Only Fools and Horses

Came across this as a GA. Have made a few changes to try and get it to FA standard.Buc 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article has been dramatically improved since it became a good article, as have the articles in it's category. I feel it fits the FA criterea.Caissa's DeathAngel 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment News sources aren't correctly referenced - they should include author name and publication date when available. Using cite news instead of cite web for news sources will allow for input of the necessary parameters. Please reference the article correctly, and I'll have another look. Sandy (Talk) 01:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added dates and changed news sources to cite news as well as adding author names where I could find them.Buc 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the remainder for you - pls check. I found one with an uncertain date - you will need to verify vs. other sources whether 05-03 meant March 5 or May 3 - see note in diff. I ran out of time. Sandy (Talk) 14:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Date fixed. The Telegraph uses the British date format of day first. See here, here and here, for instance SteveO 15:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like refs are in order now - I'll read later as I have time. Sandy (Talk) 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Too much uncited text (I flagged a small part of it only), and copyedit needs (Del Boy came 4th in a Channel 4 list of Britain's best-loved television characters[29] and 1st in another survey by Open...[30]) Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job on the referencing - striking my object. I'll try to read the article through when I have a large block of free time. Sandy (Talk) 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support with a few minor qualms:

• One reference in the lead -- this should be moved to the body.
• Italicization of titles isn't consistent -- the ones that currently aren't (eg. "The Green Green Grass" in the lead) should be fixed.
• "...but the show came to develop a story arc and a "soap opera" dimension. -- this doesn't flow smoothly in its sentence or paragraph, and the portion I've italicized is probably the worst bit.
• A couple of unnecessary words like "often" scattered throughout. Also a couple of archaicisms like "whilst."
• Quite a few parentheticals; perhaps some of these could be eliminated.
• "The show was aired in seven series'" -- extraneous apostrophe
• "Several non-regular one-off specials" -- redundant
• The paragraph about the directors and producers isn't grammatically correct. Punctuation's a bit off. Splitting the first long sentence into two shorter ones would help. Shimeru 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition... it's overlinked. No reason to wikilink "September 8," for instance, or "lisp." Or a couple of others. Shimeru 05:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction - WP:DATE says "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format." Sandy (Talk) 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There were still instances of overlinking, though. It looks to be in better shape following SteveO's edits. Shimeru 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Green Green Grass has been italicized and the episode titles are now just in quotation marks. I've edited out many of the parentheses (I'll try and do the rest later), the erroneous apostrophe has been removed and "Several non-regular one-off specials" has been re-written. SteveO 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All of Shimeru's objections have now been rectified. SteveO 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent first FA by TS. It has been through enough improvements to merit FA status. 82.6.164.68 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Latter Days

Article has been peer reviewed here, and I think it's worthy of FA now. If there are any small prose problems you can see however, I ask that you correct them yourself, as, although it has already been copyedited, my prose writing is not brilliant and I find I am unable to spot minor problems myself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Conditional Support. You have a good start to a Featured Article, but this is not there yet. As it is, I think it could be considered GA class. I know this film quite well and the article adequately covers the basics, but I think there is still much more that could be said. Here are some areas that could use work:
  • I'm not a big fan of long plot sections and I think the plot section is a bit too long, it is almost as long as the rest of the article. I would try reducing it to 2 or 3 paragraphs. If you hit the basic plot points, I think that will work. Cut out much of the detail.
  • A background section is needed. This isn't the first film to discuss religion and homosexuality (you mention Trembling Before G-D), but what are some of its predecessors? Have other fictional films portrayed the subject with the seriousness as it is portrayed here? Did any other films influence the making of this one? You might also discuss Cox's scriptwriting here.
  • Part of the development section can be included in the background section. Development should include some information on the artistic decisions made during the filming, but also the development of the script. I know that certain scenes were deleted (Aaron's sister finding him after the suicide attempt), why? Look at the "Development" and "Initial stages" stages sections of Gremlins for some ideas.
  • The characters section can be written in prose. Take a look at the Casting sections for FA's such as Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins. Both sections are in prose with explanations of why certain actors were cast and information on the actors.
  • The critical reception section should be expanded. You used a few reviews in the article, but they all appear to come from internet sources. What about highly respected sources such as The New York Times, The L.A. Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone or even Roger Ebert? IMDB may have links to some of these and others. If you run into problems getting any of these, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help you. There could also be expansion on the controversy in Utah. Was there controversy anywhere else? Additionally, the themes section could be expanded using these reviews and relevant film criticism if available.
  • I know this film is quite recent, but has it influenced any other films?

Again, this is a great article, but I think it could be much better. Take a look at the plethora of film articles that are Featured and compare this to them. Please let me know if you need help on this, I'll be more than willing to help as I am familiar with this film, though film, as a subject, is not a strong point of mine. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, much of the stuff you've mentioned, such as turning the cast list into prose, is purely personal preference. I based mine on V for Vendetta (film), you like Gremlins, and there's yet another variation at Dog Day Afternoon. Personally, I prefer the vendetta version, so I won't change that. I've checked the plot against those of other FA films, and it is of an appropriate size and detail, so I don't think I should do anything to that. I've gone through a good 80% of the FA films now and I cannot find a previous similar films section like you want - as I have my own doubts about the appropriateness of such a section (it seems kinda sidetracky from the film itself), I'm reluctant to put one in. So far as I know, Latter Days has yet to influence another film, no LGBT film in recent years has had a similar plotline that I know of - however, you're absolutely right about my lack of "hard sources", and while I'm looking out for some of them to replace the others with, I'll see if any similar films are out. So basically, I'll go and see what I can find, but I think many of your objections are purely based on personal preferences and not because the sections as they stand need to be improved (I'll see if I can expand the themes section), but I'll definitely get on with the rest of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation. Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins both use "Casting" as the section header, and "casting" is a process, so therefore writing in prose to describe the process, is acceptable. You've used "Cast" as the header (same as the examples you gave) and so the way you've done it is fine, IMO. Rossrs 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added reviews from Roger Ebert and the Los Angeles Times, but I didn't find any film influences. I tapped a rich seam of information at affirmation.org, the gay Mormon website, so I added everything I found there. The Utah controversy has been expanded and cited, the rique French release has been added, and a little has been added to the Development section. I'll see if I can find any more interviews with c. Jay Cox. That OK? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other films thing, Cox says in this interview that he can't think of any similar film - and if he can't, there probably isnt one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section looks much better! One thing I do think should be included: why did the movie make so little money at the box office? I would presume that it had a fairly limited release, but I'm just assuming. As for the Background section, I think you really still need one. Imagine if this article is read by someone fifty years from now who is not familiar with the controversy over homosexuality and religion, there should be something said about the Mormon approach to homosexuality and the controversy in general. In this you might include Cox's own experience and how the movie come from that. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Box office stuff has been added and Ganymead has agreed to write the background section himself, as he knows what should be in one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, the lead says the film "was popular with ordinary fans", which is a problem for many reasons. First, it is at odds with the low box office take. Second, it's unsupported by any citations or by any later (cited) statements in the article. Third, what are "ordinary fans"? Fans of what? Ordinary, how? Andrew Levine 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was popular with ordinary fans because the Rotten Tomatoes user rating is 75%, as opposed to the critics' 42%. It won several Audience Best Film Awards (which are listed in the article) when it played at sold out film festivals, and the cast were given standing ovations by the audience at several other screenings (not just as film festivals). This is all in the article. What I mean by ordinary is just that: people who aren't critics, who don't specialise in reviewing. The low box office is partly explained by the fact that it was never given a full release, and at its peak was only screened on 19 screens at any one time. I will see if I can find an average take per showing - this might resolve the issue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I found statistical data at http://the-numbers.com but I'm finding it hard to interpret at the moment. However, thsi article implies that per theatre, it didn't do badly - http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=600 Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and the entire first paragraph of the reception section is devoted to discussing the ordinary fan reception, in addition to the awards section (all of which are audience awards). I think this objection has been addressed, but Andrew Levine is not responding to his messages from both me and another user asking him to review his objections on our respective FACs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It still reads "popular with fans." Obviously any movie is popular with its fans. This is still not good, and it gives no idea of the scope of its popularity. How about "popular with film-festival attendees" or soemthing? Andrew Levine 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have replaced with more accurate "most of those who saw the film". Because it is. That Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. This was indeed a wonderful film, and you've written a beautiful article about it, quite comprehensive and detailed. I've just taken the liberty of copyediting it for you again--I have some expertise in that--but feel free to revert anything you don't like. I can't see how the article could be improved much, but I will throw out just a couple of small points for you to consider:

1. At the end of the opening paragraph, perhaps add something like ". . . with strong supporting performances by Jacqueline Bisset and Mary Kay Place"--? Their appearance in this low-budget indie was an unexpected pleasure for many viewers, I suspect.

2. I like the way you list the performers/characters; to do that in prose would make it nearly unreadable for me. But the description of Mary Kay's character might be expanded just a tiny wee bit: perhaps "strictly religious, controlling" would be appropriate? (That's the nicest way I can put it. Ha.)

3. One more tiny point: you do say that Aaron's mom is the one who tells him about the $50 bet, but could you add in a couple of words or so how she knew about the bet? (Heard it from his missionary buddies, I think I remember). But this may not be important enough to worry about.

But these are just minor quibbles from a big fan of the film. Overall, I think you did a fantastic job! Hope you get FA status! Textorus 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed one bit of your copyedit, and put in the stuff you recommended (though I didn't say "strong" supporting roles, or call Aaron's mother controlling - potentially on the wrong side of POV, I thought). There's only one person I know of who has seen this film and disliked it, and she's doesn't know what she's talking about. Everyone else just falls in love with it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a. Here are examples of what you find throughout. Please don't just fix these.
  • Is it US spelling? Seems to be a mixture.
  • "Some while later" ... What does this add, exactly?
  • "Christian admits that he initially just wanted to win a bet, but "it's not about that" anymore." Direct quote not well integrated.
  • "Ryder relents enough to tell him"—"Relent" is binary, isn't it? Either you relent or you don't.
  • A few stubby paragraphs.

The film looks like right trash. For this reason, it's hard (although not impossible) for the writing to be "compelling", as required. I just wonder why an increasing proportion of our FAs is taken up with storylines. If not engagingly written and more interesting than monotonous suburbia, they reduce the object they describe. Can someone tell me why such a story is worth telling in dissociation from the film itself? Is this "among our best"?

For example:

"Christian confesses his love, and despite his profound misgivings, Aaron admits his own feelings of love. With all flights cancelled due to a snowstorm, Christian and Aaron are able to spend a loving and intimate night together in a nearby motel. However, when Christian awakes in the morning, he finds Aaron has gone. Sadly, he is forced to return to his former life in Los Angeles."

Fascinating. Tony 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be US spelling, because it's an American film. However, I am English, so it's possible there are American spellings I am unaware of. "Some while later" is supposed to indicate that there is another ten minutes of the film between scenes that is not mentioned because it isn't vital to the plot. I've added to the quote and changed my choice of verbs. Why you don't want me to fix these I don't know. Your objection to this FA on the grounds that you think the film is crap is silly. If you're reading an article on a film, do you not want to know what the film is about? Is it not part of our mission to be comprehensive to explain what the content of the film/book/album is , not just how it was conceived and received? Just because you personally do not find an article interesting doesn't mean that it's not FA standard. If every Article on Wikipedia should have the potential to reach FA, that should include every notable film, whether rubbish to watch or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and reduced three stubby paragraghs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be US spelling, then make it US spelling throughout. Your comments aren't a fix for the poor writing. Tony 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. If I can't convert it though, would it be OK to convert it all to british spelling? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any British spellings, so I don't know what you mean there. However, it would seem I trusted my copyeditors too much - some bits of this article are badly written, you're absolutely right there. I'm going to quickly go through it on paper and tidy it - I'll be done in about an hour, so check back then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. What's it like now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - 1a. References don't use a consistent style (some have website before, others after, the title) - please use a consistent bibliographic style in the refs. The prose is tortured. The paragraph I glanced at towards the bottom of the article is a sample of the extensive problems throughout:
  • In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel, written by T. Fabris, and published by Alyson Publications. The book was mainly faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is as a result of his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with at his mission training. It also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".
• Needs a thorough copy edit by an uninvolved editor, and the prose needs something to make it compelling and interesting. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited it, you might liek to comment again. The references issue you mention is where I have added the website first in the reference, I cannot find an author - I read it in one of the referencing guidelines, though I cannot find where at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained on her talkpage, Sandy is having trouble editing Wikipedia. Request FAC not closed until she has a chance to respond to my improvements to the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - still have problems. I've converted all of your references to a standard style - Author last name, author first name. Title. Source, (publication date). Last access date. Please go through and doublecheck my work, and wikilink all full dates.

Real problem with the term "ordinary fans": I changed it.

I made some changes so you can see the need to fix the tense and choppy sentences: I changed an it's to its, which shows the copy edit needs are still there. I eliminated a redundancy "all funding" equals "funding", linked to subsequent sentence about funding. These are examples of the work you still need to do throughout - the prose still needs work. Since the article is well referenced, you should be able to make FA if someone will run through the prose Sandy (Talk) 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the dates, someonelse has copyedited it but I have fixed the comments they had, and I've dropped a line to another editor to take a look at the article. Does it look OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting better, but the prose is still not compelling. Here are some random examples:

• Nevertheless, a major theme of Latter Days is that there is an underlying spirituality in the world that goes beyond the rituals and dogmas of religion.[15] This can be particularly seen in the scene where, after a day of making phone calls, Christian finally traces Aaron, writes down his phone number, and then discovers he has already idly drawn it on the previous page. (I can't see the connection between the first sentence and the second - and since it's not sourced, it sounds like OR.)

You can't see the connection between an underlying spirituality in the world and Christian mysteriously coincidentally doodling the very phone number he's been searching eight hours for? You haven't seen the scene, so you're going to have to trust me on this, but the message is so unsubtle Cox may as well have hit you with a two by four inscribed with "There's an underlying spirituality in the world". You don't need to reference the blatently obvious, I recall.

