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

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

Degrassi: The Next Generation

previous FAC (02:34, 13 December 2007)

Self-nominator. The article has undergone a Good Article Review and and Peer Review since it's first FA nomination. It is currently a Good Article. The PR closed on April 9, since then the article has undergone minor and asethetic edits. It is fairly stable, except on Fridays, when new episodes air in the United States. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support My only issue was resolved. If there are other issues later, I am sure they will be fixed. I couldn't find anything major. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You have a no route to host external link. PeterSymonds | talk 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't really know what that means, or how to reply, except to say that the link works.. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The picture captioned "The character Emma Nelson, introduced in Degrassi Junior High," is causing heading problems and should probably be moved around, or "concept" should be expanded so that she fits in the whole section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it up to the top of the section and to the right side of the page for now. I'll trawl the internet to see if I can add anything else, but I think the paragraph covers all the information there is. How is the image placement now? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Its better (heading wise) but now she is looking the opposite way. lol. That poor girl. I attempted a small expansion relying on the information provided in one of your references. How does that look? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I didn't even think about that! And your edit is wonderful, thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Glad to be of help at the Peer Review. PeterSymonds | talk 06:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • current ref 4 Stohn, Stephen "Shooting Season 3" says it's from a message board.
    • That's right. The prose in the article under the Exec producers section gives more information:

"When production of season three began, a user on the official D:TNG website with the alias "ExecProducer" began a thread called "Shooting Season 3", revealing production details, guest actors, scheduling information and DVD release details. He referred to himself as "Stephen Stohn" in one post, although although it was not until the release of the Degrassi: Generations - The Official 411 guidebook in 2005, when Stohn confirmed the rumor." References are given in the article. I would hope that given this, an WP:IAR clause might apply here :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the link checker tool didn't translcude onto the page, so didn't check that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been addressed, I think. Thanks so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the peer review was vast and I'm glad to see all major issues have been well dealt with. Good work... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose with some grammar comments: (it's early, so let me know if I'm wrong on anything)

• "130 episodes have aired as of April 28, 2008." - Don't start a sentence with a number

• Fixed with "As of April 28, 2008, 130 episodes have aired."

• "The Degrassi universe was created in 1980 by Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood under their production company Playing With Time" - passive voice

• Fixed with "Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood, under their production company Playing With Time created the Degrassi universe in 1980"

• "During the next few months, they slowly start planning what has happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion themed show." - wrong verb tense

• Fixed with "Over the following months, they slowly started planning what had happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion-themed show."

• "In May, 2000, the project was pitched with the original reunion episode plan serving as the pilot to the new series." - passive voice

• Fixed with "The project was pitched to CTV with the original reunion episode serving as the pilot to the new series in May 2000."

• "During the first three seasons the lyrics, which include the line "whatever it takes, I know I can make it through", were performed by a children's choir over an 80s pop tune." - passive voice

• Fixed by rewriting the first half of the paragraph.

• "In season four the theme was reworked by Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope," - passive voice

• Fixed with "Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope reworked and performed the song with a heavier sound, reflecting the growing maturity of the characters in season four."

• "Jim McGrath creates a musical score using an instrumental version of the theme music" - this sentence seems odd. I think it should say "creates the"

• Done

• Completely pedantic question: In "Filming locations", is there any reason to write about Stages A, C, and B in that particular order?

• Done Fixed by rearranging alphabetically

• "In the pilot episode, seven actors from the previous Degrassi actors fourteen actors reprised their roles for a school reunion." - self-explanatory

• Fixed with "The pilot episode featured the return of seven Degrassi alumni."

