Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2007

1 February 2007

February 2007

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

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

George I of Greece

Self-nomination A "good article" meeting fac. DrKiernan 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Improper referencing. Not enough inline citations to match claims. Lead section far too short for my taste. Prose not brilliant. Here is an example: "George was not the first choice of the Greek people (citation??). Upon the overthrow of Otto, the Greek people had rejected his brother Leopold, the heir presumptive, while adhering to the concept of a monarchy. JHMM13 08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Three references are given for the above - Van der Kiste, Clogg and Forster - all at the end of the paragraph. DrKiernan 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak Oppose and Conditional Support~~ Support. I agree with JHMM13 that the article needs a larger lead and more citations as some sections do not have any. I also think that the article needs a seperate references section. If my concerns are adressed I would be more than happy to support the article. Kyriakos 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead and separated the note from the references. The unreferenced comments are ones which occur in more than one source. I shall select representative references and insert them gradually. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't particularly helpful or constructive. Please be more specific in your criticism. DrKiernan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest disregarding this vote as biased, possibly nationalist and absolutely unbacked. Todor →Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

~~I'm sorry but after some thought I've decided not to continue with this proposal.~~ I just don't understand how an article like George IV of the United Kingdom can be the Main Page Featured Article in April when it has no citations, and includes comments like "...every time he had intimate relations with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7,000 such envelopes." Whilst at the same time you oppose FA status for my article because of "Improper referencing" even though it contains no contested comments and is fully referenced.
(1) As I am not able to understand your criticisms, I consequently cannot address them.
(2) I think my limited time would be better spent improving what I consider a bad article like George IV, rather than improving an already good article like George I into a fantastic one.
Please close the discussion and accept my apologies for wasting your time. I would prefer not to enter into correspondence on this matter. DrKiernan 12:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The featured article criteria have changed, George IV was promoted back in 2004. If you think it doesn't meet the criteria, then nominate it for a WP:FAR, but that there are bad featured articles still doesn't mean your article is good enough to be an FA. Some problems with it: no main references, only footnotes; list within the body; no use of cite templates; tiny sections ("Titles, styles and arms" and "Territorial expansion (1871-1881)"). Todor →Bozhinov 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Answer For the same reason that other such articles have made it there recently: they weren't FARC'd in time to prevent that.--Rmky87 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neither a main reference section nor use of cite tempaltes are required or particularly recommended, so I wouldn't call these issues "problems". Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Do I really have to cite WP:FA? OK then: "... this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations... the meta:cite format is recommended." No, cite templates are not required, but they're strongly recommended because they provide uniformity and are easy to use and identify. An FA has to represent "our very best work", and in that sense it should be as good as possible. If it can be improved, then this should be done. Todor →Bozhinov 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    - The full citations can be mixed in with the notes, as they were in this case before the article was changed; nor does the section need to literally be called "references," although the criteria may be misleading in this regard. See e.g. recent promotions The Four Stages of Cruelty, Hurricane Erika (1997), and many others. Citation templates are specifically "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE) -- while some people like them, others find them strongly distasteful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, I think it's a lot more convenient to have the main references and the footnotes in separate sections — it looks better arranged and neater. It also allows you to use simplified syntax in the footnotes instead of giving all the long bibliographic info every time when you just want to list the specific page(s). But it's a matter of personal taste to an extent, that's for sure :) The same goes for cite templates, I guess. Todor →Bozhinov 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        On the usefulness of a references section, at least, I agree with you, and it's obviously okay to suggest methods that you find convenient. But in consideration of nominators I think it is useful to maintain a line between what is actually required and what is a matter of taste. cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided main references; split the footnotes; formatted the list according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted lists; used cite templates; and expanded sections George I of Greece#Titles, styles and arms and George I of Greece#Territorial expansion (1871-1881). DrKiernan 09:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Support This article seems to meet the criteria for featured article status.Argos'Dad 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It is usually a good idea for the article to have sections other than biographical, particulary one describing concepts like his achievements, influence and notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Mini Moke

Self nomination This article has passed WP:GA and been generally well received by Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles members. It's stable, well referenced and contains no fair-use images. As far as I can tell it passes all of the FAC requirements. The only slight problem is that it's only 17kBytes long - which is a little short for an FA. However, when you've said all that needs to be said, anything more would be useless padding - so there we are. The subject of the article is a fairly obscure British vehicle - there aren't many books about it - I'm 99% certain that every book that contains any information about it whatever is in my collection and is referenced in the article. Additionally, the article has been carefully read by several leading members of the Mini Moke Club (who, sadly, are not Wikipedians) - the few minor flaws they managed to find have been passed on to me and eradicated since passing WP:GA. SteveBaker 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed this is a very good article. I have cleaned it up a bit per MOS (minor changes) and I used the citation templates for some of the references. When editing it (expanding cm and other units out in text) I used British English because I found kilometre in the article, but you can change it if you like. The paragraph below is choppy, lots of short sentences ruin the flow making it difficult to read.

From 1975 a pickup version of the Moke was produced with a 1.45 x 1.50 metre (55 x 59 in) drop-sided bed which protruded behind the back of the vehicle. There was a cloth top over the cab area. At least two four-wheel drive Moke prototypes were manufactured by Leyland Australia in the late 1970s. Unlike the British 'Twini' version, these used just one engine. One of those prototypes is now privately owned by an enthusiast in Western Australia. Leyland were planning to market this version but the end of Moke production in Australia in 1981 saw the demise of the project

This paragraph is also a bit hard to read, it's using the same sentence twice right after one another "Because X, Y occurs." Mix it up a bit.

Because the Moke's A-Series engine, gearbox and suspension are identical to those of a standard Mini (which was still in production up to October 2000), most spare parts are still readily available. Because there is no chassis, the front and rear subframes holding the wheels, brake assemblies and suspension are bolted straight onto the monocoque shell just as with a standard Mini. Mokes tend to require much structural maintenance if they are to stay in good running order