• A total of three songs were written by C. Jay Cox for Julie to sing: "Another beautiful day," "More," and "Tuesday 3 AM." Allaman was very impressed with C. Jay Cox's musical ability, and both men composed more songs as background music. (I'm not sure what this means - other songs? Songs that were or weren't used? Are songs usually in quotes or italics? What impressed Allaman about Cox's ability?)

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• For contractual reasons, Rebekah Johnson did not appear on the album, and her character's songs were performed by Nita Whitaker instead. (What contractual reasons? Why was Whitaker chosen? Who is she?)

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• (This is unreferenced). In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel by T. Fabris and published by Alyson Publications. The book was faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with while on his mission training. The novel also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".

What, you want page numbers?

Ok, I've added page numbers. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Aggressive attitude to the script?) Gordon-Levitt originally auditioned to play Aaron, but his aggressive attitude to the script but good sense of humor made the producers decide he was a perfect Ryder.

I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.

• Full dates in refs are not yet completely wikilinked.

Yes, they are. I am not going to wikilink 2006, it bears no relevance at all to the article, and the only reason I'm wikilinking the dates in my references at all is because you want me to, there's absolutely no reason to otherwise do so.

Ok, I looked up WP:DATES, and get why wikilinking is needed. But years, according to the policy are only to be dated according to personal preference, and I prefer as few blue links as possible, especially in the footnotes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy (Talk) 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will dig up a Amazon link for the novel, but the rest is unnecessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up the relevant part about tracking down Aaron on YouTube here. The bit where Christian says "That's the hand I use to..." is around the one minute mark, but the scene where Christian is tracking Aaron is 6:18 onwards. You should see what I mean. And obviously, if you have the time, I recommend watching the entire film, which has been uploaded in twelve parts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added page numbers, and explained everything above. Is that all OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Striking my object - everything looks in order now, and Dev920 has been persistent in improving the article - I think s/he's done the best that can be done with a really sappy, cliché storyline. Sandy (Talk) 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You just need to watch it Sandy... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the double-Ls, s instead of z. Paste into Word, put Word on US English, and spellcheck. Paste back again. Simple. Tony 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've run this article through three US English spellcheckers, and they changed two spellings, one of which was in the footnotes. What on Earth are you seeing that I, two copyeditors and three spellcheckers are not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bless your heart, Dev, all these sugggestions and counter-suggestions to deal with. That's why I will never propose an FAC myself!  :-) Hang in there, you'll make it. Textorus 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Dev920 contacted me asking for help in regards to the oppose votes above, I read the article and genuinely agree with this article becoming featured. - Tutmosis 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator has worked with commendable vigour to make this FA-worthy. To a certain extent the article is never going to be stellar because the plot is so tired, cliched and frankly dull but on its own terms this is FA quality. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Disclosure: I've completely skipped the synopsis in order not to be coloured by any weakness of the plot. The article seems fairly complete and readable, and I note fair use rationales have been written for the three images. Seems like a fair candidate for the main page some day, so I'm not objecting. Gimmetrow 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "This can be particulary seen..." Apparently he unknowingly wrote a number which is coincidentally the number he's trying to get. Perhaps add another sentence explaining how this relates to an "underlying spirituality in the world", or at least making it sound more dramatic? (I'm guessing this is a key dramatic moment in the film, but it's not obvious to someone who has not seen it.)
  • I don't really understand the 42% and 75% ratings with rottentomatoes. I thought all rottentomatoes raters were "critics". If "critics" means a distinct type of rottentomatoes user, perhaps that can be explained slightly better.
  • The partial wikilinking of the "retrieved" dates looks a little unorthodox. WP:DATES says that "The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present."

El Greco

I started the rewriting of this article about two months ago. The article has already gone through three peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (here and here), and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (here). Users Yomangani and Eusebeus had the kindness to offer their own independent reviews in the talk page of the article (here and here). I'm most grateful to the following users who who were eager to copy-edit the text (or some of the sections): Plange, Celithemis, Ganymead, Yomangani, Gzkn, and Tom (who had initiated the previous withdrawn FAC of the article). I thought it was the right time for this nomination.--Yannismarou 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object I think it's a good article, but I think it fails to place El Greco in context. The introductory paragraph of the introductory section is boring and says essentially nothing (this is not a fault of the rest of the article, though). I don't get any idea from the introduction (section) to this article that El Greco is a great or extraordinary painter. Is he? Should anyone be left asking this? There are, imo, a lot of details in the writing overall that need work. It's awkward, doesn't flow, and sometimes contradictory or missing facts. I think footnotes are not in its favor. In spite of my objections, I think the level of research done in this article, and the overall approach to the topic are excellent, and way above the norm. I do believe this could be a superb article, not simply a FA. Outside of the sciences Wikipedia does not have a lot of truly superb articles, for this reason alone, I hope the editors of this article attempt to take it all the way--I didn't realize that art was one of the contendor areas for excellence. This article needs to flow. It doesn't. Mostly I object because I see much greater potential in this than in most of Wikipedia. KP Botany 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The lead is a summary of the article. In the lead I will tell you that "El Greco has been characterized by modern scholars as an artist so individual that he belongs to no conventional school." But I won't tell you yet why. I will also tell you that "El Greco's dramatic and expressionistic style was met with puzzlement by his contemporaries but found appreciation in the 20th century", but I won't go into details. And I will tell you that "He is best known for tortuously elongated figures and often fantastic or phantasmagorical pigmentation, marrying Byzantine traditions with those of Western civilization", but I'll later analyze his style. I think that when I say that: 1) El Greco has an individual style and belongs to no conventional school (one of the very few artists in the history of mankind!), 2) he puzzled his contemporaries but impressed our contemporaries, 3)he married the Byzantine and the Western traditions, 4) he is a "prominent" painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance, I do give the idea that El Greco is a great and extraordinary painter. I could have explicitely said that "El Greco is an extraordinary painter bla bla bla" or that "the X scholar says that El Greco is a unique genius (Wethey actually said that)", but this is not my purpose. My purpose is to let the reader realize that he is great by reading the whole article. The lead gives him a general idea; by reading the whole article he will understand all the details of El Greco's greatness. I thank you very much for praising the level of the research and for saying that you "see much greater potential in this than in most of Wikipedia". But I do not want you to judge this article as superb or not; I want you to judge it as FA or not. In any case, I will check the lead, and see what additions are needed.--Yannismarou 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section serves a purpose, it should provide a context for the article, and be able to stand on its own. Your lead section, as you freely admit, does not and is not even intended to stand on its own. See Wikipedia:Lead section. I'm going to go ahead and judge each article on its own merits within the criteria of a FA. Wikipedia can and will, eventually, attain something greater than what it is now. When I see the potential for excellence, I am going to ask for more. It's not that I'm asking for something extra from this article, it's that I personally think I have to lower my standards for excellence in Wikipedia articles in other articles. Your 4 points say better what you are trying to say than the prose in the article does. The introduction is flat, lifeless. KP Botany 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope! It stands on its own per WP:LEAD, but it is not supposed to offer all the details. Anyway, I did some tweaks there. But I'll check it again for further improvements.--Yannismarou 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead expanded a bit and re-worked.--Yannismarou 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "When El Greco arrived in Rome, Michelangelo and Raphael had been dead, but their example continued to be overwhelming and left little room for different approaches.[16]"

So what? This just sounds awkward, what are you saying?