• "An example of this is when he named Caitlin Bree from the movie Clerks after his favorite Degrassi character, Caitlin Ryan." - start with "for example"

• Done

• "In 2005, Smith and Mewes guest star as themselves in the final three episodes of the fourth season" - verb tense

• Done

• "While the earlier Degrassi series aired in Canada on CBC, Degrassi: The Next Generation airs on CTV, and as Degrassi, nouvelle génération on VRAK.TV, the French language channel.[51]." - stray period after the citation, "and as" doesn't make sense

• Fixed with "...and the French language channel VRAK.TV as Degrassi, nouvelle génération'"

• "and it wasn't until the ninth episode that CTV actually aired an episode before The N" - contraction

• Done

• "and it wasn't until the thirteenth that CTV were able to premiere new episodes" - contraction

• Done

• "Registered users of the Canadian and American iTunes Stores are also able to purchase" - try "can purchase" or "may purchase"

• Done. Went with "may"

• "By the end of season two, it had become the most popular Canadian show for the three younger age groups" - maybe "youngest" should be here?

• Fixed. Also changed "kids" to children", "teens" to teenagers" and "adults" to "young adults"

• "Criticism" should be renamed "Critical reception"

• Done

• "The latter episodes were not shown for three years, causing an uproar amongst fans who organised a petition and caught the attention of the CBC, the National Post and The London Free Press in Canada, and the New York Times in the U.S." - did the fans catch attention, or did the petition?

• Good catch. Fixed.

This is what I have for now. Give me a shout when this has been taken care of.-Wafulz (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully they've been addressed correctly. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give the article another read Thursday or Friday.-Wafulz (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

Interstate 70 in Utah

Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Over the course of the past year this article has steadily progressed from stub to a GA (rated A class by WP:USRD.) I have tried to write this page in a style that it would be interesting to both a roadgeek and a general audience. I think this article would make a good FA, and am willing to fix whatever is found that is not FA worthy.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - speaking as a roadgeek myself (M62 motorway), I think it'd be a good idea to swap the route and history sections around, seeing as the history section provides a bit of discontinuity. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style calls for the route description to come first. It is my understanding that the ordering of those 2 sections has been the subject of a long-standing debate with supporters on either side. I'd prefer to see more comments before re-ordering. On a personal level, I would be happy with either ordering. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the NY 174 FAC, in my mind, it really depends on what sort of history the history section focuses on to determine whether history or RD should be first. Since I-70's history mostly focuses on construction and similar pre-Interstate routes, I think it would be fine to switch them, since you don't have the lack of context issues due to the comparison between the historic present-day routing that you have with NY 174. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with switching, if consensus says that's better. What I don't want to do is spend 3 hours on a major overhaul of the article, to have the next reviewer say. You know, it would be better if you put the Route description first. =-)Dave (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't take three hours to switch it around. Just copy-and-paste it to the desired location. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To do it right would. I'd have to go through and find all acronyms that are explained in in the Route description section but also used in the History section. Then move the text that explains what the San Rafael Swell is to the history section, etc. It would take time.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true. Personally, I think the Route Description should come before History. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a revision with the sections reversed at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, if anybody else wants to opine on which order is better. However, I'm inclined to believe the article does read better with the history section first.Dave (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments—Good, but could still do with a spruce up in the prose department. Here are random examples:

• Case issues: "Unlike most Interstate Highways"—MOS says generic items are in lower case, I think. And pipe the link to "U.S. Highway" for the same reason. Interstate Highway System ... that seems to require lower case too, despite the usage in the title of the eponymous article.

Interstate Highway and U.S. Highway are proper nouns in the United States. Interstate Highway (with caps) refers to a specific network of highways authorized by congress in 1956. Similarly U.S. Highway (in caps) refers to a different network of highways first established in 1926.

• "also" is rather freely bandied about. The last one in the lead could go.

Removed

• "trumpet interchange" redirects to a broader article; can you pipe to the section, at least?

Changed redirect

• Subtitle "Route description"—why not dispense with the second word?

This is the recommended title to be used per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style

• "an odd looking mountain"—something missing?

Nice Catch, thanks

• "Big Rock Candy Mountain" links to an article about a song, so pipe-link "song" instead.

