Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2008

Contents

February 2008

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

The article was promoted 18:57, 29 February 2008.

Carlson's patrol

Respectfully submit this article about a World War II Pacific campaign event for featured article consideration. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination with thanks to Nick Dowling, among others, for significant contributions and assistance. Cla68 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Another fantastic article well deserving of a gold star. My only question is who is Ghormley? He's mentioned in passing by surname and not seen again. Heis identity should be clarified (or at least linked by his full name).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the comments. When I shortened the background, I forgot to re-explain who Ghormley was. He was Robert L. Ghormley, commander of Allied forces in the South Pacific. I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a reason "patrol" is not capitalized in the article title, but is in one of the alternate names given in the lead? I think subjects like these are usually considered proper nouns, so Carlson's Patrol would be better. At least, the alternate names should use the same capitalization unless there's a good reason not to. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been discussion on doing it either way, either capitalizing only the first word in the title, or treating the entire title as a proper noun. I'm willing to do it either way. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As long as it's consistent, I'm not worried either way. But put me down for a weak vote in favor of capitalizing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a great article which meets all the criteria. I only added a para, so don't deserve any of the credit for this article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, meets all the criteria, etc. etc. Carom (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative article, appears to meet all the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think the article is pretty good, but I think there are some prose issues that, if taken care of, would make it much better.
    • This sentence is very long and unwieldy. I would separate it into two sentences and better incorporate the information about taking the Japanese by surprise. "Taking the Japanese by surprise, by nightfall on August 8 the 11,000 Allied troops, under the command of Lieutenant General Alexander Vandegrift and mainly consisting of United States Marine Corps units, had secured Tulagi and nearby small islands as well as an airfield under construction at Lunga Point on Guadalcanal."
    • There are other sentences that are very long and could confuse the reader. In many cases, a long sentence describing a particular action is broken up by a long phrase describing the unit undertaking the action. I wonder if it would be better to split these up or rephrase them in many cases.
    • There are a lot of instances of passive voice that could be improved to active voice (ex. "The airfield was later named..." could become "Allied forces later renamed the airfield...")
    • "Additional reinforcements later increased the number of US troops on Guadalcanal to more than 20,000." - were these reinforcements there to keep the perimeter defense around Lunga Point or for other purposes?
    • Watch for areas to streamline text - "being defeated " should probably just be "defeated", "completely unaware " -> "unaware, etc
    • Why is Battle for Henderson Field a further information rather than a main article template?
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations should not be broken out from the paragraph unless they are over four lines. The ending quotation should not be offset.
    • I'd like to see the quotation moved up to the beginning of the paragraph about the casualties. I think it would be a good intro to the paragraph, and it seems an odd way to end the article, to me.
    • Do you have any other information about the "high morale" from the quote?

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delayed response. I've tried to address some of your concerns. I'm a fan of long sentences, as long as the grammar is correct. But, I'll look at splitting some of them. I removed the passive voice that you mentioned, and will look at correcting other instances if I find them. I clarified the 20,000 troops sentence. I don't understand what you mean by "main article template". I removed the block quote. I like finishing articles with pithy quotes as a graceful ending, which is why I placed the sentence at the end, but I understand that the "high morale" phrase probably needs some explanation and will put in some explanation for it. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Karanacs is referring to the difference between, for example, {{main}}, {{seealso}} and {{further}}. If an article uses summary style of a main daughter article, the {{main}} template can be used; if not, another template is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I replaced the "further information" template with the "main article" template. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Sandy for clarifying for me. I like the sentence you added on morale, but now I wonder if it would be best to get rid of the example of attrition and go straight to the quote. The current flow has: a) high list of casualties, b) morale is good, c) casualties high in Companies C and F, d) Company E guy talks about high casualties and morale. Removing the info about Companies C and F would still leave an example of the casualties (Company E), but would streamline a bit (and then I wouldn't wonder how A, B, and D fared). Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done some copyediting to try to reduce some of the redundancies and tighten the prose a bit. Please let me know what you think. I didn't want to make the following changes because they used different sources:
  • First paragraph of Guadalcanal campaign mentions that the troops were mainly US. The really long sentence that starts the next paragraph also says that the troops were mainly American and specifies that they were primarily Marines. Could we take that mention of out the second paragraph and put it in the first instead? (Allied forces (primarily US Marine Corps units).... and then 11,000 Allied troops under the comamnd of ...)

Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your helpful edits and agree that they improved the article. I removed the Company C & F casualty example and combined the two paragraphs. I also made the changes to the 1st and 2nd paragraphs that you suggested. The sources are still ok. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.

