Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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; or
  • 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.

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 "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination.
  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

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • 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). 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 the 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

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it deserves a FA status. The article discusses an important period in the development of medieval Kannada literature. The article has completed a peer review by User:Ruhrfisch and User:Redtigerxyz and is well cited from reliable sources. MOS check was done by User:Epbr123 and copy edits by User:Michael Devore, User:Finetooth and User:Dank55. Image issues have been cleared by User:Elcobbola.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Blocks of references need to be in numerical order. I noticed quite a few out of order. Calor (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of this. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it use to look like this. After 700 edits, and an addition of citations from many major scholarly sources on the subject, an extensive peer review, and constant reviewing on the talk page with full scale MoS check, plus a full scale image and ref check, I think it may be FA standards. If not, well ... User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:SandyGeorgia performed over 400 quality edits in the push to FA status, examining every minute detail with punctuation, grammar, language and MoS. They are the main reason why this is not simply a GA, and why I feel confident that this is FA quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Comment During a conversation with his biographer, Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's idealism could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully stomped a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[200]

Presumably this interpretation of Johnson's emotions is based on a misunderstanding of the word alacrity? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AMX-30E

Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)


I started this article only a little while ago, and it recently passed an A-class review. As always, it probably needs the prose to be edited, but I will always be able to quickly make the necessary changes (although, I think the quality of my writing has improved since my first FAC). Otherwise, I believe it easily meets the requirements for FA. JonCatalán (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Hello again. You seem to be churning out one excellent tank article after another. Here are my comments on this one:

  • "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%." 65% of what?
  • "Spain's AMX-30Es went through two separate upgrades in the late 1980s, including a modernization program and a reconstruction program, each done to one half of the fleet." Including is unnecessary here.
  • "In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E, while in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments were discussing the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s." Keep the tenses consistent:"In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E; in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments discussed the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s."
  • "Ultimately, both of these possible trade deals fell through." Ultimately should be however, "of these possible" is redundant.
  • "The M47 was first supplied to the Spanish army in the mid-1950s,[2] offering an improvement over the existing fleet of Panzer I, T-26 and Panzer IV tanks." Slightly awkward wording, I believe "offering an improvement over"-->"to replace" (delete the comma before if you make the change).
  • I changed the hyphens to en dashes in the year ranges in the infobox—that was a problem in your last FAC too.
  • A general issue of the article is the incosistency of spelling. Are you using British English, American English, or something else (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)?
  • "However, the Leopard boasted of greater armor protection than the AMX-30,[10] partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks. However, the French AMX-30 was being sold at a cheaper price tag than the German Leopard 1." Let's combine these sentences to add flow: "Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30—partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks—the latter was sold at a cheaper price." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Furthermore, in terms of lethality, at the time the French Obus G high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round was one of the most advanced projectiles." Move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
  • "However, the Leopard was armed with the L7A3, capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the Soviet T-55 tank." I'm not sure that "however" is the correct contrasting term; try "on the other hand".
  • "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle" Ambiguous statement that doesn't need to be there.
  • "The UK's unwillingness to sell their L7 tank-gun, the low cost of the AMX-30, and the French offer to allow Spain to manufacture the tank, had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle." "had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle"-->"led the Spanish Army to favor the French armored vehicle".

I'll review the 2nd half of the article tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Nominator(s): EclipseSSD (talk)
previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)


Self-Nomination: I am nominating The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for FA status, because between this nomination and the previous one, I believe that I and other editors have significantly improved and expanded this article enough for it to reach FA status. It is my opinion that the article explains all the relevant points in a good amount of detail, and has valid references to back up the statements made, where necessary.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • Image:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg - This needs to indicate who owns the copyright - all fair use images must indicate who owns the copyright.
  • Image:Groupshot.jpg - This fair use rationale makes no sense and is not applied to the Texas Chainsaw article.
  • Image:Leatherface1974.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Chainsaw article.
  • Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG - I am not convinced that we need a fair use image of the director making the movie. What is an image of this necessary for the article?
  • Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg - This is an insufficient fair use rationale. Please expand upon the reasoning for why this image must be included in the article to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film (see WP:NFCC). Also, there must be a separate fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used.