Done

• "Interstate 70 inside Spotted Wolf Canyon"—Inside is a little awkward. "in"? or recast?

Done

• "2 major geographic obstacles"—MOS breach.

Fixed, Thanks

And more ... TONY (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fixing the above items on my sandbox copy. I'll have the article updated with fixes shortly. Thanks for the review.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, there is a difference between Interstate Highway and interstate highway... for example, Interstate 16 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of "Route description" - that is how all of the road articles are supposed to do it across the board per WP:HWY, WP:USRD, WP:CRWP, and WP:UKRD, including the recently passed FACs, New York State Route 174 and Interstate 355. --16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - very good article, would like to see some more in regards to some minor issues...

• FA articles should generally have no red wikilinks.
  • That is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with redlinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Those were wikilinked per request at ACR, removed.

• What is a UDOT? This acronym is wikilinked, ...but a FA article should have all acronyms explained at least once in the article.

This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the "Wasatch Plateau" section, however it wasn't wikilinked, so it still needs to be fixed.

Thanks again.

• Same with a BLM? This acronym is wikilinked, but still should be written out at least once IMHO

Same, This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the Transcontinental Railroads section.

Thanks

• The intro states that It does not serve or connect any large cities in Utah. and then their is a tabular box listing major cities. Can this be clarified - what is a large city and what is a major city?

Good point, I'll have to work on this a bit. This is explained in the "Sevier Valley" section of the article, but not accurately summarized in the lead. I'll work on it.

I have clarified the lead. Please advise if you still have objections.

Ahh !I understand now :-)

• Is there any information regarding speed limits along the route?

I'll see what I can find. I know this information, it's more of a question of finding a "reliable source".

Sigh, I have found websites that list speed limit information, but these would surely be challenged as reliable sources. I cannot find any official table on UDOT or FWHA's website. Sorry. I can add the site I found as an external link, if agreed this would be ok.

Thanks - For the search, the citations would be necessary for such a fact so an external link is fine by me. Twas just curious with the description of the terrain and the emergency semi brake run off and such. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The external link I found is here:[1]. Although, this is not complete, missing the truck speed limits (40MPH) placed on the hilly areas. I'll keep looking, and if I can't find a better one, use this as an external link. The page is actually very good, but with a URL of members.aol.com would certainly be challenged as a self published source. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• What are the naming conventions for Utah interstate articles? There is Interstate 80 Interstate 70 in Utah Interstate 15 in Utah and Interstate 215 (Utah)

The convention for the WP:USRD project is Interstate 80 refers to the national article for a multi-state Interstate Highway. Interstate 70 in Utah refers to the single state portion of a multi-state Interstate Highway and Interstate 215 (Utah) refers to when there are two or more single-state Interstate Highways with the same number. This would be better explained in the Interstate Highway System article, and it is to an extent.

• Can/should the USA route of the full Interstate 70 be shown in the Utah article for those not familiar with how the interstate highway impacts upon this Utah segment of the I-70?

The national route is depicted on the national article, which is the first wikilink in the lead.

Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am making the requested changes on my sandbox copy and will have them fixed shortly.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement above about redlinks was incorrect; notable topics and people should be redlinked, and there is nothing wrong with redlinks, in an FA or in any article. If you removed necessary redlinks, pls reinstate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would have responded 5 minutes quicker. I just removed them. Thanks for the correction. I'll put them back =-)Dave (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned the red wikilinks, as I have had articles at GAC not approved due to red links and the article needed updating, or red link article creation. Thanks for the heads up, that tis not pre-requisite.SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Due to the above improvements changed comments to support, great article, and good luck again. Thanks for the notes and commentsSriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

mentioned above.