ANAK Society

Self-nomination. This article began its life as a deleted, non-notable AfD in 2006. It was re-created with sources in late December 2007 and was quickly promoted to GA status. It recently went through the PR process but did not get much attention. I'm excited to see how the community responds to a FA candidate of this type; the fact that it is a modern secret society with mostly local influence meant that we resorted to an unorthodox form of sourcing. MaxVeers (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, although I am a significant contributor to the article; so it's more of a co-nom, I suppose. This is an amazing article, with an incredible number of sources for a topic that was previously deleted as unverifiable. I'd also like to point out to reviewers that some of our sources rely on The Technique, which has been moving to new servers as of late; therefore, their web archives have been down and some of those links may be temporarily broken. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Image captions should only end with full-stops if they are complete sentences.
    • Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks
      • Done. I didn't find many examples of this. MaxVeers (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure this has been corrected; please have another look and ask Epbr123 to re-check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • PDF sources need labeling
    • See WP:ITALICS#Words as words. Epbr123 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not done. Can you be more specific about what the italics problems are? MaxVeers (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • These need italics rather than speech marks:
          • affixed to a capital letter 'T'
          • inscription ענק, meaning "Anak"
          • from "Anak" in the 1908 Blue Print to "ANAK". Epbr123 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Thanks for the clarification! MaxVeers (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support. This is a well-written article, and it appears to meet all FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The article comes across as very pro-ANAK. Other issues below.
      • Comment. I would argue that the Controversy section does a good job of covering criticisms of ANAK. I include all the skeptical sources I could find. The positive aspects of the organization are carefully sourced. As it is ostensibly a philanthropic organization, it may follow that criticisms are fewer than other types of organizations. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Do not wikilink to other parts of this article from the lead (oldest, name, influential, etc) or body of the article (Transition section)
      • Done. Removed these. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This needs a citation in the lead, even if it is sourced in the article "Today, membership in ANAK is considered the highest honor a Georgia Tech student can receive; "
      • Done. Reorganized lede to indicate prestige of membership has changed in recent years. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think you need to wikilink president, vicepresident, treasurer and secretaty
      • Done. Unlinked these. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There should not be external links in the main body of the article (see Tranisition to a secret society section)
      • Done. Moved the external link to a reference. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need a citation for this sentence, even if it is cited in a different section "In contrast, critics of the society suggest that the society acts in secret to shirk accountability for any negative consequences of its activities"
      • Done. Added a citation. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not necessary to include (see Controversy) when it's in the same article
      • Done. Removed it. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of duplicated wikilinks. Blue Print, The Technique, yearbook, student newspaper, student organization, etc, really only need to be wikilinked once in the lead and once in the body of the article (and again in an image caption if necessary
      • Done. Removed all of these plus any others I noticed. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Following the establishment of the Blue Print, ANAK and three Georgia Tech faculty members appointed the first staff of the Technique, Georgia Tech's student newspaper" - the previous paragraph makes it sound like ANAK was formed after the yearbook, but this sentence implies the opposite
      • Done. Removed the confusing clause. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of random words that don't need to be wikilinked in this article (philanthropic, scholarship, plaque (and this is going to dental plaque, by the way), bust, coach, portrait, etc)
      • Done. Removed all of these plus any others I noticed. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If this is true "lost the election, a result widely attributed to her purported ANAK affiliation", then how can this be true "membership in ANAK is considered the highest honor a Georgia Tech student can receive"?
      • Done. Clarified in the lede that prestige of membership has changed in recent years. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd more the Name and symbology section to the very top or at least second
      • Done. Moved it to the first section. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Why was D.V.S. Senior Honor Society chosen out of all other secret societies to appear in the See Also list?
      • Done. It was there because it's another Atlanta university-based secret society founded around the same time as ANAK. I removed the link; it's not necessary. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need additional citation for "was made public only upon a student's graduation". The existin citation shows that this does happen, but doesn't specify that this is the only was it happens.
      • Done. Added a quoted citation to ANAK's website explicitly stating this. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A great deal of this article is sourced to the ANAK society, with more sourced directly to Georgia Tech and its varied institutions. Has the organization been mentioned anywhere else?
      • Comment. Although ANAK has been influential, its influence is mostly confined to Georgia Tech and Atlanta. As such, it is generally only mentioned in literature about the region. Within this body of literature, however, ANAK is mentioned in a variety of types of published sources, including academic and popular books, newspaper articles, student publications, online sources, etc. Please also keep in mind that because ANAK is a secret society, sources will necessarily be harder to come by. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your extremely helpful comments! MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job in making changes :) Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I could make some deep comment about this article and phoenixes, but that somehow feels unnecessary. Any issues that I think I might have found have already been mentioned and addressed. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.

