Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2006

Contents

Adi Shankara

Old nomination was long and most of the comments there already addressed, so I'm restarting it. There appear to be language issues, but other than that, it seems almost ready to go. Raul654 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Maybe it needs some copyedit by editors who have not contributed to the article so far. IMHO, language issue can be better addressed by that way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lead is short for an article of this size. Please read WP:LEAD and expand the lead a bit. --Maitch 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Expanded lead. Babub→Talk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is peer reviewed here. All the points from the peer review and the previous FAC nomination have been addressed. Also, a non fair-use image has been used. Babub→Talk 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  1. As mentioned above, the lead is not a good summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  2. I might have missed it, but I couldnt find what language he spoke or wrote his books in.
  3. Are all the foreign terms sanskrit? If so, it needs to be mentioned somewhere.
  4. Would it be possible to mention in which language Shankara means "bestower of happiness"?
  5. Who wrote the Shankara Vijayams? When were they written?
  6. With King Sudhanva of Kerala as companion - Kerala did not exist until many centuries later. ~~Could you mention the name of the kingdom?
  7. Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya -should be italicised for clarity.
  8. Are any of his works still available in its original form?
  9. Could the ISBN number of Tapasyananda Swami's Sankara-Dig-Vijaya be given?

-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Reply I have addressed 1 and 2. Yes all foreign terms are sanskrit. How could I include this in the article? I have addressed 4 and 5. The date of the Shankaravijayams would be proper in the article Shankara Vijayams. The name of the kingdom is not mentioned in the reference. So I reworded it as "the Malayali King...". I have addressed 7 and 8. 9 is already there :) Babub→Talk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • More If the dates of Shankaravijayams is proper in the article Shankara Vijayams, add them there. The dates are not there in that article (though you can add in this article the centuries when those were written).--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • More: Technically speaking, even "Malayali" would be incorrect, as Malyalam never existed at that time. But I think it is fine, as it could also refer to the ethinicity.(Please wikilink it to Malayali though) Leaning on support, but a few other points:
  1. In the Smārta tradition, Adi Shankara is regarded as an incarnation of Shiva. - There is a slight confusion caused here for people unfamiliar with Hinduism. Is Shankara considered as a God or a philosopher, or both?
  2. You mentioned the works are still extant. Where can an interested reader see them today?
  3. I'm confused at the liberal use of foreign terms in the article. For example, wouldnt saying Advaita Vedanta is based on scriptures/science, reason and experience, and aided by spiritual practices., be better than Advaita Vedanta is based on śāstra ("scriptures"), yukti ("reason") and anubhava ("experience"), and aided by karmas ("spiritual practices"). Is there any reason for using all the foreign terms, when there are words in English that can very aptly describe them?
  4. Vadakkumnathan (Vṛṣācala) Could you please confirm if the IAST is correct?
-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Done with "Malayali". 1) He is considered as an incarnation and worshipped in Smartism. But, his works are studied universally. So speaking from the Smarta view, he is an incarnation and obviously a philosopher. 2) More details regarding the numerous available editions of his works are at Works of Adi Shankara, linked from the relevant section of this article. 3) Well regarding the non-english terms, Adi Shankara's works are in Sanskrit. Frankly the English terms are just vague meanings. So it may be better if we give the actual terms he uses. 4) (Vṛṣācala) is given as "Vrishachala" in Tapasyananda's referenced book. I'll remove the IAST for now until I can confirm it. P.S. Your signature is making weird spaces appear on this page. Could you possibly shorten it? :) Babub→Talk 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns have been met.--thunderboltz 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support per last nom. Rama's arrow 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, but only because I don't think WP copyright policy is officially met until a copy of the copyright release is sent to Wikipedia as well as the author who requested it. I think the image page must reflect this. Bureaucracy but needed. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) OK, opposition withdrawn. I assume this should go thru with no problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify how to send a copy to Wikipedia? Is it ok if the copy of the mail (stating the copyright/photo use permission) is displayed in a user subpage?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the editor is requesting to follow this policy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've forwarded the email to the PR dept per the above policy. Babub→Talk 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support per Darkblue Bakaman Bakatalk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Per who? Lol, thats HTML code. :) -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Update per Babub. Lol that was funny.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Cribananda 05:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

2003 Pacific hurricane season

This is a self-nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I believe it meets all the featured article criteria, in particular it is well-referenced and stable. It covers all the storms of the season with a satellite image and track for them all. It is also includes information on the pre-season forecasts. I think its about time the WikiProject had a featured seasonal article (other than the 2005 Atlantic season, which is hardly typical). Support.Nilfanion (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ForestH2 t/c 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely laid out. Terri G 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning toward object): 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is superior to this, in both content and layout. There's more analysis, for one thing—economic impact, damages, etc. Granted, there's a big difference between the two seasons (that's why this isn't an object at the moment). For example, Marty hit a month after Ignacio; was cleanup already complete, or were problems exacerbated? Is the problem here that there isn't as much information available? As for layout, I much prefer 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, as it reads more like a typical encyclopedia article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has dozens of subarticles. However this article has just 1 subarticle, Marty. Interestingly, this layout is preferred within the project for the storms section, and as this is the entire coverage of all but one of the storms, that section should be like that IMO; as we couldn't restructure on the lines of 2005 without major info loss (unless we have Tropical Storm Hilda (2003)). That in turn calls into the question the need for an impact section, as it would add little new and would be repetition. Information is very hard to come by for Mexican storms for some reason :( --Nilfanion (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have access to Spanish-language sources? I imagine that Mexican newspapers would cover the effects of the storms in significant detail, but I'm not sure how many are available online. I'll keep this as a comment and see if I can dig up some good print sources. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There really isn't much out there; I looked at what was available for Marty, and it is at most a paragraph. However, adding it all to the storm summary would overwhelm the article towards just one storm; most of the information and detail should remain on the Hurricane Marty (2003). However, some of it should be moved here—how much do you suggest? Titoxd(?!?) 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If more isn't available for the other landfalling storms, then I wouldn't worry about adding more about Marty. There's already more on that storm in this article than any of the others. In a more perfect world we'd have about that much information on all of the land-falling storms, and would thus be able to turn the article into prose format, instead of a list-like point-by-point presentation. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Sounds good, I'll summarize the info and add it. Now, the question is, to the Marty storm summary, or to a separate section? Titoxd(?!?) 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: The graph for the ACE section's source is different from this NHC one. For example, the one the article cites clearly shows the 1997 season as being the second most actice, while the other graph clearly shows it isn't. My best guess as to the reason for this discrepancy is the fact that the NHC graph only uses ACE in the east Pacific proper, while NCDC one also includes the central and (possibly) western Pacific. I think the article would be improved by splitting the ACE into eastern and central Pacific portions, as is done for the current season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the source of the ACE section is the 2003 TCRs. The graph is to source the claim that the season is inactive- it does that purpose. I'm not sure about how best to split EPac/CPac ACE. My opinion is the totals should be included (so each storm can be compared). Seeing how 2003 is inactive some prose about the few storms to cross 140W giving the seperate EPac and CPac ACE values for those storms would suffice.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that it is better now. Support with the disclaimer that I have worked on this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is a more indepth article than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the fourth nomination attempt, and I believe that the article meets all reasonable feature status requirements. The article's images all have been tagged properly as I have personally checked every image. --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive3

