Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2007

1 January 2007

January 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 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Chelsea F.C.

Already a GA. Has just had a peer review which has added references and resloved issues with some images. Buc 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Object~~ - I think it's a very well-written article, and it kept my interest though it's not a topic that appeals to me. However, even with 44 cites it is under referenced, and the refs that you do have need serious attention, as there is a lot of required information that is missing. The lead also needs expansion, in order to better reflect what is in the body of the article. It also, in my eyes, becomes sort of "table-ish" at the end. Lastly, I would like to know why it is a protected page--that certainly implies lack of stability. You realize it cant be protected when it's on the mainpage? Jeffpw 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is semi-protected due to disagreement over mentioning the nickname CHELSKI.Buc 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

~~The article is protected because it's a regular target for vandalism. SteveO 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)~~
Comment - With 44 cites it has more than two other football Featured articles Everton F.C. and Arsenal F.C.. Note that it has book references as well. I think this looks OK, although ~~I don't like the list of celebrity fans. Celebrity fan sections are notoriously unverifiable and fairly trivial.~~ HornetMike 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Seven paragraphs have no cites at all, and the section Crests has only one ref. Also note I mentioned there is information missing from the footnotes themselves. How is a reader supposed to verify something like ^ R. Glanvill (2006), pp. 84-87? Is that a book? An article? I see there is a book with that author in the "References" section. The info needs to be plugged into the footnotes, and left out of the references area. Jeffpw 12:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- As always with FAC lack of references is the only real problem. I'd be happy to fix this if you could tell me where references are needed, or better yet add "citation needed" tags to the article.Buc 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stamford Bridge: paragraph 4
History: ~~Paragraph 3~~
Crest section ~~as mentioned above, the entire section has only one ref.~~
In Popular culture: ~~Paragraphs 3 and 4~~
I also noticed some prose problems. Perhaps you want to copyedit for prose. ~~Here is one example: which particularly came into its own during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. That just sounds rather unencyclopedic, to my ears.~~ I don't mean to be a grouch, and I did enjoy the article. I just feel it could use a few improvements. Jeffpw 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to add Jeffpw's requested refs. SteveO 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Struck areas have now been cited. SteveO 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment If a book is cited multiple times then only the first citation need be in full, all subsequent citations can be abbreviated to avoid clutter and reduce article size. It's just a case of looking up through the preceding footnotes until you find the matching full citation. Plenty of FAs employ this system, and I have reabbreviated many of the references accordingly. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support - I think it is harder to ref articles like this than some of the more scientific one. I think it fulfils the criteria and is well balanced, comprehensive, neutral and readable. I give you permission to strike out the 'conditional' once the ref is sorted ;) cheers Cas Liber 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Might have helped if you'd specified exactly where in these paragraphs but thank anyway. I've added cn tag where I think you ment them to be. I'll see what I can find.Buc 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Since the areas I mentioned had no references whatsoever, any additions would only be to the good. To paraphrase WP:CITE, references increase the authority and veracity of Wikipedia. I also noticed an external jump in the Crests section. You should either use that as a reference, or add it to the external links. Jumps are frowned upon in articles on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Cited what in the areas mentioned I thought needed it. Except one about Ken Bates being advised he hadn't acquired copyright, which I couldn't find anything for.Buc 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ for the time being as undercited (particularly the In Popular Culture section). Trebor 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~. I'm on the verge of supporting, could you just tidy up a few things:

The club began with... - this is a jarring sentence, which essentially says that Chelsea got promoted (good) but achieved little early success (bad) except for an FA cup final (good) which they lost (bad). It could be rephrased (perhaps into two sentences) to say their success was limited: certain things were good, certain things were bad.
Chelsea were, at the nadir of their fortune - is the wiktionary link necessary? Could we just assume people know what it means? Or use a simpler word?
Bates finally reunited - can we have a more specific date than "finally"?
The north, west and southern parts of the ground were converted into all-seater stands and moved closer to the pitch, and the current legal capacity of Stamford Bridge is 42,055 - abrupt switch from history to current detail, which could be improved.
Chelsea are generally a well-supported club - are they sometimes not then? I don't think "generally" adds anything new.

Thanks. Trebor 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very good article. Trebor 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - StevO, please don't strike my comments. I am perfectly capable of striking my own remarks, if I feel the matters have been addressed to my satisfaction. Jeffpw 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- In that case please strike Stamford Bridge paragraph 4. The sentence about the main road and railway line making constraints for further expansion need a reference. I can't see anything eles though.Buc 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ref added for constraints on expansion. The lead has also been expanded per Jeffpw's comments. SteveO 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    - The article now has 62 references and all of the above objections seem to have been rectified. Are there any further comments? SteveO 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      - In the colours section an image of the kit described in the second paragraph 82.6.170.90 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

***** I'm a bit concerned about this new English football champions template that's just appeared. Is it really nessercery? Buc 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

- I don't think it is. The bottom of the page looks cluttered as it is. SteveO 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I'm leaning support, but I don't think the rivalries are sufficiently important to be part of the lead (I think Leeds fans would be surprised to see themselves mentioned in the lead) - a better choice from the Supporters section would be something like "Chelsea are one of the best supported clubs in the United Kingdom, with an estimated UK fanbase of four million". Oldelpaso 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All of Trebor Rowntree and Oldelpaso's suggested improvements have been added. How is it now? SteveO 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Looking good. Oldelpaso 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What about my suggestion?82.6.170.90 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Which kit are you referring to? Several are described in the second paragraph. SteveO 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Either "The mint green strip in the 1980s" or "the red and white checked one" 82.6.170.90 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what merit there would be in adding an away kit which only lasted 1-2 years. What do others think? SteveO 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentNotable managers trophies has just been added. Not sure if the Full Members Cup should be in there. Buc 10:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it in, and thought it best for completeness, but have no strong feelings on the matter, and will go with what others think. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SteveO are you sure the second division title is really notable enough? Buc 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the Second Division is listed in the club honours section. Imo it does no harm in being there. SteveO 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written, some good images and very well-referenced. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Support though i dislike this club it is a well written article. some pictures of players would be nice though - or for that matter, abramovich the owner, mourinho the manager... aren't they synonymous with chelsea as they are today? Chensiyuan 17:28, 30 January 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 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Vijayanagara Empire