Once these 2 paragraphs are cleared up or if it's decided to do something else (you never know) I would be happy to support. James086^Talk 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After one has read and tweaked these paragraphs about a bazillion times, it gets hard to see the wood for the trees! Both suggestions are well taken. I've made changes to both paragraphs, I think they read more easily now (but now I've read and tweaked them a bazillion-and-one times...so...) let me know if there is anything else I can do. SteveBaker 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and yes, this was originally a British car (although the Aussies have some significant claim to it) - so I've used British English throughout. SteveBaker 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, would it be possible to create a short stub for the Nuffield Guppy to avoid a redlink?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be possible if I could find anything at all to say about it! Alec Issigonis' biography merely mentions the name - offering no further details. The Nuffield company was pretty obscure and there isn't much written about it. The top Google hit for 'Nuffield Guppy' is this article and the only other links that are talking about this vehicle are mirrors of this article! The best stub I could personally come up with would be "The Nuffield Guppy was some kind of a motor vehicle that was designed by Alec Issigonis for some sort of military role."...I thought it would be better to leave it as a redlink so that someone who knows something about it would spot the redlink and be provoked into writing something. Redlinks are (in moderation) a good thing - they help the Encyclopedia to grow. SteveBaker
  - OK - Nuffield Guppy is now a happy little stub! SteveBaker 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Support, this is a fine article. Great work finding out about the Nuffield Guppy.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Support as paragraphs have been reworded. Excellent work. James086^Talk 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's all gone awfully quiet. Are we done? SteveBaker 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose in the lead; a vehicle can't be a cult - it would be logical to say that it has a cult following; the lead also lacks focus it goes from what they are to how they were popular and back to where they were first made. The prose of the rest of the article needs work, it slips into a non-professional tone in parts, grammar needs work, and the single sentence paragraph pops up a few times. The latter part of the article is comprised of short sections that don't really say much, could the competitions and kits sections be merged into the text somewhere else (competitions into history and kits into construction)?--Peta 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- comment You said: "a vehicle can't be a cult"? Well, the Wiktionary definition of "cult" gives as its sole example of proper usage: "The Lord of the Rings" is a classic geek cult novel - so we can have cult novels but not cult cars? I'll try to reduce the number of single-sentence paragraphs but I'm mindful that a paragraph is supposed to be about a single subject and that just glueing separate paragraphs together without regard to content just in order to limit the number of short paragraphs is not a good thing. SteveBaker 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The two short sections are now merged into other sections (see below).SteveBaker 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
comment with this sentence In Australia the Mini Moke was a popular car for college students into the late 1980s, the term "college students" when referring to Australian students is ambigious as its a term not used within Australia, student are referred to as either using High School or University. Gnangarra 08:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK - I might argue that whilst we are talking about Australia, this article is written in British English - but to avoid the issue entirely, I'll say just "students" and leave it at that. SteveBaker 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment -- Although I disagree with User:Peta about the tone/grammar (I think it's suited to the subject matter and isn't unencyclopedic) I'd agree about consolidating paragraphs; "Kit cars and look-alikes" would fit well as a "Construction and maintenance" sub-section, while the "Competitions" bit could, I reckon, be reduced to a single paragraph and spliced into either "History" or "Popular culture" (since sport's become part of pop culture nowadays). I was going to do a quick edit and revert just to have both versions to compare, but I noticed I'd need to tamper with the layout/position of images, so I chickened out. I also reckon that since the Mini page isn't specifically about construction and maintenance, you don't need to give it a Main article: Mini. And well done on getting the Nuffield Guppy stub off the ground too. --DeLarge 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK - I've merged those two sections. Kit Cars is now a sub-section of construction & maintenance - I guess that kinda fits. The "Competitions" part ended up being split in two because putting it into the history section resulted in the first paragraph being related to British Mokes and the second to Australian ones. I'm still not convinced that this is a good change - because anyone who is interested in competitions involving Mokes would have looked to that section - but now the information is kinda mooshed in with what is essentially a time-line of the development of the car...but anything for a quiet life! If I ever find more information about racing/autocrossing Mini Mokes so I can expand on the theme a bit, I may re-instate that section - but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I replaced the {{main|Mini}} with a 'seealso' - but because so much of the information about the nature of the engine, transmission, suspension, etc is in the Mini article - we need some kind of a link here. Incidentally, the Nuffield Guppy article required me to spend $75 on purchasing an original memo written by Issigonis to Nuffield management from a collector in Germany - the guy told me that it contained the answer to my question (which it did) - but wouldn't tell me what it said unless I bought it from him! Such is my commitment to getting the truth out there - I hope you guys are happy! :-) SteveBaker 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Red Barn Murder

A notorious case in 19th century England, this murder sparked an early "media frenzy". The comments at peer review were very positive, so I'm putting up here in the hope they continue. Yomangani ^talk 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. An informative, accurate, well-cited and engagingly-written article. Trebor 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment, the referencing would be a little more accessible to the reader if abbreviated titles were added to the notes: that is, "Gatrell, The Hanging Tree, p.13" instead of "Gatrell p.13". semper fictilis 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the employed style is OK. Lots of articles and editors use it. CMS is fine with it. qp10qp 05:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. I wonder whether the afterlife of the story in 20th century literature and film couldn't be given its own section and receive further elaboration. semper fictilis 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is enough to merit breaking it out. There's a quite a bit on the Tod Slaughter film (enough to bump up that article beyond a stub), but info on the rest of the films is thin on the ground, even from unreliable sources. Yomangani ^talk 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Support Well-written, comprehensive, verifiable, and properly formatted article. Great work. Jay32183 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Read it again; enjoyed it again. Excellent work. qp10qp 05:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per Jay32183. Yono 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Excellent article, but to my mind, the veritable littering of redlinks detracts from it. --Dweller 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of redlinks: they provide an opportunity to expand the encyclopedia. In the past it has been suggested that it is a problem that can be solved by creating stubs, but this seems to be solely to change the colour and gives the misleading impression that there is some content behind the link. Most of those redlinks are on my list to be filled at some point, but I prefer to write a decent article rather than, for example, replace the redlinked mole-catcher with a link to an article which says "A mole-catcher is a person who catches moles", or something equally pointless. Removing the links in the article is equally bad, that gives the impression that there are no articles to be written, and when an article is written there is no link to it. As a point in fact, this article was written as the result of a redlink in the featured Spring Heeled Jack, and wouldn't exist if that link had been removed or a stub created. Yomangani^talk 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Interesting. Other articles I've seen criticised at peer review for redlinks. No matter, I'm happy to Support regardless. --Dweller 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support. Looks pretty cool. Some style changes. In the lead, "huge crowd" might be better as "large crowd". "in the newspapers, and songs and plays." could be better as "in newspapers, songs and plays." I'm a bit thrown off by the "Citations" section. Coming from a scientific background, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to have incomplete entries for the per-page in-line citations. Aside from those minor points, the article looks good. Shrumster 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was a "huge" crowd for the time: between 7,000 and 20,000 people; "a large crowd" doesn't seem to cut the mustard there. The problem with dropping the first "and" from "in the newspapers, and songs and plays" is that the proceeding words are "The story provoked numerous articles", and it didn't provoke numerous articles in songs and plays. I'll look at rewording it some other way and I'll also look at the citation format (although other articles use this format it seems to be a bit of a sticking point). Yomangani ^talk 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"The story provoked numerous articles in the newspapers, and songs and plays" is one of those awkward little sentences: "...articles in the newspapers, songs and plays" doesn't work because it miscues to "articles in the...songs and plays". It's not reversible, either: you can't put "numerous songs, plays, and newspaper articles" because that offends the time sequence. "Newspaper articles" would not really be much better, which would cue "newspaper...songs and plays". I thought of "...newspaper articles, as well as songs and plays", but it's clunky. My best suggestion is "The story not only provoked numerous articles in the newspapers but also songs and plays." The trouble is that, strictly speaking, the "not only" should go before "numerous articles", but there it sounds unharmonious. I'm the sort of language nerd who enjoys this type of problem, but I admit I'm a bit stumped here. qp10qp 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the shortened note references, I believe the method used in this article is the best one for Wikipedia. It is the style the Chicago Manual of Style regards as satisfactory for journal articles since those are short enough to make it easy to locate the full reference. All the more reason to use the method on Wikipedia, which is not paper, and where the full reference is located a few inches down the same page. I see no difficulty in this author-page method at all, except where two different works by the same author are cited, in which case the title or shortened title should of course be added. qp10qp