  • Support as per nomination --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A took a quick glance and noticed some easy things to fix. Some images are too big, and the infobox is really wide. Change your screen resolution to 800x600 and see what you think. At low resolutions, "The 1946 NFL Championship team photo" and the infobox are really close to each other, and the picture underneath "1976-2000" takes up a significant portion of the screen. Drop that one to 250px or so. Regarding references: you know you can use the same reference more than once without retyping it? Do the following: <ref name="source">Blah Blah Blah</ref>, and then the next time you need that source, just type <ref name="source" />. Simple as that. It'll reduce the amount of text in your edit window, and will shorten the footnotes section. For example, all of the "The Honey Bears and Chicago Bears Mascots" refs will show up once. Once that's done, add more citations to the "Statistics and records" section; there's only one there and there are more numbers and details to cite. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice, and looks technically ready. If I may nitpick, though, could you move the current logo above the Logo word, then make it more prominent than the previous logo? --Kitch 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Corrections: As per request, the "1946 team photo" was moved down so it wouldn't interfer with the infobox. The Payton picture was dropped to 250px, the references were redone as per the helpful tip given by Spangineer, more citations were added to the "stats" section, and the current logo was moved above the older logo and the older logo was decreased in size per the request of Kitch. Thank you both for your help and support. --Happyman22 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry for trying to spoil (could be easily corrected) your 4th and could successful attempt on getting this article being featured. I was browsing through your photos. It is probably going to be hard to have a "free" alternative (public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons, etc.,) versions of football action, but you need to cite the authors correctly. The Walter Payton picture isn't made by the Sporting News. In fact, they credited on their website as an Associated Press photo. Anyways, good luck. --4.253.39.183 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Another comment I also wanted to add that although I don't think it is required for to be a featured article. The images probably should have "Rationale of fair use for..." on the copyright images. For example, Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg. --4.253.39.183 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, provided the fair use rationale issue is resolved. Much improved since the previous nominations. One picky comment - the Statistics and records section could do with a quick copyedit (I would do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with American football terminology). Oldelpaso 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added rationale to the Walter Payton picture and fixed the source as the AP and not Sporting News.
  • Bear Down, Support! - I know how long everyone involved has work on this one, and it SHOWS! Excellent work! (And by the way, I have a copy of the Chicago Symphony Chorus performing the fight song. If I rip it to .ogg, can you use an excerpt? If interested, let me know on my talk page!) --JohnDBuell 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell
  • Oppose, fair use images need source information and fair use rationales.--Peta 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it but she's right. More fair use rationales are needed, particularly on the logo images. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrections The images have more fair use rationales added to them especially the logo images. I believe that enough rationale to each image. --Happyman22 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Continued Support: I Supported thsi article the last time around and all of my concerns were adressed last time around. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support da bears, though the fair use images should get a bit of attention as noted above, I don't think they'll pose much of a problem. However, Stephen Colbert might tell you otherwise. ♠ SG →Talk 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a solid article.--Riurik 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support while I would get rid of the duplicate logo in the logos section, the objection from me, which led to pile-on the last FAC has been resolved. Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Captions to photos and illustrations need to be regularized. Should all be lower-cased without random capitalization. Moncrief 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pericles

After the first failed nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1) many things happened. The article was rewritten once again by Druworos and me, but it faced a failed GA nomination. Me and Konstable, who was the one who did not pass the article, initiated further improvements and about a week ago the article easily passed GA nomination. Pericles in now rated as an A-Class article by three Wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and remains, of caurse, a GA. The article has until now gone through four peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/Archive 1), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pericles). I thought it was the right time for this second nomination.--Yannismarou 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article had 43KB of prose as of 22 August 2006
  • Strong support. This is an outstanding article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the combined use of Cite.php and the conventional reference label approach to separate footnotes and references. However, just scanning, I did find what looked like the work of a gremlin ("literary" was misspelt "literally"). Does anyone have time to independently copyedit this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This was obviously a typo. Although I've gone through the article again and again for such typos, it is inevitable to miss something.--Yannismarou 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The article has been twice copy-edited during this candidacy from Robth and Konstable. I hope these copy-edits are sufficient.--Yannismarou 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rlevse 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, --Riurik 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, all the issues from the previous nomination and the various peer reviews look to have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a great read! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The timeline is too wide and takes a lot of space. Could you fix it? CG 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought to hide the timeline with a navbar and remove it to "See also section", as Kirill had proposed in a previous peer-review. Do you thing that's better? If you think so, listen to that: The problem is that I probably do something wrong with the navbar and, when I do hide the timeline (replacing: div class="NavContent" style="display:none"; font-size:normal; style=text-align:center" with: div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"), I then have to hit twice on "hide" (and not on "show") in order to see the timeline. That is why I haven't yet made the edit. What I may do wrong? Am I typing something wrong?--Yannismarou 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object. This is tremendously well researched, and that alone almost brings me to support it. There are, however, a variety of problems that need to be addressed here. A list of issues I spotted follows; in several cases, I've just picked out examples of things that need to be fixed throughout:
    1. Odd cause-effect statements. From the lead: "Eager to reinforce Athenian intellectual prowess, he prompted an ambitious building project"; I don't understand how Pericles's desire to "reinforce intellectual prowess" led to the public works program, which is most commonly cited as an example of a progam intended to boost civic pride and increase employment. Several of Pericles's actions are attributed to his intrinsic characteristics, which strikes me as a little overly speculative. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the cause-effect statements in the article are accurately describing the relationship in question.