This article has seen a peer review and closely follows the same format as other recent India History related articles. While minor works like fixing the Box, map, choosing right images for each section is still in progress (and will conclude in a few days), the article has seen significant copy edting for content, grammar, balance and has been well cited from well known sources. Please provide positive feed back to enable successful FA review.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article has an impressive list of citations (which is good), but that impressiveness results in a "Notes" section that spans over a quarter of the entire article's length (which may or may not be good). You might want to take a look at recently featured Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., as an example of an alternative way to format the Notes and Reference sections. Basically, the "Notes" contain only a Harvard-style citation, whereas the "References" show a complete list of the individual reference works. This method also keeps the article text relatively clear of reference clutter, which may improve the accessibility of the article to other editors. Just a suggestion. --Plek 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply::Thanks. I will do what I can to cut down on the details in the notes, to reduce clutter. In a previous FA review I was asked to give full details of the citation, its publisher, year, author, etc. So I just followed the same strategy. I understand there may be too many details in many of the notes and I shall cut that down.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply::I have reduced inline note details to a significant degree, maintaining details only where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply I have taken care of web reference format.thanks.Dineshkannambadi

Comment How about incorporating Template:Infobox Former Country? Related instructions are here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yes. I guess this would be the same Infobox we used for Hoysala. We surely need that box. I am waiting for a new user who showed interest in creating a Hoysala style map to complete the map assignment.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have a small problem of alignment of preceeding and succeeding states. I have asked for help on this.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral ~~Object~~
Copyedit needed: Found a spelling error: luxuray

In progressDineshkannambadi 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History should start with the rise of the dynasty, not mention kingdoms tangentially involved.

DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbering: main foe, the Deccan sultanates foe=1, there were more than 5 kingdoms. Change foe to rival

Reply main foe was Deccan Sultanates.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikify Domingo Paes and other proper nouns

Done added many more nouns to wikilink list.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see if you can write stubs for all red links

Done wrote several stubsDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove set pixel width from all images

DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Colours used in the names of the kings are too bright. Use less saturated colours

DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the last three sections there for? The last should be =External links=

removed last few unnecessary sections.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

fought the Gajapatis of Orissa successfully? ...Emerged sucessful against the Gujapatis

CorrectedDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is Main article: Battle of Talikota doing in the middle of the prose. Please remove.

Done moved it where it should be.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An SVG map would be most welcome

Done Thanks to a new user user:mlpkr.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

extremely profitable? How would you quantify that?

corrected.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Replace hyphens by dashes eg (1000 - 1200 bahares) - to –

Done.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply I will attend to these issues tonight. Thanks for the guidance.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first two decades after the founding of the empire, Harihara I gained control over most of the area south of the Tungabhadra River -- not very useful. How did the empire originate? Start with the origins. Who founded it? begin with such text.Spelling errors still found: adminsitrative, Hereditery Please run it through a spell check. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply I have addressed this.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support: I really like this article (probably can use some minor copy editing though). The best part about this article is how well it flows from the previous FA's like Hoysala - making it interesting to read. I wish my history books were quite as articulate. I would really like to see opinions of some other users like parthi who would possibly know lot more about the topic than myself. --Blacksun 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have been trying to trace the origins of Kammas living in Coimbatore City - south India. After reading thru your artilce on VijayaNagar empire and the Nayak system introducted by them, I firmly believe that this could have been the beginning of the migration of Kammas into Tamilnady and also Coimbatore. But a close read of the Nayak system of the empire shows more information of the system prevalent in Madurai with litte or no mention of such a system in Coimbatore. But even today we could see plenty of places with name tags ending with Paalayams. So there is a definite relation. But no clear records as to when it all began and how it progressed over the centuries. Can you throw any light on this subject?

A large migration of Telugu and Kannada people into Tamil Nadu happened during the rule of Vijayanagara Empire (the migration of Kannadaigas started with the Hoysala Empire itself), according to Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. Thats about all the info I can give from my sources. For more details, you may have to read a book more pertinent to the Nayakas of Tamil Nadu. hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment wouldn't it be better to change the last sentance in the intro from the current "The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in South Indian history that rose above the politics of narrow regionalism by promoting the ancient and indigenous Hindu dharma." to simply Hinduism. Anyway shouldn't Dharma be capitalized? Arjun 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient and indigenous sounds awkward too. Maybe drop ancient - it does not really fit.--Blacksun 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. I will have a more thorough look at it tomorrow and will make my decision then. Right now I am leaning towards support. Arjun 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment In "architecture", "There are many arches, domes and vaults that betray these influences".Are you sure you wanted to use "betray", or is it an error? May be portray or something else?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article suffers from over-wikilinking at instances. Sometimes the same term is wikilinked multiple times, even when the terms are not placed too far.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->will be taken care of.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Dineshkannambadi 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Very good work. But needs quite a bit of copyediting. Will change to support once the language style becomes easy to read. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to do more copyediting to change language/prose if you could point out generally where the problems are.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to edit them out at the page itself because trying to list them would be an unnecessary duplication of effort. Primarily I wish that the style of prose be made better. The content and relavent citations are all there. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Go ahead. One request. A recently blocked disruptive user has been making unexplained reverts. Make sure you look at the history of edits before you start your copy edits each time to make sure your well intended edits dont get tangled up with those of the disruptive user.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support The prose has improved to my satisfaction. Good job. :-) Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Support The language has become relatively lucid now, thanks to the copyedits while in FAC. Hope to see more of such comprehensive article on Indian history in the FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support very nice, concerns have been met. ~ Arjun 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - nice work, but I have comments, & may do some language touches myself.

Comments - Lose gap in text between the 2 templates

- sections would be better broken up with sub-headings

Reply I am only following the same format as other recent India history related FA that has been accepted by most reviewers. If you can specify how to better break up the format here on the discussion page, it would be easier.thanksDineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I admit I don't know too much about FA style in particular, but I would add sub-heads as follows:

To "Governance", at "on the battlefield" "Military", then "Public works" at "the Capital city"
To "Economy" add "Trade" at "When mrchant ships ...." - and maybe others lower down. Johnbod 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

- "republican guard" sounds odd here. Is that what historians call them?

Reply The book says kings "personal army" excluding feudal armies (contributed by feudatories, hereditery clans supporting the empire). So republican guard seemed a close match.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) changed to King's personal army.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

- I seem to remember that Hampi was evacuated/abandoned after the 1565 defeat, so the Moslems just walked in rather than "attacked". "Tirumala Raya, the sole survivor" - of what? the royal family? the commanders? - should say.

Reply My sources--> dont say "walked in" and Vijayanagara was not evacuated. Some resistance did exist. Tirumala Raya was the sole surviver of the three commanders.will explain on article after another study.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to "plundered" instead of "attacked and plundered" to keep it simple.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

- there was a word half "critical" half "crucial" near end para 1 - I went with crucial, but up to you.

reply either way is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

" On the battlefield the king usually entrusted his most capable commanders to lead the troops" - no surprise there then! Must be a better way of putting it.