I hope these comments help! Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I am addressing these issues right now.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (for the Tobe Hooper image) I just thought the way the film was shot would be relevant to the production section of the film. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues Addressed. Feel free to go over and correct, if corrections need to be made. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Once again, I support this article. If there's anything that I can do, let me know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore

Nominator(s): Kensplanet - Talk
previous FAC (08:03, 9 August 2008)


Well the article was not promoted last time due to some overlinking issues and due to mixing of cite xxx templates with citation templates. I have corrected it. After a thorough copyedit by User:Epbr123, I think the article is ready for a FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support -- Like the last time. Remove excess images from the page. Seems to be flooded with unnecessary ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed New Mangalore Port Image. If some more images need to be commented out, then do inform us Kensplanet (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • Please see MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for image arrangement. Text is sandwiched by images in this article and the images could be alternated in some places. I also think there are probably too many images in the article.
  • Image:Www.kamat.com 13034.jpg - Please strengthen the fair use rationale - why is this image necessary for the article? Why does it significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic? (WP:NFCC) Is there no free image of the town hall?
  • Image:Mangaladevi.jpg - Please add a description to this image. Also, I think "clicked by self" means the uploader and the photographer are the same, but I just wanted to make sure.
  • Image:View from our Balcony - Industrial Mangalore.jpg - This image needs a description.
  • Image:Mangalore fishing.JPG - Are we sure the photographer and the uploader are the same?
  • Image:Demon Yakshagana.jpg - The source link to Flickr is broken and this image was never reviewed. If we cannot find the source again, we cannot use it.
  • Image:Neer dosa03.jpg - Are we sure the uploader and the photographer are the same?
  • Image:Mangalore City Corporation.jpg - This image needs a description. Also, are we sure the photographer and the uploader are the same?
  • Image:NITK.jpg - This image needs a description. Also, who is the photographer?

All free images should be copied to Commons so that other Wikiprojects can use them. See this dispatch for advice about how to describe and tag self-made images. I'm sure resolving these issues will be easy. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech University

Nominator(s): Wordbuilder (talk), Elred (talk), Almosthonest06 (talk)