    2. Balance of historical opinions: The arguments of critics of Athenian democracy is well presented, particularly in the case of Paparrigopoulos. There is, however, an equally active body of historians defending the Athenian radical democracy and its creators; Donald Kagan, used here as a source, certainly ranks high among that group, and others can be found easily.
    3. Accuracy issues: Some of these are just omissions of relevant events. The Peace of Callias, for instance, ambiguous and tricky issue though it is, should be discussed; the events in the Aegean in the late 450s (revolts in the empire, the Egyptian disaster, etc.) Pericles's leadership during the turmoilsome period from the Athenian defeat in Egypt to the mid 440s seems to have played a critical role in the establishment of the Athenian Empire as it existed in the 430s, so a fuller discussion of the events of that period seems appropriate.
About the peace of Callias a few comments: We do not even know if it really existed. Wade-Gray is the first historian of our century who believed in its existence and Badian has published a study as well. But most researchers do not recognize it. And if it existed indeed what was Pericles' role? Why have no clue! All I can write is mere speculations and Badian's hypothesis that Pericles broke the Peace in 450, although it was agreed in 463. You're right about the Egyptian disaster. It is a serious omission. My only fear is that the article is becoming gigantic! More and more and more information. I'll try to do my best.--Yannismarou 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I'm also puzzled by the claim that "Even after fining him, the Athenians remained true to the Periclean strategy and did not depart from it until long after his death."; this would be an unusual assessment of Athenian strategy in the 428-425 period, which was marked by the rise of aggressive leaders who broke with Pericles's strategy in a number of cases.
These aggressive leaders did not radically alter the Periclean Grand Strategy and they avoided over-extension. That is what Platias-Coliopoulos point out. This happened later after 415 BC. I quote from Platias-Coliopoulos:"It therefore becomes evident that the Atheniasn lost the war only when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitely disdained further conquests". And I quote from C. Gray: "For Sparta to succeed, Athens had to be weakened by plague, had to suffer lossed in men and prestige in the expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) and ... then had to commit major errors in lack of vigilance in the naval campaign for control of the Dardanelles". Hence, the emphasis is in the period after 415 BC. After all, until the end of the Archidamian War Athens had the upper hand. Some modifications of the Periclean Strategy until then donot constitute a radical change. The Athenians did not attempt conquests in foreign countries, for istance. I think this is a weel-argued a citated claim, based on researchers' argumentations and I donot see why it is unusual or why it should be changed.--Yannismarou 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Language. Odd and awkward word choice at a number of points: "an ambivalent symbolism", "defalcation", "Thucydides predicates that..." and a number of other odd word or phrasing choices are scattered throughout. Awkward or incorrect word order is also a significant issue. Someone needs to go through this and pick all these out.
So that's what jumps out at me. This is very good as a whole, and I'm confident that these issues can be addressed. --RobthTalk 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Robth. I've already made some comments on Robth's remarks. After having implemented some of his suggestions, I'd like to give a more thorough answer point by point:
    1. You mention the cause-effect statement of the lead; hence I'll comment on that. I donot know what other speculative statements you find, but I donot think I attribute Pericles' actions to his intrinsic characteristics. As far as the lead is concerned, I rephrased and citated it, although I'm not absolutely right with you. Pericles did not promote art only for the reasons you mention. There was a real interest to further reinforce the intellectual brilliance of his city.
    2. I added Kagan's comments concernig Pericles' reforms and also Samons' reasoning for his actions. I want just to point out that, even as it was, the comments were not one-sided. One paragraph was devoted to Pericles' arguments and one to Cimon's (-oligarchs') point of view. Paparrigopoulos is critical towards Pericles only there. Hence, only two sentences ("According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, since Athens, after Pericles' death, sunk in the abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression descended upon the city, whose glory perished due to the anterior populist policies of Pericles.") consist a criticism of Pericles on behalf of Paparrigopoulos. All his other comments give an explanation of his actions, just like Samons. Anyway, I hope the relevant section seems now more balanced. I also mentioned Kagan's belief that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.I just want to mention that during the previous nomination I faced the opposite criticism: That I am POV in favor of Pericles! I feel confused!
      • It's sometimes possible to overcompensate and present too much of an opposing view while trying to achieve balance; in any event, the current presentation strikes me as well balanced, so this issue appears to be resolved. Thanks for clearing that up. --RobthTalk
    3. I've said a few things about the peace of Callias. I just want to insist on the fact that we donot even now if such a thing existed and what was Pericles role. Grote, Wade-Gery, Gomme, Badian say it existed. Vlachos, Walker, Wilamowitz, Pohlman, Mayer and Schwartz say it did not exist! Ancient writers contemporary to Pericles do not mention it. Isocrates mentions it but Demosthenes doubts about it! Where is the historical reality?! We donot know! Anyway, I mentioned Badian's disputed claims and his reference to Pericles and I also mentioned Kagan's claim that Pericles used Callias as a symbol of Athenian unity.
      I also mentioned (in the section "First Peloponnesian War") the Egyptian disaster and its result as well as the debated role of Pericles. Kagan and Aird believe that Pericles initiated the excursion both in Cyprus and Egypt, while Beloch hold Cimon responsible for both decisions. In the section "Military achievements" I added Kagan's belief that Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary expeditions during the Peloponnesian War may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he allegedly had supported. Thereby, I connect the devestation in Egypt with the later policies of Pericles.
      During the late 450s I do not have in mind any important revolt in the League. The revolts in Euboea, Thebes, Samos and Byzantium are all mentioned. I am not aware of any other arousal in the Aegean against the Athenians during this period. After all, I created an article about the First Peloponnesian War and all the events of this war are in detail mentioned there. I think Pericles' role is adequately developped and more details will harm the whole article. I also added (in section "Prelude of the Wr") Ehrenberg's opinion that another fact that may well have influenced Pericles' stance just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War was the fear that revolts in the empire might spread if Athens showed herself weak. The coinage decree is also mentiones and, hence, I think there is a clear image of the Athenian empire in the 430s.
      I also clarified the events concerning the revolt of Byzantium and the Pontic Excursion (Section "Samian War"). I think that the wording is also better now.
      • You're quite right about the doubts about the Peace of Callias, but its massive significance if it did exist would seem to me to justify mentioning the possibility. Events of this time period are all but impossible to pin down, and it's best to just acknowledge that. I would mention the possibility of the peace, note that there are scholars on both sides of the question of its existence, and devote a sentence or two to explaining how it would fit in to the overall picture of this period.
