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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Hell Is Other Robots

Hell Is Other Robots has gone through some reworking since November 2007, when it had its first GA review, which brought up some good points, all of which were addressed and the article was listed as a WP:GA the second time around. It then had a Peer Review, and a month ago it was kept as a WP:GA, as part of GA Sweeps. I'd also like to acknowledge Stardust8212 (talk · contribs), who has put a good deal of work into the article as well. I believe it is of a high-quality and should be considered for FA status. I will do my best to address any points that come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: I think that this article is good enough to reach this rank. I did make a minor edit with the grammar in the introduction, but apart from the this article appears to be fine. ISD (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Image query I believe that at FA quality, if you want to use a fair-use image, you need to specifically need that image, ie the text includes detailed reference to something which the image clarifies, eg the Robot Devil's appearance is described. If I sound vague, it's because I am (!) so I'll solicit expert advice on this. Incidentally, the article is very sparsely illustrated (that's the only one). I'm sure there are some appropriate free use images somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Response: I added a free-use image to the article, I'll see if there are any other relevant free-use images that could be added. Perhaps we could try to get a different fair-use image to use in the top of the article, I'll look into that as well. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I can get the fair use image later tonight, are there any sections of the text which you think would be specifically improved by an image? I'm open to suggestions. Stardust8212 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks so much for offering to do this. We could probably have 3 images in the article if they are relevant and discussed/analyzed portions of the episode, and still be fair use if detailed rationales are given. Scenes that might be nice would be Bender with Reverend Lionel Preacherbot and the symbol for Robotology, Bender awakening to see the Robot Devil in Robot Hell, and the Fiddle battle. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Update: Changed the images in the article to more relevant images that are directly discussed in the article text. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I had to rewrite one sentence, but the article is otherwise very good. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
• Oppose Support, my concerns have been addressed, thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair use image in the infobox doesn't have a properly filled-out rationale. The "portion used" is not "all" - that would be you used the whole episode. It should be "one frame" or similar.
    • Done. Qst 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Pls review WP:FAC instructions regarding graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's a new thing you may not have noticed, Qst (talk · contribs), no more template/image checkmarks in FACs, it overloads the main WP:FAC page. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I see, you always could a couple of weeks back... Qst 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a little weakly written. I think you could sum up the plot in better prose.
    • Done. Qst 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "After a Beastie Boys concert Bender attends a party with his old friend, Fender, where he develops an electricity addiction." That seems to jump through a lot of action with one sentence. How does he develop an electricity addiction?
    • The scene is actually very short but I've added the point that robots were "jacking on" at the party. Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Plot section doesn't meet criterion 1a. Please get someone to copyedit/rewrite.
    • Done. Qst 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "in order to" is a bad phrase.. you just need "to" in most cases.
    • Done. Qst 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "David X. Cohen and Ken Keeler traveled to New York in order to work with the Beastie Boys but after three days of waiting they gave up and returned to the studios." This sentence doesn't really explain what happened. Who gave up? Cohen and Keeler? The Beastie Boys? Why?
    • Done, I think the new wording clarifies this though Cohen never states why they needed to return to LA so I can't really answer the why portion (I suspect it was because they had a show to make :-P) Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did the Beastie Boys refuse to perform "Fight For Your Right"?
    • Not done, no reason is given, the conversation is simply "Can I tell the Fight for your right story" "What story?" "They didn't want to do it" "That's a good one". I wish there was more so I could answer this question. Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • How about adding a sentence like, "The Beastie Boys' reason for declining to perform the song was not made public." or similar? That would at least satisfy the reader that the reason is unknown. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I've changed it to "It was initially requested that they perform "Fight for Your Right" but they did not want to perform that particular song." which I think summarizes pretty much everything we know about that particular point. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Production section is a mish-mash of talking about music and character development without any clear organization. The first paragraph talks about the Beastie Boys but leaves out a lot of information. The first sentence of the second paragraph talks about music but... What was the song's name? Why did they decide to write an original song? Then we skip to character development in the same para.
    • done...mostly I reorganized it somewhat, it probably needs a copy edit though (Qst? Cirt?) I couldn't answer all your questions from the resources available but I think the organization of information makes slightly more sense now. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it looks much better. I changed to Support, although I really would like to know more information on this particular point, the song name at the very least. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • In an old version (a year ago) before I removed the song lyrics it was referred to only as "Robot Hell", I'm not sure that's official though, I'll see if I can find anything else referring to it but I'm not optimistic. Stardust8212 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "This episode is one of very few which focus on the religious aspects of the Futurama universe." Grammar.
    • Done. Qst 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "In most episodes it is indicated that the Planet Express crew..." Grammar.
    • Done. Qst 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lots of uses of the word "which" when it should be "that".
    • Done. Qst 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Use of the word "riff" is possibly colloquial - suggest better word. I have never heard this word used to mean "spoof" which I presume you meant.
    • Done. Qst 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "'Hell is Other Robots' is a terrific introduction to Bender and Futurama's irreverent humor, sly social satire, and damn catchy musical numbers". Check punctuation - if the period is part of the quote, it should be inside the end quote.
    • Done. Qst 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I caught at least one hyphen that should be an em dash, please check.
  • Footnote 16 is formatted wrong - it reads "pp" and then "Page 9" --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not done. The pp should be included, check out the syntax at Template:Cite book. Qst 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. The "pp" should be included, but we didn't need the dup "Page", after that, just the actual page number itself. Fixed it. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to last comment

