, let alone find it interesting, I guess I'll continue on as usual...

Since its last FAC, the article has been copyedited by a couple editors, has received helpful comments on the talk page by User:Brianboulton, and got an equally helpful check for MOS and ACCESS issues by User:SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you make the Infobox damage total a little neater? Right now, it says "Damages: Several million 1994 USD", which is a tad weird. Why not just put the total you know (based on what you have already), and put the > sign ? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
All references are good. I'm just a bit confused with the two sentences between the section Effects and the sub-section Southeast United States. Are they there as general effects or because there is nowhere else to put them? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, yeah. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • That is the downloadable file. I was wondering if there was a way to link to the website and the file. (Apparently I would have to install a program to read this file.) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I copyedited this article before FAC, and am leaning towards supporting , but I'd like a couple of issues settled first.

  • The two stray sentences after the Effects heading: I'm not convinced that they are doing anything where they are. In the main text the causes of flooding appear to be rainfall rather than snow melts, and there are no other references to ice jams, so the first sentence looks redundant. The second sentence makes a general point about above-average temperatures, but this could be made in the lead. I'd consider ditching the first and transferring the second.
  • In the lead you say that damage amounted to "several million dollars". According the main text, the damage in New England alone amounted to about $18 million - that's hardly "several". And what about the damage in the other areas - why is quantification given only for New England? I would guess that total damage was probably more like $50 million, which is seriously contrary to the lead statement. Could we have a clearer summary statement estimating the total cost of the damage? Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I clarified the damage total in the lead. As for the damages in other areas, information for specific totals is only available for New England, where the storm was the worst. Thank you for your copyedits and helpful comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: Those were my only concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Meets all criteria, since it was copy edited. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Nominator(s): User:Wrestlinglover
previous FAC (00:39, 20 October 2008)


I am nominating this article for FA status because, well I want it to be an FA. I have no good reason to nominate it. Since its last FAC, I believe all of the problems have been taken care of. The sourcing problems has been resolved. WrestleView was