      As far as revolts in the empire, I was referring to the revolts of Miletus and Erythrae in 454/3, which continued down to 452/1 or thereabouts. These aren't mentioned in the ancient sources, but have been established based on fragmentary inscriptions and the Athenian tribute-quota lists. These, along with the Egyptian disaster, have been cited as possible pretexts for withdrawing the treasury from Delos, and should probably be mentioned. Keeping the article short is a good goal, but it's important not to omit significant details of this critical period of Pericles's leadership.
      The treatment of this period is coming along, but it isn't quite there yet. The magnitude of the Egyptian disaster is far from clear in the current text, and the crisis of the empire in the early 440s isn't readily apparent. --RobthTalk
    4. I've already explained why I regard Platias-Coliopoulos' position as basically correct. Nevertheless, I made clear that this is their opinion and I also referenced the altera pars, stating Ehrenberg's remark that the Athenians engaged in several aggressive actions soon after Pericles' death. I hope that now this topic is clarified.
      • That looks good now; my opinions on the subject have been largely shaped by Kagan, who considers the Aetolian campaign and Pylos/Sphacteria to be departures from the Periclean strategy, so I was initially surprised to see that statement; but, as I said, looks good now.
    5. I rephrased all the mentioned "awkward word choice". "Defalcation" was really wrong-"embezzlement" or "misappropriation" are the right legal terms. I also tried to make better a few other points in terms of prose. I hope it's now better!

I hope I have resolved most of the things that obliged Robth to Reluctantly Object. I hope he can now, at least, Reluctantly support! - I'm just kidding!--Yannismarou 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still not quite ready to support, as my interspersed comments above indicate. I still have some qualms about the prose, but this may be a classic case of {{sofixit}}; I think I'll have time to copyedit it myself tonight. This is definitely coming along, so keep up the good work. --RobthTalk 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK! In terms of content I think I now fully understand your concerns. These are my comments:
1. I made clear Athens' disaster in Egypt and citated these remarks( Section:"First Peloponnesian War"). I also mentioned the possible connection of this defeat with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I think this topic is covered now.
2. I mentioned and citated the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae. I subsequently emphasized on the turmoil in the empire after the defeat in Egypt and the tension in the Aegean, using Kagan and Sealey as a source. I also mentioned the possible connection of these revolts with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I hope that this topic is also covered now.
3. As far as the prose is concerned, I'd just like to mention that most users agree that the article is "outstanding" and "a great read". My point is that I believe we've already achieved a very good level of prose. Nevertheless, I donot argue that I'm infallible and, hence, I'm sure that your contribution in terms of prose improvements would be valuable; especially, from a person who has already nominated 3 FA, among which one of my favorites and a source of inspiration, Epaminondas. After all, I think that it would be better for the arrticle to attempt these minor additional improvements instead of turning it down as a FA. That is why I feel convinced that you will indeed choose the first solution and you'll make the prose improvements you regard as necessary, so as to express your support.--Yannismarou 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just gave the article a run-through, focusing mostly on prose issues but also clarifying a few things and tweaking the presentation of the First Peloponnesian War a bit. This was a very good article at the start of this review and has improved even further during the review; I'm very pleased to give it my enthusiastic support. Superb work. --RobthTalk 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, pal!--Yannismarou 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. --mav 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly ObjectSupport While quoting from Thucydides' orations is a neat idea, they should not be described as Pericles' without qualification. Septentrionalis 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • English usage should be followed in the use of names; for example, Josiah Ober should be spelled out.
    • Similarly, Areopagus should be so spelled; this is the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
How should the quotes be described? Your proposition? I describe them as Pericles', but in parenthesis I point out that they come from Thucydides' work. After all, the whole story about the authorship of Pericles' orations in Thucydides is described in the section "Oratorical Skill".
Thanks a lot for informing me this is the English Wikipedia. This was a valuable information. Realising that I may avoid exile to the Βικιπαιδεία. In the article Areopagus of the English Wikipedia, first line, it says Areopagus or Areios Pagos. Isn't this the English Wikipedia as well?
I'll correct the names and Areios Pagos as well (which redirects to Areopagus by the way) tomorrow morning. But are these issues so important to justify an absolute objection with no further qualification of the article?! I'm astonished. I respect the well-grounded and creative criticism, like this of Robth, but this one no!
Anyway ... As far as the quotes are concerned? What exactly would satisfy you?--Yannismarou 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had an obvious solution, I might have imposed it. The present text is actively misleading. Perhaps you should unwind a little and let other people think on it; and do read WP:OWN. I'm sure this will be a featured article; it's not quite there yet. Septentrionalis 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have implemented a possible solution to the attribution issue, and have changed Areios Pagos to Areopagus (Sepentrionalis is right that this the common English usage). Does this way of solving the attribution problem look good to everyone? --RobthTalk 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, Yannismarou has done most of the work on the article, but there have been other people working on this article - including me a couple of weeks ago when I did some major work on POV-language and balance issues (which caused it to fail the first FAC). I never had a feeling that Yannismarou was ever trying to own the article.--Konstable 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Septentrionalis' issue with "spelling out" names, I have went through them all and have expanded first names in all the first time a person is cited, and just left last names for any subsequent citations of the same person. What do you think of that?--Konstable 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to further clarify the attribution issue, by rephrasing the ends of the quotes like that: "Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)". Is Robth and everybody else happy with this suggestion? By the way, what Robth and Konstable did, it could easily be done by Septentrionalis, instead of objecting. I read WP:OWN. Now I suggest you also read {{sofixit}}. I strongly believe that all the concerns of Septentrionalis mentioned are now addressed:
1. The quotes of Thucydides are described as Pericles' with qualification: A further note is added by Robth in all the quotes and clarifies that "Thucydides records several speeches which he attributes to Pericles; whether the exact words are Pericles' is uncertain." Robth and I rephrased the end of the quotes as I already mentioned ("Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)"). This solution conforms also with the title of the Wikipedia article about the Funeral Oration, which is Pericles' Funeral Oration.