- The inline citations are formatted perfectly, there is no need to change them. I'm very surprised there was a complaint from a "scientific backround" since it's identical to the format used in scientific journals, at least for geology, geography, and biology. American high schools actually teach that inline citations should include the author's last name and the page numbers while listing the full book information at the end of the paper. The only "Wikipediaism" involved is making them footnotes rather than spelling them out within the body of the text. Jay32183 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - great prose. Some aspects might be considered POV in a different context on other articles but they are entirely in keeping with the spirit and prose of the article and make for a great read.cheers 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Jupiter

Archive of FAC #1

This page has undergone significant changes and enhancements since the prior FAC attempt. The new layout has been modelled after the Mercury (planet) and Venus FA pages, with a few differences due to the nature of the planet. I believe that all of the issues on the FAC and PR have been addressed, with one exception which I am disputing. (Namely the assertion that Jupiter's rings are not composed of ejected material from satellites.) Please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be done to bring this up to FA quality. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for this. These astronomy articles are a joy to read.-BillDeanCarter 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was the work of a number of people. — RJH (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very detailed, not bad at all. Some suggestions. Perhaps you could move the Aurora Borealis picture to an upper paragraph as it cuts into and forcibly indents the next section (on my 1024x768 screen, at least). The retrograde diagram could also be moved to the start of the upper paragraph, to give it more...symmetry? Perhaps the "observation" section could be integrated into the "studies of Jupiter" or an "astronomy" section, since they're more-or-less sections about human study of the planet itself. If you could do something about the margin of the "fly-bys" table, please do so. Right now, the text of the paragraph it sits in is directly adjacent to its left margin. The "Effect on the Solar System" title seems a bit...hmm...might be better with a more neutral statement like "Interactions with Solar System" or something of the sort. Same deal with "Possibility of Life" section. Would the header "Xenobiology" be better, perhaps? Oh, and the Bibliography section should be a separate section adjacent to but not part of the References, for style pusposes. Aside from these minor points, great work. Shrumster 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback.
  - The images you mention are placed at the location of corresponding text. I moved the aurora to the right.
  - I'd rather not merge the Observation section; it corresponds to the same sections on the Mercury and Venus pages, and it's about what an observer would notice rather than a history.
  - The left margin of the Fly-by mission table has been set to 1em.
  - I changed the "Effect on Solar System" section title per your suggestion.
  - Xenobiology is relatively obscure and may be obsolete. I think astrobiology is used these days. But the current title seems pretty appropriate.
  - The reference sections have been split out as you suggested.

Thanks again! — RJH (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support great article, well-illustrated and referenced. igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Support Just needs a bit of tweaking in the prose, but I will support once these done. Cas Liber 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

~~"a quite similar composition" should be "quite a similar composition", or maybe just "a similar composition"~~

~~"transitions" as a verb, comes across as clunky, needs a better verb ("becomes" could fit, "metamorphoses" ?)~~

~~"It has lasted from at least 1831" - umm, sounds a bit colloquial, how about "It is known to have been in existence since..."~~

- Done and done. Thank you for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ I am an avid reader of popular science books, so I cannot comment on the page's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I can tell you how it appears to an educated, interested, non-scientist. I found it pretty easy to follow (except for a few spots I list below) and quite informative. Nice work. I am fully willing to support if the following issues are addressed.

I now feel that the majority of the issues have been addressed and I am sure any outstanding ones will be, so I support. I learned a lot from reading this article. Awadewit 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your close review of the article. — RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(Jovian being the adjectival form of Jupiter, derived from the Latin genitive of the noun). - This is helpful information, but I do not think that it is necessary to put it in the lead.
- Since Jovian is used in the preceding sentence (and the remainder of the text), some type of definition seems appropriate, at least to me.
  - Perhaps you could leave out the Latin clause? It just seems overly detailed for the lead. Awadewit 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Okay, done.
Instead of saying Jupiter was named during the era of Classical Antiquity might you give the dates?
- As an expediency I just removed that statement.
The planet Jupiter is primarily composed of hydrogen, with a smaller portion of helium and possibly a rocky core. - "portion" seems like odd diction here
- Okay I tried to remedy this.
Because of its rapid rotation the planet possesses a slight but noticeable bulge around the equator, giving it an oblate appearance. - perhaps you could briefly define "oblate" for non-specialists, especially since this sentence is in the lead?
- I think it's addressed.
Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 93% hydrogen and 7% helium by number of atoms (86% H2 and 13% He by fraction of gas molecules—see table at top), or approximately 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass, with the remaining 1% of the mass consisting of other elements. The interior contains denser materials such that the distribution is roughly 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements, by mass. - might you explain a bit about the difference between measuring by atoms and by mass for the non-specialist?
- I tried to clarify this.
  - This is much better.
Based on spectroscopy, Saturn is thought to have a quite similar composition to Jupiter, but Uranus and Neptune have relatively much less hydrogen and helium. - for the non-specialist, mention again that the reason you are comparing Jupiter to these other planets is because they are the other gas giants
- I added a comment about gas giants.
Extrasolar planets have been discovered with much greater masses. - do you mean "Extrasolar planets similar to Jupiter but with much greater masses have been discovered"?
- I didn't write that, but I couldn't say for certain that the extrasolar planets with greater mass are like Jupiter. Some are located very near their star and appear highly expanded, for example. I wouldn't want to say that is like Jupiter and I'm not sure of the benefit of needing to explain it in a section on mass. :-)
  - I guess what I meant was, are they gas giants like Jupiter? I was under the impression that most of the extrasolar planets that have been discovered are gas giants.
    - Could be, but I couldn't say with absolute certainty that all discovered planets with masses greater than Jupiter are gas giants. All we know about some is their mass.
Jupiter is thought to have about as large a diameter as a planet of its composition can; adding extra mass would cause the planet to shrink because of increased gravitational compression. - awkward sentence
- I think it reads better now.
Jupiter's low obliquity means that the poles constantly receive less solar radiation than at the planet's equatorial region. Internal convection processes transport more energy to the poles, however, balancing out the surface temperature across the planet. - This sentence could be explained a little more for the non-specialist.
- I changed "obliquity" to axial tilt. Otherwise I'm uncertain what part is unclear. Could you clarify?
  - When you say "internal convection processes," what do you mean? What is moving the heat, exactly? Clouds? Storms?
    - Convection within the interior. I reworded it for better clarity (I hope).
It has lasted from at least 1831,[26] and possibly since 1665. - awkward phrasing - Perhaps, "It has existed since at least..."
- This appears to have been addressed already.
The tops of this storm is about 8 km above the surrounding cloudtops. - do you mean "tops . . .are" or "top . . .is"?
- It's an irregular feature, so perhaps the original author meant the highest cloud features? Anyway I changed it to say maximum altitude.
The entire last paragraph of the "Great Red Spot" section is awkwardly worded.
- Rewrote paragraph.
The first paragraph of "Magnetosphere" could be explained better for the non-specialist. Perhaps "torus" could also be linked to the appropriate torus page.
- I tried, while attempting to stay on topic. Is it any clearer?
  - Yes.
That is, for a period of time Jupiter seems to move backward in the night sky, forming a graceful looping motion. - is this POV? why is it "graceful"?
- Fixed.
The astronomical symbol for the planet is a stylized representation of the god's lightning bolt. - could you insert the actual symbol here so that this explanation is connected to the symbol at the top of the page?
- I copied it in from the Solar System page.
The discovery, a testament to his extraordinary eyesight, made him quickly famous. - why his eyesight? this sounds a bit ood - perhaps you could explain a bit further
- Done.
They discovered that the radiation fields in the vicinity of the planet were much higher than expected, but managed to survive in that environment. - what "managed to survive"? the spacecraft or the radiation fields?
- Clarified.
How come "Pioneer" isn't itacilized? Is there a particular reason it isn't when the other missions are? Also, the italicization is inconsistent. Sometimes Voyager, Cassini, etc. are italicized and sometimes they are not.
- Fixed.
This is seen most dramatically in Io's extraordinary volcanic activity, and to a somewhat less dramatic extent in the geologically young surface of Europa indicating recent resurfacing. - "resurfacing" sounds a bit odd; I was waiting for something after that - "resurfacing" of what? - you might think about rewording
- Clarified.
I would not use a Teaching Company lecture as a reference (see note 5). They are expensive and therefore hard to access (not everyone is willing to download). Moreover, since you use it only for an etymology, there are obviously better sources.
- Replaced citation.
Also, not all of the notes are formatted the same way. Some have the first name of the author first and some have the last name first, etc. Your "Additional Reading" citations are also not cited in the same format and I do not think that you need to link the years.
- Citations modified to use consistent author naming order. The "Additional reading" section uses the standard wikipedia citation templates. I left the years linked because in the past others have insistent they be present; opinions on this seem to flip-flop endlessly over time.
  - Why does the year come first in one of the citations? That should never happen. It should always be either the author or the title.
    - That article did not have any authors listed. I replaced it with another reference.
      - Ah, I see. It's often helpful to put "Anonymous" in the author spot when the author is not listed.