I will work on addressing all of the above points (unless someone else gets to them first) and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you soooo much to Qst (talk · contribs) and Stardust8212 (talk · contribs) for addressing the above points! Cirt (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do a bit of copyediting to the article now, and possibly some minor rewrite. Qst 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: It's a very good example of an article on an episode. TTN (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Nice job, looks like FA episode number 15 (assuming 200 (Stargate SG-1) doesn't pass first) to me. Gran² 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is currently making some edits to the article, and is providing some suggestions/helpful comments in the edit summaries as to how to improve the article further w/ some minor fixes. If no one else gets to addressing these points from the edit summaries first, I will do my best to make these corrections soon, and note it here. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: missing publishers on sources (example, Gord Lacey (May 11, 2005). Futurama - Do the Robot Dance!. Retrieved on June 26, 2007.), endash corrections needed on page ranges in sources (you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script that fixes them), inconsistent wikilinking of dates in sources (example, are dates linked or not? Lane, Joshua. "Futurama: Monster Robot Maniac Fun", AnimatedBliss.com, Joshua Lane & AnimatedBliss.com, February 7, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007. and Staff. "This week in DVDs: Also New This Week", Eye Weekly, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited., August 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007.) and WP:MOS#Captions attention needed to difference between punctuation on full sentences and sentence fragments. Pls review WP:OVERLINKing, and empty parameters in the cite templates unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make the text harder to edit. A serious review of WP:MOSDATE regarding consistency in raw formatted dates in citations needed (hint, look at the article when logged out to see if date formatting is consistent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing these detailed suggestions here. I will do my best to address all of these above points, some of which I have already begun to address. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will also assist in the addressing of these points. Qst (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: As per suggestion from SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), I asked Brighterorange (talk · contribs) for help w/ dashes. See response. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because I ran it yesterday. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why is pp (plural) used on single page numbers in the citations? There is still inconsistent date formatting in the citations; for example, at times, the last access date is linked but the publication date is not. Please be consistent, sample:

• Staff. "This week in DVDs: Also New This Week", Eye Weekly, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited., August 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I will take a look at that, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Answer to latest question - The "pp" is used for single page numbers because that is what is generated using {{Cite news}}. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

   In that case, you would use page instead of pages. I completed the ref cleanup and made page nos. consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, Sandy, I did not realize that {{Cite news}} had a parameter for that. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Done. - I wikilinked the unlinked full dates from the cites as per WP:MOSDATE and from suggestion by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (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 candidates. 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Tarbosaurus