2. Areios Pagos is replaced by Areopagus by Robth.
3. Konstable did all the spelling out of all the names throughout the article.
Thereby, unless Septentrionalis is going to make some other suggestions then his objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of "record" in this context is an improvement, but it is still misleading; Thucydides himself disclaims the stenographic accuracy which this will suggest to a modern reader. (Pericles' Funeral Oration is English usage, even by those authors who argue that it is not Pericles' words, and that Thucydides indulged his habit of making the speakers say what was in his opinion demanded of them by the various occasions even more than usual to make the case for the war. Isn't Kagan one of these?) But I think in the interval I have come up with a solution. Septentrionalis 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The article, especially the notes, could still use a thorough proof-read. I think I know what note β means to say about Agariste, for example; but I'd be guessing. I corrected note δ, which ascribed a statement from Plutarch to Aristotle. This sort of thing should be fixed before articles are brought here; however, I would not be dealing with this sort of thing if the article had major flaws. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be unfair! Most things were fixed before the article was brought here! And you should recognize that! I think the meaning of the note β is clear for the common mind and well-citated. The note you say is not ascribing a statement of Plutarch to Aristotle. The first ref concerning Aristotle was just transferred to the end of the sentence so that it does not interrupt the reader. The ref of Plutarch comes exactly to the next sentence. Thus, checking both refs the reader does not get confused and learns what both writers exactly say. I'm happy however you decided to contribute! Keep up the good work, pal!--Yannismarou 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm, and attacking the people who are trying to improve the article, is not helpful. The note reads: "β. According to Plutarch, Agariste was Cleisthenes' granddaughter, but she was his niece, rather. " [1]"; This is not English; and this article will not be our best work until it is written in the language of this Wikipedia. Nor should the reader have to click on references to see what the article has failed to say. Septentrionalis 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No it does not say that! I have changed the wording long before you made this comment. I don't see it as making any sense on your part to quote old versions of the article and changing your comment from "Object" to "Strongly Object" after everything you have pointed out has been tended to. If you want a personal qualm with Yannismarou, go ahead and have it, but the article is not Yannismarou's regarding on what you may think. I have put a lot work into it too, so have some others. If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out.--Konstable 06:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Support I would, however, like to see the Legacy subsection expanded somewhat.UberCryxic 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I enriched a bit this section with a few more assessments. But I wouldn't like to overexpand it. I think that it is OK as a closure of the article.--Yannismarou 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment people will probably yell at me but... there are too many references cited inline. The text is almost unreadable because there are so many. Can they be moved to the end of sentences where possible. Its[1] tough[1] to[1] read[1] when[1] they[1] are[1] everywhere.[1] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned, I'll not yell at you! You're right! I'll move the refs at the end of the sentences wherever possible.--Yannismarou 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I placed almost all the refs at the end of the sentences. In the very few cases (4 or 5) I kept them within the sentence, I thought this was necessary for the accuracy of the article and the right emphasis. By the way I thought Christine for your baby!--Yannismarou 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Much improved since the last nomination. Well done. My one quibble is with the timeline at the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's customary to list events on timelines in the present tense; all those present participles are throwing me off. Other than that, great job. The Disco King 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow. Mithridates 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a good article; with some polishing, it could be a great one. I seriously regret seeing Yannismarou react to suggestions that it needs that polishing with defensiveness and claims that his vast improvements are being ignored. I don't know how much the article has improved; I haven't seen it before.
Remember, the purpose of this department is to put articles on the Main Page, where they will seen by people who have never seen Wikipedia before, and don't know or care who did what. They will judge the article they see as a finished product, and compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's.
  • I donot speak about my improvements. I speak about the improvements made by me, Konstable, Robth and Wandalstouring. It is not your obligation to have seen the article before the nomination. But you're definitely obliged to watch all the improvemnets done during the FA candidacy. Something you're obviously not doing. Otherwise, you'd have seen, for instance, that Konstable rephrased note β according to your suggestions and you wouldn't have turned your Objection to Strong Objection.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand how nervewracking this must be, but I earnestly recommend that Yannismarou take a break and walk away from Pericles. I predict that if he does, he will find the proof-reading done, and the article, with substance largely unchanged, wearing a gold star.
  • Your argumentation is is lame. In order to have a proof-reading, you must point out which points need proof-reeding. By not providing such an explanation, you're contradicting yourself and you are demolishing your own arguments.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment stands, until Pericles is polished; but I may set him an example. Septentrionalis 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment:Further to what I already remarked I must point out that I wasn't sarcastic. I really was happy you contributed and I really think you did a good job, clarifying note δ. And I really want you to contribute. Sincerely, my only intention was to thank you. If my wording was wrong or misleading, please accept my apologies. But where is the sarcasm? Hence, I donot understand why you turned object to strongly object. The problem is you took it personal and because of that (misinterpeting a comment of mine that you regarded it as sarcastic) you decided to fight against this article with all your nerve.
But, pal, this is not personal! So many users contributed to this article! Opposing it, you're not opposing me, you're opposing a great job made mainly by them. Because without them this article wouldn't be GA or A-Class. Without them, this article wouldn't have 11, if I'm right, supports.
You speak again and again and again for a proof-reading. So, do it! Instead of attacking me, dedicate your time in doing it! But you'll find nothing wrong. I bet on that.
During all these months in Wikipedia, I've never insulted anybody in Wikipedia. Neither you. And the remarks which could be regarded as offensive towards you (though they weren't), I erased them as you can see. Despite that, you keep this offensive agains me, telling I must abstain. Well, I won't. I'll keep improving this article and I expect you to do the same thing, because when I say I want you to contribute, I mean it and I am not sarcastic.
After all these, I repeat what Kontsable said: All your concerns have been addressed, "If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out." Your proof-reading argument is groundless and based on no actual examples from the article.
