Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2006

Contents

1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

Self-nomination. My fellow tropical cyclone editors have aggreed this is one of the best and (considering time period and available information) most complete tropical cyclone articles (discussion can be found on the wikiproject talk page). I've been working on this article for a while, and I think I've finally got it structured and written to my satisfaction. — jdorje (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Here are a few problems I see (sorry I didn't tell you them earlier :)
  • Structuring of the Florida section. The aftermath picture on the left is a little big, so perhaps it could be split up into three? Another option would be to move the most intense at landfall table up to the storm history section; maybe put it just below the infobox.
Much better now with larger picture. Hurricanehink
  • Possibly more Puerto Rico damage.
Figures. Oh well. You should avoid using the same word in two consecutive sentences, like damage and damage in the Caribbean impact. Also, the Bahamas is not Caribbean, yet should fall in the same category as Puerto Rico and islands. Not sure the best way to fix that. Maybe Atlantic impact, or something else, but Caribbean is a little misleading (it only spent a little bit of time there). Hurricanehink
  • Is there any information in the impact up the coast? It made landfall in Florida, paralleled the Georgia and Carolina coastline, then turned northwest inland.

*Personally, I don't think too much should be in parenthesis. (perhaps but not impossible), (older sources usually list 3,411 as the total count of fatalities, including the Caribbean), or (but note all such measurements are suspect) are some of those I found that could easily be included into actual sentences.

Great job with this. Hurricanehink
  • Some parts are a little point of view, IMO, including the perhaps but not impossible, as well as the eerie similarity. Eerie? It was named San Felipe Segundo due to the date. You could explain San Felipe like you did, then mention the coincidence.
Overall, well done. I vote no right now, but with a little love it could be the next FA. Hurricanehink 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
All good points. Too bad you didn't mention them before it was nominated!
  • Florida: These pictures are pretty representative from what I can tell, but being a triple-picture makes it harder to distinguish. There is a gallery at commons:Category:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane; maybe a better picture is available.
  • AFAICT there is no information available on damage in Puerto Rico (which was catastrophic), or in Guadeloupe (which was possibly even more catastrophic), or in the Bahamas (which we can assume was catastrophic), or in the rest of the United States (which was probably fairly mild). There's little enough info about coastal damage, though the gallery includes a lot of pictures. Perhaps you could find something however.
  • I reworded some parts to remove the POV and unnecessary parenthesis.
— jdorje (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
When I get home from school, I'll try taking a look to see if there's something on non-Florida US damage. Again, sorry I didn't mention it earlier, but this is the first time I tried looking at it without a hurricane writer's point of view. One more thing, don't use too many short sentences. For the most part that is not a problem, but, for example, you say Then it moved over the Bahamas. You could say, The hurricane continued to the northwest, and moved over the Bahamas with estimated winds of Category 4 status. Something like that is better than saying, then it moved over the Bahamas. Then should not be used too much. Replace it with a verb, like continued or something else. It just seems a little too vernacular to start a sentence, IMO. Still, good job. Hurricanehink 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great use of images, inline citations, fantastic statistics, and the lead paragraphs are very effectful for grabbing the readers attention. Great work. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well structured article. The information is detailed, but not excessively so. The images are well-positioned. The article flows well, it's not just a heap of information. Word choice is excellent. The inline sources are well placed. FA quality article IMO. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with recommendation: Because several sections attempt to construct paragraphs along the lines of "the storm here, the storm there, the storm over there," they end up with quite lopsided development. Where the storm hit unpopulated areas, there isn't much to say, and where it hit heavy concentrations, there is a great deal. It's probably better to organize non-chronologically, by order of severity, and use internal cues to let the reader know the timeframe (which is well established at the lead anyway). Secondly, the "records" section sticks out a bit. The caveats contained in it are necessary and useful to readers, but perhaps they should be folded into the main narrative earlier (at the discussion of storm strength) rather than isolated. In isolation, they disrupt the flow of the article's narrative. These are recommendations, however, and not objections, so I support and merely see a way to make it better. Geogre 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I merged the records section in with the body of the storm history. It does flow a little better now. The "caveats" could be shortened or removed since such caveats really apply to any storm prior to about 1995 (although for older storms they are stronger). — jdorje (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - short and concise but comprehensive. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - very interesting, well written. Some minor suggestions - briefly explain Cape Verde-type where it's linked to. Also, the sentence Damage was not reported but was presumably catastrophic is purely speculative and I don't think the article would suffer if it was removed. And Most survivors and bodies were washed out into the Everglades where many were never found implies that the survivors were then swept to their deaths - is this the intent? Worldtraveller 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting points. I changed the wording of all three places slightly. As for being "washed out into the Everglades", my understanding is that pretty much everything was washed out into the everglades. The bodies were never found, while the survivors (i.e., the ones who weren't swept to their deaths) had to walk out of the marshes. (This comes mostly from one of the sources, IIRC from a first-hand account included in one of the newspaper articles.) — jdorje (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak no - It is practically done, but I'm trying to find some references of some U.S. impact (no Florida). So far I've found North Carolina (it caused 5 inches of rain, high tides, and strong winds). The link is here. The reason I did not add it is because there's not enough information for another section with just that. Another thing; it says not until Hurricane Dog were stronger winds measured. What about the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which had winds of up to 185 mph? The first paragraph of the storm history was a little boring (too many short sentences), so I changed it. Hopefully that's OK, as I felt the previous wording was a little sub-par. The article is getting there, though. Hurricanehink 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The lack of data from outside Florida is a problem. It makes the article incomplete in a way. However this is not unusual for older storms: the 1900 Galveston Hurricane doesn't mention damage in Cuba, nor does 1935 Labor Day Hurricane mention damage in the Bahamas. As for the wind speed, the LD hurricane had 160 mph winds (from List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, and the best-track that's referenced in the article); higher winds may have existed but if they weren't recorded the NHC won't assume them; they might change this in future updates of the best-track however. — jdorje (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link for Hurdat, showing the 185 mph winds. [1] Hurricanehink 02:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't read powerpoint files. What does it say? ... Regardless, that is not the hurdat. The master hurdat files are here, and clearly show 160 mph winds. That said, hurdat is subject to being revised and I have reason to believe 1935 is in the not-fully-analyzed period. So I have no problem with softening or removing the statement. — jdorje (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, after thinking about this a bit more I can't see what's wrong with the current statement. The LD storm's winds were not measured. In fact it would be easy to argue that the statement is not strong enough, since Dog's winds were measured at flight level, not surface level. It is entirely possible that no storm has had stronger surface winds measured (except by dropsonde, if that counts). Of course this brings us around to the unreliability of any wind measurement, so it's unwise to make any absolute statement since all measurements are suspect. — jdorje (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The file is an early revision to what will be released later this year. Given that it's a government site, I'd say it is pretty official. However, because it is not NHC accepted yet, the way you did it is fine. What about the North Carolina impact section? There is some info there that should be mentioned, but how could it work? Hurricanehink 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written - informative and interesting. Seems to meet all criteria. Giano | talk 10:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Images, tables, infoboxes, references, stability and a well written article are the criteria (for me) for a featured article, since it covers all the criteria I will give it a support.