Awadewit 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have some prose/clarity comments, but overall this article is very well-organized and well-written, so I'll just go ahead and support.
- 'The density of this planet is the second highest of the gas giant planets' - mention which one it's second to.
  - Neptune. I added a note.
- I'm not sure what it means to say that the atmosphere contains trace amounts of 'rock'.
  - Fixed.
- 'However, because of the lack of atmospheric entries probes...' - should this be 'entry probes'? Also, the parenthetical at the end of this sentence is awkward; isn't the word 'other' sufficient to exclude Jupiter?
  - Addressed.
- I don't remember the timescale for this and this may therefore be a stupid question, but how does the rate of Jupiter's contraction compare to the estimated life of the sun?
  - Age of the Sun = ~4.57 × 10⁹; current rate of contraction = 2 cm/yr = 2 × 10^-5 km. If one were to assume this rate were constant, then the total contraction would be ~9 × 10⁴ km = 90,000 km. It's on the order of magnitude of Jupiter's radius, which matches the sentence: "When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter."
- I might have missed it, but kelvin (unit) should be wikilinked somewhere in the text.
  - Okay it's linked a couple of times.
- No need for parenthetical '(See cloud pattern on Jupiter.)' when it's already linked as the main article.
  - Right.
- Why is lightning evidence specifically for a water layer in the atmosphere?
  - I'm certainly no expert in chemistry, but I believe it has something to do with water being a good "charge separator" (in contrast to methane). Through convection of the water, a separation in electrical potential is produced that results in a lightning discharge.
- The lead says Jupiter is the third-brightest object in the night sky, but the observation section says fourth.
  - The key word there is "night". :-)
- I don't understand what 'with Thor being identified with the Roman god Jupiter' is meant to imply. Was Thor identified with the planet in Norse mythology? Otherwise I don't know what possible relevance this has. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  - I added a note; they are associated because they represent similar powers over thunder.
- If there are before-and-after shots of the three ovals that merged recently, that would be a great addition to the existing images.
  - There's an illustration on the linked Oval BA page, but it's not a very good shot.
- Am I right in remembering that feared 'contamination' of Europa by the Galileo orbiter was motivated by speculation that Europa might support life? Whatever the reason was, it ought to be briefly stated.
  - Yes. I added a brief note; the Europa (moon) page contains more discussion.
- Admittedly personal bias, but ending the article with the wimpy and speculative 'possibility of life' section is sort of anticlimactic. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes I more or less agree, but it was a collaborative effort so I didn't want to just yank it without some sort of consensus.
Support, although I agree with Opabinia regalis's suggestions. Great work! J. Spencer 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your observations and corrections. — RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Banksia epica

Another WP:BANKSIA masterpiece. Hesperian 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Support (as co-nominator and article co-contributor). Hesperian 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Support co-contributor, Gnan garra 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - really nice article, but the wording could be improved; for example:
1. The first European to sight B. epica may have been the explorer Edward John Eyre,[4] who recorded sighting "stunted specimens" of Banksia as he was nearing the western edge of the Great Australian Bight on 1 May 1841. Not only is this too wordy ("to sight" isn't terribly idiomatic), but it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species.
  - To clarify (per a question from Hesperian), right now the article speculates that Eyre may have been the first European to see the species, based on his record. But unless he was the first European in the range of this species (which may be true, but it isn't clear from the article), it isn't clear to me why the assumption that he was the first European to see the species. Guettarda 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Struck per clarification Guettarda
2. Despite this probable early sighting, the first herbarium collection of B. epica was not made until October 1973 - Despite this probable early sighting is unnecessary. (There are many other places where the wording could be tightened up).
3. Some of the links to reprints do not appear to go to the right articles (e.g., the Wooler & Wooler article), or go to pages to purchase access to the articles, despite the fact that free abstracts were available (e.g., the Thiele & Ladiges article). Guettarda 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Guettarda. I've taken the liberty of numbering your comments so that I knock them off one by one. I've clarified re: the "speculation" aspect of 1. I'll leave it to you to decide if the "too wordy" aspect is also resolved. Hesperian 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re: 3, some were links to material with restricted access; these have now been removed. Thanks for picking that up. Hesperian 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - as one who helped out a bit. You dissin' my copyedits? But seriously, thanks for the feedback, we'll tweak :) cheers Cas Liber 08:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - very well written and informative article. I enjoyed the taxonomic history section and wonder why George didn't name it B. Falconer. He was robbed! —Moondyne 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - Brillian prose, and all technical information I'd expect to see is there. I did some minor copyedits. --NoahElhardt 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
mild support seems a little short to me and could use more refs perhaps, but nice and to the point. Sumoeagle179 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- We've got them all, mate; every last one. What isn't here isn't published. Hesperian 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