Your vindictive and groundless strong objection cannot be typically erased. Nevertheless, unless you are going to make some other suggestions, then this strong objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I correct: 13 supports, Septentrionalis.--Yannismarou 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that Yannismarou's post was not intended as sarcasm, and remove the strongly. I will remove my objection when the article is polished; but I do not intend to do all of that myself. Septentrionalis 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that you accept you'd added the strongly because you thought I was sarcastic? But I had the impression that we are evaluating articles here not the level of sarcasm of the X or the Z user! Probably I'm wrong. You tell me that "we're writing for the readers" and you are right. I tell you that we are also evaluating for the readers. The readers "compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". I donot think that sarcasm is the right criterion for the evaluation of an article. We are not adding or removing the strongly, according to the sarcasm of the X or the Z user.--Yannismarou 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have spent some time on the article. I have fixed several solecisms and one downright error. (We do not know when Pericles was born, as a note admits; to say, as the text used to,[2] that he was born in 495, is therefore wrong.) All these are minor, but Yannismarou is rash to bet there are no more; what are his stakes? Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I know for sure is that the messing up of the citations is no polishing. When I checked the article I saw you had turned a (ref name="Pl3"/) to (ref name="P13"/) for no reason and an important citation was lost because of your negligence. And since you were lecturing me that this is an English wikipedia why you placed "engonos" next to "granddaughter"? I'm Greek you know and I know that Engonos=grandson-granddaughter, so "engonos" is redundant. And one more thing; most of the polishing you did was already copy-edited by Robth. The fact that you did not like the previous version, it does not mean that it necessarily needed polishing! You have confused the personal taste with the polishing!--Yannismarou 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
When you demand a polishing, you must be the first one who is careful and avoids mistakes, which, by the way, I had to polish!--Yannismarou 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't telling you; articles are addressed to the readers. We're not writing for ourselves; we're writing for the readers, many of whom aren't Hellenists. I apologize for the Plutarch footnote; but wouldn't Plutarch, Pericles [3] be just as useful anyway? Septentrionalis 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is useful, you unintentionally removed it and I restored it. This is the story!--Yannismarou 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If we're writing for the readers, we are also evaluating for the readers. For instance, we are not adding or removing the strongly according to the level of sarcasm of another user! This is obviously a wrong criterion. As you told, the reader of an article "compares it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". If we want to attract him we cannot judge an article and modify our assessments based on the sarcasm of the X or the Z user. This is obviously a wrong criterion. I am afraid you want the others to write for the readers, while you donot follow the same rule, when you evaluate or reassess an evaluation of an article.--Yannismarou 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I have proofread the whole article several times in the past, including once yesterday when I found no errors apart from some minor one-word grammatical mistakes. Apart from me and Yannismarou who haven't voted on this page, there are 13 other people here - all who have read critically through this article. You yourself admitedly don't see any errors right now, and the one you found and corrected was a minor omission that was clarified in a note anyway. Then there are the people who have been working on this article over the past week - me, Yannismarou, Druworos, Wandalstouring, and a whole bunch of minor editors. How is it even possible to get even more people to review this article? What reason do you have to think that there are more errors serious enough that this does not qualify as a featured article, when so many people have read through this article and either found no errors, or minor errors that have been fixed?--Konstable 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong; we now have 16 supports.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Telex 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Some P. Erson 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly better than many of the current FA selections. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I've adapted this article's use of quote boxes into the FA Joan of Arc. The editors of this article should feel proud of their work. Durova 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your nice words. I also feel obliged to thank you on behalf of Druworos, Konstable and Robth who have done such a great work for this article during the past months.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Kyriakos 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been reluctant to speak so far because of my minor contributions to this article. I'm not about to stand here and say it doesnt have minor language issues. Yannismarou is not a native speaker, and neither am I at that. But I'd like to urge anyone that feels confident enough with the English language to go in there and fix them, rather than complain about it. I'd do that myself (in fact I did for the first couple of paragraphs a few days ago), but I simply dont have the time to deal with the enormity that this article has become. And dont feel bitter towards Yannismarou if he gets a bit defensive. He has put so much work in to this, he should be entitled to sign his name under it. Druworos 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Druworos, Konstable and Robth (and Septentrionalis as well-he also contributed) are native English speakers, they went in and fixed any remaining issues and I think the article has no minor language issues now.--Yannismarou 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given this another copyediting run-through, and cleaned up a number of small errors, particularly in the last few sections, that I'd missed on my first go-round. I also implemented a slightly different solution to the Pericles-Thucydides-attribution issue, since I don't believe that had been resolved just yet. Do these changes address all the concerns raised? --RobthTalk 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I gave the article another detailed proof-reading according to Septentrionalis' suggestion and I clarified a series of issues:
1. I clarified: a) the circumstances under which the Samian War took place, b) the circumstunces under which Cimon returned to Athens in 451 BC and the assessments of modern scholars, which contradict Plutarch's biography.
2. I added: a) the assessments of modern scholars concerning the rivalry Cimon-Pericles, which contradict Aristotle, b) more inline citations in slightly under-citated parts of the article ("Samian War", "First Peloponnesian War", "First year of the war (431 BC)", "Last military operations and death", c) more references.
After this proof-reading and since Robth has copy-edited once again and has taken care of all the minor language issues, I hope that Septentrionalis' concerns are finally addressed.--Yannismarou 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Yannismarou's comments on my talk page; [4] and I think my comments are duly addressed. Thank you. Septentrionalis 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and strongly recommend closure. This is a great article, which has passed an exhausting review. All issues have been addressed. :NikoSilver: 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support My issues have already been solved. Wandalstouring 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having re-read the article and fixed any language issues I could find, I can safely say that the single thing I can think of that may have made this article unfit for FA has been adressed. Druworos 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, quite heartedly too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

After putting a lot of work into the article I put it up for peer review and you can see the suggestions here. I now feel the criteria suggested have been met and it also adheres to WikiProject Football and featured article requirements. SenorKristobbal 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support whilst reading it yesterday I noted that it was to a very high standard, and fully deserves FA status Kingfisherswift 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as a non-native speaker of English, I can't really comment on the grammar, but otherwise, in terms of layout, lenght of sections, information included, referencing and other stuff, this deserves to be a Featured Article. – Elisson • Talk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support--Riurik 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • Referencing is a little flaky and inconsistent, should really use work= parameter throughout.
    • Couple of citations needed to be added by the looks of things.
    • This is the most serious objection: Needs more GFDL-licensed images. The Fair Use rationale for the Goodison Park image is probably not OK as it is possible to provide a freely-licensed photo of the stadium as contributors to Arsenal F.C. and Manchester City F.C. have done. Additionally, one of the team in action or on the pitch would be useful as well - it is worth searching for Creative Commons-licensed works, or taking some pictures yourself at the next home game you go to.
    • No criteria given for inclusion in the bulleted list of notable players. If it is not possible to agree on one, then just remove it and provide a link to the main list article. The greatest-ever XI can stay though.