Amanita ocreata

previous FAC

Since its last nomination, it has been reviewed and subsequently listed at WP:GAN, requiring a copyedit there. Since then, a range map has been added, and a relevant external link which is not in the inline references. Otherwise, I feel this article is as comprehensive as possible, and has appropriately licenced images and a hierarchy of headings. At 26.8kb, it is somewhat shorter than other biological FAs, though plenty longer than some other FAs. Feedback encouraged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: My problem with this article is the section on toxicity, most of which really belongs in another article. Quite simply, none of this information about poisoning is specific to A. ocreata and applies equally well as a description to amatoxin poisoning from any mushroom containing these compounds. In my opinion, most of this section should be moved to a new article, Amatoxin poisoning (or maybe the Amatoxin article), and a shorter section, with a redirect, should be left in the Amanita ocreata article. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll just note here what I said last time about Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or more specifically this essay. If this were a paper book, We'd have a poisoning section, with details under A. phalloides, or general, and then under A. bisporiga, A. ocreata etc. we'd have poisoning section - see A. phalloides or as for A. phalloides. One could also argue that the fungus has these poisons so this is what would happen if you eat it. In terms of coverage, then the most exact way to cover it would be to make a Amanita sect. phalloideae page and reserve all the detailed stuff on amatoxins for that page given that is the group of fungi which has all the toxic members (not the genus Amanita. However, one does not ingest or is poisoned by a taxonomic group of fungi.
How wikipedia (and guidebooks for mushrooms, frogs, plants, birds) have developed is with the species as the unit of division. The fact is if you eat this mushroom then the toxins contained within are likely to do these things and there is a summary of the treatment you may receive. I'd argue that laypeople are unlikely to be looking up toxins but more mushrooms in the first instance. Nevertheless I can see some stuff to prune that is less relevant. Some consensus would be good here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand your reasoning here. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a paper, hence, "space limitations" aren't an issue, but the way I see it, this is just a recipe for having content forks all over the place. And, in fact, that's the situation we have now – no detailed discussion of amatoxin poisoning in the Amatoxin article, and two detailed but entirely separate discussions under Amanita phalloides and Amanita ocreata. Is that a logical arrangement of subject matter to you? It sure isn't to me. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the size of the article and where you're coming from. OK, I agree amatoxin should probably have the most detail, and it could get quite a bit more detailed than what is on the Amanita phalloides page, which is where there is most detail currently. However, the development or lack thereof of the amatoxin page is somewhat independent of what is being discussed here. Essentially I think it is worthwhile discussing in some detail (a) what happens when you eat it and (b) how it is treated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity is the sine qua non of the "death angel" being a featured article candidate in the first place. Throwing it out is a pretty senseless argument; do so, and there's no reason to feature this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "throwing it out"? I'm talking about condensing it down to a summary, with redirect to a longer article specifically on the topic of amatoxin poisoning, which is standard procedure for specialized article sections, especially sections describing something that is shared by the subject of one or more other articles. And as for FA, I thought it was about having the most exemplary writing and organization of an article, not necessarily about "padding" it with the most content to make sure the article is a certain length. I'll also note – A. ocreata is actually a relatively rare cause of poisonings, and by that I mean within the native range of A. ocreata (California, basically), poisoning by this species is far rarer than poisoning by Amanita phalloides. Its not because it isn't a highly toxic mushroom, but because people, for whatever reason, rarely consume it by mistake compared to mistaken consumption of A. phalloides. Hence, if the "amatoxin poisoning" literature describes poisoning by any one organism in particular, that would be A. phalloides. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've taken on board comments and removed experimental material, to leave the essential symptoms/toxicity/treatment. This is now 668 words vs. 1097 words in Amanita phalloides (not including notable victims or Similarity to edible species so as to compare the above only). The article is still over 20kb in size and as comprehensive as I can make it. Do you feel this is enough of a cut-down. If not, which particular bits do you feel are still extraneous? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: FWIW, I envisage a amatoxin poisoning section on the amatoxin page which would be longer than that on A. phalloides, just haven't done that yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Its definite better in this article (still a bit long in the A. phalloides article), so coverage of different topics is now more balanced. I think a "poisoning" section of in Amatoxin could be put together by synthesizing the section in the A. phalloides article with the older, longer section of the A. ocreata article. I'll try putting it together tonight. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportComments --Laser brain (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Footnote 22 is broken - it refers to a Reference (Vetter) that is never defined.
(fixed).
    • You don't appear to have a consistent method for providing foreign-language and English translations of journal articles. Note 25 has the German title followed by the English translation in single brackets. Note 27 has just the English title in single brackets. Note 29 also has just the English title, but this time in double brackets. All of those have the language in parens at the beginning of the citation, but note 38 has the phrase "in German" in parens after the article title.
(There are only 2 left and both have icons. I removed the german title to streamline with the Italian one so both are formatted the same way) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
    • "...it is one of the most poisonous of all known toadstools..." Something can't be "one of the most", it can only be the most.
(There are several highly lethal species which it would be hard to conculsively determine which is the most poisonous. It isn't conclusively known which is the most poisonous. I have reworded to "it is a potentially deadly fungus")
    • "The spore print is white, and the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores are 9–14 x 7–10 μm viewed under a microscope." This sentence lost me. What does "the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores" mean?
(changed to "oval-shaped" and linked amyloid. Could explain here I guess or leave as bluelink. I am open to suggestions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, I think it should go back to something close to the language you originally used – "ovoid to subellipsoid" is the proper terminology, and in Wikipedia, terms not easily understandable to a general audience are linked rather than "dumbed down". In this case, the link would probably be to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. I'd be happy to write these entries in Wiktionary if they're not there already. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have reinserted ovate to subelliptic and left oval-shaped in momentarily until a wiktionary bit is wirtten. I am more than happy if you tweak to link at that stage. That'd be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
    • Some statements, like "It also stimulates DNA-dependent RNA polymerases, leading to an increase in RNA synthesis." seem to be over-cited. Does that statement really need three sources? Is it a point of contention in this particular discourse community?
(I've removed that one. I'll check for others)
    • In the description section, why do you introduce the term "toadstool" when mushroom has been used? It is already hard to follow the fungus terms (for a layperson) without mix and match. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: I missed this, but the term "toadstool" is a very archaic and unscientific term. It definitely needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(agreed. 2 toadstools removed from article)
  • support, with a few questions:
    • Could you please confirm that this is correct, "first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1909" which is referenced to Peck, Charles Horton (1909). "New species of fungi.". A search shows that this may have been written earlier [1]
(Peck seemed periodically published articles with the same title as he described fungi, so it was like a series as far as I can tell. I have a peer reviewed journal article by mycologists Ammirati and Thiers which dates and references the particular instalment where A. ocreata appears as a publication in 1909, but I have found the same title used when other species are described over time. confusing I know....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Could this be clarified, "It belongs to the section Phalloideae within the genus Amanita, which contains several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita also known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa." Specifically, are these examples part of the same section or just the genus? If I am interpreting it correctly, how about: "The mushroom belongs to the same section (Phalloideae) and genus (Amanita) as several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa."
(sounds good. done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Blue is an unfortunate colour for the distribution map when the species is along the coastline like this.
(gah! shoulda thought of that one! left a note with the map maker. I have no experience with these type of maps...) done
    • In "Distribution and habitat", honestly I don't know much about mushrooms (yet) but...is their distrubution limited by their relationship with the specific tree types? Are there other factors (climatic? humidity of west coast?) that are required to grow?
(probably more vegetation than anything else, however all the material I have is descriptive, so I can't speculate if there isn't already speculation published. The old OR issue..)
    • In "Toxicity" is there a measurement of how toxic one mushroom is? an LD50 maybe? Would it be the same as Alpha-amanitin's 0.1 mg/kg?
(The nearest I could get (that wasn't OR) was reporting its relative A phalloides, where half a cap may be lethal, near the section where it says it may be more toxic, as that species has been studied in much greater detail)
That's fine. Original Research on the toxicity isn't a wise idea. --maclean 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If I'm following the above conversation correctly, and the toxicity is same as Amatoxin, would a {{See also|Amatoxin}} be appropriate? --maclean 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(we're working on it - see above)