Reply ok, will look into this.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trade: I changed Judea to Palestine (Judea not really used after 400AD or earlier), but Syria or "the Levant" might be better. what is a "camlet", a baby camel?

Reply Palestine is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Reply camlet is a fabric. wikilink in place.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"...a focus on decoration rather than sculpture that surpasses that previously in India.." - hmmm - should be painting not decoration I think, but a rather dubious statement anyway imho, given how little evidence of earlier painting has survived.

corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply I dont believe the author meant paintings. Because Vijayanagara sculptors used granite, the sculptural work did not finish well. So they used special materials such as pilasters to cover up flaking on granite for decoration and smooth finish. Also the use of animals, both mythical and real in the pillars and columns was for decorative purposes. But will recheck.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done the copyedit - I think no major change of meaning; mostly for style. Johnbod 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Nice informative article, with a good presentation style. Thanks to the recent copyedits. Would certainly make a great FA. - KNM ^Talk 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Sarvagnya 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Almost all the notes needs to be rewritten just to be right. Just a few examples:
- "according to" should never be found in notes, unless your are explicitly commenting on an opinion.
  - Reply-->Thats exactly what is being done. According to xxxx is what I read in the book, so that is what I have maintained.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Anna Dallapiccola in Fritz & Mitchell" is patently incorrect. It means that it is her opinion reported by Fritz & Mitchell, which it is not.
  - Reply -->That is exactly what it is. The book is edited by Fritz & Mitchell and the research part is done by Anna Dallapiccola.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - You are misunderstanding the use of "in" in academia. her opinion is not quoted by Fritz in Mitchell in their writing. She wrote it, in a book they edited. She is the only one that should be credited. Fritz and Mitchell are not writing something like "Dallapicola (1985) comments that [...]"! Note #30, however, could use a "in," since the research by B.A. Saletore is (apparently) reported by Kamath.

Reply--> I own the book and it says "edited by Fritz and Michell". There are a few chapters in that book that are credited to different historians such Anna Dallapiccola. There are some chapters which are not credited to other historians, so i suppose the credits there go to Fritz and Michell themselves. The book itself was not written by Anna Dallapiccola. In fact it may be said the book is a compilation by Fritz and Michell mostly containing research info by various researchers.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

- None of the notes to subauthors of Fritz & Mitchell were correct.
  - Reply-->please be more clear.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - You've made them worse by using what I complained above about Dallapicola.

- Several notes should be combined.
  - Reply--> I have been adviced not to combine citations in my previous FA's. I am just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - *Shrugs* Some user have a patent dislike of combined citations, something I cannot understand as they are not known to go around reverting note combination. I won't harp on it.
- References are mostly wrongly formatted. they should be in "last, first," and they lack italics for book titles.
  - Reply--> I am following the same format as citations in other recent India History related FA's.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Which are? I can't believe such, excuse me, unlegible reference soup could pass FA.

- The Arthikaje are unacceptable. You must point to the exact page that is being cited.
  - Reply-->Arthikaje is a web reference. Hence cant give page numbers, but can be accessed easily with the push of a button.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - But you can cite which of the different web pages in that index you pick from. Thepagelinked certainly does not provide a source for anything in the article.

Done. Reference URL points directly to page in web reference.Dineshkannambadi 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my shortening of the notes at best made it clearer that they were wrongly written to begin with, it hardly made them worse.
- Reply-->I have been asked to provide full info on author, publication, page number, year, publisher etc in each and every citation in previous FA's. Just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Oh dear... Either someone doesn't get citation style, or you misunderstood them. Could you point me to the specific FACs you are atlking about?

You may look at Chalukya dynasty article for instance.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lepakshinandi.jpg is a patent copyvio as far as WIkipedia is concerned: the original Flickr page states clearly "© All rights reserved". If the author wishes to release the image in the public domain, he should clearly state it everywhere he uses it. As far as wiki's concerned, this is unverifiable.
Circeus 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->I can replace this with acceptable images. DoneDineshkannambadi 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply All citations are written in the format expected and accepted by reviewers in recent previous India History related articles. I was asked to give full details of publication, year etc in each citation. If you dont like the format, please discuss before making major changes. I have answered your points above.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have not gone through the details and style of every citation now, but, as of this version, the citation style looks ok. Mentioning the whole book name and other details in every citation is less soothing to eyes, especially when all such details have been mentioned under "References". Mentioning the details in the first instance, and then just the authorship and page number (and any added detail, if needed) is ok. The "Notes" section is aesthetically more pleasing now. What to you gyus think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

comment I would like to thank Circeus for showing us a neater way to write citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Ended up fixing the citations myself. I have to give credit to the writing. I haven't spotted any areas of obvious ambiguity.Circeus 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written article. -- Naveen ^(talk) 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Support very informative Indienne 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong support The article carries a lot of information and is very well written. Deserves to be FA. Gnanapiti 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Hurricane Ismael