Self-nom as I wrote most of the article with assistance from my compatriots at WP:DINO. Tarbosaurus is another tyrannosaurid genus article to go along with the already-featured Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus and of course the King himself, Tyrannosaurus. While less has been published on this Asian genus than the North American ones (typical), it is still very well-known from fossil material. Currently this is the 22nd longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia and the 16th longest article on a single dinosaur genus. I believe that it is very comprehensive and well-sourced, with appropriate images and diagrams and no redlinks. I hope that the reviewers find the prose worthy of its subject. Thank you! Sheep81 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: The article has just been copyedited by the aptly-named User:Finetooth from the League of Copyeditors, significantly improving the prose in my opinion. Sheep81 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I copyedited the article before coming here and I feel it is at least as good as the other dino FAs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent depth, well referenced, no evident MOS or grammar issues. Caknuck (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Sheep81 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice article, I couldn't find any significant issues. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Sheep81 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Objection I believe the writing could improve significantly.
  In the lead: "Even if the two are not synonymous, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera." - I have personal dislike for this kind of sentence, introductory ___, and would like to know why. Here's how I prefer it: "Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera." - Is this a controversial change?
  "Over the years, other Chinese localities have produced tyrannosaurid teeth and fragmentary remains, several of which have been given names." I believe could be improved to "Tyrannosaurid teeth and fragmentary remains have [later?] been found in other locations within China, and have been classified as [new genera?]"
  I don't believe prefrontal bone should be linked - and rather that frontal bone is a compound - frontal and bone, and that pre frontal (bone) means behind the frontal (bone.
  --Kiyarrllston 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article. We'll go through it and try to improve the prose, and I've also got a request in for the League of Copyeditors. As far as your last point, I'm a little confused about what exactly you mean, but if you are trying to suggest that there is no prefrontal bone, that is incorrect. The prefrontal is a separate bone in reptile skulls (probably other kinds of herps too). It's very small in tyrannosaurids but still separate. Thanks for finding that redlink by the way, I thought I got them all! Sheep81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've written a short stub on the prefrontal bone so there is that at least. Sheep81 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my comments, I hope they were helpful.

I noticed, finally that synonymous links to synonymous (taxonomy) - I believe a better place for that link would be under the heading "possible synonymns"

and just now I noticed that "even though they are not synonymous" is an introduction, not to that sentence, but to that entire paragraph - I suggest "Tarbosaurus as a term is closely related and even synonymous to many other terms" - as a more suitable way to begin that paragraph

--Kiyarrllston 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Oh -wiktionary:sheepish and I didn't know that about prefrontal bone, read that too :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarf Kirlston (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional support. I don't know much about Tarbosaurus, but some sources indicate that Albertosaurus periculosus is possibly a junior synonym of Tarbosaurus, so this should probably be discussed in the synonomy section (it is not currently discussed anywhere in this article, and is not present in the taxobox synonomy section). I've done a bit of copyediting on this article, and I think it's FA worthy (of reasonable length, free of errors, well-sourced, etc). Finally, please do not do as suggested above and change the wording of "Even if the two are not synonymous, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera," to "Tarbosaurus as a term is closely related and even synonymous to many other terms," which misses the point about the animal being closely related (possibly even the same animal) as another dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Even if they are not synonymous is supposed to be a suggestion that they might be? - so "Tarbosaurus is a synonymn of other taxonomic terms." I think would be proper. Continuing with "It is notably closely related to Tyranosaurus but not a synonymn."--Kiyarrllston 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [PS: or "and possibly synonymous"] --Kiyarrllston 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved that clause to the end of the sentence, hopefully it reads better while conveying the same meaning. Sheep81 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added periculosis to the synonymy section. It's in Holtz 2004 so I don't even need to add another reference. Not adding it to the taxobox since Albertosaurus is definitely not a synonym of Tarbosaurus. Sheep81 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My sole concern (about A. periculosis) has been addressed. No further observations here. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moral support as a member of WP:DINO and a very very minor contributor. It's comparable to other recent dinosaur FAs, no flags are going up, and if there's something reasonable that needs addressing, I know it'll get done. J. Spencer (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please review links. Please address WP:OVERLINKing of common terms known to most English speakers, examples river, teeth, brain, force, etc. Also review WP:MOS#Captions regarding the difference in punctuation of full sentences and sentence fragments on image captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding linking - agree about first 3 mentioned. I think force is more valuable in this case as it has more of a specific and scientific connection. I'll look further and I am sure Sheepy will too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Samples only, will leave it to your better judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The periods in the captions were added just last night, when we were asleep. They've been re-removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That'll teach you to sleep :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha! Well, we've learned our lesson now: we'll sleep in shifts! ;) I've fixed the dead links. Paleo Graveyard just recently went off-line, so we were caught off-guard by that. The link to BioOne works when you click it, but shows up as a dead link in the Dispenser tool. Advice as to how to proceed is welcome. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The linkie-checkie tool is only a tool; it helps, but has issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah! There's still a dead link. I will fix it this afternoon, but don't have time now (RL issues). Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on the Carpenter link and it works fine, even though the tool says it doesn't. It links to Carpenter's PDF archive rather than directly to the paper though. Sheep81 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Sandy. And thanks for implementing them, guys. I re-added the link to fossil cause a lot of people don't know what fossils actually are (and aren't)... seems like a different situation than the other examples Sandy listed. Sheep81 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The other links are good I feel. The article is denser than many that pass through here with terms that benefit from a bluelink, due to its technical nature. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur! Sheep81 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (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 candidates. 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Kit (association football)