Comment: I'm taking a close look at Image:Amanita_ocreata_map.png, the distribution map, and see some definite problems with it. First, based on descriptions by Tulloss, etc, which only name what states the mushroom occurs in, any map that attempts to show a more exact range than that is bound to fall back on original research. Second, the range of occurrence shown is clearly not accurate. It only shows it as a coastal species, yet its definitely known from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (the map doesn't quite seem to go that far east, or follow the natural geography of California at all, as best I can tell). Also, it shows the distribution in the PNW to be primarily coastal, which is not the pattern that oak woodlands follow there. If it is possible to make up a distribution map of this kind for Wikipedia, knowing that there's a degree of original research involved, I would use the distribution maps of Oregon/California oak woodland dominant species, as well as western hazel:

Other dominant species of oak fall within at least one of the geographic ranges shown in the above maps. A map incorporating the ranges of all of the above species would be the most likely distribution map for A. ocreata. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask and see if the maker (or someone else) can tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
I'd have them go with a different color scheme as well. As somebody else mentioned, the use of blue on a coastal area might be confusing. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and have already done so. The person I have asked may or may not be a little busy off WP so have a 'reserve' to ask if he is too busy. The map has now been changed from blue to green and enlarged as per the other maps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The map is way better, and I don't want to run the point into the ground, but the map now shows the distribution as going into BC, which has not in fact been reported. That should be changed. I'm thinking a good place to show the northern end of distribution would be at the same place whether the continuous mainland distribution of Quercus garryana ends, in Whatcom County, Washington, just south of the Canadian border, as per this map:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/quercus/garryana.jpg
There's actually a real possibility that this species occurs in BC, of course, but its never been reported as of yet. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OH no, article instability I read that...be interesting if/when someone finds it up there and we can add it. Lemme know if it turns up...I'll let the mapmaker know to 'shrink' the map at the north end a bit. Map has been duly shrunk Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and well-written. I think it provides just enough information about the toxins and treatment without going into extra detail. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Tropical cyclone