Self-nominated article. I've completely rewritten this article over the past few months. It has gone through a peer review and the Good Article nomination process and was passed as a Good Article about a month ago. It was suggested that I nominate it for a featured article review. I've provided inline citations from a broad variety of references, obtained permission from the Beinecke Library for free use of historical photos, provided attribution is given, and have tried to cover every area of the topic as broadly and as neutrally as I could. The article includes information about Anastasia's characteristics, DNA testing on the Romanov remains and the controversy over whether Anastasia or Maria was missing from the grave, information about reports of a survivor, and a section about the impact the legend has had upon the popular culture. It also contains a section about the Romanovs' sainthood and the controversy related to whether they should be declared martyrs or passion bearers. It's a topic that is still of great interest to a large number of people and the importance of the subject matter has been rated as high. I think the article is well-written and covers the subject extensively, but I'm open to suggestions to improve upon it further.--Bookworm857158367 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please take care of the spaces between the punctuation and the refs.--Rmky87 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is an excellent article; I was reminded of my youthful fascination with Anastasia. Here are my suggestions (I am almost ready to support this article):
You have a lot of quotations that demonstrate that Anastasia was fun, lighthearted and mischievious. Perhaps you could select a few of the best? After a while, they no longer add information to the article, they only make it longer (I would say that this is a particular problem in the "Life and Childhood" section).
Your sections are also rather long - might you consider breaking them up or providing subheadings? One obvious suggestion is to preface the section on "Canonization" with a subheading.
I would also cut off the "Cultural Influces" section with the 2004 novel. It seems choppy and insignificant after that. If you decide to keep the material, perhaps a list is the better way to go?
This is a small thing. I noticed that your footnotes aren't all formatted the same way. Some have the author's last name first and some have the author's first name first. Some book titles are missing italics. Some have dates and some do not. Also, if you are planning on giving the entire citation first and then using only the author's name in subsequent notes, which I think you are, the first citation is incorrect. Etc. (You might also consider two-column notes since you have so many.) Awadewit 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

- Awadewit, you last point is partially my fault, had started standardising the ref formats when I saw the nom, was half way through the job when you posted you comments; hence they looked inconsistent when you viewed the article. Ceoil 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I support now, although perhaps the "Two bodies missing from the Mass Romanov Grave" section could be renamed "Romanov Grave"? As it stands, it sounds too much like a newspaper headline. Awadewit 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the subheading per your suggestion. I am a newspaper reporter, which probably explains why the original sounded like a headline.--Bookworm857158367 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Support An engagingly written, well cited, illustrated and informed article. Some minor suggestions:

Agree that "Cultural Influences" should be cut at the 2004 novel.
Have reformatted the citations, however was unable to determine to which of Massie's two books notes 20 & 23 referred to.
Not overly fond of the section title "From mystery to legend", though this is a subjective call, of course. Ceoil 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Have tackled some of the suggestions made to improve on the article. I summarized the comments made about Anastasia's character in the first section on her Early Life. I also changed the sub-heading title "From Mystery to Legend" to "Reports of Survival" and broke up the section into a separate section on "Two bodies missing from the Mass Romanov Grave." I'll also attempt to fix the citations. Any other suggestions? --Bookworm857158367 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I also fixed the citations from the Massie books. Both are from Nicholas and Alexandra. --Bookworm857158367 04:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Support This article improved a lot. And it is already can be featured article. And the imperial sisters article too. Astor Lam 08:35, 21 February 2007

Weak oppose 1. Sentence "Anastasia was nasty to the point of being evil," requires a reference. 2. Footnotes should come immediately after punctuation without an intervening space. 3. If she did indeed write "Goodby" instead of "Goodbye" can you insert sic after the misspelt word? 4. Please duplicate the references through the "rape" section. 5. I am concerned by the image "Romanovsaints.png" - there is no source indicated and the artwork depicts the Romanovs as passion bearers, so it can not have been painted prior to 2000. Consequently, the painter can not have been dead for 70 years as the public domain tag asserts. ~~6. Is it necessary to repeat information twice in both notes and references (Dehn, Eagar, Gilliard, Sams, Shevchenko, Vyrubova)?~~ DrKiernan 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply:

1. This is supported by the reference at the end of the following sentence ("King and Wilson (2003), p. 50"). Its no problem to repeat the ref, but is it necessary to pepper the text with duplicates like this.

2. There was three instances of this, all fixed now.

3. This has been done.

4. Have added another source to support claims.

5. Take your point; file was taken from commons, but maybe Bookworm has detail of the image's origions.

6. It's within the guidelines stated at WP:CITE, and allows for both a clear an unmuddled "Notes" section, and for a concise "Sources" section that gives an overview of available resources. Ceoil 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't upload the icon image. It was already included in the Nicholas II article when I started working on the Romanov articles. I have no idea who, if anyone, would hold the copyright. I happen to own a copy of the image that was sold by a company in Las Vegas and I've seen the image featured on other web sites. It's widely circulated. If nothing else, I'd say it would be fair use. Ceoil appears to have fixed the other things you objected to or explained them.--Bookworm857158367 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support The image tag needs altering in that case. The article is excellent, fairly typical of the other work of yours I've seen. DrKiernan 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I changed the image tag to fair use on all of the Romanov articles, including Anastasia's.--Bookworm857158367 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment What on Earth is a, "vagania"? It's in the article, and I'm hoping it wasn't added by a vandal.--Rmky87 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It may have been, but I see someone else has rewritten that sentence now and taken it out. The term was already in the article when I started rewriting it. She did have bunions, so I must have overlooked the word as some medical terminology for that condition or for the side of her toes. I can't find it in the dictionary now when I look it up, so it probably shouldn't go back in.--Bookworm857158367 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive biographical article.--Yannismarou 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Nagorno-Karabakh War

This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Quotes should not be italicized, per the MoS.
Fair use images need to have a clearly identified copyright holder, source information and a fair use rationale (Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg, Image:Shilka AA.JPG, Image:Khojaly Massacre.jpg, Image:366th and Weapons.jpg, Image:Sumgaitrioting.jpg). Fair use images should be used as little as possible.
Images are missing source info Image:Nkr-army6.jpg, Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg
Image:Damage to Stepanakert.jpg; what sort of permission was actually given for the use of this image?

--Peta 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done
All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here [1]. The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website [2] gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Wikipedia contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here [3].

Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral contributors raised problems with the prose, sources (too many news articles) and the length of the article in the last nomination. Bias and POV issues weren't among them and even they told you this. All of the books used are academic, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion that they compromise any of the facts. --MarshallBagramyan 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The above two oppose comments are ambiguous at best and seem to be there for the sake of opposing only. Unless they are expanded upon they oughta be disregarded.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment All quotations should have citations, and whoever said each quotation should not be included within the quotation marks. —Cuiviénen 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--MarshallBagramyan 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The page essentially became a site of Armenian POV, yet again claiming that Karabakh was "made" part of Azerbaijan by Stalin. This is not true, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was "established within" Azerbaijan SSR by the decision of Kavbureau in 1923. Atabek 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys please go a little bit further besides claiming its propaganda and lies? The sources do back up the information.--MarshallBagramyan 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is pretty much obvious that Azeris editors like Grandmaster would always oppose to the nomination of this article, and probably some Armenian editors too. Batabat is a newly registered user, this vote being his 9th edit here. Tabib will also always oppose, he is working with political parties in Azerbaijan and we can't expect him to ever accept FA on this article until it becomes the official view of the republic of Azerbaijan.
So a note to the Armenian and Azeri editor, I think it is best for both parties concerned to not vote, comment, but do not vote. Anyway, I will refrain voting myself. Fad (ix) 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Agreed w/ both Marshall's and Fad(ix)'s comments. This article has been fixed up well since the last FAC nomination (which failed to pin-point any POV problem). The same old issues brought by the Azeri editors on this page have been discussed 1000 times. I agree w/ Fad(ix) that we should let non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors vote. - Fedayee 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just a clarification, I did not say we should leave non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors to vote, but rather that I think it would be best if such was to happen. Fad (ix) 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I would also wanted to vote, but Fadix mad a good point. I rather not vote since Azeri users would oppose and Armenian users would support. The best would be to let non Armenian and Azeri users to vote on this article. ROOB323 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose For the time being, the page is not ready yet, let's return to this issue later, once more sources will be added and this page will become save quality as featured articles should be. --AdilBaguirov 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - This article is well written has over 60 references, the image problems have been solved, and obviously this section has been invaded by Turkish nationalists. Nareklm 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the authority to speak for Raul, but I can say that I am certain that any and all oppose votes by Azeri editors and any and all support votes by Armenian editors that provide flimsy or no reasons for supporting or opposing will be ignored. Please don't even bother. —Cuiviénen 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Mardavich 07:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - (Upgraded to strong support after many fixes were made to article. --Petercorless 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)) Prior "Conditional Support" discussion: I just went through the article, proofreading and making a few minor editing changes towards the grammar and syntax of the article. Since I am not an expert on the conflict, and since most of the references were to off-line sources, I cannot comment on the veracity of its claims. My main reservation is that it does not follow the form of citation templates favored by Wikipedia. I wish to see the templates replace most of the presently unstructured textual footnotes. As a neutral observer I did not sense any heavy bias, though quotes from Armenian sources might be balanced by a few comments by Azeri sources. Aside that, I have to say the article read very clearly and would be a fine featured article. I would not wish to see partisan political opposition sideline the forwarding of an article which helps illuminate the conflict. --Petercorless 11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Optional suggestion: Create a parallel article for diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to ameliorate or end the conflict, similar to Diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in the Somali Civil War, which can also cover events since the end of the conflict to the present day. --Petercorless 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think I also just got rid of the last italicized quotation. --Petercorless 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have objections to the quotes. For example this quote: Congratulations on your earthquake. Nature has spared us the trouble is taken from the book by Melkonian, which is definitely not third party. No one has ever seen this telegram, and it is nothing but allegation of Armenian sources. Grandmaster 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are specific quotes like this, which are considered objectionable or of questionable origin, we can discuss excising them. Is there any other independent source of this quote? I did not find anything on Google. Of course, I have no visibility into original language sources. Thoughts on the value of this quote versus its divisiveness? --Petercorless 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has much informative value, same as other quotes included. Grandmaster 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamil Basayev was just snipped from the list of commanders; his own biography notes his possible involvement in the NK-Azeri conflict. Would anyone have a reference to prove this assertion, or should his name be excised? --Petercorless 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He was involved, but not as a commander of Azerbaijani army. He was just one of the Chechen fighters who fought on Azerbaijani side at the early stage of war. Grandmaster 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So? He was a commander of a faction allied to the Azeri army.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's this kind of careless attitude towards editing that spoils the page overall -- what is meant by "so?" That's the point, this is an encyclopedia, and only verifiable and correct information should be featured -- there is a big difference between commander of the entire Azerbaijani Army and a commander of a Chechen battallion of maybe 100 fighters, who was there only for the first half of 1992. Meanwhile, the Russian commanders who led Armenian troops, such as Anatoliy Vladimirovich Zinevich, a Major General and even "Chief of the Nagorno-Karabakh Army Headquarters", should be mentioned, as should be other mercenaries that fought on Armenian behalf (you can read Zinevich's interview in Yerevan's VREMYA newspaper in Russian, 24 August 1996, p. 3, by Ara Tatevosyan, MOSKOVSKIYE NOVOSTI staff correspondent, entitled "Once a Russian General...") Zinevich died only recently, with both President Kocharyan and next President Sarkisyan attending his funeral. --AdilBaguirov 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this in the most elemantary language possible, That column does not list the commanders of the Azeri national army. It lists the commanders of the factions fighting against Armenians. In addition, Bassayev and the Chechens were not mercenaries! Likewise, the Afghan/Al-Qaueda terrorists were also not mercenaries.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake source. Hey Peter, here is another source from TIME Magazine that supports Melkonian: A Journey into Misery (page 3): "Sometimes these tales of grief from the earthquake zone merged seamlessly with horror stories of brutal rapes and beatings during ethnic clashes last February in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. The people I spoke with insisted that after the earthquake, Azerbaijanis refused to help, announcing that "Allah has finally heard us." Some claimed that trains from the neighboring Muslim republic were even scrawled with graffiti reading DECEMBER 7. HAPPY HOLIDAY!" If it would help I can replace his book with this source. Zinevich falls under a CIS mercenary, Basayev is included because he is a notable figure.--MarshallBagramyan 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
On citation style. I believe you are right Peter but I think that adding the template would easily add several kilobytes of space on to the article.--MarshallBagramyan 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What's ridiculous is the "CIS mercenary" terminology (?!) - the Maj-General ended up staying in Armenia and dying there just some time ago, and was far more important and prominent than any mercenaries that fought on Azerbaijani side. Moreover, the page lacks references and citations of UN documents, which outline several instances of mercenaries fighting for Armenia, including Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces), who were captured in 1993 and released because of an appeal of President Yeltsin. Then what about the EXECUTION of several Azerbaijani POWs, which Western human rights organizations have slammed?