• Comment I don't see the bolding of the title in the lead. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Formatting a bold title is not always appropriate. I chose not to bold the title so that I could wikilink Interstate 70 in the first sentence, which I felt to be more important. This same portion of the MOS advises against having bolded links in the lead. However, if you have a better way to word the lead sentence to allow both bolding and a wikilink, I would be most grateful. I freely admit I'm not the worlds best writer, as evidenced by the number of grammatical errors found by others. I have debated using the {{main}} template to accomplish this. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul uses the lead to write the blurbs for TFA, so when you can comply with WP:LEAD, it's helpful to do so. I made some changes to bold the article title;[2] more tweaking may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit Sandy. To respond to some of the edit summaries: I knew it was questionable if "State Route 4" should be bolded or not. There is a discussion going on about this at WP:USRD right now, with a misconception currently prevailing. I will report your comments to avoid other road related FAC's from having the same issue. I take responsibility for the sloppy template coding. I didn't know which template to use for a newspaper article, and ended up changing like 4 or 5 times. The slop you saw was leftovers from the older templates. Thanks again.Dave (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's less of a misconception than it is interpreting WP:REDIRECT against WP:MOSBOLD. I'd advise SandyGeorgia to see this discussion for what I believe are valid concerns about removing boldface from designations that redirect to that article. – TMF 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OpposeI feel bad for chiming in so late, but I have a big problem with the unshielded main image. See the New York State Route 28 FAC discussion above and the discussion at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being picky here. Isn't this like rejecting an FA for FDR because the lead photo doesn't show him in a wheelchair? I'll see what I can do with improving the map, but I don't think this is grounds alone for rejecting an FA, nor do I think the Maps task force could re-do it in time for this review, even if consensus says as current is "bad".Dave (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is way too minor to warrant an oppose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comments Very good, almost there.
  • The lead is a little jarring in its series of short sentences. There are some related ideas that could be connected, such as: "It does not serve or connect any urban areas in Utah. Richfield is the largest Utah city served by the freeway." Actually, the second sentence sort of implies the first.

I have played with the lead. Please advise if you still have concerns.

• • "Unlike most Interstate Highways..." I don't think I would capitalize when you are referring to "interstate highways" generally and not by name.

I know you struck the objection per comments of others, but as this has been raised twice now I would like to explain. Interstate 70 is an Interstate Highway (with caps). There is a difference. Interstate 19 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. U.S. Route 50 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. It's a roadgeek thing =-)

That makes much more sense than previous explanations - thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • "Because I-70 was built over an entirely new route, I-70 has many notable oddities in the Interstate Highway System." Notable oddities? The next things you mention are more "trivia" or "interesting facts" than oddities. An oddity would be a loop-the-loop or something.

I see your point, but I've tried 3 or 4 ways and I can't come up with a better way to word this. I welcome your suggestions.

What do you think of it the way I reworded it? --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)s

That's fine, thanks. Dave (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • A bit of overlinking.. you don't need to link general terms like "motorist" and "environmentalist".

Removed 4 linked terms.

• • In the Sevier Valley heading, there are four sentences (including three in a row) that begin with "The highway..."

The word highway only appeared in 3 instances in the entire paragraph, and once as an adjective, so you're exaggerating a little bit. =-) That's ok though, your point was valid, and I removed one instance.

• • "The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered 'one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time' and is an engineering marvel." You really need a source for a statement like this that isn't published by the DOT.

Currently the claim is sourced by the Federal Highway Administration, not the state DOT that built it. If you prefer, The Deseret News article could also be used to source this claim.

• • I would like to see a footer row in the Exit list table citing a source. --Laser brain (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The exit list is already sourced on the top of the table. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I see that but I don't care for it. Someone looking for the source of data for the whole table isn't going to be looking for a footnote over one heading. I think tables of data should write out the source in a footer row. See how this is done in Saffron. --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried your suggestion and I like it. But this is breaking tradition in the WP:USRD articles, so prepare for some backlash =-).