I am nominating this article for featured article. We have put considerable work into it recently, addressing the issues raised during its peer review and bringing it into line with what is required of a featured article. The important aspects of the subject are well covered and all claims are sourced. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Overall a very good effort with regards to banishing academic boosterism, populating daughter pages, high-quality pictures of campus, and referencing. Some nitpicks:
    • Colleges & schools: While I find rankings odious, if you're going to include them, include them neutrally. The choice of rankings in this section seem to be cherry-picked to convey the institution in a better light as there are no US News rankings included for the schools of law or medicine which I would expect if you're including the same report at undergraduate and engineering. Likewise, has the institution been ranked by any of the other major publications like The Times Higher Education supplement, Shanghai Jiao Tong, The Center for Measuring Academic Performance, or Washington Monthly? Has Rawls been ranked by any of the publications on List of United States graduate business school rankings? I'm not saying that one should include every ranking ever, but if you're going to include USNEWS, you should include others as well to give a more NPOV portrait.
  • Reply - This is difficult to address for a few reasons. 1) We clearly can't list every publication's ranking on the main page 2) I believe that it is assumed, on the part of the reader, that the items listed would be the 'highest' rankings awarded. Thus, if we were to attempt to counter-cherry-pick and include some middle-of-the-pack rankings, it would probably be assumed, likewise, that those are the best. My general impression from looking at other university pages is that those notes usually represent the high-water mark, and that's what we've done. We're certainly open to trying to make it better, but short of listing every single ranking I don't know that there's a better way to present that info.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the presumption is (or should be) that the most recent rankings are used and are presented equitably for all ranked colleges rather than being omitted when they don't reflect well. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - I'll double check and try to make sure we have the most current ones listed.--Elred (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - There are only two mentions of rankings, one for the engineering school and one for the business school. I can't imagine that being construed as fluffing. The engineering reference is from US News and the business one from Business Week. i think that seems pretty sensible. In most cases only the top 50 ____'s are ranked. We are left to include only those that provide data, and I don't think there is cause to specifically mention that "so and so" ranks it as "n/a."--Elred (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. I was thinking the same thing. Most sources only report the top [insert number] of universities. Occasionally there are articles on the worst. However, if it's somewhere in between, you would likely have to locate something like a trade publication that covers every school from a to z. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "Following a tornado that caused 26 fatalities and over US$100 million in damage" to campus or in the area?
  • Reply - Agreed. (This has been fixed) That's been bothering me for a while and I never got around to fixing it. It was in the Lubbock area. Will be fixed shortly.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "The groups include service, academic, professional, and religious." Sentence fragment and unsurprising/overgeneral information.
  • Reply - Agreed. This line has been deleted. --Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "The comprehensive and interdisciplinary research program aspires to exploit the useful qualities of wind and to mitigate its detrimental effects." Strike or merge as full of peacocked, mission statement-y, devoid of meaning statement. I found this sort of alternatively misson statement-y terminology or overgeneral sentence fragments airdropped into various paragraphs throughout the research, campus, and student life sections.
  • Reply - Agreed. This line has been rewritten to remove peacocking.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "In total, Texas Tech has helped to produce four astronauts:..." Shouldn't this go under Alumni? Why is this repeated in research and alumni?
  • Reply - I can see your perspective on this, but the two mentions are a different context. In the research portion, they are related to the discussion of NASA and the Bassett Pulse Laboratory. In the alumnni section, we mention that Harris was the 1st african american in space and Husband won the space medal of honor. If you're hard and fast on this one we can probably rework it a bit.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the pictures seem tangentially related to Texas Tech such as the HIV-1 and Columbia space shuttle. I would rework the captions to integrate them into the article's context or take them out completely.
  • Reply - The Columbia shot is related for two specific reasons. Rick Husband (alum) was the commander of that ship, and Tech is working on a abort executive program that deals with ascent failures (columbia is in ascent in the photo). Plus, two other NASA projects are mentioned and I can't think of a much better photographic representation of NASA.
  • The image used, while dramatic, is somewhat misleading as Husband was not piloting that mission. Perhaps you could use the image specific to his mission? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - If it's a major issue, it could be remedied. But in addition to the fact that the photo in use is superior to the STS-107 photo in wiki commons, the image we've used shows a better shot of the ascent (which is also related to the adjacent text). Ultimately, either shot is the same vehicle doing the same exact thing. The only difference, aesthetically, is the photo quality and the perspective, and thus we've opted for the more attractive version.--Elred (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I expected to read more information about collaborations with other Texas universities (maybe there simply aren't any?) as well as major sports rivalries.
  • Reply - The sports rivalries, while they exist, are hard to source in any meaningful way. Also, we feel that the athletics section of the page is already pretty long (considering we have an entire page for TTU sports).--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Also, while the universities do collaborate to some degree on various endeavors, I think they are more likely to compete for resources and projects. As a side note, Texas Tech is about 400 miles away from both Texas A&M and University of Texas and 300 miles from Dallas. This may play a role as well. A&M, which itself has a featured article, makes only one anecdotal mention of collaboration with UT on a NASA project.--Elred (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You mention ABET and ABA accreditation, but what organizations accredit the other university degree programs? What academic organizations does TT belong to?
  • Reply - SACS. The SACS provides TT's general accreditation. That's mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Academic profile section, prior to talk of the individual colleges.--Elred (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies, that's my excellent reading comprehension at work. Besides SOCS, are there other University organizations associated with Tech?