    • Navbox at the bottom looks a little wrong with that trailing vertical bar on the first line. Qwghlm 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the above points and have made relevant edits to address them. SenorKristobbal 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
All my objections have been resolved, so changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article has transformed in recent weeks, and is now worthy of FA status. Oldelpaso 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Looks good. Two things I would say. Firstly, this comment - "Everton's second main rival is Manchester United. Recently crowd trouble has marred games." needs a citation. I've never heard of any particular rivalry between Everton and United fans. I'd also perhaps suggest putting the list of managers back in the main article. The size of the article wouldn't be increased in any great amount and most clubs pages have that sort of information on their main page. HornetMike 23:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The Manchester United passage you cite has been reverted due to being unreferenced. (I would be very surprised if anybody could find a credible source to support the edits made by 80.195.92.192) ⁂veila# 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Can't put the whole list of managers back. Manchester City F.C. doesn't have a full list of managers and they were recently featured. The list was cut down after comments in a peer review so putting it back would be ignoring it. There is an obvious link to the managers page so its easy to see all the manager information a reader would want. SenorKristobbal 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support: Well written, concise and easy to read. Looks 'neat' - well laid out. Cas Liber 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kochi (India)

Kochi is a coastal city in southern India. It is one of the important seaports of India, and the commerical hub of the state of Kerala. The article underwent a peer review in May this year, during which many issues were raised by several experienced editors, and were addressed. The article is also a selected article on Portal:India. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. I request the community's support in making it one. Thank you. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support nowRlevse 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Minor object footnotes go immediately after puntcuation with no space in between, not in the middle of the sentence.Rlevse 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Way too many pictures. Rama's arrow 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed the two gratuitous images in the Notes section. The rest seem to all be useful in illustrating the article, and it doesn't feel crowded (just colorful). —Cuiviénen 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was closely following the article's peer review. I also read the article in its entirety before voting here (copyediting alongside) and feel that it meets the FA criteria though it could use some copyediting help from native speakers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the "Notes" section may have pictures, becoz there is no clashing text to pay attention to. There is a need to remove pictures from the main body of text - they are brilliant pictures, but they have a clustering effect with the text, which kills their appeal to an extent. You better leave the pictures to be displayed on Commons. I also agree with Sundar that there is a need for more copyediting - grammatical errors, poor sentences need fixing - please see user:Tony1's copyediting guide. Nevertheless, I think its pretty much ready for FA status. Support Rama's arrow 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update - I've moved two of the pictures to the "Notes" section. The text has also been peped-up a bit.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A detailed city map of Kochin might be something that can be added to the article as one becomes available. AreJay 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Will do as soon as a free one becomes available.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is close to FA. I would like some clarification on 2 points. In the demographics section - "Kochi is considered the safest city in India for women" - Is there any other reference than the one cited? A source giving actual data showing Kochi to be the "safest in India" would help. In the educaton section - are you sure that education there follows 10+2+3 followed by enrollment in general or professional degree programmes. That is not the case in the rest of India where it is just 10+2 followed with degree programmes. Please double check on that. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update-I've clarified the same in the article now. Please check.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - I have had another read through the article. Both my points are adressed now. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Larrys Creek

Larrys Creek has been rated as a Good Article and has had a peer review (which is archived here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. The article follows most of the recommendations of WikiProject Rivers (although there is no list of tributaries, as the major ones are given in the article).

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Larrys Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support nowRlevse 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Object See if the name section can be expanded. Also, while a few footnotes in the intro are okay, this has too many-it's distracting. Since the intro is supposed to be a summary, it can be written so no notes are required in it. Work on this and I'll look at again. You may want to consider adding something on its pollution history/status too. Good start, though.Rlevse 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Thanks for the helpful critique. Per your comments, I have expanded the name section, removed all footnotes from the lead section (and I believe corrected all errors resulting from cutting and pasting the references), and made a new subsection on "Water quality and pollution" incorporating some material already in the article and adding one reference. I also added the list of tributaries recommended by the Rivers WikiProject. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. although I would like to see the color in the tributary map changed. The color for Larrys Creek is described as orange but appears quite brown, especially in the small size image displayed inline. Rmhermen 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Color adjusted slightly. Kmusser 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comment and thanks for fixing the color. I think the fact that it is orange with a blue line through it makes it look muddier / browner, especially on a small scale. Ruhrfisch 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 33 pin-citations. Plenty of pictures, ALL either PD or GNU-FDL. Belongs on the Wiki 1.0 CD, too. --M@rēino 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I found the article well-written and informative. --evrik 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support One of the best stream/river articles I've seen, amazing! Pfly 16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Note: I have a small conflict of interest in that I supplied information for the "paper railroads" section. Regardless, this is a stunningly comprehensive and well-referenced article and deserves wider attention. Choess 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. Kmusser 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto-ing what others have said. Perhaps a hair over-wikified, but nothing too problematic. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- comprehensive, interesting, and informative. Do you have a source for more information about the covered bridge? Since it's on the National Register of Historic Places, I think we should have an article on it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I have four sources of information about the bridge, three are cited. The best is "Landis, Milton W. (October 1966). "The Larrys Creek Covered Bridge in Cogan House Township". Now and Then (The Journal of the Muncy, Pennsylvania Historical Society) XV (5): 258. " which gives almost everything but the rehabilitation and National Register Information. It has much more information about the bridge, details of construction, etc. The online Covered Bridges page gives the basic data and rehab date: "Kane, Trish. "Pennsylvania - Lycoming County Covered Bridges".". The third source is a photo I took of the plaque the Lycoming County Commissioners erected when the bridge was rehabbed - it is the source for the National Register (and the photo is not on Wikipedia or explicitly cited). Here is a link to a list of Lycoming County NRHP sites, it is listed under "Cogan House Covered Bridge": [5]. The fourth source is Meginness (article ref #1), who mentions the bridge and it surviving the 1889 flood (which also wiped out Johnstown, PA - should I mention that in the article?). I would have to go back to a library that has the issue of "Now and Then" to get more details, but I could write a brief article on the bridge (I have other pictures of the bridge too - they would be GFDL). I am fairly busy now, so it could take a while. Ruhrfisch 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Diary of a Camper