I'm saying that El Greco felt pressed by the artistic heritage these great masters and desperately wanted to make his own mark with his own style in Italy. And this has a lot to do with the rest of the paragraph. I will try to make that clear in the text.--Yannismarou 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You say it much better here than in the sentence quoted from the article. You don't say, in the article, what about their example was overwhelming, their work ethic? the quantity of their work? the quality? Why not use these words in the article, richer, more specific?

Is it any better now?--Yannismarou 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Your above text is better, "When El Greco arrived in Rome, although Michelangelo and Raphael were dead, he felt pressed by the artistic heritage of these great masters and wanted to make his own mark with his own style in Italy." I think it can be said better than this. It's simply not clear the amount of pressure an artist would be under arriving in Italy in the aftermath of Michelangelo and Raphael, making this clear will eventually put El Greco in the proper historical context.

I rephrased. This is the new phrasing of the first half of the paragraph:"When El Greco arrived in Rome, Michelangelo and Raphael had been dead, but their example continued to be paramount and left little room for different approaches. The artistic heritage of these great masters was overwhelming for young painters, but El Greco was determined to make his own mark in Rome defending his personal artistic views, ideas and style.[7] He singled out Correggio and Parmigianino for particular praise,[8] but he did not hesitate to dismiss Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel". How is it now?--Yannismarou 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Although El Greco singled out Correggio and Parmigianino for particular praise,[17] he dismissed Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel;[f] he wished to mirror the Incarnation by spiritualizing nature and in accord with the new and stricter Catholic thinking.[18]"

Lost me. Who wished to mirror the the Incarnation? Why? This might be a non sequitor if I could follow it.

El Greco wished. The subject in all these three sentences is the same: El Greco (El Greco - he - he). Syntactically I don't see anything wrong and any reason of confusion. Why he wished to mirror the Incarnation in a different way? But it is answered: 1) He wished to mirror the Incarnation by spiritualizing nature, 2) He wished to mirror the Incarnation in accord with the new and stricter Catholic thinking.--Yannismarou 10:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really following this. What exactly did he intend to do to mirror the Incarnation? He intended to sell himself as Christ? He wanted to make nature come to life in the flesh of painting? This is really unclear, maybe someone else can explain to me what you mean. To me, reflecting the Incarnation of Christ implies something beyond painting, and seems to have no meaning in this context. Without using Incarnation, or mirror, can you explain this? Can you quote the entire passage?

Bfffff... You are right afterall! This Incarnation thing is indeed confusing. I rephrased focusing on the Last Judgment: "He singled out Correggio and Parmigianino for particular praise,[8] but he did not hesitate to dismiss Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel;[f] he extended an offer to Pope Pius V to paint over the whole work in accord with the new and stricter Catholic thinking.[9]"--Yannismarou 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "And thus we are confronted by a paradox: El Greco is said to have condemned Michelangelo, but he was also influenced by him.[20]"

I don't know if this just needs developed more, it seems less sophisticated than the rest of the writing, what's the point?

I honestly don't think it is less sophisticated. The whole paragraphs treats this issue (and there is also a related note). I believe that further analysis in this article is against the encyclopedic principles of Wikipedia - in a sub-article (like Art of El Greco), yes. After all, I think that the point is clear here. From one side El Greco critisizes and even rejects Michelangelo's technique, but, on the other side, he shows huge respect in his writings for him, and integrates him in his paintings in order to honor him. The main points of this paradox are covered for me. And don't wait for a clear answer to this problem; not even the most prominent scholars can give it, because they are confused with El Greco's attitude towards Michelangelo!--Yannismarou 11:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you say it much clearer here than in the article: " From one side El Greco critisizes and even rejects Michelangelo's technique, but, on the other side, he shows huge respect in his writings for him, and integrates him in his paintings in order to honor him." I don't get this sense at all from the cryptic quote.

I rrephrased the "cryptic quote": "And thus we are confronted by a paradox: El Greco is said to have reacted most strongly or even condemned Michelangelo, but he had found it impossible to withstand his influence." Is it clearer? I believe that the next sentences elaborate its meaning.--Yannismarou 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "By integrating Michelangelo, Titian, Clovio and, presumably, Raphael in one of his paintings (The Purification of the Temple), El Greco not only expressed his gratitude but advanced the claim to rival these masters."

Integrated them or their techniques?

Them, of course! If I wanted to speak about their techniques I would have said ""By integrating Michelangelo's, Titian's, Clovio's and, presumably, Raphael's techniques" or something like that. Let's not doubt about what is clear in the text. I am open to prose improvements, but not where the prose is crystall clear!--Yannismarou 11:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't exactly make them part of the whole, he just added their portraits to one corner of the picture. It sounds awkward in English, it implies something different from "he painted portraits of Michelangelo, Titian and Clovio in The Purification of the Temple."

I rephrased: "By painting portraits of Michelangelo, Titian, Clovio and, presumably, Raphael in one of his works (The Purification of the Temple), El Greco not only expressed his gratitude but advanced the claim to rival these masters." Is this clear now to close this bullet?--Yannismarou 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "As his own commentaries indicate, El Greco viewed Titian, Michalengelo and Raphael as models to emulate.[22]"

Why? Contradicts above.

I know it contradicts above! This is the problem here! And I present it! When all the scholars of the world cannot give an answer to this contradiction, how do you expect me to do it? El Greco's personality was contradictory, and, yes, he presents in his own writings Michelangelo as a model to emulate. ANd, yes, he integrates him in one of his paintings in order to honor him. And, yes, he had rejected his work, when he was in Rome. And, yes, he had said that Michelangelo is "a good man but not a good painter". But I cannot give an answer to these contradictions. Nobody has managed to! I can make assuptions, but is this the prpose of an encyclopedic article? I do not think so.--Yannismarou 11:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can point out, in the text, that this contradiction is a matter of scholarly debate. Again, you added information here that you don't include in the article.

Nope, this is not what I said! And I do not add here information not mentioned in the article. It is not a matter of scholarly debate. Most scholars agree on what I said: El Greco criticizes and even rejects Michelangelo, but, at the same time, he is influenced by him and presents him as a model to emulate. Most scholars (at least those I read) agree on this assessment and try to figure out an explanation (without much success). So, if I say that there is a scholarly debate I won't be accurate.--Yannismarou 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Because of his artistic beliefs and personality, El Greco soon acquired enemies in Rome. Architect and writer Pirro Ligorio called him a "foolish foreigner", and newly discovered archival material reveals a skirmish with Farnese, who obliged the young artist to leave his palace.[23]"

What beliefs and personality acquired his enemies?

The criticism of Michelangelo mainly. The fact that he wanted to promote his own unique style, giving the impression that he scorns the great masters of the past. His (Greek!) temperament which made his quarrel with Farnese; but this is described in the text. I did some rephrasing. I think it is better now.--Yannismarou 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works.

• "Lacking the favor of the king, El Greco was obliged to remain in Toledo where he had received, from the very day of his arrival in 1577, the consecration of a great painter.[33]"

Huh? Which great painter consecrated him?