Self nomination - I only discovered this article just over a week ago and was surprised to find out poor it was. I spent last week working on it and it's now approximately ten times longer and, I feel, now up to FA standard.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Support. Stuff what I said weren't right is now. Innit. Great work as always, a pleasure to work with you Chris, keep churning these FA's out and keep involving the community. It's great to be a part of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support now. All my comments dealt with quickly. Sorry for the late reply! Woody (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Meant to chip in at the peer review but missed the opportunity. A very good article, but I have a concern about Anglocentrism. It is insufficient to merit an oppose, but I have left comments about this and a couple of other things on the talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Again sorry for not seeing this at PR. One omission springs to mind re:sponsorship, particularly national sides not having sponsorship and also was it Barca who have refused to have sponsors logo destroy their famous shirts? Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bilbao too, right? indopug (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the last two comments (three if you include the bit about Bilbao :-) ): All good points which I will endeavour to address shortly.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through and removed what I perceived to be the most glaring Anglocentrisms (is that the correct word? is it even a word at all? :-) ), I'll address the other points you raised shortly..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS That'll teach me for rushing it to FAC ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think/hope I've now addressed all the comments raised above and on the talk page with the exception of national teams not having sponsored shirts - I haven't as yet found a source that discusses this concept..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please resolve problematic external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All external links show as OK ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Part support I really like it. It's got some great images to support the work, well referenced, and well-written. I just think there will always be some omissions. Whether they're so trivial that they don't need including, I'm not sure. Some examples would include:
• Support all issues addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Just from having a quick look at it, I think it would be a good idea to find a few different images. In the current state, it appears extremely UK-centric, imho. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have significantly revised the images used, hopefully it is an improvement...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please review the punctuation on sentence fragments vs. full sentences in image captions per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (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 candidates. 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Lisa del Giocondo

Biographies of Lisa are few are far between though shelf-miles or kilometres may have been written about Mona Lisa. 16k is here now—and yes it is scary to nominate an article this short—steering clear of borrowing too much from the most-cited sources, and steering clear of the painting. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support CommentI like the article, but some of the writing reads rather awkwardly. For instance, "Less so perhaps but Francesco is thought to have benefited as well because Gherardini is an 'old name." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and reading. Hope the strike is the way to go. A number of things have been corrected. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but others might. It's best to let the editor strike his/her own comments when (s)he's satisfied. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a really strong oppose, but I think it's rather short for a FA and it is definitely a topic that can be improved upon, for example the "Later Life" section. It is very well sourced but the writing certainly could use improvement, the last paragraph of the lead is mildly confusing and the prose in general could use some tuning up. With some minor improvements, I think it will eventually make it.--The Dominator (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. Later life (for which, so far, I found almost nothing trustworthy online including scanned books) has been rolled into one biographical section rather than two sections. Added a paragraph about the painting: not about aethetics or legacy but about Lisa's physical part in it. Also added a paragraph about her parents which ought to have and missed that ibeen there before. If those additions would change your vote, I could request help with writing at the league of copyeditors. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A number of copyedits are done (some in strike markup above), and images and text have been added. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, deals with a very important piece of arts history; the subject of the most famous painting. WP is in dire need to these kinds of (featured) articles. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Prose seems to have improved, article is well referenced and contains a good amount of information, still possibly a bit short for FA, but it has my support.--The Dominator (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - final paragraph of lead seems a bit messy, unclear whether the painting or person is being refered to at times. The final sentence of the paragraph could be made to stand on its own a bit more. Guest9999 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Change to Support - concern dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and my fault for muddling this last night. The lead has been reworked. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Query: why the unrelated image of Florence today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thanks for taking a look. GA review requested more images. Florence is the only image so far that is unrelated to the Mona Lisa artwork. While a picture a kilometre (.5 miles or so) away of a place she and Francesco lived would be an improvement, for now I like that it relates to Lisa and her families' lives and the "real world". Do you or anyone else here think it should come out? P.S. Her childhood home and her father's second home were both maybe a couple blocks, to either side of this vicinity on the Arno. I will try tweaking the caption. If you or others see this photo as extraneous that is AOK. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's completely extraneous; would like to hear from others, but the article is illustrated just fine without it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Picture removed. Maybe a tourist at the Ponte Vecchio will get a closer shot someday. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lucky break. The commons has permissions for professional maps courtesy the city of Florence "Azienda di Promozione Turistica". A cropped and marked map has been added. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Reluctant neutral. The prose is very ordinary, but is required to be of "professional" standard. For example:

• "The family had income from nearby farmland and lived in Florence near Santa Trinita and also had a small country home about 20 miles (32 km) south of the city, in St. Donato in the village of Poggio." Rather long and winding; redundant "also"; MOS breach in use of US units as main units; When their city home was damaged the family moved to rented space near Santo Spirito." There's a serious shortage of commas throughout the article. Date of death: "15 July 1542 or c. 1551, Florence, Italy"—bit odd.
• Poor punctuation throughout, e.g., "They had five children, Piero, Camilla, Andrea, Giocondo and Marietta" (colon required).
• Gawky sentences, like "When he commissioned Leonardo with Mona Lisa and later Domenico Puligo with a painting of Saint Francis of Assisi, Francesco was a patron like his peers. Mona Lisa was painted beginning in 1503, following Andrea's birth and when the family was celebrating owning its own home."

The whole article needs a lot of copy-editing. Big job. Tony (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Requests/Lisa_del_Giocondo. Thanks for your comments. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two copyedit passes done. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tony was right. I nominated this under the influence of a cold. Thanks for catching that—not the cold but that this article needed work. The whole article has been copyedited, corrected by another editor (thank you!) and checked by a third reader. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did a bit of copyediting, and I have a couple remaining small issues with the prose:
  • "Lisa's stepmother Caterina di Mariotto Rucellai and Francesco's first wife, both members of the prominent Rucellai family, were sisters." Why do we care about this? In my view, this is really unnecessary detail about a husband's mother and former wife. (Lisa's stepmother = Francesco's mother, obviously)

• Any Rucellai and Medici mentions are important to show Giocondos had connections. BTW that would be mother-in-law. :-) -Susanlesch (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• • "The family's burial site ... gained a painting through the efforts of Francesco's son Bartolommeo." Very vague. Did he buy a painting? Commission a painting? Steal a painting? Paint a painting?

• Fixed. The name of the artist has been added and that he painted a fresco. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The paragraph that starts with "Leonardo had no income during the spring of 1503..." is kind of rambling. I think it could be improved by tightening it up to show the bits that are most relevant to Lisa. What impact did Leonardo's other commission have on this painting? It's unclear.

• Yes, good comment. No one can say this with certainty but I will try to lean that way. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• • "By the end of the 20th century, the painting—though not Lisa—was a global icon" Is the "though not Lisa" necessary?

• Yes, probably. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done (removed this after all). -Susanlesch (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's all for now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Calliopejen1, thank you so much for your review, edits and comments! Very helpful and I think they led to improvements. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the oppose, but I'm still not thrilled with the prose; and I wonder why a source of nearly 100 pages has no page number in the reference for this specific claim: "was a global icon that had been used in over 300 other paintings and in 2,000 advertisements.[2]" Are there similar instances of this? Tony (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• This paper is 18 pages and is cited four times. The gist of all four, including the exact text you are asking about: "over 300 paintings and 2,000 advertisements", can be read for free from the abstract. I added "Abstract" under pages in the cite template. Just click the link. By the way, this source is used more in the Mona Lisa article. But here, the author is no doubt the best choice at this time in the area of iconization and fame. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Added page numbers after all. Thanks for the suggestion. -Susanlesch (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator, and bowing out because I would need to stand aside for weeks now to see this with fresh eyes. I saw four supports besides me. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (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 candidates. 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Ernest Shackleton