previous FAC

This article is being resubmitted to FAC because it appears many of the previous issues that came up in last year's FAC have been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose First of all, the first sentence seems awkward. Second, the "Observations" section is under referenced. Third, the section "Interaction Between Typhoons" does not have any references. Also, does that section refer only to typhoons? Surely there is interaction between hurricanes and cyclones. not just typhoons. When these issues are addressed, I will support. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed first sentence and typhoon interaction notes. I'll look at the observations section. What references look missing to you within that section? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of it looks better already. Although, in my eyes, every paragraph should be sourced to get to FA status. I could be wrong, though. It is getting there, though. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a couple more references to the observations section, bringing the number of references to at least one per paragraph. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the check external links link. So far, one link (Atlantic tropical systems of 1993) does exist, though the checker says it does not. All previously dead links now work. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a bug, there are two citations named MWR Avila 1995. The first has a working link, the other doesn't. — Dispenser 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
They are the same reference, so I used to ref name to merge them. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Support All the issues have been addressed. Great article. Weak Oppose The article's prose is great and most of the presentational style is good, but there are quite a few citation issues that should be addressed. When they are completed, I will gladly change my vote to Support.

  • This selection from "Eye and inner core" should probably be reworded because it currently has some sections that are verbatim or almost verbatim from the ref. "Associated with eyewalls are eyewall replacement cycles, which occur naturally in intense tropical cyclones. When cyclones reach peak intensity they usually have an eyewall and radius of maximum winds that contract to a very small size, around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) to 25 kilometres (16 mi). At this point, outer rainbands may organize into an outer ring of thunderstorms that slowly moves inward and robs the inner eyewall of its needed moisture and angular momentum. During this phase, the tropical cyclone weakens (i.e., the maximum winds die off somewhat and the central pressure goes up), but eventually the outer eyewall replaces the inner one completely. The storm can be of the same intensity as it was previously or, in some cases, it can be even stronger after the eyewall replacement cycle. Even if the cyclone is weaker at the end of the cycle, the storm may strengthen again as it builds a new outer ring for the next eyewall replacement."
  • Suggestion: Would it be smarter to present the bulk of the info in "Size" as a table instead of prose? It was done that way in the ref, and I think it would be easier to read that way.
  • This sentence in "Size" needs a citation: "Other methods of determining a tropical cyclone's size include measuring the radius of gale force winds and measuring the radius of the central dense overcast."
    • The search for references led to a change in the passage. Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This selection from the first paragraph of "Mechanics" has no citation(s). "This provides the system with enough energy to be self-sustaining and causes a positive feedback loop that continues as long as the tropical cyclone can draw energy from its thermal reservoir, the warm water at the surface of the ocean. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The rotation of the Earth causes the system to spin, an effect known as the Coriolis effect, giving it a cyclonic characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm."
    • The section has gained citations and been reworded. See if that satisfies your concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This selection from "Major basins and related warning centers" is not cited. "The RSMCs and TCWCs, however, are not the only organizations that provide information about tropical cyclones to the public. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issues informal advisories in all basins except the Northern Atlantic and Northeastern Pacific. The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) issues informal advisories and names for tropical cyclones that approach the Philippines in the Northwestern Pacific. The Canadian Hurricane Centre (CHC) issues advisories on hurricanes and their remnants when they affect Canada."
  • This sentence from "Formation --> Factors" should probably be cited. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood."
  • These sentences in "Locations" need to be cited. (1)"Most tropical cyclones form in a worldwide band of thunderstorm activity called by several names: the Intertropical Discontinuity (ITD), the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), or the monsoon trough." (2)"Tropical cyclones originate on the eastern side of oceans, but move west, intensifying as they move. Most of these systems form between 10 and 30 degrees away of the equator, and 87% form no farther away than 20 degrees of latitude, north or south." (3)"However, it is possible for tropical cyclones to form within this boundary as Tropical Storm Vamei did in 2001 and Cyclone Agni in 2004."
  • This selection from "Coriolis effect" needs citations. "The poleward portion of a tropical cyclone contains easterly winds, and the Coriolis effect pulls them slightly more poleward. The westerly winds on the equatorward portion of the cyclone pull slightly towards the equator, but, because the Coriolis effect weakens toward the equator, the net drag on the cyclone is poleward. Thus, tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere usually turn north (before being blown east), and tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere usually turn south (before being blown east) when no other effects counteract the Coriolis effect."
  • Suggestion In "Landfall", instead of providing three inline citations to the same ref, put one at the end of the section and include a brief HTML comment explaining that the whole section is covered by the ref.
  • The first paragraph of "Dissapation --> Factors" needs to be cited better.
  • The first paragraph of "Artificial dissapation" probably needs more citations.
    • Done. Included a couple more citations. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The information in the table at the end of "Intensity classification" (table title: "Tropical Cyclone Classifications (all winds are 10-minute averages)") needs to be cited.
  • Issues in "Notable tropical cyclones"
  • You should probably find an English website to cite this sentence because (based on figures in the typhoon's Wikipedia) there appear to be discrepencies on how many casualties the storm caused. "Elsewhere, Typhoon Nina killed 29,000 in China due to a 2000-year flood that caused 62 dams including the Banqiao Dam to fail; another 145,000 died during the subsequent famine and epidemic."
  • Need to be cited:
  • "The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is the deadliest natural disaster in the United States, killing an estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people in Galveston, Texas.'"
  • "In addition to being the most intense tropical cyclone on record, Tip was the largest cyclone on record, with tropical storm-force winds 2,170 kilometres (1,350 mi) in diameter."
No action appears to be needed, as the reference for Tip is the same as Tracy, located one line below. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Hurricane John is the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record, lasting 31 days in 1994."
Again, no action appears to be needed, as the reference for John is located after the following line. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "John is the second longest-tracked tropical cyclone in the Northern Hemisphere on record, behind Typhoon Ophelia of 1960, which had a path of 8,500 miles (12,500 km). "
Again, no action appears to be needed, as the reference for John/Ophelia track lengths is located after the following line. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence in "Global warming" may need to be cited. "Both Emanuel and Webster et al. consider sea surface temperatures to be vital in the development of cyclones."
  • This sentence in "Related cyclone types" needs to be cited. "From space, extratropical storms have a characteristic "comma-shaped" cloud pattern. Extratropical cyclones can also be dangerous when their low-pressure centers cause powerful winds and high seas."
  • You should probably provide more citations in "Tropical cyclones in popular culture". Thingg⊕⊗ 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The above issues should all be addressed now. If not, please let us know so we can more fully correct them. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Great job with the article. Definately FA status. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm sure I could find some small thing that could be done, but I believe the article, as a whole, passes all of the FA criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support After seeing that the issues have been addressed, and that the article is looking much better, I change my vote to support. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes: This is really awkward, and the punctuation makes it hard to get through: can it be cleaned up somehow?