I love a rebel. It looks good, though - maybe it'll catch on! --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and feedback. Please advise if I have not addressed your concerns.Dave (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Regarding "Interstate Highway"- this has already been mentioned and addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I saw. I don't actually agree that you are using it as a proper noun in that case, but it's not worth pursuing. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • U.S. Route 395 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: Interstate vs. interstate highways & maps:

• This is a part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, also known as the Interstate Highway System. Not all Interstate Highways run across state lines. There are four such highways on the island of Oahu, thousands of miles from the mainland. Interstate 96 only runs in Michigan. Other highways run interstate, i.e. across state lines, such as U.S. Route 41 which runs from Copper Harbor, MI to Miami, FL. I-70 is an Interstate Highway because it is part of the Interstate Highway System, even if this article is only about the section in Utah. As such I will oppose any an all further discussion to suggest using interstate when it is properly an Interstate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• The second point that has drawn some criticism from me watching this review is over the map. It is all fine and dandy to express a preference over changes to the map. Unfortunately though, maps are not as easily edited as the rest of the content of an article. Unlike the prose content of the article, graphics do require some specialized tools for editing. The editor that created the map is no longer as active on Wikipedia as previously, something I lament for other reasons. The editor that did the majority of the work on this article may or may not have the graphic arts or mapping skills needed to make the changes being requested. If a reviewer cannot find anything more that he feels is unacceptable than how a map is drawn, a map which forms a small part of the total information presented, and uses that map as the sole basis for an opposition to the promotion of an otherwise fine article, then I say it is well within the judgement of the FA directors to disregard that opposition when deciphering consensus.

Having said all of that, I tentatively 'support promotion of this article, reserving the right to offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I honestly don't see anything wrong with the article. In my eyes, the prose is excellent and engaging, and made me want to read it until the end of the article. Amazing amount of information and references, as well. A very informing and interesting read. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Nebular hypothesis

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and now, in my opinion, is FA ready. This article is about the currently prevailing theory on formation of the planets. Ruslik (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I did not give it a thorough reading, because the topic is extremely dense, but from what I have read, it appears to be well done. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support—It's a fine article and appears to meet the FA criteria. I may be seeing the occasional missing article or hyphen, but I'll let the grammar experts check that. =) —RJH (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent explanation of the hypothesis. Despite the necessary astronomical terms, the prose is engaging. I enjoyed reading the article and I will enjoy reading it again. It is a fine example of those few and far between articles that engage the reader enough to make return visits. I usually spot problems with grammar; there are none that I can see. Well done. --GrahamColm^Talk 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry, Ruslik, I did not get to this during PR; not editing much. Please can you deal with the excess bluelink problem? The same terms are linked over and over again. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed excessive bluelinks. Now every long subsection has only one wikilink for every term. Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are some missing hyphens throughout the article, but I'm not a grammarian: perhaps ask Tony1 to check?

producing 1 cm sized particles.[10] ... The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodies, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