juan andrés 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support A very good well developed article. Tarret 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Self-Nomination --Jayzel68 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Minor Object Would support next time - only one note (which isn't even a note), way too many embedded external links, list-weighty. AndyZ 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed "note" header to "See also." Removed most of the embedded links and replaced them with inline citations. Removed "List of uncooperative witnesses. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Could the newspaper references in the contreversy be converted to footnotes? Another thing - see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked - all full dates should be linked. I believe the quotes should also be referenced, though I'm not absolutely positive about that. AndyZ 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about this- I should've been clearer earlier- according to the Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked, only full dates should be linked- that is month and day. On the section above it, what not should be linked is only the year or a month and a year. AndyZ 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your issues have been addressed. Note: there are a few mentions of newspapers just for flavor, but I still put in the citations. --Jayzel68 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Date links have been fixed. --Jayzel68 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What is this sentence trying to get out- The controversy surrounding whether or not to appoint an independent counsel aside, the Justice Department's internal investigation was fruitful in of itself. it seems as if the grammar is slightly off here. AndyZ 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple of other small issues- James Riady is mentioned in the begining of the section as "son"- I'm assuming of Mochtar. He later is mentioned as having gone to the White House 20 times, but I can't draw any clear connection between Riady and Huang, since every other sentence only mentions Huang as doing everything. Is the temple a major figure? Is the lead sentence true (and NPOV), considering that some of the donators denied that they had contact with the chinese government? Another thing, "who donated illegal money" I believe should be "who donated money illegally" since the money itself isn't illegal/counterfeit. Also, watch out for weasel words, I'm not sure if there are many occurrences of weasel words, but "it was reported . . ." is a weasel word- by whom was it reported? Another thing- "The most notable convictions were against" the sentence only mentions one conviction, so it probably should be notable conviction was. AndyZ 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • First, it would be helpful it you would give me your complaints altogether rather than piecemeal. With that said, I have a addressed your issues regarding "son", "figure", "who donated illegal money", "weasel word", and "notable convictions". As for your issues re: the huang/riady connection and the lead sentence: 1) I have a picture of riady with huang together and I mention huang worked for riady for years and that they were both convicted of donating foreign funds. Huang, specifically through his former employer riady; 2) just because someone denies someone doesn't mean it didn't happen. The FBI, CIA, and Congress came to the conclusion that they did. --Jayzel68 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about this article not making FA status- however after this FAC this article looks great and you could probably get it to FA status the next time around. I have to admit: you put a lot of effort into this. As for the second thing about the denials, leaning towards the American view of the scandal would be POV, since you are inferring that something did happen when somebody denies it. Of course given the sitatution that the FBI, CIA, Congress came to the conclusion that they were involved, it seems to be that this statement is true- however to be not WP:POV, it would be best to add into the introduction a short quick viewpoint from the Chinese government. AndyZ 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support - For the reasons above. "List of uncooperative witnesses" for instance... seems extraneous. If it's really encyclopedic, move it to a seperate article and link it. The section has no description of what "Uncooperative" means, or why the list is important. Is it just to show there were a lot of "uncooperative" witnesses (again, what does "uncooperative" mean anyway?)? If so, you could just write, in prose, that there were a lot of them, and then discuss the topic some more. Fix that section, fix the referencing style (move all those links to a "References" section using inline citations) and then we'll talk about additional problems. Fieari 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See above comment. You may have overlooked the text directly above the former "List of witnesses." I did specify how they were uncooperative. Thanks all for the comments. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I like what you've done so far... good job on that. Now there's just a little more work to be done. I'd like to see something of an introductory section in the main body of the article, not just in the header, which goes into a little bit more detail with regards to the surrounding circumstances for the scandal, political climate, and that sort of thing. Think of this article from a "far future" point of view, in that in the year 2087, some high-school history student is looking up information on our time period, but has no clue about what was going on in the big picture now. Maybe the structure of campaign finance or whatever is so fundamentally different then that the entire concept of the scandal is incomprehensible. What if we become friends with China in the future, so that you can't just assume that readers will know that dealings with china is a bad thing. Forgetting the future, what if someone who is simply ignorant of these facts (say a forigner) tries reading this? You need to tell them. Fieari 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I like your recent edits. I Support now. Fieari 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new section that I believe address your concerns --Jayzel68 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Lead is poorly written, with several questionable phrases, and also contains a quote from a person not directly involved and does not use a proper citation for the quote. The rest of the article also needs significant improvements, including formatting issues. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Unless you specify what the alleged "questionable phrases" are, or why you think the lead is "poorly written," I will not be able to do anything to change it to your satisfaction. I feel the quote I used is pertinent and useful in that is distills the issue in such a short and clear way. Mr. Lund may not have been directly involved in laudering funds from the Chinese government, but he was a China analyst for the Canadian government. I personally feels this give him weight on the subject. I guess this issue is just a matter of opinion. Lastly, your comment that "the rest article also needs significant improvements" leaves me helpless without any specific criticism ("formatting" is too vague). Thanks. --Jayzel68 17:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrases such as "popular term" and "(some alleged, some proven)" need to be rewritten and cited. The lead places undue emphasis on that quote, which I feel is only nominally important to the topic. The lead should summarize the article, not be a place for a quote by an uninvolved party. (In other words, I don't think that the lead is the appropriate spot for that particular quote.) It should be cited using the {{ref}} format you've used below, unless I'm mistaken. Some specific improvements: the article keeps on mentioning "See list of convictions", with a link to a section below. A self-ref is bad style. Also, in the "Congressional investigations" section, you begin with two external links, which shouldn't be there. (They should be moved to either a reference or external link section). The "List of convictions stemming from affair" section can also be either moved to a seperate article and then summarized in prose form, or rewritten with more links and more prose rather than bulleted list. The "See also" section has a huge wikilink at the top followed by prose; a see also section is for other wikilinks with minimal prose. I hope this helps! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment All issues have been addressed. I look forward to your support. :) --Jayzel68 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks better, but I've still got a few issues. :-) First, in the last paragraph of the "Yah Lin 'Charlie' Trie and Wang Jun" section, there's an unlinked ref - you must have missed it. Second, I would like to see some more refs on the quotes you give. For example, in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section there's three quotes, no refs. You provided the speaker, but no ref or source. Finally, the "convictions" section still needs some work - it stil reads like a list, and many of the people are not mentioned beforehand. (For example, it's the first time "Robert S. Lee" is mentioned. Who is he? Is he important enough to be mentioned?) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've incorporated your suggestions. Hope you like. Thanks --Jayzel68 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good; support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting article, good writing, relevant photos (although Janet Reno always makes my skin crawl). Kafziel 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in the peer review. Proto||type 11:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (Actually, I'm not, but it's a really good thing to do.
    • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required.
    • That's quite a standard. Funny, I don't recall that being mentioned in the FAC list of requirements. If it was required, 95% of all FAs would have to be removed. Heck, many of the featured articles don't have references of any kind. Tell me, before I go through the headache of indulging in your request, do you have any other objections to the article? --Jayzel68 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree; reference formatting is specifically left up to personal taste by the style guide, and isn't a valid objection (as long as the references, however they are formatted, are comprehensive). Kafziel 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now you tell me. :) I just changed the citations to agree with the new format. --Jayzel68 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
But isn't the new format so obviously better? No more ibids, and if you move something around, the reference follows. And I gave you a barnstar! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Reads like a tabloid, example: calling the Army's international arms trade corp "a front company for the Chinese military-industrial complex" Also doesn't mention China joining the WTO. Focuses too much on the hype to be a featured article.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but your opinion that you feel reality is somehow "tabloid" isn't a reasonable objection. Every period and comma in the article is backed up by reputable sources. Specifically, the quote you mention comes from the non-partisian Nuclear Threat Initiative organization that is co-chaired by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn. Also, your comment about hype is a falsehood and I dare you to cite an example. The article is very constrained. Lastly, regarding your criticism about the article not mentioning China's entry into the WTO: So what? The article also does not mention sugar causes tooth decay . They are both completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Something tells me it is the subject matter alone that makes you uncomfortable. Regards, --Jayzel 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I like your metaphor, because the WTO situation is somewhat like the sugar that caused the tooth decay. 'Tabloid' may not be the right word, I ment it in the sense of focusing on the sensational; such as focus on the individual actors, and using phrases such as "military industrial complex." One other comment: There shouldn't be US political jargon or abbreviations such as (D-OH). Also, although its not essential, it would be nice for there was a section that outlined the outcome/long term effects of the scandal. I will look into this more tommorow.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, if you are really disturbed by the term I can always shorten the quote "military industrial complex" to just "military". You can do it yourself too if you want. I'm going to sleep now. As for dealing with the characters Wang, Huang, Hsia, Trie, Chung, et al.: I wouldn't have an article without them. The article is about the "1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal" not "campaign finance" issues in general. Re: (D-OH), I'll change it tomorrow when I wake up. Lastly, someone else mentioned adding something about the outcome or effects of the scandal, but I felt that would be getting more into the area of opinion and would risk violating the NPOV policy here. If you think you could handle it without doing so, help yourself. Ciao, --Jayzel 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed all the "american jargon" and cut the quote to remove the offending "military industrial complex." The focus on the scandal players remains. To remove them would be like discussing Iran-Contra without mention Ollie North and John Poindexter or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict without mentioning Yasser Arafat or Yitzak Rabin. Regards, --Jayzel 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bangalore

This is a self nomination for an article on a metropolitan city in South India. Major portions of the article were QA'd and edited based on output received from a peer review conducted this month. AreJay, Pamri, Rama's Arrow, Sundar and Mgummess are some of the contributors who have worked to improve the quality of the article. AreJay 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object- Lots of figures(numbers) on the page, many of them are inaccurate and nobody bothers to change them. Article is more of a show-off/PR page with useless comparisons with other cities of India. This page should be about information regarding Bangalore...not how and why it is better. Last time I checked ..it had a complete section on "List of HR Consultants"...on the page..ridiculous.
  • Support-Well documented subject, very well resourced, illustrated with proper images, Comprehensive and concise enough and fulfils all the requirements for FA-Status.-- Shyam (T/C) 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support object for now. The article has come along fantastically since being listed at peer review, so I hate to say this, but it seems to more prominently cover the positive facets of the city. Among the few drawbacks listed are the infrastructure problems, and that is covered quite quickly. What are the major problems facing the city? Poverty was also covered quickly, only noting that 8% living in slums is less than other Indian cities. That sounds very high on a world scale, though I could be wrong. Is there any significant social/religious conflict? What about crime and crime rates?--The article says higher, but is it the highest of Indian cities, and is there a way to compare it to other cities worldwide? I see it does mention sewage being sent into the river. How much if any is treated and not dumped? Are there other environmental problems? Water shortages are mentioned, what about power? Is it consistent? Ok, sorry to be a pain, but I think this is an important issue affecting NPOV. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I will try and elaborate on some of those issues, although I'm not sure if there's a way to determine how much of the sewage being dumped into the rivers is being treated. There is information indicating that sewage from both rivers are treated at facilities located 30 km from the city, but I'm not sure if the proportion can be quantified. Environmental problems are covered in the main article (Bangalore Metropolitan Environment) and I will insert some salient points from that article into the Bangalore article. AreJay 21:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Taxman, my understanding from your comments was that you wanted to see a comparison to some of the statistics that had been cited. I have tried to incorporate that detail into the article now. I have added information on power shortages, added some information on the air quality of the city, comparing it to other cities in the country and have expanded the crime rates section. It is a little difficult to compare crime rates of cities in different countries because rampant crimes as described in the Indian Penal Code such as Sati and dowry may have a lower to none incidence in other parts of the world. I have explained in the article, however, that Bangalore experienced the highest incidence of crime for a major metropolitan city. As far as social/regilious conflicts, I have not come across such incidents as part of my research. Communal riots that occured in other parts of the country in the recent past did not really spread to Bangalore. Does this suffice? AreJay 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
My bigger point was the positives are promoted more prominently than the negatives. The specific examples I pointed out were just that. It's a little better, but the overall POV has got to be more neutral. - Taxman Talk 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think what Taxman means is that the article portrays Bangalore as a rising city of "India Shining", sorta...Like the media coverage that puts up Bangalore so over-prominently. This article may be giving the impression that India is beyond some very serious problems that continue to exist today, and that its population lives the "yuppy" life. The lead mentions "Silicon Valley of India" but speaks not of infrastructure/social problems. I think he's asking for that sorta balance. While I don't think its a serious problem, but it is a good point that can be fixed quickly. Won't change my vote though. Rama's Arrow 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The POV bias should have been adequetly addressed now. Before the peer review, the article actually had a complete section dedicated to problems in the city. We moved that piece to a new article and only retained parts of it to effectively address time independence in the main article. I have moved a good portion of that back into the article and hopefully that should sufficiently highlight some of the problems that plague Bangalore and provide readers a more complete and comprehensive picture of the city. AreJay 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's much better. The bit on sewage could still stand to say if there is any sewage processing for the city. Any dumped into the river isn't processed, so is there any that is so that it isn't dumped? - 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking if there are alternate methods for the discharge and treatment of sewage in the city? I just added some information on Bangalore's sewerage system and sewage processing plants. AreJay 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - excellent work. Let's be clear that my contribution was purely superficial. Hats off to AreJay! Rama's Arrow 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Something should be done with the map at the top of the page. It took my eye a couple seconds of searching to see Bangalore; it should be clearer than that. Perhaps the other city names on the map could be removed, or the neighbouring countries erased, or the map color reduced a little. See Canberra or Sheffield or Seattle, Washington for an idea. Andrew Levine 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Support. Andrew Levine 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – I would like to see Taxman's comments addressed first. Other than that, the extreme temperatures do not have an exact source ie. #15 points to nowhere. Though the min temp 7.6 is plausible, the only source points to 12 °C, which is what I had added. You'd have to go deeper into the history again. I've also added a comment on the talk:Bangalore page regarding the proper nouns. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, many single years are wikilinked in this article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) tells us not to do this unless the link provides necessary context (or is otherwise important). I have seen bots go through a de-link these single years. Also, this statement "The Kingdom of Mysore relocated its capital from Mysore city to Bangalore in 1831" is referenced to "Public Space in Bangalore" but I cannot find info on this 1831 move in there. Please let me know what part I should be looking at. I also see Taxman's point, the "Demographics" section says 8% of the population lives in slums but one of the references (bottom of page 38) says 25%. --maclean25 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Strong Support, Great article and superb effort Arejay!! But Taxman's concerns are valid and needs to be addressed. About the social/religious conflicts: The post Babri Masjid demolition riots did spread in Bangalore. But I think, you should mention the 1992 Cauvery water dispute riots and similar conflicts. There is a wealth of material here: http://www.cscsarchive.org:8081/Bangalore/Home.nsf I have already confirmed with the site owner. But anyways, will ask him to send his consent by mail. --Pamri • Talk 07:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Strong Support. I appreciate the wonderful effort, AreJay. But, I'd like the concerns raised by Taxman, Nichalp, Pamri and others addressed. I now realise that omitting the cauvery dispute riots and the endemic social tension due to the demographic composition was a mistake. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article and excellent work. -- Siva1979Talk to me 16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made the following modifications (some minor, some not) over the past couple of days in response to the comments:
  1. Added a comparison to the statistic on Bangalore's slum population. The statistic is now compared with Mumbai and Nairobi.
  2. Clarified the crime rate statistic, which now indicates that Bangalore has the highest incidence of crime per IPC for a major metropolis in India.
  3. I was unable to find information on the proportion of sewage treated. However, I have added a discussion on Solid Waste in Bangalore and the proportion that gets recycled.
  4. Added information on Bangalore's air quality and statistical results of the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System for the city. Also added a comparison of the air quality findings to other city's in India.
  5. Added a detailed discussion of social-religious tension/conflicts in the city. The article now contains information on Kannada-Tamil tensions as well as Hindu-Muslim tensions in the city.
  6. Changed the Infobox map to more prominently indicate the location of the city.
  7. Extreme temperatures reference has been inserted (extreme temperatures have been accordingly changed based on information provided by source)
  8. Wikified all proper nouns in the article.
  9. Inserted reference indicating change of capital from Mysore to Bangalore in 1831
  10. Added reference to Government of India's 2001 Census which indicates Bangalore's slum proportion to be 10%.
  11. Added information on Babri Masjid violence and Kaveri anti-Tamil riots...all this was news to me!
Please provide your thoughts in light of the recent changes made. Thanks AreJay 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll change my conditional support to full support once the repeat wikilinks within each section are removed. I've removed some of them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Done! I have removed all repeat wikilinks within sections. AreJay 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, with everything that a good Wikipedia article should have. It has no bias, and includes many references. The information in the article is all relevant and the article is clear and concise, yet very comprehensive. AmbExThErMaL 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after concerns raised by User:Taxman and User:Sundar were politely addressed. Saravask 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There might be some subtle issues to resolve, but it's FA material overall. deeptrivia (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - truly deserved, well sourced and most objections handled. --Gurubrahma 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Poorly referenced and ToC is not comprehensive enough. --Bob 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Self-nom for a profile of the actress much in the news for her relationship with Tom Cruise. Article has references, completely chronicles the actress's life, career, and relationship with Cruise. It has photographs as well. The article, cited as a good article, was peer reviewed twice here and here. It also had a FAC in the past, here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, the POV issues seem to have been cleaned up. Nice work! --W(t) 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well documented subject, appears to have reconciled all of the pov issues which there used to be many of. AriGold 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good and appears well set out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.. Looks very good and balanced. Though I can't help but note I wish there was at least one free image in the article. There's got to be some way of getting one. Has anyone tried contacting her agent/fanclubs/etc? Sorry I didn't mention this during the peer review. - Taxman Talk 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There was a question some time ago on her talk page about if she had an official site. I checked then and could not find one. I will look to see if that has changed. PedanticallySpeaking 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Was about to support when I realised that the footnotes are out of line; clicking footnote 70 brings me to footnote 69. Please use m:Cite (as documented on WP:FN) to avoid this sort of problem in the future. Also, ideally we should avoid directly linking to external websites in the text (such as was done with the Free Katie website). Aside from that, I see no problem with this article. Good job on keeping it largely free from fancruft. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected this footnote. A sentence was moved in the paragraph above the one you noted but the corresponding note was not moved. Thus the discrepancy. Thanks for your kind words about the article. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm willing to support now, although I'd still prefer conversion to m:Cite (but seeing how many {{ref}}s you have, that's going to be a pain in the ass, so I won't press it). Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also moved that Freekatie link into the notes as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Argh, I really hate to be a pain in the ass, but Image:Katiegap.jpg has no fair use rationale or source (although the latter should be fairly obvious). I also doubt its validity in the article, since The Gap or Holmes' relationship with it don't appear to be discussed by it at all. None of the other fair use images have rationales either, but the way I see it, it's fairly obvious; a quick sentence or two should be enough to justify fair use for them. Consider this a support again when this issue is settled. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Her relationship with The Gap is discussed in the "Guest appearances and endorsements" section. AriGold 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Still, fair use has rather stringent guidelines. I doubt half a dozen words really counts as "criticism or comment" under the US government's definition of fair use. The same can't really be said for most of the other fair use images (except possibly Pieces of April, which has a couple of sentences only), since they're discussed in depth (i.e. Cruise's "insanity", Holmes' role in Batman Begins and Dawson's Creek, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The GQ and Gap images have been removed, and the others now have fair use rationale on each of their description pages. Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
To likewise be "a pain in the ass" and to clarify, is this now a support vote from Johnleemk? PedanticallySpeaking 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. Very well resourced, refs, illustrated with images, flows well and interesting to read.--Dakota ~ ° 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. (although these things should be fairly easy to fix.) The statement in the lead her films being "bombs" should be sourced. In the Early life and career section, things like The Blade and Joey Potter are overlinked and her parts such as listing her "secret vices" are just unimportant trivia. Image:Katiegap.jpg, Image:Cruiseonoprah.jpg and Image:GQKatie.jpg currently lack fair use rationales. Also, I don't think the use of Image:GQKatie.jpg qualifies as fair use, as it's not an article about the magazine and the issue is not mentioned in the corresponding section. And I think the Bibliography subsection of Notes should just be removed, as they are all listed under References anyway. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A footnote has been inserted for the "bombs" statement in the lead, and duplicate wikilinks have been trimmed. The Oprah screenshot now has fair use rationale on its description page, while the GQ and Gap images have been removed. I've also taken away the material on Holmes' favourite things, but I don't dare touch the Bibliography section since PedanticallySpeaking supplied virtually all of the article's references. Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