Scientists at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules ((1018 J) per day.1 That is about 1 PW (1015 watt). For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans (and 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity1), or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.2

Also, most of the citations say Retrived on, a few say accessed, most of the full dates in citations are wikilinked, a few aren't, please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones that said "accessed" were changed to "retrieved", and all the dates are now wikilinked and in the same format. I made a change to the text in the awkward sentence. Not sure how much better it is, but I gave it a shot. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the problem was the excess parentheses and commas which made the sentence awkward and hard to get through. I changed it to this, please see if this is correct:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for the help SandyGeorgia. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks better since nomination, issues addressed, and I feel that this comprehensive detailed article now meets the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Ganymede (moon)

Self-nominator. The article, which is about the largest moon in the Solar System, has been significantly expanded and copy-edited for the last two months. It has passed through the PR process and I believe now satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As ever with articles Ruslik works on, this is extremely rich in statistics and information. It compares favourably to the other satellite FAs. It's very similar to Callisto (moon) in organization but I think the prose is somewhat more accessible, as we've tried to pay attention to that. Marskell (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

weak support. From the standpoints of comprehensiveness illustration and citation, excellent. But it could still use a grammatical/semantic going-over. EDIT: Just did a quick workthrough. Will come back later.Serendipodous 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Nearly there - I'm giving it a bit of a massage as I go and it looks good. I'll list potential fixes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::The heating mechanism required to produce the disrupted surface geology is of particular interest. - this strikes me as redundant, especially if the "unsolved" is changed to something like "intriguing" in the previuous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The existence and possible nature of the atmosphere of Ganymede have been controversial. - I'm wondering whether we could lose this as well, or at least reword or cite it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
I fixed these two sentences. Ruslik (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to eliminate duplicate blue links. There's probably still a few, as there were a lot to begin with. If there's a link in the lead, I allow a second one later. Marskell (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support for another Wikipedia treasure.--GrahamColmTalk 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support   Comment—Another fine Jovian moon article. Most of the content looks FA ready. I just have a few issues:
    • "Ganymedian craters are quite flat, lacking the ring mountains and central depressions common to craters on the Moon and Mercury." Shouldn't that be "central peaks"?
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The {{e}} template has been fixed now so that it incorporates spaces around the '×'. Hence the additional ' 's are no longer necessary.
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I searched but could not find an explanation why there is a magnetic field on Ganymede but not on Callisto or Europa. If Europa has an iron core like Ganymede, why doesn't Europa have a magnetic field? Europa is also being tidally pumped, so the explanation seems incomplete. Some mention of the reason in the "Magnetosphere" section would be good.
      In fact, nobody knows why Ganymede has a magnetic field but Europa and especially Io lack it. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      I added a sentence to that effect. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The following sentence doesn't quite explain why there is a difference between formation time intervals for the two Galilean moons. Aren't both Ganymede and Callisto considered Galilean satellites?
      • Jovian subnebula may have been relatively "gas-starved" when the Galilean satellites formed; this would have allowed for the lengthy accretion times required for Callisto.
        Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Callisto doesn't have the iron core, which would explain one of the two. Possibly Europa's is no longer liquid? Marskell (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the fixes. I've changed my position to support.—RJH (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct the endashes, I found one very bad instance of a formula wrapping to the next line in need of {{nowrap}} (there are probably others), I found some hyphens that meant to be negative signes, and I attempted to clean up the citations to provide a consisent bibliographic style on author names, but I couldn't decipher what bibliographic style was in use (varying use of commas, periods, semi-colons, differing ways of using et al, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I fixed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruslik, I promoted it to featured about an hour ago, but the bot hasn't been through yet. (See WP:FAC/ar) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Portal (video game)