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I feel that it meets the FA criteria and is a fascinating subject. This is my first FAC nomination, and I've seen the article grow from a loose collection of prose to a sourced and well-written article (Finetooth deserves most of the credit for the prose). Please let me know how the article can be further improved. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written and referenced, good use of images, meets FA criteria in my opinion. Note that in the interest of full disclosure I reviewed the Good Article nomination for this, made three edits to it, and gave some feedback on a new map and wording on a sentence. It has been improved since reaching GA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Two quick, likely minor concerns: 1) there are image sandwiching issues, especially in the Endurance Expedition (1914–16) section; this is to be avoided per WP:MoS. 2) I question the necessity for, or, at least, the placement of the “Expedition advertisement” section. This doesn’t really pertain to legacy and the phrasing “is said to have” seems questionable; does the information here really meaningfully contribute to the article? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1.) Thanks for the comments. I think the image sandwiching has been addressed (I removed some images--they are all in commons anyway). 2.) Right, the Expedition advertisement section. Well, we've had some discussion about it. The thing is that Shackleton is related to the supposed "safe return doubtful" claim (there was even a book titled as such and the so-called ad is referenced in many books/media about Shackleton). It's a rather odd situation, because it's a well-known advertisement that probably didn't exist. I see no problem in removing or moving it, if you think it would make the article better--but I think there should be some mention. 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) --- oops, forgot to sign comment Lazulilasher (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Precisely because the supposed advertisement is so well known (even if apocryphal), I would argue for its inclusion in the article in some form to address the "comprehensive" and "factually accurate" criteria. Most readers who have some knowledge of Shackleton will have heard of the ad (I had), but most will not know it is apparently a later invention (I did not). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Not yet - It's not far off and it's a good attempt at covering his life in a balanced fashion, but it's let down by a few omissions and errors at the moment. I've corrected some, but I don't have the time to go through it in detail at the moment, and I don't feel I can support without a good read through. Some points from a brief skim through:

• Although dropping "The" is fairly common for ship names "the James Caird" is normally used (I suppose so we don't have James Caird himself making a voyage).

Ya, you're right...that makes sense...ha...Lazulilasher (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• No mention of The Heart of the Antarctic?

Addressed. His book is now mentioned in the section Interim between Nimrod and EnduranceLazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Penguins were also a staple in the camps on the ice (though why the seals are mentioned in a footnote, I'm not really sure)

You're right. We were a bit concerned about length while editing the article, so I cut that portion. Adding it back now. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "the Boss" is usually capitalised

Done.

• The voyage of the James Caird is unbalanced. Two paragraphs are given over to the description of the sea conditions while the men are not mentioned. Only the lead tells us how many men were in the boat. The last couple of paragraphs of the James Caird article cover this better.

This is true. I'll address it.

Ok, I tried to add a bit more info regarding the voyage of the James Caird. Hopefully it's a bit more balanced out now. Good catch on that, btw, I was subconsciously thinking the same thing but it took another eye for it to surface....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mrs. Chippy and the smallest pups were killed soon after the Endurance was abandoned (not after the sledging as it appears here)

Good catch. That must've slipped by...thanks for seeing it. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reasons Shackleton intended to head for Deception Island can be cited to South rather than (or as well as) giving a footnote on the benefits of landing there that he didn't mention. He also considered Hope Bay before setting course for Elephant Island

Added some info from South.Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since you point out his legacy as an inspiration for the writers of management handbooks, you should make more of his leadership style in the rest of the article. He clashed with McNish, and to a lesser degree Vincent and Lees during the Endurance expedition and more could written of his relationship with Scott especially the "sending home" which appears somewhat one-sided at the moment.

This has, hopefully, been addressed. I put in some more text. My editing concern was that the article would appear unbalanced...let me know what you think. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• "In all, every member of his expedition team survived" - is misleading at best. The members of the Endurance party all survived (albeit a couple of toes lighter), but the Ross Sea party did not.

Yep, it is misleading...so it's now...fixed Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The photo of the "rescue" is actually a picture of the departure of the James Caird in which the Caird was been scratched out (the original negative has a hole in it where Hurley removed it). Might make a nice footnote.