Another hurricane GA, part of the series on retired Pacific hurricanes, a featured topic candidate. It's quite comprehensive, and appears to meet the various featured article criteria. This is not a self-nomination - Hurricanehink and others have done a great deal of work with this article. --Core desat 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. The only thing I can think of would be to add more Spanish sources, though as an English speaker who knows limited Spanish (with a lot of the rest of the WPTC not speaking Spanish) that might be inactionable. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work here. Jay32183 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In the first sentence, the term "minimal hurricane" isn't explained (it may be obvious to you, but I have no background knowledge of hurricanes). And has the sentence beginning Officials distributed 4,800 sheets... got a reference? Trebor 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal hurricane means the lower end of a hurricane. I can't think of any other way to explain it in the article. I added the reference to that sentence, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ok, then I'll support (although I still think "minimal" is a bit confusing). Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I've changed it to "weak", which might be a bit clearer (though "minimal" expresses more precisely that Ismael was hardly above the minimum hurricane strength). —Cuiviénen 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support I always like articles from Tropical cyclones project. Really good. All well-referenced, only a quibble note in the first paragraph of the Storm History sction. I was a bit confused with "The system quickly organized, with Dvorak classifications beginning later that day." Perhaps rewording or edit the comma or something like that. — Indon (reply) — 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- You got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Great article with a good depth of information. Looks like it passes all the guidelines to me. Hello32020 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ref #12 doesn't seem to go anywhere. I can't tell what it was supposed to be.--Rmky87 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Booksworm Talk to me! 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) This article is way too short! There are articles longer that have been rejected!
- That's not exactly an actionable objection. FA criteria asks for comprehensiveness, not length. If you feel the article fails to cover something that it should, feel free to bring it up. Gzkn 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose doesn't stand out to me the way an FA should. Just seems like a good competent article, just because there is nothing wrong with an article doesn't mean it should be an FA there has to be a lot of things right with it, it has to stand out. Quadzilla99 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- How is that actionable? To be fair, have you checked out any of the other featured tropical cyclone articles? Are you saying all of them have something that stands out, or that not all of them deserve featured status despite a consensus by the community? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It should contain more compelling prose, perhaps personal accounts, quotes from government officals, or some other material to make it the opposite of what it is now; namely a dry, lifeless recounting of a historical incident. Quadzilla99 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    - This is an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be emotional or retell the story. It is supposed to be an unbiased, and yes, to some extent, lifeless recounting of a historical event. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Technically I don't actually have to even explain my opposition so don't get defensive. Also explaining Wikipedia to me is clearly a statement meant to bait me into an argument. Compelling prose would apply to more than a completely dry retelling of events. Quadzilla99 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, I spent several hours working on it, so I am a bit defensive. With fifteen other successful tropical cyclone FAC's of mine along with some featured lists, I get defensive on articles I've spent my time on, which numbers in the hundreds. Can you tell me specifically where I can improve the prose, or provide an actionable objection? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Also, you do have to explain your opposition - see the top of the page, where it says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." —AySz88 \^-^ 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Okay, are you going to answer my objections? What makes this article stand out? Why do you think it should be featured? What prose is compelling? (site one line please). Quadzilla99 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        It's an excellent article on a Pacific hurricane that caused significant deaths and damage (something that does not happen often). On the other hand, it is also not Hurricane Katrina (nor should you expect any hurricane FA to be anything like that article). We're not a newspaper or a novel-writing service. As Hurricanehink stated, this is an encyclopedia. There does not appear to be anything actionable in your concerns. --Core desat 04:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I agree. Give an example of an "uncompelling" line and how it could be improved. Vague references to the prose not being compelling (which is subjective and normally dependent on the user's interest in the subject matter) aren't actionable complaints. Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Unremarkable article. Perhaps expanding the impact section with photos of the damage and more accounts of the effects would make it better then half of the articles I could find by clicking random article. Harvey100 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- This storm occurred 12 years ago. Finding impact pictures that can be used at all is nearly impossible. As for accounts, most of the damage was in Mexico. There are none, and again, we are not here to write something designed to invoke emotion - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Core desat 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney

Self-nomination: I've done a fair bit of work on this article in recent weeks; it has gone through a peer review (see here and I've received some helpful feedback. Since this is one of the first times an individual railway line has been up for FAC it's a bit hard to know what to expect, but comparing it to other FA articles I feel that it should be up to standard. This is my first FAC, so please feel free to comment if there's something I can improve on. Thanks. JROBBO 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Support: Thought I should vote since I've caught the trains so often in my life. Comprehensive, easy to read. Neutral. referenced. Satisfies all criteria, ~~but lacks something somehow which I can't put my finger on.~~ (Looks much different/better/more interesting since the nomination began!) Maybe just the subject matter (never was a trainspotter). Anyway I can see you've put a heap of work into it and I think it ultimately deserves to get over the line :) Cas Liber 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - Being a person who catches train regularly, but putting railfan knowledge aside, I'd have to say that this article meets all criteria for an article as obscure as a rail line, is neutral and is properly referenced. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak support. It seems thorough and well-referenced with a good selection of images. The prose is functional but perhaps could be more compelling (I don't have an actionable complaint; it's just a general impression). In particular, the description of the line's route seems a little clumsy. There's also a switch from using "km" to "kilometres" at one point, is there a reason? Still, on the whole it seems very good. Trebor 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for the change in "km" to "kilometres" - I did attempt to change it earlier but the database got locked while I was in the middle of an edit. I'll change them all to the full wording, which is the preferred style. JROBBO 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that the full wording is the preferred style (I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised)? Trebor 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a suggestion on the automated thing in the peer review... even if it's not the preferred style, consistency is good, so I'll go and change them all. JROBBO 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak object~~ (changed to support, see below) - The main problem with this article is that it contains just too much boring stuff. I think the potential is there, the article just needs a serious trimming down, and perhaps a rewording in the lead section. Overall though, good job with the article. Here are a few suggestions:
- The lead should be rewritten in a way that makes it more interesting, capturing the user's interest. The first sentence, although possibly redundant, should actually state that this is a railway line, and not that is located in Sydney, Australia. The rest of the lead should also be copyedited to avoid run-on sentences and make it flow better.
  - Much much better now ([1]). —Mets501 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Alignment section should be greatly shortened. It is really unnecessary to say that one line starts underground, makes a left here, makes a right there, makes another left there, goes underground there, reemerges there, makes a right there, and then ends there. Perhaps just a basic overview of where a few stations are for each line and perhaps the fact that they are mainly underground would make the section better.
  - I disagree; this could be very useful for someone who knows Sydney but not the line. It also gives a good idea of what the line is like and what highways it "competes with". --NE2 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- ~~I'm not crazy about three headings in a row without text in between. It looks odd and makes the table of contents super-long.~~
  - I've got rid of the two main line construction headers. JROBBO 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the sentences are too short ("However, Stephens encountered difficulties with terrain" is too short), and some too long.
- Try to avoid such extensive use of the passive voice (see English passive voice#Criticisms). Sometimes it's unavoidable, but sometimes the active voice would be more appropriate. An example is "Woolooware Station is planned to be upgraded to increase capacity on the Cronulla Line.", where it would be more appropriate to state who is planning to upgrade it (that sentence sounds awkward as it is, anyway).
- Is the Stopping patterns sections really necessary? Isn't that information already in the table directly above it?
- Semi-colons (;) would really be useful in many places. ("Many of the projects on the Plan are for other lines; however, the Illawarra Line has received several projects to upgrade its capacity.") —Mets501 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak object~~ The dates in refs are not wikilinked and not in a format that displays per use prefs. It's easy to do if you use the accessdate=2007-01-22 and it's less typing as you don't then have to use date and year separately.Rlevse 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me where it says dates in refs need to be wikilinked? I understand your concern, but they don't really add anything to the article. JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, it's a superfluous pain in the ass...BUT...Criteria 2, responding to the Manual of Style under its policy regarding the use of dates and numbers, and a few other places mandate it. It is not an explicit exemption to the rule (there are a couple), so it's required solely to make sure that 22 January shows up as January 22 for those who like it that way and set their user preferences. I quote: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. —ExplorerCDT 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and wikilinked most of the dates in the references. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Support now. Wikilink dates also link to the calendar articles, but you're not supposed to link solo years. ExplorerCDT is just being a pain himself on this whole FAC.Rlevse 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