Meanwhile, the most ridiculous of all is the total disrespect to, and lack of knowledge of, the fact that Azerbaijan SSR and Azerbaijanis were among the FIRST to help Armenia after the eqrthquake -- even though it coincided with a mass-scale ethnic cleansing of 165,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia in Nov-Dec 1988 (plus the remaining 50,000 or so thousand Azerbaijanis and Kurds later)! That's right -- Azerbaijan sent a military plane full of supplies to Yerevan, and due to a very suspicious "mistake" by ground operators, the plane crashed and all but one have died. No one in Armenia mentions this, and there is no memorial or otherwise thanks. Also, all hospitals and spas (pansionats) of Kelbajar region were urgently made room at, so as to accomodate Armenian victims of the earthquake -- some 2,000 people, from what I remember reading the Soviet press back then (it should be available in the FBIS translated into English articles too, see December 1988 digests). Also, there are references in Azerbaijani press that all the blood donated by Azerbaijanis was smashed by Armenians with exclamations "We don't need blood of Turks". However, not very sure if all these references from both sides are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Long thing short -- this article is not ready, it is POV and lacks balance. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, but atrocities were committed on both sides; don't act as if Azerbaijan was an innocent party twiddling its thumbs during the war. Should I introduce instances of rape of captive Armenian women by the Azeris during the war? Of prisoner torture and abuse in Baku? Of course because then that will start pathetic POV war that up to one year now, this article has avoided. I don't doubt Azeris sent help after the earthquake but after multiple pogroms in Azerbaijan (Sumgait, Kirovabad, etc.) I don't doubt Armenians rejected, understandably, aid from Azerbaijan either. But the quote highlights the ethnic tensions prior to outbreak of war and its not supposed to be casting aspersions on any of the sides. More than 1,200 Armenian families left Sumgait after the pogrom, which was one of the ultimate reasons why the conflict grew worse, which is why many Azeris left Armenia and Armenians from Azerbaijan. None of the third party observers are seeing these silly errors Adil. Please be more constructive in your criticism.--MarshallBagramyan 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a systemic bias. If you (AdilBaguirov, others) have citations of UN documents of mercenaries, or the refutation of someone's status as a mercenary, bring the titles, dates, and URLs to the table. Offer them with a positive "can-do" spirit, and presume goodwill as the basis of our work. No stonewalling or grandstanding. Before we start devolving into who-committed-the-worse-atrocities, or who didn't thank who for extensions of olive branches and aid, let's keep in mind we are seeking to construct a sober, rational document of what happened -- not to inflame a vivid re-eruption of partisan emotions and griefs. For those of you for whom the issue is to close to your heart, take a step away from the monitor, take a deep breath, and come back with constructive comments on how to improve the document. I think people are willing to accommodate changes which are citable and verifiable. Please avoid polarizing claims and accusations. Thank you. --Petercorless 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is becoming ridiculous. Including Azerbaijani members know very well that Azeri having celebrated the earthquake is well documented, here another two sources.

A sever earthquake hit northwestern Armenia on December 7, 1988. The news was greeted in Azerbaijan by cheers in student dormitories and celebration in the streets. Armenia- portraits of survival and hope Par Donald E. Miller, Lorna Touryan Miller, Jerry Berndt, University of California Press, p.7

However, even the massive earthquake which devastated parts of Armenia failed to bring about a diminution of tensions in the area, and the Soviet press noted that some Azerbaijanis openly rejoiced over this tragedy. Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), p.668

Some members would really like to have this article as a conform copy of the official Azerbaijan republic vision.

And here, I am addressing to non-Armenian, non-Azeri members. I advice those members to go on and read the Khojali section of the article. Marshall has tried to do everything to satisfy the Azeri members, even as far as tainting sections with Azeri POV. The wording is harsher than the Armenian Genocide intro. If some Azeri members are not satisfied now, with such unjustifiable concessions, does anyone think they will ever? Both Azeri and Armenian members know that while Marshal has presented the moderate estimates of the losses of Khojali to be on the over 400, the moderate estimates in scholarship publications is in the range of between 100-200. See for instance, Roberta Cohen and Francis M Deng book The Forsaken People- Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, Brookings Institution Press 1998 p.260, or Vitaly V. Naumkin book, Central Asia and Transcaucasia: Ethnicity and Conflict, Greenwood Press, 1994 p. 95. I have also provided the fist Azerbaijani official figures supporting that contention and many other sources on that, on Khojali tragedy article itself.

Marshall has gone out of his way to voluntarily make concessions, and various, here was one example, to taint a little bit to satisfy the Azeri members. And this is how he is thanked by those same members.

But here is the situation; many of the members here are not in Wikipedia in good faith. Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views. Then we have new members just recently created suspected to be socks, like Atabek, Dacy etc., who had no better than maintaining Adil versions and pushing over them.

So, if Raul want to take a fair decision, and while I admit to be maybe biased, while this would be involuntarily, I think it would be best to only take into consideration members who have not been involved with Azeri-Armenian conflicts on Wikipedia. For now, this is all what I wanted to say. Fad (ix) 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is truly ridiculous -- Fadix is overstepping all boundaries with his repeated defamation and harassment of myself and another user, Tabib, as well as groundless and false claims about other well-established users like Dacy69 and Atabek. Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to criticism is not the best way to deal with the issue. It is very sad that Fadix consumes so much space to slander other Wikipedia contributors, who do not hide behind the nicknames and contribute under their real names. Adil has a very good point. How come that the article lists Shamil Basayev as an Azeri commander, while he was never in charge of any unit of Azerbaijani army and never commanded any military operation during the NK war, and at the same time, the article never mentions such a prominent Russian mercenary as Zinevich, who was a chief of stuff in the Armenian army, let alone listing him as a commander. This shows that the article is very superficial. As for the telegram, neither of the quotes presented prove its existence. Time Magazine reporter only repeats what he heard from Armenians, plus they told him about some graffiti, and Fadix’s quotes are not about the telegram either. Grandmaster 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slandering? No, I am actually describing the situation in which we are. Fad (ix) 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say Bassayev was an Azeri commander? Am I blind or are you blind? The footnote states he was in command of Chechens fighting against Armenian, for Azerbaijan obviously. No point to list mercenaries, unless they are notable individuals. I don't se how this guy is notable. Besides, Azeris had more money and had more mercenaries, if we start listing them guess who gets the shorter end of the stick.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Create an article on Zinevich and I'll include his name in the column (that is if it falls under WP:N. Your vague, stonewalling objections are becoming more superficial and non-existant as they come. Most of the neutral observers have pointed out actual problems in the article that I have no objections to rectify, but POV issues is not one of them. --MarshallBagramyan 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources." To dismiss a reference as "worthless" simply because it is Armenian or Azerbaijan, is not sufficient, and smacks of extreme chauvanism. Let's avoid that, shall we? Meanwhile, conversely, let's leave out attacks ad hominem and stick with critiquing the article, thank you. --Petercorless 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He's been doing this from the beginning, this is just the point of the iceberg, if you even knew all the racist trash he is known to write..., when I answer to this sort of stuff I am warned for personal attack. Anyway, Zuljan, is not an Armenian. Adil purpously added the 'i' to make it sound as if he is an Armenian. Zuljan is a Slovak name, not Armenian. Fad (ix) 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask all parties to avoid speaking of personal past relationships. Let's focus on the output of the work. Comments should be directed towards the quality of the article, Thank you. In regard to Zuljan's heritage: what point are you trying to make specifically? --Petercorless