  • Reply I don't believe so. TTU is not a member of AAU or AASCU or anything similar I'm aware of.--Elred (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While the divisions between the colleges are described under academic profile, there is no description of the size of the faculty and staff, their reporting relationships to the President, his to the board of trustees. Likewise, there should be some information on the endowment, tuition, and financial aid, undergraduate admission statistics, student body profile, student housing/Greek life, notable or contentious policies. These seem to be significant omissions.
  • Reply - We could probably stand to add a bit about the Chancellor, Regents, President and the endowment. I think many of these items would qualify as, in your words, "unsurprising/overgeneral information." Specifically, things like housing, tuition, financial aid, would fall into the category of being the same as any other state school in the country. I suppose the question is, do you really think we should go into that much detail (Pell Grants and the capacity/proximity of the dorms)?--Elred (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree about adding some about the chancellor, regents, president and the endowment. Admission stats would probably be a good idea, too. Something on housing could be added to the "Campus" section. It may be hard to add too much since the article is already a bit oversize. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While the article as a whole is NPOV, it also seems to be devoid of any mention of controversy. The history tends to give too much emphasis on the naming of the institution while ignoring what must have been contentious issues like racial integration, coeducation, war protests, counterculture, funding disputes with the legislature, contentious faculty departures, controversial student life policies, etc etc etc along the way.
  • Reply - Several of us have combed the desert (in the Spaceballs sense) and the most contentious item we've found was the name change. I think much of the lack of controversy may be due to the fact that until the 1970s or so, the university was a fairly small regional school. It wasn't ever exactly a hotbed of political unrest. Likewise, the only major funding issue between the university and the state is taking shape currently (in TTUs pursuit of flagship status) and thus it's too recent and unsettled to say much more about. I would like to find info about the co-education and integration stuff though, that is important. My conjecture, having not ever seen evidence, is that TTU was open to female students from its inception. The presence of a school called Home Economics in the beginning, seems to make that implication (and that would explain why there is no mention of an act or controversy related to 'becoming' co-ed.--Elred (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - On further examination, looking at other universities, it appears that the co-education trend generally took place in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. It seems most likely that by TTU's founding in 1923, co-education was a foregone conclusion. This would explain why we cannot find a single shred of information on the subject.--Elred (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Our hunch was correct. I added a very brief mention to the article that the college began with both men and women and included a source. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I often go into university FACs expecting the worst, but I was actually pleasantly surprised with the overall breadth and depth of this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Thanks. ...and thanks for the quick review.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Madcoverboy, thank you for your comments. I have reworked the tornado sentence, including linking to the Lubbock Tornado article, for clarity. I also expanded the captions of the HIV and space shuttle images to connect them with the surrounding prose. I will work to correct the other issues as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • There are several non-free logos used in this article. Would there be a way to replace the mascot logos with free images of the mascot from a game?
  • Image:TTU Seal 4C.png - I don't see the logo at the source link.
  • Image:Techphilo.jpg - Are we sure the uploader took this photo, that is, that s/he is the author and can release the copyright into the PD?
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:TTUamin1923.jpg - I am unconvinced that this non-free image is necessary for the article - the building is not mentioned in the article.
  • Reply. - We have contacted the owner in order to secure proper release, but I agree that it is not vital (short of historical perspective). If the release is not forthcoming shortly the image will be removed.--Elred (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the age of the image (published before 1964 or 1978), its copyright may not have been renewed implying it is now in the public domain. See United States copyright law. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When I corresponded with the owner of the photo (about a year ago) he told me that the photo was taken by his grandfather circa 1923-25. The actual photographer is very likely now deceased and it is also likely that any copyright has now expired.--Elred (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Did it ever have a copyright notice? If not, then this would apply and it's PD, not fair-use. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. The building is now discussed in the article. So, even though it may actually be PD, fair-use applies if it isn't. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:TTcc.png - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. This is a cropped version of a photo Wordbuilder took himself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. The original image has been moved to Commons and is here. I noted this on the Wikipedia version, which will soon be moved to Commons as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:MRlogo.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.
  • Image:Raiderred.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.
  • Question. The link is now dead but that was indeed the source. Should we replace the link, even though whatever we choose now won't actually be where the image was retrieved from? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - I corrected the link. They just slightly changed where that page is. It's the same page as before, they just moved it into another directory.--Elred (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Techring.png - This has a logo on it, which means it may have to have a fair use rationale. I'll check. Having two logos that are exactly the same in the article that are both fair use would be hard to justify.
  • Reply. - I would think, since this is actually a trimmed down and processed photograph of the actual ring, it would not be subject to this rule. This would be similar to having to use a fair use rationale for the TT logo on a football helmet in a game photograph.--Elred (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this dispatch for information on how to correctly tag self-made images. I'm sure these issues can easily be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply. - Will do, thanks. On all images where you've asked "Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?" - We are sure :) I took the photos myself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - I've added the source info. let me know if i've done this incorrectly. i can't ever get my head around that process.--Elred (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief comments - Here are my thoughts on the Athletics section.