Self-nomination. This is WikiProject Machinima's first FAC, although a good number of its members worked on Red vs Blue (which was promoted to FA in early March) before the WikiProject was formed. Although the article is short (only a bit more than 10KB, including notes and references), there is precedent for the promotion of short articles as FAs. I feel that the length is appropriate, given that the article is about a very short (under 2 minutes) video responsible for the concept of machinima, the use of 3-D video game engines to render films in real-time. I've tried to touch on the video from all angles: from the reviews that were posted on the major Quake movie websites back in 1997–98, to the academic interest in the transition from player to performer and its perception among modern machinima authors. The article has been copyedited a couple times over, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. — TKD::Talk 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Consider submitting it for good article instead, which is intended for short articles.--enano (Talk) 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The concept of good article hasn't yet been concretely established, and this article can become FA as long as it meets criteria. I've not yet read it to make that determination for myself, but I think I should make this comment before anyone misunderstands what can and can't become FA. I'll give the article a read now and get back with a support or object soon. Ryu Kaze 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I had considered GA, but the problem is, as Ryu hinted, that some people view GA as a FA for short articles, while to others it is a less stringent form of recognition for any article. If I had felt that the article was good, but didn't quite meet FA standards yet, I might have considered submitting to GA. There has been precedent for short, well-written articles (such as Hurricane Irene (2005)) to be promoted to FA. Now, I'm not saying that a 100-second film is as notable as a hurricane, but it singularly changed the way some people thought about video games, animation, and filmmaking. — TKD::Talk 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'm a little torn on this one. I think it meets all criteria except for maybe the issue of comprehensiveness (I'm not saying that it doesn't; I'm just a little unsure at the moment, to be honest, and am looking for clarification). I want to add support, but given that the other Ranger films articles are all so short, it seems like it would be possible — perhaps best — to combine them all into a single article (perhaps the United Ranger Films article?). Like I say, it's good, and I'd like to support, but it seems like it would be most efficient to simply combine all of this information into a single article. I admit that I'm not well versed on the subject of machinama, and that this film might be notable enough in that category to warrant its own article, so I can't say it doesn't deserve to be an FA without more knowledge of the subject. TKD, could you give me a better idea of the subject's relevance to the medium, and tell me if you'd considered merging it with the other articles at any point, and why that might not have been done? That will help me decide between staying neutral and supporting. It might also clarify things for anyone else who would want to ask the same question. Ryu Kaze 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks fror the feedback, Ryu. I'm delighted that the only issue that you found was the one that I had forseen might have been a sticking point. I'm mostly a mergist myself, and I'll agree that at least three of the other four videos could probably be merged (possibly all four), but I don't believe that it would be beneficial to merge Diary of a Camper. I had indeed considered doing so, but, if anything, I would have created a new article on the history of machinima. However, given that scope, it probably would not have reasonably allowed me to go into as much depth on the actual content of the film or how it was received. The fact that it succeeded in creating a medium despite its simplicity is worth detailing.
As for merging to URF, well, I'd rather not do that because Diary is far more well-known in and of itself than United Ranger Films. (Google +"Diary of a Camper" (1,100 hits) versus +"United Ranger Films" (44 hits).) Unlike the other four films by URF, Diary established an entire filmmaking medium through the idea that the FPS perspective can become an independent camera. The other films did introduce some innovations, but Diary has received the most credit by a significant margin.
I've expanded the article a bit to hopefully clarify the film's role in this important transition from player to director. Would you mind taking another look? — TKD::Talk 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, your explanation makes more sense than I could have asked for. After taking another look, my concerns are completely satisfied. Full support from me. Great job with the article. Ryu Kaze 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Concerns satisfied. While not a behemoth in size, its scope is comprehensively addressed, and the prose is crisp. I am also now convinced that the subject warrants its own article. This is a well crafted piece of work. Ryu Kaze 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Ryu Kaze idea, I think the articles should be merged. I think all the movies basically have pretty similar concept and merging them together would be quite simple. Instead of summarizing one you can just give a basic summary of the series and compare them. By the way, what media were this films released on? If they were distributed via internet (which I have no idea if they were) then that would make me want to see this articles merged even more. If this videos were actually retail sold then I disregard my comment about merging. - Tutmosis 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've clarified that the video was in fact released over the Internet. The five films don't really form a series; the storyline of Diary of a Camer isn't really related to those of Ranger Gone Bad and Torn Apart. I wouldn't oppose merging the other four, and might actually do it myself if I have the time, but, as I noted to Ryu above, Diary of a Camper is different in that it actually made the transition from gameplay to filmmaking, and attracted serious attention from various angles in doing so. Would you mind taking a look at the recent expansion/clarification edits that I've made? — TKD::Talk 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel it satisfies the criteria so I think it deserves to be fa. I can see now that the video was likely the first of its kind but that brings out the other issue, the other films articles. Are they notable to merit their own article? Is wikipedia now going to have an article on every single video released on youtube or similar sites that has gained some following? - Tutmosis 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. As for your concern, the other four URF productions would probably benefit from a merge up to URF. All of them did get independent coverage from the major Quake movie websites of the day, though, so it's not as if we're lacking secondary sources, as the typical YouTube video does. They could be expanded, but not to the length of even this article. So, yes, a merge would probably be a good idea for the other four. Just as a note, we've kept an extensive archive of past machinima-related deletion discussions, prods, and speedies; the vast majority of anything whose notability is contested does end up deleted. So I don't think that you have to worry about a deluge of stub articles, at least not from this WikiProject. — TKD::Talk 01:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I find it to be quite comprehensive for such a short article. Great work as per usual, TKD.--Drat (Talk) 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! — TKD::Talk 10:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I came very skeptical to this article but found it surprisingly solid, well-cited and interesting even for those who don't know the first thing about machinima :) My only gripe is that I dislike the use of parentheses for definitions in the lead: "the first example of machinima (the art of using real-time, virtual 3-D environments, often game engines, to create animated films)." I would prefer using commas or dashes. Once the article is featured it will be read by a lot of people who don't know about machinima so this information is essential, not parenthetical. Haukur 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the punctuation. — TKD::Talk 10:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Haukur 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While film articles usually contain long Production and Synopsis sections, I understand that a 100 sec one won't have much information. Anyway, could you upload a better picture? I haven't seen the film, but if there's a scene where protagonists appear clearly from a close prespective, it would be better than the one in the lead. CG 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the image and used a slightly brighter gamma setting. Does it look better? (Note: You probably will have to bypass your cache in order to pick up the new image.) — TKD::Talk 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
While not perfect, but it's better. Thank you. CG 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to know more about the production of this machinima. How was it done? Where did the production take place? Over the internet or in some building? Who were the people involved in it and who did what? I need names or at least aliases. Saying that it was done by United Ranger Films is like saying that Life of Brian was done by Monty Python and not mentioning Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. --Maitch 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. Give me a day or so; I'll see what I can dig up. — TKD::Talk 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this edit sufficient to satisfy your request? I found real names for a good number of people involved in the film and defined roles more clearly. As for where it was done, I assume that it was created over the Internet, but it'd be OR to state that. Quake is inherently client-server, but that could mean either a local network or the Internet. — TKD::Talk 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the edit and I will support now. --Maitch 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is short, but it is very limited what you can say about a thing that lasts 100 seconds. I don't think this article should be merged given that it is very notable within machinima. --Maitch 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not a big fan of that lead paragr