~~OBJECT~~ STRENUOUSLY OBJECT (See below. Jist of it: Nominators and contributors to FAC refuse to do actionable repairs and seek to avoid doing the work by making b.s. excuses.). Writing is neither brilliant nor compelling per 1(a). —ExplorerCDT 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Care to explain further? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Same question as Arnzy - objections need to be actionable. Trebor 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The FA criteria demands that it be well-written with the prose being brilliant and compelling. The writing is bland, and uninteresting. Nothing in the writing captivates a reader. I think my above comment was sufficient, but if you can't get the drift, the article's prose is horribly boring. —ExplorerCDT 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Decorum suggests something more respectful, and more specific, than "horribly boring". ExplorerCDT, your comments are horribly boring. See? –Outriggr § 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could have said the prose plain "sucks" but I think saying that this is far from brilliant and compelling was enough. You asked for more, and I did everything but say that it sucks. Why ask for more if you can't take it? —ExplorerCDT 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least make some suggestions on what I could do? This is my first FAC, so I would find it helpful for the future if you could say something a bit more than "it is far from brilliant and compelling" - where is it bad? What sections/sentences in particular? JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Innumerable grammar problems. This article needs a heavy dose of copyediting. The use of too many pronouns (especially "it") without specific connections. The prose is just wholly uninteresting, and bland. I can't see giving examples, because the entire thing is so dry. Good writing has a spark that makes a reader want to finish this article. This article I had to struggle to finish. You have sentences like this: The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall. Sutherland has a third platform for the Cronulla Line. that make me cringe and then ask: SO WHAT? That is what makes this article "horribly boring". Other considerations. You wikilink many things in the references section. Bad. It confuses me (and likely others) into thinking you're referencing external links. Wikilink the article body as much as you want, but not the references. Many of the references are incomplete, lacking publishing information, ISBNs, and author information. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters from thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences, and to comply with WP:IUP. —ExplorerCDT 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the writing - however, like other criticisms, it mainly concentrates on the first section (the "Alignment" section), which needs fixing - I think this makes it the problem - once you've read that, you don't want to read any more. Secondly, the references are as complete as the information is provided - most of my sources are published by a government or other related corporation and don't have authors explicitly mentioned,; when the publisher or author is not mentioned, or they are the same, there's no point in listing the superfluous information; the websites listed don't have any more information than I can get either. Furthermore, as they are privately published documents, there's no ISBN listed either. Thirdly, on many other pages that I have looked at the authors or publishers, where there is an appropriate wikilink, are linked to that page (take a look at MTR or Singapore MRT, both Featured Articles). I really can't do anything about this. I spent a long time looking for sources, and there isn't anything else on this sort of thing. But I will fix up the writing. JROBBO 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing this article to other FAs can be problematic, because many older FAs (especially those from 2004-2005) haven't been reviewed since then, often have had many edits since being named an FA that could have diminished the quality of the article, and certainly would not pass when tested in the crucible of the present criteria. For instance, MTR would probably fail an FAC today or receive several objections requiring repairs because it is not adequately referenced and far too many facts go uncited. FA is determined about how well this article meets the criteria, not how it matches up to another article. The references need to be fixed. No question or excuses about it. If you can't find an ISBNs (which I doubt you even searched hard for ISBNs...try searching through amazon.com), state "NO ISBN" and a reason why (like saying "NO ISBN (Pre-1964)" for things published before ISBNs were started, or "NO ISBN (privately published)" if that were the case) If you can't find an author, complete the reference by stating No further authorship information available.. Don't just leave it unquantified. Many of these references don't even state basic publishing information and that is just unacceptable. Providing full references allows others to check your work. As to your protest about my criticism to get rid of the wikilinking references. References should be linking to those things outside wikipedia that you are using to support the article's statements. You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia. Please remove the superfluous wikilinking in the referencing. Making excuses, and refusing to make these actionable (and by the MOS, guidelines and policies) necessary fixes will likely result in this article getting failed as an FA in spite of your protestations, and I will likely move from just objecting to strenuously objecting to this article's candidacy. Lastly, the problem with the writing isn't just the first section. My criticism about its dryness is regarding the entire article, not just the first section. Another note, the failure to put in a grid or something to delineate the cells in the table for much of the dotted sections in the middle of the table makes it difficult to read and use. —ExplorerCDT 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia" - can you please tell me where I'm doing that? All I'm saying is that the articles in question are written or published by that organisation or source.JROBBO 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. What part of don't wikilink other articles in the references and thereby confuse people into thinking it's an external link to an external source don't you understand? There's no reason the note that reads: Sydney Tramway Museum, "Our Vintage Tram Routes", Railpage Australia. Accessed 11 January 2007. should link to Wikipedia's article on Sydney Tramway Museum. It should only direct a reader to the external source, not to an article on wikipedia. When the article does that it confuses readers into thinking they're clicking on a link to an external resource. Stop trying explaining yourself and just fix it. I'm not here to hold your hand through it. —ExplorerCDT 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Template:Harvard reference have a parameter for "authorlink" to allow linking to the author's name? If this sort of thing is prohibited as you say, that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. The fact is that this kind of thing is allowed. I'll change it, but I think you're being overly picky. JROBBO 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT, I think the links to other Wikipedia articles are fine. You may notice that external links have an arrow clearly denoting themselves as such, if that helps prevent confusion. There is to include a wikilink (and as JROBBO says, there's even a field for it on some templates) because it allows you to find out about the author and publisher of the information. The style guidelines on WP:FOOTNOTE say "Internal links should still be used as normal". Is there any guideline that supports your view? If not, then your bluntness is unmerited. Trebor 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked out "Stations and tracks / compiled by J.H. Forsyth" at State Library of New South Wales catalogue. It is spiral bound and doesn't have an ISBN. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a reference in Wilkipedia, as appears to be asserted by ExplorerCDT. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the Note citations need to repeat everything in the References, it would probably just be better to say "Forsyth (1988–93), p216"--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say at any time that a source without an ISBN was unuseable. I said a cited source ought to have an ISBN (or ISSN) to be a complete citation or reference. If it's privately published I would like to see NO ISBN (privately published) (as the specific source you mention above now does) next to the source for the sake of completeness. If you're going to critique my points, at least get them right. —ExplorerCDT 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Other works by Forsyth also published by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales have ISBN numbers, I find it highly unlikely and would be surprised if the work cited here by Forsyth, with the same publisher, would be lacking them. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, by law under the Copyright Act 1968 all books which have ISBNs in them are obliged to have them on one of the first few pages, or on the back cover (much like the Library of Congress rules which require a succinct summary in them at the front). If they don't have one written on it you can be pretty sure it's privately published. I have the book here with me and I've had a thorough look through it - there is no ISBN there. JROBBO 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting mixed up with book deposit. Forget the above. JROBBO 08:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress does not "require" anything. A book catalogued by the LOC can (at the publisher's sole discretion) include a full bibliographic summary, write the line "Cataloguing data available from the the Library of Congress" or just put the Library of Congress Control Number or its classification number. Nothing is "required". The British Library, likewise, does not have any such "requirement." I just find it highly unlikely that if this organization has published (even privately) previous books of Forsyths with ISBNs, that his subsequent works would be ISBNless. Also, I would advise you to stop bullshitting. The Copyright Act 1968 does not have the words "International Source Book Number" or "ISBN" in the entire corpus of its text (See here [2], [3], and [4]). If you're going to find an excuse to avoid doing work (especially searching for information), at least find an excuse that isn't so easily debunkable. Half-assed shortcuts is what makes this article not worthy of inclusion amongst Featured Articles. If you're going to try to bullshit me, at least do it in a subject I don't know anything about. Unfortunate for you, it just happens to be that I've done a lot of work in publishing and have a lot of connections in publishing...and if you would have just not made any excuses or asked nicely, I might have taken a look for ISBNs on your behalf. Not a chance now. —ExplorerCDT 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind of the WP:CIVIL guidelines when presenting your thoughts. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an answer as to where in the style guidelines it says "don't use wikilinks in references". I, for one, would much prefer them to be included so I can get a basic précis of the author and publisher of the source. Trebor 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In general it looks good, though I'm not a good judge of writing.
- It could use a map, or at least a prominent link to an official map showing the line. This would make it much easier to follow along.
- "The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall." There's a missing word.
- Image:RNPLineRepresentation.png could easily be replaced with a more useful free map.
- I'm not sure that "Pattern stops at this station" is encyclopedic. What is the history of these service patterns? Are they changed every few years or are they long-term?
For now, no vote. --NE2 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The pattern stops are just showing how the line operates and how trains run on it. Some of the London Underground line pages have them, and quite a few in Australia too - and no one has ever objected to these. I'm happy to get rid of the duplication by removing the dots and adding historical information on the stations, but I think it's ok if we leave them in there. JROBBO 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm objecting now - as much as I love "railcruft", I think showing exactly which trains stop where goes a bit far, especially if you don't know how often those patterns change. On a rapid transit system, where these patterns may be long-established, it may be different (for instance the 1/9 skip-stop patterns on the New York City Subway), and this may be the case here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless" and cover both the past and the present, and if you don't know how often these patterns change it's probably best to leave them out. --NE2 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although a couple of trains might change every timetable (given that CityRail isn't a metro line), these are usually the exceptions - on here at least, the stopping patterns don't change all that much except when there's major changes to the timetable. This line is very unlikely to have any major changes to it, since there's no lines planned to connect to it or any major capacity changes apart from the Cronulla Branch, but it's probable that all trains on the branch will continue to use all stations there. Having said that, it's probably possible to condense the information into a sentence or two about how it currently operates rather than a whole section. JROBBO 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a general idea: "All trains run from the Bondi Junction end and serve all stops to Sydenham. Trains that continue as locals, stopping at most or all stations, terminate at Hurstville, Mortdale, Sutherland, or Waterfall, while all Cronulla trains skip a number of intermediate stations on their way to the split at Sutherland." Do all the stations on the four-track section have only two side plaforms, or are there islands to serve the express tracks? --NE2 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the stopping pattern diagrams colourful and somewhat interesting. I wouldn't expect them to appeal to all tastes, but I don't expect every part of every article to appeal to all tastes.--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (and I admit I have been collecting Sydney railway timetables for 45 years--Grahamec 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I find it to be trivial, and I'm a fan of transit operations. But it might be useful to keep it in a toned-down style, like by showing which stations are served by almost all trains (a local-express style setup?), especially if these general patterns have been historically stable. --NE2 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This has gone now, so there's no need to keep addressing this point. JROBBO 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - I think the concerns that I raised above have been dealt with, and I am very comfortable with this being a featured article. This is also under the assumption that something will be done with the Alignment section, but I have confidence in that considering the other great work that JROBBO has done with this article. Also, aside from this vote, if I may say so, I find it imperative that all featured article candidates are given much respect for spending hours and hours trying to help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, no matter how bad one may think that the article is, and that constructive criticism be given by all oppose voters. —Mets501 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. I was impressed the first time I read this article and it has improved further. The oppose above seems petty and inactionable. michael ^talk 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'm kinda busy so I'll give a full judgement sometime in the next few days. I've wikilinked most, if not all, dates in references per a criticism above, plus a few minor fixes. I also noticed that with references 63, 67, and 68, that the italics seem not to be closed properly, making the references ill-formatted. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support: JROBBO has spent a great deal of time fixing up this article, and it looks a lot better than it did prior to JROBBO's recent edits. - Vicer 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Another reason to continue my above objection...aesthetically unbalanced lead now that the article has a left-aligned image (ESI_map.png) after the first paragraph of the lead, forcing the lead text and table of contents to funnel narrowly into the center of the page because of how it competes for space with the the right- and top-aligned infobox. Ick. —ExplorerCDT 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment moved to appropriate section per consistency with other image (Eastern Suburbs map). Looked too out of place in its original position. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: In its new position it screws up the "Alignment section" with a similar funnelling effect, and causes stacking problems into the next section "History". —ExplorerCDT 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment: I've moved the Bondi Junction image down into the history section. How about that? Harryboyles 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment In keeping with the Law of Unintended Consequences, that just causes a "white space problem" in the Alignment section when using several common broswer and monitor settings.—ExplorerCDT 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        What can we do to fix it then? A solution or some solutions would be helpful - I've tried the page on 3 different browsers (Mozilla, IE and Safari), and there doesn't appear to be a problem with the alignment of that section, so I don't know how I can fix this. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Basically, it's a textbook stacking problem. Within several settings at a 1024x768 resolution it places a little bit more than 2-inch (6cm) swatch of white space after the subsection header for Illawarra and Cronulla Lines. Because at certain settings, the two left-aligned images stack on top of each other, and being both of them vertically are taller than their adjacent section text, it not only creates the white space, but the lower image pushes an inch and a half (4cm) into the "History" section. Suggestions: (1) You can move one of the maps to another section of the article (nothing in the MOS says an image must be right next to its relevant text) (2) You can combine the two images to make one map covering both rail lines, especially one that better shows its location in relation to Sydney and each other. While not objectionable with regard to the FAC, the map is low quality and doesn't do much to convey a better understanding of the railline.
        