  • I see two instances of "from 1932-1956". Someone recently told me that year ranges like this should be "from 1932 to 1956". If not, I'm pretty sure an en dash is required for these. There's also 1987-2008 later.
  • Reply. - thanks. Oddly, I just made those '1932-1956' changes (1930 through 1956) because that was how I interpreted the rule.--Elred (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - FIXED. Replaced all the hyphens with "ndash's."--Elred (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hyphen for fifth longest by the football team.
  • Reply. - I don't think that should have a hyphen actually. Judges?--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Yes, it should since the two words together create the modifier (much like three-year-old child). →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - you're right!--Elred (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remove the stand-alone link for March. And the U.S. dollar doesn't need two links in one section. In an article on an American topic, I'm not sure there even needs to be one.
  • Reply. - done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - added link. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Having June 2, 2008 is no good. Either link everything or nothing in situations like these.
  • Reply. - done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "assistant coach, Dan Spencer..." Remove comma.
  • Reply. Done. Thanks for the help! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont claim to have caught all problems in this section, but hopefully this will be helpful for you. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

William de St-Calais

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk


Monk, bishop, administrator, traitor and king's advisor, William de St-Calais had a hand in Domesday Book, advised both William the Conqueror and the Conqueror's two sons, and is the subject of the first account of a state trial in English history. As to the nuts and bolts, I've done the research, it's been through GA, PR and a thorough copyedit by User:Brianboulton and User:Malleus Fatuorum to remove my redundancies. Please rip it to pieces so it can improve! (I know that Confraternity leads to a disambiguation page, but it also gives the definition at the top. There is no plain confraternity page at the moment). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

this would appear to be the work. The description line says 11th century, by the way. I hesitate to play around with things on Commons, that I didnt' upload. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Author of the page would be unknown, yes. Domesday book is very definitely past the copyright stage, but I'm unclear on where the photograph of this came from. That aspect of copyright is beyond me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess the author was the original uploader, Jungpionier? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Durham Cathedral plan.jpg - This image needs a description and an author (did Greenwell draw the plan and write the book?) Also, including Greenwell's birth and death dates would make it easy to verify the PD license.
This would appear to be the first edition of the work, published in 1879. William Greenwell would appear to be our author, so 1918 as a death date. This appears to be about the man. I'm guessing it's probably PD, but UK rules on that are funky, so I'll leave it to the experts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the rest of the article later! Looking forward to it! Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded none of those to Commons, so no clue on any of them, quite honestly. If I need to remove them, I will, but not having done the uploading I'm kinda hampered. I just take my pics from Commons, when possible, so that I can avoid as much as possible image headaches. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't page ranges in inline citations need en dashes? Same with the year ranges in the book titles.
You know, I bet I forgot to have the dash bot run over this... going to do it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And it's been run. Should be all correct en dashes now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Links checked out with the link checker tool.
  • "Although St-Calais is generally referred with the epithet of Saint Calais or St-Calais, the main source for his life, the monastic chronicler Symeon of Durham, does not call him such." referred with the epithet-->referred to as. How is the monastic chronicler Symeon of Durham the "main source for his life"?
Changed to "the monastic chronicle of Symeon of Durham" .. which is what I assumed you were getting at? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (30 Rock)

Nominator(s): [User]Jamie JCA[Talk]
previous FAC (04:45, 10 June 2008)


Since this article's previous nomination, improvements have been made to the article and a peer review has been completed. I now believe that the article meets the criteria. I'm happy to resolve any problems anyone finds in the article. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've sorted them. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; all done. Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • Image:30 Rock season 1 episode 1.png - The fair use rationale should indicate why it is important to have a shot from this particular scene. Who the copyright holder is also needs to be included in the description.
I'm going to replace that image with a more relevant screenshot anyway so i'll change the rationale. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Changed. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Rachel Dratch and Jane Krakowski as Jenna DeCarlo & Jenna Maroney.png - The fair use rationale should indicate specifically what the major production change was that the images are illustrating. Who the copyright holder is also needs to be included. I'm also not convinced that this comparison is necessary. The text does not say much more than that one actress replaced the other - must the non-free images be used to convey this? There already is a free image of the actress chosen.
Removed -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments help! Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 USC Trojans football team

Nominator(s): Bobak (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its ready: after reaching GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Review and the general GA review process, it has since undergone a solid peer review. The only precedent for a FA college football season article is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Beyond the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong and look forward to this process. Bobak (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I certainly can't claim that this isn't comprehensive. This is a huge article. My method of prose nit-picking will probably not work well with this, but I might as well offer some advice.