You are probably right. "Consecration" seems the wrong word, although it is used in my English-written source. I rephrased.--Yannismarou 13:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good word, but better without, not left hanging.

• "El Greco in his lifetime was highly esteemed as an architect and sculptor.[62]"

But he wasn't esteemed in his life? This is kinda a throw-away comment, need to be put in introduction.

Yes, he was esteemed in his lifetime, but not after his death and for many centuries. That is why, I felt the need to emphasize on this here. And I felt the need to emphasize on this issue for one even more important reason: because nowadays almost no sculptures of El Greco survive (with one-two disputed exceptions); so nowadays we know him just as a paintor, and not as a sculptor or an architect. Most people ignore even the fact that he was also sculptor and architect. Therefore, I do not think this is a "throw-away comment". It introduces the reader in a proper way to a part of the artistic work of El Greco he, most probably, ignores. In the lead I say he was a prominent architect and sculptor. Per WP:LEAD, I think this is OK.--Yannismarou 11:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember you mentioning, thought, that almost none of his sculptures survive. I believe there is contemporaneous evidence of his sculptures, though. This should probably be detailed in the article.

It is in both this section and in "Debates on Attribution".--Yannismarou 08:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• "To French writer Theophile Gautier, El Greco was the precursor of the European Romantic movement in all its craving for the strange and the exteme.[70]"

Elaborate, seems out of context.

It is not out of context, because the context is Romanticism. And Romanticism was in search for the "strange" and the "extreme". And El Greco was regarded as a "strange", "extreme" and "mad" painter. I did elaborated per your suggestion, but do not forget that note j offers further analysis on Gautier's views.--Yannismarou 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Better.

• "The critic Zacharie Astruc and the scholar Paul Lefort helped to promote a widespread revival of interest in his painting."

Art critic? French? Century? What type of scholar? Nationality?

When was Romanticism? Do I have to say all the time "art critic", "art critic", "art critic"? I rewrote the paragraph per your suggestion: "With the arrival of Romantic sentiments in late 18th century, El Greco's works were examined anew ... The French art critics Zacharie Astruc and Paul Lefort helped to promote a widespread revival of interest in his painting. In the 1890s, Spanish painters living in Paris adopted him as their guide and mentor."--Yannismarou 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearer. A reader should be able to read without footnotes, without clicking on links. And Romanticism isn't confined to one 10 year blip on the map, early, late, anything that further places it may help the reader see the development of the appreciation of El Greco through the Romantic movement, and a scholar who was not an art critic could very well have contributed to part of the dicussion of the greatness of an earlier painter--this was part of the times, part of Romanticism.

• "In the 1890s, Spanish painters living in Paris adopted him as their guide and mentor."

I think his Spanish legacy is greatly understated in this article. Isn't he rather important?

Understated? Let's see:

• "Late 17th and early 18th century Spanish commentators praised his skill but criticized his antinaturalistic style and his complex iconography. Some of these commentators, such as Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco and Juan Agustín Ceán Bermúdez described his mature work as "contemptible", "ridiculous" and "worthy of scorn".[68] The views of Palomino and Bermúdez were frequently repeated in Spanish historiography, adorned with terms such as "strange", "queer", "original", "eccentric" and "odd".[69] The phrase "sunk in eccentricity", often encountered in such texts, in time developed into "madness"." Almost a whole paragraph analysis here.
• "In 1908, Spanish art historian Manuel Bartolomé Cossío published the first comprehensive catalogue of El Greco's works; in this book El Greco was presented as the founder of the Spanish School." Sentence rewritten by me in order to emphasize on the role of El Greco for the Spanish art. This book of Cossio is even nowadays regarded as monumental for the history of the Spanish art and the re-evaluation of El Greco.
• "In the 1890s, Spanish painters living in Paris adopted him as their guide and mentor." The sentence you mentioned.
• "Michael Kimmelman, a reviewer for The New York Times, stated that "to Greeks [El Greco] became the quintessential Greek painter; to the Spanish, the quintessential Spaniard".
• The symbolists, and Pablo Picasso during his blue period, drew on the cold tonality of El Greco, utilizing the anatomy of his ascetic figures. While Picasso was working on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga in his studio in Paris and studied El Greco's Opening of the Fifth Seal (owned by Zuloaga since 1897).[82] The relation between Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and the Opening of the Fifth Seal was pinpointed in the early 1980s, when the stylistic similarities and the relationship between the motifs of both works were analysed.[83]
• "In any case, only the execution counts. From this point of view, it is correct to say that Cubism has a Spanish origin and that I invented Cubism. We must look for the Spanish influence in Cézanne. Things themselves necessitate it, the influence of El Greco, a Venetian painter, on him. But his structure is Cubist."
• Picasso speaking of "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" to Dor de la Souchère in Antibes.[84]
• The early cubist explorations of Picasso were to uncover other aspects in the work of El Greco: structural analysis of his compositions, multi-faced refraction of form, interweaving of form and space, and special effects of highlights. Several traits of cubism, such as distortions and the materialistic rendering of time, have their analogies in El Greco's work. According to Picasso, El Greco's structure is cubist.[85] On February 22, 1950, Picasso began his series of "paraphrases" of other painters' works with The Portrait of a Painter after El Greco.[86] Foundoulaki asserts that Picasso "completed ... the process for the activation of the painterly values of El Greco which had been started by Manet and carried on by Cézanne". Picasso and Zuloaga were Spanish.

I think this analysis is more than enough, and his Spanish legacy is clear to the reader. But don't imagine that all the Spanish artists after him were influenced by El Greco. No! Velasquez's legacy was more important for the Spanish art of the next centuries. El Greco was presented by the Spanish art historians as a "starting point", a "landmark" for the beginning of the "Spanish School". The major influences to Spanish artists (Picasso and Zuloaga who owned works of El Greco) are mentioned. Further analysis is offeres in the sub-article Posthumous fame of El Greco. But I think that the analysis of the main article covers the main issues.--Yannismarou 11:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really clear at all from the article, it is just a list of minor points about the painter. I realize I am not expressing myself clearly in this, but I think the biggest thing lacking in this article is a grand feel for the overwhelming legacy of El Greco in Western art.