        Comment: You can try to fix it yourself and show us what you are talking about, ExplorerCDT. - Vicer 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        First, I've explained the problem adequately. Second, I have no intentions of becoming a contributor to this article, and implying that I should is smug. Third, I don't have the time to fix the issues that I feel are necessary to make this article worthy of inclusion at FA (i.e. the writing just isn't the quality of 1(a), still some glaring style, grammar issues...if someone just copyedited for subject-verb agreement it would improve the writing), I have barely enough time for the articles and things I worry about to pick up the slack on someone else's not-yet-FA-ready pet project. —ExplorerCDT 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        So you don't have time to fix up/write articles, but you have time to worry about this? I'm not trying to be rude, but I find it a bit odd. - Vicer 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        It's not odd. It takes a lot to fix up this article, time I choose to apply to things I like applying them to, FAC, PR, writing my own articles. I have my priorities, you have yours. Don't ask me to do someone else's work. I don't need anyone else's cross to bear. —ExplorerCDT 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I've removed the second map; I'll add a single map at some stage. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In furtherance of objection: Delink many currently-linked years (like 1894) that have no month and date attached and add no relevant context to the article, per WP:DATE and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. —ExplorerCDT 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just about all of them are removed now, except the ones in the lead and other ones which I thought were important. What "is relevant to the context" will be, after all, a subjective judgement in the end, but you're welcome to pick me up on any others you feel should be removed. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replies