Self-nomination The article has passed GA, and has had a peer review, and feel that those that have helped edited it have made it a high-quality article. MASEM 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Article has good content, plenty of supporting facts and references, and seems to be on track thoughout. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The opening sentence of the third paragraph is horribly clumsy and confusing. Please do not let this terrible writing into a featured article. (This is probably not the proper place to post this comment). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. --MASEM 13:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Everything flows, but I question why Aperture Science needs its own long, unsourced section. David Fuchs (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it because its unsourced, or that it's just long, that is a problem? I don't want to crystal-ball its importance though gamer speculation says it will come up in Half-Life 2 Episode 3, but compared to, say, Black Mesa Research Facility or City 17 (which yes, are not good examples), this is rather tame, but if you feel it needs to be cut down in length, I think it can be; sourcing should not be a problem if that's the issue. --MASEM 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a little of both. While it's certainly better in the article than in a crufty article like the above, I feel like it makes more sense to just discuss it in the context of the setting and relevant details without going into minute detail or speculation. Perhaps make it into the setting before the characters and plot? David Fuchs (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've swapped that section around a bit (setting before plot) and I agree that works a bit better, I think more can be cut from the ApSci section if it still feels heavy weight. --MASEM 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks a lot better. David Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged the logo and image of Chell for non-free reduction and took out the portal_game.svg image since it duplicates information. I will argue that the image of Chell helps to show what the portal gun, the main characters, and what heel springs are as described in the text. --MASEM 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I agree that Chell is acceptable. I meant Image:Weighted Companion Cube (Portal).png ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The cube one is a bit more difficult to assess; the fact is that the cube is one of the more popular aspects of the game (described in the reception section), but the only other image of it, in the top screenshot makes it difficult to judge what it looks like (it is described in text up in the story section, but as there's already images there, it makes it a little image tight). I do see where the suggestion of it being extraneous is coming from as well, so the question is, can this be corrected by adding some text to the article to support it better, or another solution besides just removing the image. --MASEM 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the question is, do we have a significantly better understanding of Portal by seeing the cube? I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do agree that it’s a close call. The other question raised by the prose, however, is that of replaceability (NFCC#1). If this object has plush, cakes, pc mods, etc., those could be free alternatives; we can only employ fair use if non-free images are reasonably expected not to exist. These items – especially, say, cake – could be significantly different as not to constitute derivative works (as a contemporary example, Blue’s Clues, also up for FA, uses plush characters). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point; if a fan-created version of the Cube can be considered as the free alternative, then that makes sense, I'll see if I can get one of the user-creators to post a picture to commons. --MASEM 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And as an aside, I've been told (per Crazy Taxi (series) that user-created photos of copyrighted toys (those made by the copyright holder) are not free, as they are 2D derivative works of a "sculpture", thus the Blue's Clues plush (which is not clear if they are made by the user, or purchased) picture may truly not be free. If I'm mistaken, I know people that have the store-bought Valve plush that can be included as a commons picture, but if not I would resort to a picture of one of the user-creations. (Of course, since the cube isn't a physical object, it's hard to say if that's a sculpture or not, I'd just rather make sure on the appropriate licensing here). --MASEM 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do think Blue’s Clues is questionable. I should have explicitly indicated that I mentioned it as possible precedent, not as known acceptable use; I apologize for not articulating that well. Note, however, my intentional use of “could” in my previous comments, as opposed to, say, “would”. I’m going to read through the copyright law and see whether I can determine what we could use for an alternative. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bill Gates Master Chief.jpg was used when Halo (video game) was up on the main page as TFA (this after it was determined that no non-free images can be used for the main page), with the image blessed by User:CO, though noted that you can't copyright clothing and a costume would count as that. This, of course, would be different.
Regardless, even if it ends up being non-free, I think replacing the non-free computer-generated picture of the Cube with a (possibly non-free) user-photoed, real-world creation as to match that section (the fact there is user-generated content and/or mechandise) would be much better to match what is being discussed per your comments, so I am pursuing that aspect. --MASEM 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my (hopefully helpful) GA review of this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe Image:Aperture Science.svg is incorrectly tagged and is actually a copyrighted image. And as a non-free image, I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - kollision (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree on the #8 - though I do know that Valve created "Aperture Science" merchandise as well, so like the Cube picture, this may be (maybe free replaceable) with a single photo of various Portal merchandise that would serve multiple purposes. I've taken the image out for now. --MASEM 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn’t comment on this image because, being entirely unfamiliar with these games, I didn’t know whether it was from a fan-created add-on. If it’s from the software company, however, it certainly has all sorts of issues. Unlike the creation of 3D object with utility value (which may legitimize one of the aforementioned cube uses), a logo appearing on merchandise would constitute a derivative work and not be viable. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: - Quite a good read. It is pretty comprehensive and well sourced, though a few issues stood out at me while reading.
    • In the "Gameplay" section, the sentence "This allows the player character to launch objects, or even herself, over great distances..." seems a bit off since this is the first time the character's gender is brought up. Also it is rewritten from a viewpoint that suggests the player-character is in control of the action, rather than the player. Perhaps "This allows the player to launch objects, or even the character, over great distances..."
    • In the "Setting" section, I think "Aperture Science Laboratories" should not be bolded per the MoS.
    • The "Characters" and "Setting" sections could use some more citations, just for good measure. I'm sure this could be done from either the current sources or even the game.
    • In the "Story" section, the phrase "victory candescence" is wikilinked to Incineration. This might be confusing to a general reader. I would maybe reword the sentence to be less in-universe.
    • This appears to already have been discussed above, but the image in "Critical reception" seems a bit out of place. I get the connection with the user created and official products, but I think a picture of an actual product would be better here (not that big of deal though).
    • I would also recommend a table of review scores using Template:VG Reviews to help give an overview of the critical reception. Also not that big of a deal, but I think it would add to the section.
    • The "Soundtrack" section seems a bit sparse in comparison to the other sections. Maybe the content should be integrated into the "Development" section along with the info on the closing credits.
    • Some references are missing some information, like publisher, accessdate, publication date, and/or author. Ones that come to mind are are ref 1, 2, 3, 6, 20, 32, and 45.
    • Ref 61 brings up a retrieval error and may have been moved.
All in all, it's close to FA and is a good article. I think most of these issues are minor and once addressed, I'll be happy to support the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
I've addressed all of the above save for citing more Character and Setting lines, getting the right ref info for the Portal commentary, and then the Cube picture (moving the section on Valve merchandise up to Development makes it very clear that this should be replaced with an official product picture, even if it's still non-free.) --MASEM 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Dang Masem, you can be as fast as lightning. I'll check back tomorrow on the rest of it. Mind if I do some light copy editing to tweak some possible in-universe wording after you're done? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
Be my guest. --MASEM 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed the remaining issues. I will also note I have replaced the cube image with a picture of the Cube fuzzy dice (still non-free, but better justified for the topic at hand. --MASEM 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: - My concerns have been address. I believe it meets FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Notes: Please explain the reliability of this source:

^ Polokov, Kadayi (October 16, 2006). Untitled email from Portal developer. Retrieved on November 27, 2006.

Also, review WP:PUNC throughout: ... that he "[could not] think of any criticism for [Portal]," ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that reference and the statement that was being supported by it (Chell being alive at the end). Being a forum post reporting on an email convo, even with the email writer being appropriate (one of the game developers) doesn't make it reliable, and the fact that it was trying to support is not critical to the article's understanding, nor could I find a better corroborating source. I've gone through and corrected what punctuation issues I could find. --MASEM 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Cyger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 00:38, 27 February 2008.

Alanya

Self nomination Alanya has been a Good Article for more than a year, and since has received both a positive Good Article Review and a Peer Review. The page has become a focus of Alanya information on the internet, and even the municipal government page quotes from the information. Please address content specific comments to the Talk page. Patrick Ѻ 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Brískelly's userpage notes that the user is from the Italian wikipedia, with contribs. Don't know if that matters.--Patrick Ѻ 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, well-referenced. Cheers. Trance addict 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good! Arnoutf (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not yet The story that Atatturk renamed the city on the basis of a telegraph error requires much better support than a website; and the sentence in which is stands is not English; it should read two years before. This is one example; doubtless there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, if you look, the telegraph bit is from a book, Dünden Bugüne Alanya by Haşim Yetkin, the external link on the reference contains the particular excerpt. I don't know the book's availability, but I've changed the reference and phrasing to suit.--Patrick Ѻ 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok.--Patrick Ѻ 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. Thanks--Uannis (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note; please review WP:PUNC, logical punctuation on quotes, and ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Could any more be added to the history section on the 17th-19th centuries?
    • Could the geography section include info on the geology and nearby cities?
    • The last paragraph of the tourism section goes into too much detail about the 2006 tourist season.
    • Are there any radio stations, motorways or train stations in the city? Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The population table needs sourcing. What is the reason for the population surge over the past few decades? Epbr123 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Status? Is Epbr123 satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, pls double check the external link checker (at the top of this page), some are iffy. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Good progress is being made and I have struck through the items I am now satisfied with. Also, please ensure each ref includes the publisher and publishing date. Epbr123 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions!--Patrick Ѻ 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Status? Several days since last comment, where do things stand on Epbr's suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I acted upon the above suggestions, and feel the article has benefited from them. I appreciate any further final comments and observations.--Patrick Ѻ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any train stations in the city?