References list is because on second reference in the notes to an article, I abbreviate the reference, something like "Cohen". Rather than dig through all the preceding notes to find that citation, one can simply go to the alphabetical list and find the reference. I was taught that even with footnotes, one still needed an alphabetized bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see how that's helpful. Now when I want to check a source, I have to first click on the footnote and then look up what I find there in the second list. Why not give the full ciation in the numbered list?--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very comprehensive, well-written and neutral...an excellent article, meets all the criteria. Well done! Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. She's a terrible actress, but the article is definitely well-written. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - reasonable article, though extremely long considering she's hardly someone whose achievements to date will leave very much of a mark on the world. My problem here is mainly referencing - I do not believe that any article can possibly need 89 references. It's long been joked that we'll eventually see 'Joe Bloggs [1]' with the birth certificate being cited and that's pretty much what this article does. The 'Early life' section is poorly written, with short sentences, no sense of flow, and almost every single sentence having a distracting footnote, whether it contains a potentially disputable fact or not. I also think there is a huge over-reliance throughout the article on quotes from magazine articles etc, which makes it read more like a lengthy news report than an encyclopaedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldtraveller (talk • contribs) .
Well, according to the footnote there actually seems to be a dispute about her real name, but I agree with you about the Early life section and that the article relies to much on quotes from magazines.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't think a footnote is the way to address such an issue. It doesn't explain who is disputing it and on what grounds, and if this is really worth discussing it's worth discussing in the main body of the text rather than in a footnote. Worldtraveller 14:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
On the talk page of the article you will see a discussion of what her legal name was. IMDB had something different that what you see here. I thought it important to cite that point because of the discussion, which is here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not deal with it in the main text? Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Because, aside from the error on IMDB, it is not something I ever saw at issue in the outside world; it only came up here on Wikipedia. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's not an issue beyond Wikipedia then surely it doesn't need mentioning at all? Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that there are too many notes. Everything I say is cited and verifiable, which is what Wikipedia:Citing sources says to do. I do not see even a caveat about "over-citing" there. PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Typically my peer reviewed papers which appear in astronomical journals don't even have 89 references, so I can't think that a bio of a minor actress needs that many. WP:CITE does not say that every single fact needs citing, and there are plenty of things which just don't need a reference. Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If I had fewer notes, then surely people would be objecting to my failure to cite sources. I would note that articles in legal journals cite everything and have long reference sections not unlike this one. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I'd have thought if you had say 40 references instead of nearly 100, verifiability requirements would still easily be satisfied. Part of the reason you have so many references in the article is because there are so many direct quotes from magazine articles - this is a problem, and you should be endeavouring to say what the articles are saying without just lifting quotes directly. Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am uncertain what material to use if newspaper and magazine articles are unacceptable. She is a twenty-seven year old actress. There aren't books about her aside from those aimed at juveniles. I used the resources which are available. PedanticallySpeaking 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not the use of magazines as references I'm complaining about, it's the excessive use of direct quotes in the article. Given what you say I'd also encourage you to consider whether that doesn't imply that she's not really significant enough to warrant a 50kb+ article. FAC criteria say articles should be of appropriate length. Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a really comphrehensive article. My only qualm is that the Tom Cruise section doesn't need four subsections.--Fallout boy 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your praise. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object (for now) - I think it's very good on the whole. I'm so glad to see that the issue with the images has been dealt with. (Well done Extraordinary Machine on such a good job! ) Two things that will be easy to fix : 1. The first paragraph in "Early life and career" contains 12 sentences. These need to be merged to give it a better flow. All it needs is some "and"s and some commas. 2. In the "Dawson's Creek" section there is a sentence beginning "So good was Holmes" - where the "so good" is outside the parameter of discussion being attributed to a particular commentator, and as written looks more like an editorial comment. It needs to be subtly reworded to shift the POV onto The New York Times where it belongs. eg The New York Times considered Holmes to be so good that they wrote...." . Or better still, just drop the "so good" and have the sentence read : "The New York Times wrote ..." and let their comments stand on their own without further amplification. Other than that, I think the article is very good and I will certainly support when these minor points are fixed. Rossrs 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC) I like the article, so I've made the minor changes that I thought were needed. It's well written, scrupulously referenced, and the images are well chosen and well supported by fair use rationales. It seems to be balanced and the earlier POV issues have been dealt with satisfactorily. I think the depth of discussion of her relationship with Tom Cruise is relevant because it is current - at some point in the future, when it is no longer topical, it could be culled, but for now it is appropriate. Rossrs 09:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As always, Rossrs, thanks for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Kaisershatner 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Everyking 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too much of her relationship with Tom Cruise--Hotwiki 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a reason to object? As far as I'm aware of, I don't believe so. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Eternal Equinox, besides the lead, the first appearance of Tom Cruise in the article is half way through the article. Though it can be cut down a little, I don't believe it is a reason to object. AndyZ 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a valid objection. Articles need to be balanced, and if one aspect of a topic is over-emphasised that's a bad thing. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Cruise is the reason she's been in the news this year and considering the volume of coverage--even The New York Times ran a big article on them--it does not feel unwarranted to me. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's in the news now, but what is in the news now is not necessarily what is most important. Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Enough comprehensive, well-formatted filmography. Brandmeister 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - WOW! IMO, too many references in "Early life and career". I real dissapointment. KILO-LIMA 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this another reason to object? I'm aware of the criteria, but not sure if it pushes its boundaries. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose not, but I don't seem to like it. Changed my vote to Support. KILO-LIMA 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why it's not a valid objection. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The swathes on Tom Cruise totally unbalance the article. - Hahnchen 20:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
See reply to Worldtraveler above. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