Boydell Shakespeare Gallery

This article on an eighteenth-century project that was dedicated to promoting Shakespeare both through art and through a new edition of the Bard's plays has been quite difficult to write. The project covers a gallery of paintings, a folio of prints, and an edition of the plays. The article has been peer reviewed and critiqued on the talk page. Rupert Clayton has provided valuable assistance, particularly with regards to the gallery building itself. One hurdle to be overcome in writing this article is the source limitations: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. I am not sure this issue has arisen at FAC before, but I wanted to make reviewers aware of it. I know this issue has arisen elsewhere on Wikipedia and I wasn't sure what the ultimate consensus was regarding the use of dissertations. I believe that since there is so little scholarship on this topic and since these dissertations are cited by experts in the field, their use is justified. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Watching this since since it's inception last November, and am impressed with its development since. Its great. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment - it's excellent work, but it seems a little confused over what the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was. The lead says it was was a collection of pictures...focused around an illustrated edition of William Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery; later on we are told Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays, a folio of prints from the gallery... and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang; and then we get The "magnificent and accurate" Shakespeare edition which Boydell began in 1786 was to be the focus of his enterprise. The second explanation treating it as a "project" would seem better to me (after all, Boydell published other works "From the Shakespeare Gallery" that weren't anything to do with Shakespeare). Yomangani^talk 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Boydell started by thinking that the edition and its illustrations would be the focus but then the gallery took over the project. How best to make this clear? The initial statements attempt to describe what the gallery is and later the articles tries to describe the changing focus of the project. Any help on this would be appreciated. (Note: all of the works associated with the Shakespeare Gallery were on Shakespearean subjects, as far as I know.) Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe just reword the opening paragraph, as the rest isn't contradictory. I left a suggestion—very much a draft—on the talk page. (With regard to the note: he published Hogarth's Works in 1790 from the Shakespeare Gallery—admittedly there were a few Shakespearean scenes in there, but it wasn't chiefly a Shakespeare set). Yomangani^talk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure the Hogarth's Works was connected with the Gallery and not a separate project? During the 1790s the Boydells engaged in several other projects. If this is part of the Gallery, it should be part of the article. Do you have any references for that? Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• See new first paragraph of lead. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The publisher info reads thus:The Original Works of William Hogarth. Sold by John and Josiah Boydell, at the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall-Mall, and No. 90, Cheapside, London, 1790. I suppose you could argue they weren't publishing it as a "Shakespeare Gallery" edition, but it probably rates a mention. It's reproduced in Hogarth's Graphic Works, 3rd edition, p.20. (The plates that Boydell bought from Jane Hogarth were sold off in the auction too). Yomangani^talk 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you can use that as evidence since the Boydell publishing firm was located at that building throughout all of the years of the Shakespeare enterprise and published other books under that address (as the article notes). I think that is just advertising for the Shakespeare Gallery embedded in publishing information. Moreover, everything Boydell owned was sold off in the auction. I think we need much more solid evidence than this that Hogarth's Prints was considered part of the Shakespeare enterprise. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the published works I have read on the Gallery, so I am reticent to include it on such slim evidence. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with not including it; the "at the Shakespeare Gallery" was what I wanted to point out, and the new lead makes it clear it is more than just a collection of paintings (the mention of the plates being sold off was just for colour. I think it is a sad twist that Hogarth got the whole Shakespeare painting thing rolling and Boydell ends up having to flog his plates off to finance the white elephant of the gallery). Anyway, you've addressed my one niggle, so I'm supporting. Have you considered using Hogarth's David Garrick as Richard III in place of the scene from The Tempest? - you could illustrate two sub-topics with a single image (but maybe that's over the top). Yomangani^talk 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I used to have that image in the article when the Shakespeare section was longer. :) Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links and sources look good. I don't have an issue with using a dissertation, myself. In medieval history, it isn't that unknown to cite dissertations and theses. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the dissertations, considering they appear to comply with WP:SPS: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. But. My long experience at WP:FAR tells me that we don't want to be chasing this down five years from now if Awadewit is gone from Wiki and someone questions those sources (it is such a shame to have to defeature articles because no one is around who can locate the original info, and it happens frequently). It would be helpful to leave a record of the authors' credentials and publications on the FAC, where they can easily be tracked down five years from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The two major dissertations used have both been published by Garland Press and would be available in any major university research library. I'm not sure what credentials and publications you want me to list here - if these authors had gone on to write books and articles on their dissertation topics, I would have used those. They did not. I have already listed the reasons I used the dissertations. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If they would be widely available, then there's no issue (that wasn't clear from your first statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment on this... I'd say a dissertation (even unpublished) is absolutely a reliable source. And North American dissertations, at least, are easy enough to get hold of (increasingly as online download) from UMI (though that link may require a subscription) in Michigan. In fact, here's mine! If you order it from them, I get a (very small) royalty! Go on, you know you want to!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)