  • "After the season, USC players did well in the subsequent 2008 NFL Draft..." Don't like "did well", because they didn't really do anything at the time. They were selected based on past performances. Oh, and "ten players" could be changed to "10 players". Depends on how you feel about numbers. In fact, I'm seeing some inconsistent number usage throughout the article.
  • Reply - Fixed sentence accordingly. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pre-season outlook: "and were expected to again be in the running for the National Championship." The general reader may not know that the Trojans are an annual national power. Some background would be helpful.
  • Reply - Great suggestion, I created a sentence before that talks about the previous season and puts it in perspective. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Booty, along with returning senior-starting tackle (is hyphen needed?) Sam Baker, are ranked as two of the "Top 20 Players Heading Into 2007" by Sports Illustrated." Change are to were.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "nine of which were Prep Star all-Americans..." Which should probably be whom.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move second use of current ref 6 after semi-colon.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Mitch Mustain picture should be moved. Pictures below level two section headers can't be on the left side. Either move it to the right or have the photo come on the second paragraph of the section, where it could stay on the left.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My eyes are glazing trying to read all of this, so let's get to the good part: The biggest upset of the year not involving a I-AA team. (excuse me, Football Championship Subdivision. Whatever.) Jim Harbaugh should be linked. More importantly, I'd swear that his comments about USC were sarcastic; correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this should be reflected in the article.
  • Reply - Added another wikilink as suggested (wasn't sure if I should do it after already using one earlier in the Pre-Season section). His comments were never clearly outlined as being sarcastic: his first comments were simply stating rumors that offending Carroll, and his second comments appeared to be meant to cover up his faux paus on the first --while they may not have been entirely genuine they were never considered sarcastic --rather a "fine, lets just drop the subject." --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that there's too much secondary information here. For example, Notre Dame has a whole paragraph devoted to their season before the USC game. What is this doing in an article on the USC Trojans? A brief statement or two on an opposing team is great, but I fear this is too much.
  • Reply - In this case I disagree because storylines really color college football, particularly the key games (something that is also reflected in 2005 Texas). In the case of Notre Dame, its a serious rival, and the back stories put the game in the context of that rivalry: the first game at the stadium since the Bush Push, the decision to pre-announce the green jerseys, and the complete FUBAR situation at QB leading into the game, etc. I tried to keep each game section around the same size with some variation for the major games. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Rose Bowl people were criticized for inviting Illinois before the game. Most of it dealt with the fact that they wanted a traditional Big 10-Pac 10 game at all costs. Saying the controversy came only after a blowout is not entirely accurate.
  • Reply - Good observation, I've rewritten to reflect that point. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "the season ended in calls for some form of Football Subdivision playoff." There was tremendous controversy last year before the bowls even started, due to the number of teams with a title-game claim. Some people thought that USC should have played in the title game, though most were put off by the Stanford loss. Maybe the pre-bowl controversy could be discussed briefly, since USC was involved.
  • Reply - I see what you're concerned with, I've re-written the sentence to reflect that it added to a continuing call for playoffs, wikilinking the article on BCS controversies. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My primary concern, however, is the size. Our readibility tool shows 62.0 KB of readable prose and over 10,000 words of prose, a massive total. I worry with articles like this that the size makes it harder to keep the writing, style etc. tight. Good luck with it, though. I may come back to look at more later, but will probably not check the entire article. There's just too much for my style of reviewing to cover in a timely fashion. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support — I'm going to offer my support for this article, but I do have a few comments and suggestions. The article is well-written, extremely well-cited, and comprehensive. It's comparable to other featured articles of a similar type, and there's no deal-breaking reason that I can see to deny support at this time. Comments follow:

  • Out of necessity, you use a lot of football terminology and jargon. I've run into problems with that in the past in my CFB FACs, and I'd suggest having a non-American Wikipedian read through the article and simply list points where they don't understand what a term means. I wouldn't have them go into more detail than that to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the article. Have someone look it over and simply write where they got confused.
  • Reply - I've tried wikilinking the most common, confusing words; and from your earlier recommendation I followed the basis of 2005 Texas and 2005 USC in adding See Alsos to articles on American football rules, American football strategy, American football positions and Glossary of American football --I hope the combination of wikilinks and see alsos will cover all aspects; otherwise this article would get even longer. Its a difficult balance. But if anyone sees anything that could use an additional wikilink, let me know! --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that you've made an effort to do that, for which you deserve a lot of credit. But I'd still strongly suggest you find someone who knows nothing about football to do a quick readthrough and pick out points of difficulty. They may not be wikilinkable items -- simply things that need a bit more explanation as to why they're relevant here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a few niggling non-encyclopedic phrases that bothered me; "improbable victory" was one that came to mind. I've been going through and changing them as I run across them, but watch out for that sort of thing. Though it makes the prose a bit more boring, it's usually necessary to sacrifice adjectives in order to achieve full impartiality.
  • Reply - I noticed you've made some of those changes, thanks. It was the most difficult surrounding the Stanford game which, like the Boise State-OU Fiesta Bowl, just begged for strong adjectives. I'm fine with the changes, though. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The biggest grammar problem I've found in it is hyphenation; the most notable example of this was things like "33–yard run," which should just be 33-yard run, using a hyphen because you're creating an adjectival phrase describing the run. There's a few other odd little hyphen problems, but I'm going through and fixing them as I run across them, and as I said, they're minor. You've done a good job copyediting it; it's much better than a lot of other articles I've seen put up for FAC.
  • Reply - Thanks, I'll take a look for any more. I admit I found the WP guides confusing on this point and simply looked for what was done in 2005 Texas (where I actually found several minor errors). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For numbers, you'll need to spell out numbers less than 10 in order to follow the MOS. I've gotten a few of these, but I'm sure there's more in the article, lurking around.
  • Reply - Gotcha, I've taken a pass through for the others --I believe they're all taken care of (by searching " X " to get the single digits). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The link-checking tool also returns one dead link entitled "Biggest Upset Ever?"
  • Reply - Right, on this one I was hoping the "accessed on" date would vouch for the fact that I read it when it existed, but it appears its going to be a problem. I'll eliminate it as the facts are covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said at the start, these are all (with the exception of the first comment) minor stylistic considerations and don't keep me from giving you my support for what is an extremely good article that ranks among Wikipedia's best. Congratulations and good work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Reply - Scout.com is one of the most notable recruiting websites (along with Rivals.com); its article here currently is a redirect to its corporate owner, Fox Interactive Media. It has had tie-ins with Sports Illustrated to cover college recruiting, as evidenced here. Actually, ESPN and SI have flipped and now ESPN uses Scout and SI uses Rivals for their high school recruiting information, their college analysis is similarly acceptable. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I also will vouch for the authority of these two sites. They're pretty much the biggest names in the business, and Rivals is in partnership/has been bought by Yahoo! as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - The sentence it was sourcing was mentioning celebrities at the game, and some of those celebrities were present in pictures on the page in question (the rest with the other two citations for that sentence). There's no issue of reliability in this situation. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - USCRipsIt.com (despite the odd choice of URL) is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, run in conjunction with HC Pete Carroll's own professional website. Proof of this is available on the Athletic Department's football page (look at the bottom); USCRipsIt.com redirects to petecarroll.com for hosting. Thus the positions on these associated websites are official statements, direct from the source. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Since I can't find any archive of it and have removed it --but this one was by Arash Markazi, which I would've wikilinked if I could've found the archive of the actual post (thus it would've satisfied the exception under WP:SPS). The information was covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - A PR release by an established broker, the statement that they're observing certain games are trading higher than others does not appear questionable, and I decided to source it directly after reading about the high prices and demand elsewhere. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Double check all references for last access dates. I noticed a couple missing (current refs 230, 231) but don't claim to have caught them all.
  • Reply - Fixed --those two slipped out when I did a citation review on and off between May and July. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the uploader of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_U3WtAIjY have permission to put this video up? Most stadiums restrict videoing, so I'm not sure we're allowed to link to it. (Video copyright is not an area of specialty here!)
  • Reply - Copyright is something I'm familiar with as an attorney, I was happy to find this clip (as opposed to a part of the actual broadcast) because this sort of usage is fine and will not bring any legal ramifications to this project. Thanks for reviewing all the links, I realize there's a ton. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Trojans plural, but Cardinal singular? Also, see WP:MOSNUM, no ordinals in dates: On October 3rd it was ... <Go Cards>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I can answer that question. The mascot of Stanford is the Cardinal (source). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is; it's a team. Why is Trojans plural and Cardinal singular when referring to a team? The wording is awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cardinal are always referred to in the singular. See Stanford Cardinal; the nickname is referring to the color cardinal, not the bird. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not always; I see the change was made in 1981. So I guess there's nothing to be done about how awkward the text reads, mixing singular and plural. If any of those sentences can be recast it might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
True, not always, but the article is talking about the game against Stanford in 2007, therefore at the time of the game, it has already been decided that the Stanford be referred to as the singular Cardinal. In any case, I defer to the nominator's (and main contributor's) decision; if he/she wants to change it, that's fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any instance in the text where it is strictly necessary to refer to Trojans v. Cardinal; to make the text read less awkwardly, it seems these instances could just be switched to USC v. Stanford. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I've done that. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good; on a complete side note there's a fascinating story about how Stanford went from the Indians to the Cardinal, I recommend finding the story. But yes, they had their "want to be like Harvard" moment and picked the Cardinal (Harvard is the Crimson). The other nickname Stanford is called is "The Farm", an old reference to how it was founded on Leland Stanford's ranch. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed all ordinals in dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • There are too many images in this article - in many places, the text is sandwiched between images. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for help on image placement.
  • Reply - I've now shrank, moved and when all else failed removed the images to prevent squeezing and stackups. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Done; though the specific page where the image was taken isn't available, I linked to the football page (incidentally, that logo is only used by the football team). --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:P-danelomario.jpg - Please list the copyright holder and explain in more detail why this image is necessary to the article. Why won't words suffice? I am unconvinced as of yet that a fair use image is necessary in this instance. The player is only briefly mentioned and his death is not better explained through this image.
  • Reply - Photo removed. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - I feel a bit uncomfortable uploading photos that aren't GNU or my own CC onto Commons; I've already been burned by people who've done that to my photos but forgot to actually write that mine are under CC. While I like that Carroll photo, I've recently uploaded my own photo of Pete Carroll to Commons if someone really needs one. Thank you for your input! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