In "Legacy" I treat his influence on Delacroix, Impressionists, the Blaue Riter Group, Pollock, Picasso, Cezanne, Manet, post-modern painters etc. Isn't this "grand feel" obvious by all the analysis?--Yannismarou 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the lead as it stands now.--Yannismarou 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I hope I gave you (at least some!) satisfactory answers!--Yannismarou 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support The minor objections above may be valid, but compared to all the other featured articles we have, the 'El Greco' article would largely deserve its status as a featured article. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a very good article - good job! I just wanted to ask if it would be possible to cite a bit more accessible Internet sources.. There are a lot of accessible books on google, but I don't know if the books in question are in there. There are a few parts that might need a look for simple syntax, however the article is good. I suppose the above comments are valid, but they are no biggie. They could be fixed as the FA is progressing... Baristarim 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Many books are indeed accessible in Google Book and almost all the articles in Google Scholar. For those not accessible there I offer ISBNs. The catalogues are usually easily accessible. There is indeed a problem of accessibility with some more "ancient" books. This is true. But in most case I provide in parallel another online or accessible source.--Yannismarou 13:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support El Greco is a very important topic, and that makes attaining featured status harder. There is a large body of scholarship to review, and the task of situating El Greco within the world of sixteenth century art and politics is by no means insubstantial. I had numerous reservations when this first came up which I articulated; these have now been largely addressed. While there may be a few details here and there that could still be tidied up, the article considered as a whole now easily meets, in my view, the criteria established by FAC. In many ways, such as its thematic outline, the overview it offers of a wide variety of scholarship, and the accompanying illustrations, this is examplar of what a featured article should be. Congratulations to all the contributing editors and especially to Yannis, whose efforts have been especially rigorous. Eusebeus 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A very thorough treatment of the subject. Images of key works are represented, and El Greco's unique style is discussed in a sophisticated manner. The artist's life is related in copious detail. Although there are some sentences that could benefit from minor revision, I believe this article merits FA status. (On a tangential note, why is "posthumous fame of El Greco" a separate article? It seems to me that most of the key points are, or should be, noted in this article, and the separate article deleted.) Excellent work, a very interesting article on one of the world's most creative and unique artists. Venicemenace 17:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice, Yannismarou - congratulations on your persistence and hard work. Sandy (Talk) 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sandy.--Yannismarou 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. ANother brilliant article by Yanni. Keep it up. Kyriakos 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Benchmark. The visual arts are underrepresented on Wikipedia, and this article goes a long way to redress. + Ceoil 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Had the pleasure of working with Yannismarou a little on this earlier. Great job! Gzkn 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. Great work! Nat91 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Exactly the sort of article we want to be showcasing. --Robth^Talk 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support A lot of hard work has been put in by Yannismarou and it shows. Well done. Yomangani^talk 11:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really, a beautiful article! I didn some copyediting, but Yannismarou should get all the credit. His dogged determination to see this article to FA status has paid off. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations and thank you for this important and deeply researched article about one of the most enigmatic and compelling figures of Western Art, Modern Art, and the art of Landscape Painting and Portraiture, let alone Religious Art. Great Article. Modernist 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic work. The research is clear and the presentation of the historiography is impressive. Everything I was thinking of checking was well done. The one thing I couldn't find was a discussion of where the most complete collections of his work are. The only way to tell was to look at all the image captions, and from those, it appears all of his best works are in various different locations. But perhaps that's not the most important thing to cover either. - Taxman ^Talk 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. talk to the HAM 11:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain

I believe all the points asked in the previous nom have been adressed. Specifically, print sources have been added, several experienced editors copyedited the article, character design has been expanded, and the video game has been cut off to its own article. IMO, this is a thorough, well written article on a particularly difficult subject. Even thought wikipedia is not censored, an effort has been made to keep the article relatively spoiler-free and out of universe. Reception section could be expanded as more sources are available, but I'm afraid this would set the article off-balance. Thanks for your interest.--SidiLemine 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why are you several times linking to Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia? --Peter Andersen 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Wiktionary links are informative. The link to artifact clears up any confusion on meaning and its alternative spelling and the link to blasé explains what it means concisely. The link to charm on Wict. is better than a link to amulet which is where you end up after the disambiguation page for charm. --Squilibob 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Too much white space in the characters section. Avoiding being overly detailed, but give enough text to line up with the images provided at least. This pretty much means a little less than doubling each characters' blurb.--SeizureDog 12:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Would it be possible to put half the pictures on one side and half on the other (alternating)? That might solve the problem of white space and might even look better. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what was originally done, but a user chenged it to this to align with other articles of the same kind. I'll change it back to see if it solves the problem.--SidiLemine 13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I did this, but they don't overlap like they should. Anyone can advise what to do to get rid of that white space?--SidiLemine 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a try at fixing it. Less whitespace, but it's still there. --Squilibob 14:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

yup, definitely gonna have to add to eiri, alice and taro.--SidiLemine 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Ibelive this issue adressed.--SidiLemine 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support — much improved since last FAC. — Deckiller 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support article is very well done and well referenced. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, my comments were addressed last time.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Supernumerary 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, the article might still use some expansion, but what is there looks already fit for FA. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the writing needs some work. In places it feels too conversational, and occasionally seems unclear or clumsy ("Lain draws influence from philosophical subjects"; "who has his own agenda that he carries through"; "many acceptations of the term"; "no surprise that definite influences are scarce at best"). It also includes some purple prose ("The first ripple on the pond of Lain's lonely life"; "her cold-as-ice mother"), however that's not necessarily a problem. Why does "war of ideas" need a (sic)? I think these things could quickly be resolved by a copy-editor (or two) familiar with the subject giving the article a brush-up. In general, a very good piece of work on a subject I know zip about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Those aren't really copyediting issues; they are mainly content issues, so I can't help there, since I've never seen the show. Also, a lot of those unclear statements are in the lead, and developed in later sections, as far as I see. — Deckiller 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the problem with those statements is how they are written as opposed to how clear they are. Same goes for "His relation to Lain is a mixture of fatherly authority and distant fear" and "She is the one to first try to break Lain's shell ...", "Mika is considered by some the only normal member...", and "He has been depicted as a "techno punk teenager" by some...". All four have been added to the article in the last day which is a shame because it is delaying this FAC. --Squilibob 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That explains it. I never really noticed most of those weasel/peacock terms and sentences, because they were added recently. They should be omitted; it's never a good idea to put filler in. — Deckiller 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as before. --Cat out 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Much better now. Note that I removed a seemingly contradictory statement.[1] as well as changing the lead to summarize more.[2] --GunnarRene 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I jut added a {{who}} tag to a statement about English language reviewers. This statement was not attributed or cited.--ZayZayEM 03:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina

I published this article a few weeks ago, and I believe it adheres to the FA criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Hink, my fellow New Jerseyan, how the bloody hell do you do it? -- Kicking222 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. Eighteen years of following hurricanes and nine years of catholic school writing :) Oh, did you mean how could I write about North Carolina? Well, let's just say it's better than writing about other states ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article, with many comprehensive details. Hello32020 13:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well written. Phoenix2 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. On the references section, citation 1 cites "NHC" as the publisher, but NHC is not declared until citation 3. Usually, this happens as a result of shuffling references around. Also, wikilink the first occurrence of FEMA. Otherwise, excellent. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I see that was fixed. Support. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. icelandic hurricane #12 _(talk) 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