See above. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, primarily because of the overuse of direct quotes. Significant portions of the article are simply chains of quotations from various magazines together with footnote numbers; these need to be transformed into something closer to original prose. Maintaining NPOV should not require simply restating the opinions of critics verbatim. In addition, various trivia (e.g. "Before the premiere, the show's talk of sex caused a stir in the press; one of the show's producers, Procter and Gamble, withdrew after negative press in its hometown newspapers" and "Holmes purchased a townhouse in Wilmington in 2002") shoud be excised; the article is rather long as it is. —Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite good. --Pamri • Talk 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support awesome. you added a few more photos since the peer review stage (I think), which make it look very complete. awesome references look, nicely organized and a nice font/font size. good info! keep up the good work! --Lan56 09:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sun

Our star's article contains a wealth of info, is well illustrated and structured, and is an interesting read. Not really much of a self-nomination, I've really only done a lot of minor edits to this article. Much of the content has come from solar physicist Zowie. Worldtraveller 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Some brilliant prose, well laid out, scientifically accurate (as far as I know), some nice pictures. Also nice to have an expert on board to ensure high technical standards. Batmanand | Talk 14:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have you considered switching the references to the new meta:Cite.php format? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A brilliant article. -- Siva1979Talk to me 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the community has really come together here to produce a comprehensive, well balanced and cited article. zowie 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Just noticed something of a hole in the article that should be fixed before it goes to FA status -- there isn't really much mention of the sunspot cycle or its effects on space weather. That is a pretty large omission, I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. Worldtraveller, are you able to add something about this? If not I'll "eventually" get around to it, but I'm out of time for today. zowie 17:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely agree we need that - I can add a paragraph or two, will do so shortly. Worldtraveller 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Have added a section on this. Worldtraveller 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom, and per this articles articulate brilliance. Its nice to see an article that is so well put together, with so many people collaborating together on it, and with expert attention.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The Solar space missions section needs expanding by adding mainly Ulysses probe, Solar Maximum Mission, Helios 1 and Yohkoh. :) Brandmeister 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion, done that now. Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice to see an article written and maintained by an expert in the field. Fieari 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - it is very nice, as far as it goes, but should we have (or have links to) discussion of the heliocentric model of the solar system; the discovery of helium from solar spectra; the sun as a timepiece (e.g. sundial) and navigational instrument (e.g. sextant); the symbolism of the sun (mythology, seasons, etc)? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a mention of helium; I think sundials and sextants could be mentioned in the human understanding section, maybe, amd I'll see what I can add there. Worldtraveller 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Great. I think there is a ton more that could be said, although some of this may well be better in another article: the Sun contains over 99% of the mass of the Solar System; it is so large and optically thick that photons from the core take over 10,000 years to get out, what do we mean by an "average" star (it is in the top decile by mass, but only double the median stellar mass); the Moon just happens to be the same angular size at the moment from the surface of the Earth, otherwise we would see occultations or transits rather than eclipses; the distance to the heliopause; comets; prominences; atmospheric phemomena related to the Sun (rainbows, sun dogs, sun pillars, red sunrises and sunsets and blue sky in the daytime); things named after the Sun (e.g. sunfish, sunflower); changing distance to the Sun does not cause seasons, but the Earth's angular tilt (which changes the time the Sun spends in the sky) does[2]; equinoxes and solstices; ancient observations (e.g. Stonehenge); the Sun more generally outside western science and history. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Having said that, I probably out to add (again) that I think it is generally an excellent article. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It does mention the energy transport time, but I will try and incorporate your other suggestions. Getting a bit worried about the size of the article though. Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is surely the happiest day of my life. !mAtt™ 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. --Terence Ong 09:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, fine article. Agreed with Brandmeister, Solar space missions section should be expanded.--Jyril 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium creates the largest structure in the Solar System, the heliospheric current sheet. By what standard is the HCS considered a "structure"? Andrew Levine 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't too happy with that sentence, so I've reworded it a bit. It was added by someone who's oddly obsessed with plasma and likes to inflate its importance in all sorts of astronomical articles. Worldtraveller 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 :-) I'll add something about it in the talk pages too -- but it's NOT the largest structure in the solar system -- that would be the heliopause, the shock front that separates the solar wind from the interstellar medium. I took the liberty of removing the "largest" clause. zowie 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done; maybe decrease the size of the references section to 90%? I always think that looks good. KILO-LIMA 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Although I changed the lead a bit to improve its flow. Any additional improvements would benefit the article. Cedars 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A good article sure, but not yet FA, IMO. We have a goal of being Encyclopaedia Britannica quality or better, so we should look at their article on the subject: They have multiparagraph sections on internal structure, atmosphere, solar activity, and history of observation. The ==Structure== section in our version is great, but the ==Atmosphere== section is embarrassingly short on detail and there really isn't a section on solar activity. Also, there is no comprehensive section on the history of observation; such a section would start with what is in the ==Human understanding of the Sun== section and end with the text in the ==Solar space missions== section, but that leaves nothing in the middle. --mav 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions, I'll get to work on addressing them now. There's a section on solar activity but I can probably expand it a bit. Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, we now have expanded info on the atmosphere from Zowie and more about the history of observations that I've put together. I've tried to be as concise as possible with the history as the article is now 45K in length, so welcome thoughts on whether it's OK or if more info would be good. Worldtraveller 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Great job! Now the lead is a bit short for an article this length, but I'll still add my full support. BTW, there is less than 38 KB of readable prose now (don't count list-like sections and formatting). --mav 15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I just fixed the lead. Now this article is better than EB. --mav
            • Great, that looks much better! Worldtraveller 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A few details should IMO be changed: the "sun and eye damage" section is too long compared with the other sections which makes the article somewhat unbalanced, it might be better to mention the matter in two sentences and move the section to an article of its own; I think sungrazers should be mentioned somewhere; the "sunspots" section might perhaps better be titled "solar activity", and the effects of solar activity on and near earth (e.g. polar lights, Van Allen belts, geomagnetic storms) should be explained a little more (but not overly much, as we already have space weather and several related articles). It's a very fine article and otherwise of FA quality. Kosebamse 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that sungrazers should be mentioned here as they are not really a solar phenomenon -- they are comets and should be mentioned there. I have shrunk the sun and eye damage section, but I don' think it should be shrunk much more or broken out -- the three components are literally the three most common questions asked about looking at the Sun. (The section replaces a BIG RED BOX!!! that had been placed on the top of the page in the distant past.) zowie 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I'll get on to these ones as well! Just worked a mention of sungrazers into the space missions section. Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    Another point that should be clarified: the article says that although the Sun itself orbits the center of mass of the solar system, which is offset from the Sun's center mostly because of the large mass of Jupiter. The mass of the Sun is so much greater than that of the planets that the center of mass of the solar system is generally within the bounds of the Sun itself. This is unclear or even contradictory (what does "generally" mean here?), as it does not make clear whether the center of mass is within the Sun or not. It might even be inside or outside at different times depending on the relative positions of Jupiter vs. other bodies in the solar system. Kosebamse 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll try and clarify the text but it does mean the centre of mass moves around, depending on the relative positions of the planets. If they were all on one side of the Sun, the barycentre would be outside the Sun's surface, but if Jupiter was on one side and the others were on the other side, it would be inside. Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarified. zowie 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support. It could do with a copy-edit in some places (especially towards the end), but otherwise, it is a fabulous article. By the way, external links should be placed at the bottom of the article as they do not deal with the information provided within the article. I won't change my vote if this is not addressed, but it would be useful to others. Anyway, good effort! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't like reluctant supports! Will do what I can to make it enthusiastic. What copyediting needs doing? Worldtraveller 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Brilliant Giano | talk 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having thunk it over, I believe that the article might benefit from having some more about astronomical observation of the sun. That's a highly specialised field, with specialised techniques (heliostats, coronographs, spectrography, etc.) and should be discussed in a section of its own. Observation by space missions is already well covered, and the somewhat lengthy "eye damge" section could be integrated into a subsection about visual observation. Kosebamse 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. External links in main body should be transformed into proper inline citations. A section on 'Sun in fiction' should be added (to mention for example novel Sundiver), and the 'Sun worship' should be expanded (currently it's not even a stub-section, but a see also in main body - not what MoS recommends).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you elaborate a bit? As far as I was aware the links are already acceptable inline citations. I will do some work on the historical understanding bit, but I'm not sure I agree there should be a sun in fiction section as I think it's rather tangential to a scientific article and what to include in such a section would also be an extremely subjective choice. Worldtraveller 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • While technically hyperlinks in mainbody are inline citations, this form of referencing is discouraged. External links used as references should be moved to references section, and linked with some form of footnote/citation tool from main body. As for cultural section, I'd gladly support the article if it was Sun in science, but as long as it is about sun, it should be comprehensive and include a cultural section. Compare Sun article to our FA of Venus#Venus_in_human_culture.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Who's doing the discouraging? Can you point me to the relevant discussion or policy page? I don't want to be awkward but personally I much prefer the fewest clicks possible between seeing a citation and getting to the reference, so prefer not to introduce another click by moving all the external links to the bottom.
        • As for sun in fiction, I can't add anything about it because I don't know of any books that feature the Sun prominently enough to be worth mentioning. Personally I really don't like all the 'xx in fiction' sections in many science articles as they are always very arbitrary and don't add much value at all to the articles. I also think the Venus article is not up to current FA standards... In any case, though we don't have a section listing books and films in which the Sun has appeared, we do at least have a discussion of the Sun in human culture.
        • The article does appear to have been promoted now but I'm keen to ensure that all objections are addressed as far as possible so welcome more comments. Worldtraveller 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • There are several books involving the 3rd (I belive) Lagrange point of the sun and the earth, which is on the opposite side of the sun, and fictionalized often as holding a paralell world to the earth. But how related to the sun itself I dont know. The Only other fiction I can think of is Superman which I'm sure needs little explanation, and Mobile Suit Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz, in which they send their weapons into the sun in a failed effort towards peace.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Besides the fact that I personally think that external links in text look 'primitive' - which by itself would be just my personal opinion and no ground for an objection - note the both Wikipedia:Inline Citation and Wikipedia:Citing_sources state that all external links used as reference should also be added to the reference section (the latter one also lists some other disadvantages of this particular inline citation style). Currently, in the Sun article, they disrupt the note numbers - thus note 27 (in text) links to note 18 (in References). This is confusing, and it's very hard to verify if all hyperlinks in text are mentioned in references (unless sb wants to waste time and check every single one). The very fact that this article uses two styles of referencing (hyperlinks in text and footnotes) is enough for me to ask that one system is chosen and used consistently. As for fiction, I don't see how the article can be comprehensive without paying attention to culture - unless, as I suggest it earlier, you rename it 'Sun in science' or sth similar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kargil War

The article covers the 2 month long conflict from every angle possible and any issues of POV have been addressed by providing reliable and neutral sources. The factual accuracy of the war is near perfect IMO. The images are all properly tagged and it does make a good read too and making this a FA would be a step in the right direction as it could enthuse more editors to improve coverage of Asian wars. I have worked extensively having taken a peer review before and incorporating all the suggestions. Any objections can be addressed to make this even better. Please vote. Thanx Idleguy 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Object Support: Good work on improving the article. I can see that a lot of progress has been made and it's looking a lot better. Kafziel 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The grammar and vocabulary needs some work. A couple of quick examples that really jumped out at me:

  • "The cause of the war was infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants..." There should be a "the" between "was" and "infiltration"
  • A caption (on the Star TV screen shot) calls a missile launcher "indigenous". That pretty much only applies to living things, so unless Pinaka missiles grow on trees in India...

There are probably more, but I don't have time to go through it with a fine-toothed comb right now. Those two just caught my eye right off the bat. I do think the article itself looks pretty comprehensive, and the subject is interesting. If the language is improved I would have no problem supporting it. Kafziel 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel it could use an editor with proofreading skills to give it the tweaks and gloss it needs in the grammar and vocabulary department. If anyone can do that it'll be even better. Hoping someone does that. :) Idleguy 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am posting an "Object" vote until the article is fully copyedited. I will post more.
The article needs improvement in several areas. I will give a few examples of each.
  • Grammar and tone
  • "media coverage was pretty much lopsided" - unencyclopedic
  • "India conducted its first test since 1974" should say "in", not "since"
  • "vantage heights" should be "vantage points"
  • POV
  • "Few nations believed the Pakistani attempt at plausible deniability by linking the incursion to Kashmiri "freedom fighters"." No cite for this, so the quotation marks on "freedom fighters" are not quoting a source but rather are being used to cast doubt on their designation. Since the claim is made that "few nations believed" it, a cite is needed.
  • "But by the second week of May, the intrusions had been detected after an Indian patrol team acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector was ambushed." This sentence implies that Indian forces "detected" the Pakistani incursion, when in fact the Pakistani forces abushed them. The Pakistanis weren't detected; they deliberately made their presence known.
  • "This was the first ground war between two declared nuclear powers." No offense, but India and Pakistan are not "nuclear powers". They are just countries that possess some nuclear weapons. The same idea is expressed more accurately (but redundantly) in the section "WMDs and the nuclear factor".
  • Internal links
  • References
  • Footnote 19 - the quote in the text is very badly twisted from the actual quote in the referenced document. This is clearly POV and not at all faithful to the original source.
  • "It might also have resulted in the coup d'etat by Pervez Musharraf in October 1999." Might have? Did it or did it not? Are there references for this?