13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've cleaned up the history section, rewritten it (including deleting a lot of passive voice), taken out all wikilinks in the references except for access dates. If you don't like this section still, can I ask that you find sentences that you don't like and tell me which ones; I honestly don't know how I can make this better and I'm already sick of general comments saying it's boring - they're not helpful at all. The subject matter may not be as interesting as some other articles, but that can't be helped - tell me where (specifically) I can improve my writing. I'm still figuring out how to fix the alignment and stopping patterns section. JROBBO 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) For the information of NE2 & Mets501, I have now revamped the stations section - the pattern stops are gone, and are replaced with the distance from Central Station (the "zero point" of the rail network) and the date of opening of each station - although I didn't want to, I figured it's much more likely to survive any queries about notability if it's left this way. The stopping patterns section has been rewritten to include some historical information on the stopping patterns of trains and where trains have historically terminated. The replaceable fair use image has been deleted and replaced by a free mockup one which doesn't violate copyright. I'll now try to draw a rough map and fix the alignment section, which is the last bit of the article that needs redoing. JROBBO 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I added maps, though their placement may need work. It would be nice if the infobox had a parameter for the map. --NE2 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I've come to understand how the pattern stops can be useful - how about a single column showing whether most trains serve the station? --NE2 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I tried to add this, comparing the old table with the timetable, but I'm not sure if I got it right; there seem to be some patterns that don't fit the ones described in the article. --NE2 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably looked at the early morning, which is always weird because there are usually revenue (ie. passenger-carrying) services coming from the Maintenance Centres or stabling yards which have bizarre stopping patterns. A good idea is to look at the middle of the day, which will give you a better idea of what the actual patterns are. JROBBO 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I've done some rewriting of the alignment section; if anyone can do a better job please have a go at doing so. Fixed image sizes have also been removed, apart from the red dots which would look horrible if we made them any bigger. I think this clears up all the (reasonable) requests that have been made in opposition to this article. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Hollaback Girl

The article was nominated for featured article three times in under a month back in 2005 (most recent). I believe I've addressed all of the concerns from those candidacies, and the article recently had a peer review. The only thing that I've heard could use improvement is an expansion of the "Music and structure" section; I asked at WikiProject Hip Hop and at the peer review, but so far nobody's been able to suggest anything that could be added (I personally think the length is appropriate since the song has few instrumentals to discuss). If appropriate, the section can be merged with another. ShadowHalo 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments I absolutely loathe this song. :) Here are some areas that need improvement:
- It reached a peak position of number one in Australia and the United States... Perhaps "peak chart position" might be clearer.
- What the heck is the Celebrity Deathmatch graf doing in the "Writing and inspiration" section?
- During the early stages of the writing for Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Stefani had worked with The Neptunes. Really odd way to structure that sentence. Why not just "Stefani had worked with The Neptunes during the early stages..."? Also, "During the early stages of the writing for..." is really awkward, especially with those three prepositions.
- In an attempt to search for inspiration... Did they attempt to search for inspiration, or just search for inspiration?
- ...several different reviewers began assuming its identity I don't think "assuming its identity" is the right phrase here.
- In order to visualize the song's bridge... Yuck.
- The video is complete following a close-up... Why not, "The video ends with a close-up..."?
- a slender cameo appearance What's a "slender" cameo? "Appearance" is redundant. Gzkn 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  
  I actually despise the song too. I wanted to work on this one to see how well I could approach this topic with NPOV. I've made most of the changes, but there are a few I'm not sure about. I agree that the section about parodies fits awkwardly where it is, but I'm not sure where to put it. Would it be best in the "Reception" section? If so, I could also then add a mention on Family Guy that would be completely trivial where the section is now. The only other thing is that I left the word "appearance" since IMHO the sentence sounds best that way; I don't think the phrase is redundant since "having a cameo" is really just a shortened, less formal way of saying "making a cameo appearance". If you really disagree, I'll make the change though. I'll try to go through and tidy some of the prose again to see if there's anything else that I missed before. ShadowHalo 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd probably be better in the "Reception" section, although it's not exactly the perfect section for it either. RE:cameo: Meh, it's not that big of a deal. I feel that "cameo appearance" is redundant because cameo is a noun, and the "appearance" is already implied. But again, not that big of a deal. Gzkn 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the reception section and added the reference to it on Family Guy; that it was mocked on Family Guy makes a much better lead-in next to some of the negative reviews that it received. Should "Reception" be split into "Critical response" and "Appearances in pop culture" (or something of the sort)? ShadowHalo 08:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure on that one...kind of torn. It might make sense, but "Appearances in pop culture" is quite trivia-ish, of which I'm no fan...I guess it's fine as is. Gzkn 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, great article. Not too big of a fan unfortunately, although I do enjoy most of Pharrell's productions. — Tutmosis 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~; good article in general, but I have concerns about omitted information. The nominator, on his or her user page, talks about having a preference for excluding information. Could you (the nominator) explain what sort of things you deliberately excluded from this article, if any, and preferably give examples? As an example of something that concerns me, on your user page you make a cute little comment about nobody caring how a song fared on TRL in Antarctica. And, looking at how TRL detail is treated in this article, it corresponds to that attitude: the article doesn't even mention what position the song reached (probably #1? If so, it should also mention how many days it spent at #1.), nor does it mention what day it debuted and what day it left the countdown; it just says the song stayed on the countdown for the maximum 50 days. What's more, what is there isn't even cited! (There appear to be a fair number of uncited things in the article.) I would like to see an explanation from the nominator about this stuff. Everyking 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, hadn't realized FAC's were so...intense. To clarify, I only mention excluding "excessive tables of charts...and chart trajectories" on my user page (per WP:CHARTS). The comment about TRL in Antarctica was meant as a joke after seeing articles that were mostly comprised of week-by-week song positions and TRL and iTunes positions from all different countries, the epitome of fancruft. When I began revamping this article, there wasn't any of that. However, I did remove one decent-sized section from the article (see diff) since it appeared to be a hoax and was completely unverifiable either way. I don't know what day it debuted (sometime in March I believe) and I don't have much time to work on it at the moment, but I'll add the information and references tomorrow afternoon/evening. Thanks for your comments. ShadowHalo 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - If you add that information, and make sure that everything in the article is cited, then I'll strike out my vote (and maybe switch to support). Everyking 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I've added the information about its performance on TRL (with references), including premiere date, peak position, and retirement date. I also went through the chart performance section and referenced each sentence except for a few lead-in sentences that just serve as segues; most of them had references in the article, but the citations just weren't present. I'll see about finding references for the other video programs, but I doubt they exist since it's rare that anyone report on any of those charts; I'll probably end up removing them. I did, however, add some more information about its performance at the 2005 Video Music Awards and the aftermath. ShadowHalo 07:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Good. I support now. Everyking 08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Object~~. It's a very good article, and much improved from the previous FAC, which is when I last read it closely. There are just a few things such as extraneous words that I feel need fixing:

~~"reached a peak chart position of number one" - how about "reached number one" or "peaked at number one"?~~
~~"went on to become" - how about "became"?~~
~~"Upon returning to the studio, Williams began to play Stefani his first solo album" - this implies Williams returned to the studio, but the previous sentence says it was Stefani who was leaving.~~
"Stefani understood that some of the fans of No Doubt would be upset with her solo effort" - I'm not comfortable with "understood" here as it implies it is a certainty that some of the fans would be disappointed. How about "believed"?
"The track ranked higher [on the Maxim list] than several other chart-topping singles such as Céline Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" (number three) and the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" (number five)." - why list these two out of the whole twenty? I think this implies a POV that these other songs were equally worthy candidates for the number-one spot.
"topped its component chart, the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, for four weeks" - aaahh, component charts :). It's already established before this sentence that the single received huge amounts of airplay, so I don't feel this info is relevant.
~~Given that Canada isn't a major world music market, I think having an entire paragraph describing the single's chart performance there is a bit much.~~
~~"Although its UK success was limited, widespread airplay kept it in the top forty for an additional eleven weeks." - the MusicSquare reference doesn't support the airplay part.~~
~~"[Pharrell Williams] is present in the video, making a cameo appearance" - how about simply "makes a cameo in the video"?~~
~~There doesn't appear to be sources for the VH1 and MuchMusic statistics, although this isn't an important point.~~
The titles of all the non-U.S. charts end in "Singles Chart". Are you sure this is the official title for all of them? I'm concerned about misleading readers and possibly introducing inaccuracies; we wouldn't list the Billboard Hot 100 as "U.S. Singles Chart", for example, because there's more than one.
Is it necessary to include the Top 40 Adult Recurrents chart? If its position on that chart was significantly higher than the position on the Adult Top 40, I'd say it should be included, but that isn't the case here (the positions are the same).

Again, I think this is a very good article that is close to FA standard. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes with a few exceptions. I removed some of the unimportant info about its performance in Canada, but given that its relative popularity in the U.S. caused issues about Canadian copyright law, it seems appropriate to have a separate paragraph that has that information. I'm leaving the VH1/MuchMusic info in there just until I can find references; if I can't (very possible since they're less publicized), I'll remove them. I just want to check the formatting for the non-U.S. charts; would "<country> Top X Singles" be appropriate (with the occasional exception of, for example, Dutch Top 40)? I just don't want to have to go through all of those charts more than once. ShadowHalo 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference for MuchMusic, but I removed the Yahoo! Music (I didn't even bother looking for a reference; I don't think anyone cares about it) along with the VH1 countdown, replacing it with VH1's year-end countdown. ShadowHalo 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and response. I meant whether the titles of the charts listed were the actual names of those charts; for example, as you said, the official title for the singles chart in the Netherlands is the Dutch Top 40, not the Dutch Singles Chart. Please make sure that they are all accurate. If there is no official title, I think leaving it as [Country] Singles Chart is fine. Thanks again! Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I compared all the charts to the references as well as the Wikipedia pages about them, when applicable, and it looks like Dutch Top 40 was the only one that needed to be changed so far as I can tell. ShadowHalo 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. I think I need to give the article another close look before I consider supporting, but for now I'm withdrawing my object. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Support: You've bitten off a lot here, and I'd object to the lifeless Music and structure section if I thought it could be feasibly improved upon. Thing is, I have no idea how that could be done. With that in mind, I support. Seegoon 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Object An OK article, but not very extensive, and only 1 in 1310 of Wikipedia's entries are featured articles. If you give me 1310 articles, do you really think I'm gonna say that this is the best of all of them? On a side note, who spent so much time working on the article for such an unlistenably awful song as this one? Cheers. 2Pac 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to which part of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria the article doesn't meet or, even better, how the article could be improved to meet the criteria? ShadowHalo 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Same-sex marriage in Spain

This article has experimented great changes in the last couple of months. It's already a GA, it has received much attention from the LGBT wiki project (meriting an A-class rating), it has undergone peer review and two thorough copyeditings by different editors, including a final proofread. With almost 40 inline citations, I believe it is ready for FA now. Self-nomination. Raystorm 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(SEE BELOW)OBJECT. While there is a nice amount of citations so far, there are many assertions and statements that are unreferenced, and don't meet up to 1(c) Many of the current citations are not complete, lacking publishing/author information. Spanish language sources should be identified as being in Spanish (their titles while they may indicate Spanish content, don't explicitly warn the reader). Also, a couple of sections (e.g. Flaw and Opposition court challenges) are practically stub-length and are better incorporated into the article text rather than existing on their own. Per 2(b) I don't like the heirarchical structure of the sections, I think they're rather sloppy in their arrangement and narrative arc. The section divisions appear almost arbitrary. Also, all of the sections need to be better named. For example: Flaw doesn't mean anything to me, or succinctly convey what the section about. Marriage