Overview of the worldwide Scout movement. Rlevse 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many places have no sources, at a quick glance. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just added 5 refs (making 50 different ones, some used more than once). Will keep working on it. Let me know if there's a specifc ref you feel is needed. Rlevse 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 3 more, total 53. Rlevse 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 6 more, total 59 now. Rlevse 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....3 more, 62 different refs now.Rlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...See "Announcement" below. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is it really possible to judge the quality of an article by the sheer quantity of its references? --jergen 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Every section has at least one-two, often several. They are not a judging of the text, but an indicator of the level of referencing.Rlevse 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do refs 47-52 use other WP articles as sources? -- Kicking222 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, these are notes, which refer to Wikipedia articles as a "see also". Although you should seperate these into a different section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Michaelas10 is correct, those are explanatory notes made when questions arose in the past; I've seen this done in other FACs/FAs. If the consensus is to separate them, we can, but I've generally seen these left in the regular notes section. Rlevse 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is technically impossible to separate proper references from "see also" references if you use the <ref> scheme.--GunnarRene 16:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may clarify my comment: I knew that they were notes as opposed to references, and I knew that they can't be separated. My comment was really that the "includes ###" notes made me think that this information was simply taken from other articles, and it was not sourced in those articles (as I checked a few of them). -- Kicking222 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these numbers were just taken from the mentioned articles. I think I could source most of the numbers, but this would take some days. And it is (nearly) impossible to get complete informations for the countries with fragmented Scout movements because nobody has a complete list of the existing associations. But this concerns mostly small local organizations with only a few members. --jergen 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We've fixed Germany and France, are working on the others.Rlevse 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...fixed Italy now tooRlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See El Greco as an example of how to separate notes and refs. Gzkn 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Announcement a separate Notes section has been created for those five items, the standard footnotes are now in Citations. There are 5 notes and 55 footnotes now. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please convert these to Roman numerals? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, I'd just followed the article that showed me how to do it. Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think it's well written and well sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Evrik. It has 59 refs now, plenty enough and every section has at least 1-2, if not several. I think the notes are okay where they are. Sumoeagle179 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the "In film and the arts" section is awfully short, especially considering that what's there says that Scouting is "prevalent", and used by "numerous films and artwork". Also, though it may be most prevalent in American popular culture, there should be some mention of elsewhere, if possible. Tuf-Kat 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made what was a regular wikilink a "main" link, there's a whole article on this. I'll work on this more later. Rlevse 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...Added a Scottish bit too.Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening para.

Scouting, or the Scout movement, is a worldwide youth movement of multiple organizations for both boys and girls whose aim is to develop young people physically, spiritually and mentally so that youth may take a constructive place in society. The movement employs a program of non-formal education with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors, using the Scout method with programs targeted for up to five age groups, as defined by the founders of Scouting in the early 20th century. Most countries have Scouting programs for children and young adults from ages 6 to their early 20s.

• • "Scouting is subtely different from "the Scout movement", so shouldn't be cast with the "or" equivalent. My Phrase Checker shows that M should start Movement.
    • uppercased, changed wording slightlyRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Multiple"?
    • yes, several organizations are part of the movement, but I'd rm'd 'multiple'.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Both" is a marker; do we need to make some point that it's unexpected to have both genders in the organisation?
    • rm'd 'both'Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the aim of the "boys and girls" or of the "organizations"? It shouldn't be ambiguous grammatically.
    • rm'd 'boys and girls', slight reword. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, the supernatural is introduced in the first sentence. I don't know whether this word "spiritually" is in the written mission statement, but I'd avoid using the term at the top, where it's fuzzy without further detail. Is it a quasi supernatural religious movement? I didn't think so.
    • rm'd, oh my gosh.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • put back in - spirituality does not equal religion, and it is a core part of Scouting... Horus Kol 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have "young people" and "youth" in the same sentence. Are they the same or different?
    • made the same.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors"¸—No, "with an emphasis on practical outdoor activities".
    • changedRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "from ages 6 to their early 20s". Clumsy; treat the two items equally.
    • rm'dRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad start, and indicates that the whole text needs major surgery. Tony 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll do what I can on the rest, but since I, like most of us, aren't as good at it as you and we're not mind readers, it'd help if you could be specific on the rest. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to find someone who's distant from the topic. Fresh eyes. Tony 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd be you.Rlevse 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a not met, per Tony. Some examples culled from Origins section:
  • The seeds of the idea of Scouting began during the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, during the Second Boer War of 1899 to 1902, where Baden-Powell served as commanding officer. Seeds began? Idea began? Unclear, but "The seeds of the idea of Scouting began" is just awkward in general. Also, repetition of "during the".
    • reworded to "Baden-Powell began to formulate ideas of what became Scouting during a battle of the Second Boer War, the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, where he served as commanding officer." Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a result of his status as a national hero, acquired as a result of his determined and successful defense of the town of Mafeking, Baden-Powell's military training manual, Aids to Scouting (written in 1899) became a relative best-seller and was used by teachers and youth organizations. Rep. of "a result of his". What's a relative best-seller?
    • fixed. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • subsequently met Baden-Powell, and they shared ideas about youth training programs. When?
    • added year and month
  • subsequently published in book form. Again, when?
    • added year and ref. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time Baden-Powell intended... and As the movement grew Sea Scout, Air Scout... these could use commas for clarity.
    • addedRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1919 Gilwell Park near London was purchased as adult training site and scouting campsite. Purchased by whom? Also, "an adult training site".
    • added bothRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Baden-Powell also wrote a book for the assistance of Leaders entitled Aids to Scoutmastership, and others for the use of new sections that were formed, such as Rovering to Success for Rover Scouts in 1922. Huh? Gzkn 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • added 'other handbooks'Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for these precise suggestions, would appreciate more if you're so inclined. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Since it's been copy-edited, striking out my object until I find time to read the article again. Gzkn 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I liked the article, but the issues Gzkn were essentially my concerns as well. I think you can get them fixed without too much problem, but I thought it was a solid article.Balloonman 09:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the article also. It may not have the most sources on Wikipedia, but the information is well presented and sourced well enough. I don't have any problem with it being a featured article.Ganfon 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've watched this a couple of days before voting. I think the additional references have been a big help, and I don't really see any problems with the prose after a read-through. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article has come a long way in the past few days, well done to the editors. Sorry I couldn't have been more help with finals and all. I don't see any problems with the prose, but I'll look over it again and see if I pick anything out. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The Wood Badge course is covered in two different places; could this be resolved? The sentence "Other popular youth movements have also adopted similar attributes successfully" doesn't make much sense. I've attempted to make the use of the serial comma consistent (sorry if it was intended that it not be used). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed both issues. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hoary has given the article a good copyedit. Sumoeagle179 12:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Outriggr has done some copyediting.Sumoeagle179 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: only one paragraph! Intend to do more. –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh, I'm just finding time to read this. A lot of respected editors have copyedited here, but I found a sentence fragment in the second sentence of the body of the article ... disappointed :-(
  • Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement in England in 1907 based on his experience, in and outside the army. First only for boys as Boy Scouts, but in 1910, with help from his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, for girls too as Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. Later it spread all over the world to young people of all ages.
• Sandy (Talk) 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment that para was cut and merged earlier today, but someone else modified it and stuck it back in. I've rm'd it again.Sumoeagle179 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto. It's a danger of the wiki method, Sandy. :) –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
• Comment After a brief copyedit, does this sentence read awkwardly to anyone else "Program specifics are targeted to Scouts appropriate to their age"? Shouldn't it be "Program specifics are targeted at Scouts appropriate to their age" or something along those lines? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much of a difference to me.Sumoeagle179 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I objected above, and have returned to check progress. Take this bit of the lead:
  • "By 1909, girls wanted to join the Scout Movement and they are called either Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. In 2006, Scouting and Guiding have over 38 million members in 216 countries and territories represented through different Scouting associations at the international level. The works of Ernest Thompson Seton and Daniel Carter Beard influenced the early development of Scouting. Internationally, Scouting has become a significant part of popular culture." Sentence 1 has tension between past and present tenses. Two statements are uncomfortably jammed together with "and", which should be used to join very close ideas. Sentence 2: Are the last four words necessary? Sentence 3: we zig-zag back to the early days, followed by the international theme again in Sentence 4. This is very poorly organised.
  • The third para in the lead is: "The movement has experienced controversy. International Scouting associations have formed outside of the mainstream. Policies on membership regarding sexual orientation, religion and co-education differ between Scouting associations." Sentence 1: stubby and unexplained. Sentence 2: "outside OF"? Remove the second word, and explain what, exactly, the sentence means. Then this bit about sex and religion ... needs to be smoothly summarised, not poked at for the sake of it.