There are many other examples. I would strongly recommend any other voters to set aside personal loyalties and actually proofread the article before voting "Strong Support" and the like. There is a lot of work to be done here. Kafziel 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the ascent link, which now points to ascent (climbing), an article that does not exist so far. -- Robert Weemeyer 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please do not attempt to insinuate that people who feel strongly that this is a good article have ulterior motives or influences. You have your reasons for your vote which I respect, and others have theirs which you should respect. Rama's Arrow 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to respect the fact that nobody else has actually proofread the article. How is that nobody noticed the links that don't work? Or the spelling and grammatical errors? I think it's important to note that featured article candidacy is not a vote, per se. This is a list of errors that need to be corrected, and it can't be a featured article until they are addressed no matter how many people vote otherwise. Your vote demonstrates your prejudice; a hasty "strong support" vote followed up by actionable objections? That doesn't make any sense. My statement was not intended as an insult, but as a suggestion that those of you who support it (either blindly or with at best a passing glance) should instead lend a hand to fix it. Kafziel 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Kafziel, you are in no position to make judgments on other people's examination of this article and their respective votes. I know that user:Idleguy and others will not hesitate to rid the article of any problems, and I don't vote "no" over small errors, becoz this article is a good work on the whole. And frankly it doesn't matter beocz your comments do not affect my "strong support," and will shortly be in no position to affect anybody elses. I do not want to continue this debate on this FA vote page, however. Rama's Arrow 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Many of your points have now been addressed Rama's Arrow 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: An excellent effort by Idleguy. Rama's Arrow 05:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really don't think you should retain the "See also" section. It is redundant, and the links should be incorporated into the main article. It just doesn't look good. Rama's Arrow 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article. Siva1979Talk to me 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A well-balanced article --Deepak|वार्ता 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:It should be moved to Kargil war or Kargil conflict. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Then all the wars on Wikipedia would have to be moved. eg. Korean War. The "W" in the war is almost always capitalised when mentioning it with the proper noun. That has been the norm here and elsewhere. Also a note has been provided why its increasingly being referred to as Kargil War and not otherwise. Thanx Idleguy 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I didn't know this exception to the general rule. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the text the article goes back and forth between "Kargil War" and "Kargil war". The title says it is "Kargil War" but the bolded introduction term says "Kargil war". Which is correct? --maclean25 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not bad at all, but I have the impression this needs more work by more people, and—as the nominator himself admitted above—a thorough copyedit. In some places, I feel that the general flow could be improved and the text streamlined. Some example points I discovered on a cursory read:
    1. Unnecessary and confusing use of abbreviations: LoC instead of "Line of Control", WMD for "Weapons of mass destruction", and what is NLI? LOC could be used sparingly if introduced first.
    2. "The observation posts allowed Pakistani spotters to control the indirect fire of the artillery at the Indian troops and vehicles." - Huh? That comes a bit out of context. What observation posts? Anyway, is that important? It is already stated that they were able to shell the road. I'd just drop it.
    3. "The infiltrators were well equipped with assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, artillery and anti-aircraft guns, thus putting the Indian troops right in the line of fire." - Eh, what? Of course one would assume that in an armed conflict, troops would get under fire. Drop.
    4. Inconsequential linking. Why is "line of sight" linked? Why "taped" or "phone"? Why "versimilitude"?
    5. Language or word choice issues. Why is the Bofors infamous?
    6. Language issues. "Based on military tactics, much of the costly frontal assaults by the Indians could have been avoided"... first, just drop the "Based on military tactics". Second, whose opinion is that? Reference.
    7. Image:KargilPak.png has no source, and is claimed fair use, but the article doesn't discuss the coverage of the event in Time at all. IMO, not a correct fair use.
    8. Sloppy quoting. "Nuclear weapons can be used for national security" is not what the Pakistani Senate leader said according to the source given, that's just the headline of The News on July 1, 1999. According to the source given reference 19 in the article, the senate leader said "The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed.".
In summary: I think this is not quite ready. Lupo 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Time magazine cover, it is indeed fair use. That story is covered under external links and is one of the few comprehensive reports from the western media on the war. Additionally that is the only reasonably fair use image that was available on Pakistani troops. In the absence of an official photo, such fair use images are ok. A similar issue had been raised with an administrator Slimvirgin and it was decided to keep such images for the lack of an alternative.
As for the quote of the senator, the quote itself is correct, if you'd notice carefully, the headline itself is a quote of his statement. "N-weapons can be used for national security" is the precise quote. The second one is another statement made in the Senate. Both were exact reproductions. one was used in the headline with the quotes another in the article with quotes. So no sloppiness or selective quoting etc.
I raised this issue as well. The quote in the article is deliberately shortened to change the meaning and make it seem as if Pakistan was all set to nuke India. The actual quote is just a simple statement of fact (that the purpose of having them is to be able to use them), a sentiment shared by India, whether they stated as much or not. The quote should be removed, in my opinion (because it's meaningless and doesn't actually imply anything at all), or at least shown in its entirety. Kafziel 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I went in and inserted the correct quote. Kafziel 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The details have been added since this is an encyclopedia and meant for general readers who might not be into military tactics or the operational importance of a battlefield etc. Thus I feel it necessary to retain such lines for a clearer understanding and a link to wiretapping doesn't hurt anyone. Atleast I didn't know an article could exist with versimilitude or wiretapping (which is an interesting read) for a casual reader. Stating the obvious is a style guide encouraged in Wikipedia given that lay readers might not even know many of the terms. Ok, maybe the phone wikilink was a bit too much, i'll remove that.
Verisimilitude (most people don't even spell it correctly on the first try, yourself included) is a needlessly esoteric word evidently added to make the article seem more scholarly. It could easily be replaced with a simpler synonym (realism, for instance) that wouldn't need to be wikilinked for clarity. Changing the word would avoid all confusion and needless linking. Kafziel 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I went in to fix it myself, but realized the problem is even bigger than simply vocabulary. First of all, it's redundant, because realistic treatment doesn't lend verisimilitude to a project; realistic treatment IS verisimilitude. Secondly, whose opinion is it that the movie is realistic? That needs to be sourced or removed. Kafziel 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have copyedited it. As for sources, it is internally sourced to the Lakshya article, which inturn links to the IMDB page. A rating of 7.3 is a pretty good one for an Indian war movie. Additionally I've provided a direct link to rotten tomatoes (a critics only site). But the site doesn't have enough reviews for the tomatometer rating. It has also been received well in Pakistan - not often does it happen in a war movie by India since it involves "Pak-bashing". I'm not adding the individual pakistani sites to keep the ext links to a minimum. Idleguy 06:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the question regarding the "costly frontal assaults" it is taken from the sources. I believe it was RAND Corp, given in the references section.
Of course some suggestions I'll work on like t