These should be easy to deal with. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support as much as I loathe USC, I must say that this is an excellent article. Very well written and referenced. Dare we say too many references. I counted five references regarding the pre-season expectations. But that won't keep me from offering my support. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

Nominator: Editorofthewiki (talk), --LordSunday
previous FAC (00:49, 15 July 2008)


The previous FAC raised concerns about the article's prose. I think that has been adressed via a peer review. While this is short, it's quite comprehensive, and I think it fulfils the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewikicitation needed 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Prose concerns have been adressed, but the article is still short. However, I'll co-nom again since I hjelped quite a bit with this article last time. This time I feel that there is a chance the article will pass, but I would have liked to dedicate more time to it. --Meldshal42? 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I believe that the Iran News (their official newspaper-type paper) runs IranMania. But I think we could find it in a news article, let me check. --LordSunday 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am now sure that the source is reliable, as USGS uses it. I have also added another asource from iranmania. --LordSunday 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check complete - descriptions, sources, and licensing look ok. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Comment - Current Ref 2 needs its accessdate formatted properly. It is currently a red link. --haha169 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent work. My concerns about prose from the previous FAC have been addressed very satisfactorily. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Nominator(s): OrangeMarlin, garrondo
previous FAC (03:57, 12 June 2008)

Renominating article. The issues described in the previous previous FAC have been addressed, the article has been copy edited several times, and the references updated. OrangeMarlin Talk•