I'm sorry, I can't change my object, yet I wanted to. Tony 09:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've worked all the above. Since you left no specific points for the rest of the article, we can only assume you support the rest of it.Sumoeagle179 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment one reason of my reticence in supporting this nomination has among others been that the lead text was not in line with the fairly well organized body of the article. There even was information in the lead text, that was not mentioned in the body. I have given the lead text a major edit now, and kindly invite native English speaking editors to give it a further copy-edit for its English. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The Simpsons

This is the third nomination of The Simpsons. Since the last FAC I've been fixing the critique and sent the article through a peer review. The current semi-protection is not a result of an edit war, but instead teens and pre-teens finding it funny to vandalize the article. I will try and fix any complaints people might have. --Maitch 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• FAC 1
• FAC 2

Adding archives, Sandy (Talk) 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Very informative, well referenced and clear. Gran2 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Blackjack48 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as a long-time Simpson's fan, I was glad to learn a few new things. Very comprehensive and informative article. —ExplorerCDT 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - there are extensive referencing problems, to the point that I wonder if it's vandalism or just a lack of concern for WP:V. So much of the article is cited to non-reliable sources that it certainly fails 1c.
  • The article extensively cites The Simpsons archive, which is an outgrowth of a Usenet newsgroup, not a reliable source.
    • I have heard this before and I still don't buy it. In my experience The Simpsons Archive is more reliable than anything else I can dig up. The producers on the show have admitted that they use the website for fact checking what they'd already done. Most of the refs from The Simpsons Archive consist of copies of real newspaper articles. If it were any other article a real newspaper source would be of value and not considered unreliable. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You can read more about The Simpsons Archive in its own article. --Maitch 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Not only does this source not appear to satisfy WP:V or WP:RS; from the example given below (The New Yorker), it also appears that they may be violating a lot of publishers' copyrights, which means we shouldn't link to them anywhere, and perhaps their article should be AfD'd because of copyright violations. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • But if that is the case I can always reference the news article directly and skip the copy on the web. Would that satisfy you? --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, for example, a case like The New Yorker doesn't need to point to a URL which may be violating copyright. But, the bigger problem is that most of your article is sourced to the Simpson Archive, and I'm not going to support that. I don't consider it a reliable source, and it definitely seems to violate copyright. You can fix all of the news sources, but the extensive sourcing to that archive is the bigger problem. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (This URL doesn't point to the indicated source.) Owen, David (2000-03-13). Taking Humor Seriously. The New Yorker. Retrieved on 2006-07-03.
    • The link is dead and I can't find the article anywhere else. Even the internet archive doesn't have it. I will try to find a replacement. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The Simpsons Archive had a copy of the article on their webpage. The dead link is now fixed --Maitch 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Raises the issue of copyright violations on the Simpson's archive - see WP:EL, "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. " Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (This reference has the wrong date, and is in a different ref style than the other news sources - please use a consistent style.) Scooby-Doo breaks cartoon record. BBC (2004-09-25). Retrieved on 2006-08-21.
    • Date now fixed. Vandalism. The reason why the ref doesn't follow the same style as the others is that the article doesn't have the name for the author. What do you propose I do? Write "unnamed BBC writer" or something like that.--Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference in style I mentioned is in how you show the publication date, not the author. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • All the references uses {{cite web}}. The differences comes when some parameters are lacking. --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The parameters are lacking because you're using the wrong templates - news sources need cite news rather than cite web. (But, the cite templates are pretty stinky anyway - they use inconsistent parameters, and give inconsistent results, so I sympathize with the problem - that's why I don't use them.) Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (This link is dead.) ^ Longest Running Animated TV Series. Guinness World Records. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.
    • Guiness has deleted it from their webpage. I found the article in the way back machine, so it should work again. --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is not whether or not you find a link: you're not required to provide links. The problem is that the article came to FAC without attention to making sure it was ready - given the density of problems I found, *all* of the references need to be checked - these were only samples. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (This reference also has the wrong date.) Remington, Bob (1990-09-26). It's The Simpsons, Man. The Simpsons Archive / TV Times (The Calgary Herald). Retrieved on 2006-07-03.
    • Date now fixed. Vandalism --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You mentioned vandalism twice in the random sample of errors I found. The fact that the article is being vandalized is not an issue at FA (reverts of vandalism don't apply to stability criteria): the fact that editors aren't catching and reverting the vandalism, and making sure the article is accurate before coming to FA, may indicate a problem with the accuracy of the article, and its readiness for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm only human. I can't sit at home all day waiting for the ten vandals who comes ny on a regular basis. It is way better now when the page is semi-protected. I have read the article many times before nominating it and I don't think there should be more problems. And as you say vandalism is not an issue at FA. --Maitch 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • No, you can't babysit the article every minute, but you do need to check it thoroughly before bringing it to FAC, and it appears that the article is going to need to be tended if it is to maintain accuracy. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • So you have found two instances of people changing a 09 to 10, which I've missed, good for you and good for the article, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. I could have read the article a thousand times and still have missed it. --Maitch 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
              • You're missing the point: on a random check, I found more than two errors - you mentioned two were vandalism. The question is if you've checked *all* of your sources, since a random sample proved mostly inaccurate? I'm sorry you think I'm being a jerk about it, but WP:V is important on featured articles. Sandy (Talk) 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the templates are placed at the bottom of sections (see also, further details, etc.), some at the top.
    • Is that a problem? I was under the impression that "main" should be used at the top of the section and "further" and "see also" should be used at the bottom. Do you prefer everything at the top? --Maitch 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that others should be used at the bottom: if that is the case, I won't object, but I've not encountered that before. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I was wrong. I just read a guide to layout which says "see also" should be at the top of the section. I have now moved them to the top. --Maitch 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for confirming - I wasn't that certain either. Sandy (Talk) 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose is not compelling - here's a sample: "Talk about a possible feature-length Simpsons movie has been going on since the early days of the series. " Here's another: "Scooby-Doo has been renewed again under a new name, airing on Kids WB in 2006, giving it another chance to catch up to The Simpsons. It must be noted that Scooby-Doo has experienced several incarnations, while The Simpsons' record comes as a continuous production."
  • There is uncited text - example: "While critical and public reaction has been mixed, several of the Simpsons games did very well commercially." Another example: " It is the longest-running series to have never experienced either a major change in cast members or the addition/removal of major characters (Gunsmo