Petercorless, the "ian" ending is an Armenian family name ending. Adil added the "i" to make it "ian." He modified the authors name to then claim he is an Armenian and dismiss the article on the bases that an Armenian contributed. I just clarified that Zuljan is a Slovake author not Armenian. Fad (ix) 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True. A Slovak is not an Armenian. Thank you for clarifying your logic. Let's move on. --Petercorless 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. After some further thought, I suggest that all of the quotations used to head sections be removed. They're unencyclopedic, instead making the text more of a narrative than a presentation of facts. It might be useful to mention some of the quotations in the body of some sections as appropriate, but only if they add significantly to the understanding of the section. —Cuiviénen 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Marshall, I agree that placing quotations on the lead of each sections is not encyclopedic, it gives more of a sensationalist look to the article, like the magazines bolding sensasionalist phrases in leads etc. Fad (ix) 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed some of the quotes and integrated those I felt were most relevant into the text. How does it look now?--MarshallBagramyan 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Consider to achieve a peer review and A-class rating on the Military history project. Several NPOV issues still remain, for example already in the lead: "As the war progressed, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both former Soviet Republics, became enveloped in a protracted, undeclared war as the latter attempted to curb a secessionist, irredentist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh". The opening of the background is one-sided. A POV could be traced in the referencing (6 Armenian sources). --Brand спойт 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that added the comment as to it being a irredentist movement, because this is how the conflict is objectively classified. Irredentism is a cause of many ethnically-driven conflicts in the world. Citing that as a cause of the war is not a validation nor a refutation of either side, nor is that description particularly partisan. It is an objective description of why there was fighting in the first place. --Petercorless 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus-building

Folks, we need to develop a consensus about the quality of the article, and avoid personal aspersions or even comments about those commenting about the article. Why a person votes for or against an article matters to me far, far less than "Is it a good article or not?" I wish to use objective evidence, not subjective personal political positions. That said, I wish to address some of the issues brought about above, which are getting buried under cross-talk.

Footnotes -- If it makes for a better article, add the formatting. In the case of this article, it would help the professionalism and standardization of the citations. Laziness is no excuse. Neither is byte count.
- Saw fixes - excellent! --Petercorless 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Main leaders of factions should be shown in the infobox. If you want to have a more comprehensive list of military leaders of each of the participants, and perhaps a list of units under their command, you can have some sort of order of battle or leader listing in the article. It can include both civil and military leaders, wheras the infobox should be for military commanders only. Example: War in Somalia (2006–present): Key people.
Earthquake seems notable to mention, and I suggest to add the related verifiable published newspaper/magazine/book references so long as we do not beat a dead horse or argue ad nauseum. If there are objections, ensure to cite who made such claims to show they were assertions as opposed to provable/verifiable fact. If there are counter-arguments that these events or expressions never occurred or did not occur as asserted, then cite a published source where the refutation was made. No personal assertions or POV-based excisions. Back your statements. If you cannot, we won't delete simply because you find it an objectionable topic or reference.
Quotes at the start of sections -- Personally, I liked them as a stylistic engagement of a reader. But yes, they can be argued to be non-encyclopedic that way. Some of those taken away could be worked back in to the paragraphs either inline or as cquotes for the section.
Seems close to ready -- aside from some minor and often technical disputes which are never going to be resolved unless people put down partisan positions, this article seems about 95% ready for FA status. Remember that no article is ever complete, and just because FA does not mean the article is enshrined in a temple somewhere. --Petercorless 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe we got points 2 (for the most part) and 3 squared away. --MarshallBagramyan 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another comment:

Non-"third party" objections of sources -- If this was an article about World War II, it would be allowable to quote from either Churchill's six-volume history of World War II, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as both individuals were personally and primarily involved. You cannot toss away a primary source by calling it POV. What you can do is note who the source is, and ensure that assertions, allegations, and other non-verified claims or opinions of an author, even if a primary source, are properly contextualized. --Petercorless 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK

I will remind that we are not simply supposed to throw up any roadblock to progress we can find in Wikipedia's arsenal of templates, especially if said template additions are not followed by a related discussion or citation of what the problems are. Talk rationally, thank you. --Petercorless 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I already explained that Basayev was not a commander in Azerbaijani army, still he is listed as such in the commanders section. I also provided a full text of Kavburo resolution, which says that Nagorno-Karabakh was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and not awarded. The article clearly provides inaccurate info with regard to these issues. Grandmaster 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Basayev was not a commander in the Azerbaijani army. He is not listed as such. He is listed as a commander during the war. He is not listed as a commander of the Azeri army. Stop this malicious nonsense. It's understandable why you're seeking to remove this fact from the article but it's just silly. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind civility. Second, the two warring sides were Armenia and Azerbaijan, so Basayev should be a commander in the either army to be listed as commander. I'm not trying to remove Basayev from the article, he can be mentioned in the text along with people like Zinevich, but the attempts to present Basayev as a commander are deliberate misinformation. Grandmaster 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. He need not be part of the Azerbaijan army to be listed as a commander in the Infobox. He simply needs to have been a commander of a notable faction or formation. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dodging the issue by saying mind civility is uncivil and uncalled for. No, the two principal warring sides were the NKR Army and Azerbaijan. Both sides were supported by others. NKR by Armenia and Azerbaijan by Afghan mujahedin and Chechen guerillas commanded by Basayev. In addition each side employed mercenaries. Basayev with his Chechens was as much a part of the conflict as Azerbaijan was. Basayev cannot be compared with Zinevich since Zinevich was a mercenary while Basayev was not.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You cited no sources to support your claim that Basayev commanded any military unit. He fought in Karabakh, but none of your sources say that he was anything other than a soldier. And again, Basayev did not command any military operation, while Zinevich was chief of stuff in the Armenian army. Grandmaster 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are countless sources that name Basayev. Even De Wall: " One of the last fighters to leave Shusha was the Chechen volunteer Shamil Basayev,". He was a commander of batallionm always has been.[4].

President Dudayev soon dispatched Basayev to Azerbaijan to assist the Muslim Azerbaijani national army in fighting the Russian-backed Christian Armenian...:-The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror - Page 13 by Paul J. Murphy. This book: Caucasus: A Journey to the Land Between Christianity and Islam - Page 186,by Nicholas Griffin - 2004 - 248 pages writes extensively about Basayev and his dirty deeds for Azerbaijan. Link:[5]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps his role should be detailed specifically in the text as well as the Infobox. Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. Was it in an older year entry? I also suggest to add it to Basayev's own Wikipedia entry. Again, please use reliable sources, and since there seem to be doubts, put in more than one if possible. If his alleged battalion had a name or designation, it should also be cited. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA information is about the role of Armenia. It says that Armenia occupies part of Azerbaijan's territory. Grandmaster 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, quit parsing the words and arguing semantics with these trivial points. If he lead a unit into combat then that makes him a commander. --MarshallBagramyan 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Basayev did not fight in Karabakh, show me a source that proves that he commanded any significant military unit or was in charge of any operation by Azerbaijani army. Otherwise he cannot be listed as a commander. And even if he