Good point. I added your notes and referenced to "South with Endurance" (the photo collection of Hurley's work....great book, btw if you don't already have it...which it sounds like you do). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is a nice touch to keep the advert in. Whether genuine or not, it concerns the myth of Shackleton, which is as important as the man himself. Yomangani^talk 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll dry and dive into the to-do list ASAP. Good catches. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot better. It looked (from the one spelling clue) like it should be in BE, so I've edited it to remove a few AE idioms. Additionally, there were a lot of "additionally"s, which you probably don't notice after staring at it for months, so I've replaced or removed most of them. A few more points (I'm afraid I haven't got my books with me, so I can't give you references):

Just a quick note before I attempt the meat of the to-do list. Yes, it should be in BE. However, I am absolutely awful at this. I've tried installing a BE dictionary in firefox, so I'll take another run through and hopefully catch some more mistakes....Lazulilasher (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the James Caird the "the" shouldn't be in italics. I think I got all these.
  • Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• There are a few quotes that aren't directly attributed ("bright, good-natured,... and confident" for example)
  • They should all be clearly sourced now. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ranulph Fiennes book has some good stuff on the alternative view of the Scott/Shackleton relationship (i.e. there was no personal animosity).
  • Added information to balance out the Scott/Shackleton controversy.Lazulilasher (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• The two paragraphs on "Between the Discovery and Nimrod expeditions" are chronologically confused (and I don't think the bit about outfitting the Terra Nova expedition is correct)
  • Fixed, the Terra Nova part acutally is true, interestingly enough. However, it fits better further down in the article. Otherwise, the chornology should read more smoothly. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• The purpose of the Nimrod expedition should be stated clearly. The "goal was to land a party of between nine and twelve men at the site of Discovery's landing" as an opening rather underplays the aims (I've always liked this photo - if you can squeeze it in it might make a good addition to that section)
  • Clarified. Got the image in to, haha. Nice rough looking photo. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Is the frostbitten toe mentioned in this section that of Brocklehurst? If so that happened during the ascent of Mt Erebus, not when they first arrived.

• It indeed was. I removed the section as I couldn't find the source. If you have it, I'd like to put it back in. I'm going to search more today and see if I can find anything. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think Nimrod returned on 1 March, but didn't depart until 4 March
  • This was difficult to get a reference too. I ended up using South (here at the end of page 363. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• It has been suggested (passive, weasel, can't remember exactly who) that Shackleton took McNish and Vincent in the James Caird because they were the most troublesome and he preferred to keep them close rather than leave them on Elephant Island
  • I've read that too. It's been added an the allegation sourced. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• It might be good to give the real title of the Quest expedition in that section
  • check, added the real name. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• "In addition, many books focus on the explorer's work" is a bit of a vague and downbeat ending to the legacy section, especially when you've already singled out Lansing's book. This section doesn't really cover his legacy either. Perhaps something about the end of the "Golden Age" could go here.
  • True. The original sentence has been reworded and bit about the Heroic age has been added. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• The references/cites are a bit untidy. I don't care, but I thought I'd point it out. Yomangani^talk 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well done. Trusting that you'll resolve the points raised by Slp1 below, I'm quite happy to support now. Yomangani^talk 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I should have read more closely. I have removed the checks. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please resolve external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All resolved. External link checker now comes back all-ok. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like this article a lot, and congratulate the editors. I have taken the liberty of editing it a bit myself, but I have a few questions:

• What does "Through these efforts," in "The mill owner, William Beardmore was impressed with Shackleton and helped sponsor his next expedition,[4] as well as raising funds from his wealthy friends.[6] Through these efforts, Shackleton convinced Sir Phillip Lee Brocklehurst and author Campbell Mackellar to finance his expedition" mean? It seems a non-sequitur to me.
  • This section should read more clearly now.Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• The section Nimrod Expedition (1907–09) could do with some reordering. Maybe try to put the information in order of time? It seems disjointed in the way it is organized currently with talk of goals and then that they weren't achieved and then back to the beginning with the coal and Shackeleton's position etc, funding etc. There is lots of repetition about being the furthest south person etc.
  • Done. Thanks for your help, also! Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endurance Expedition (1914–16) did he have only one colleague giving recommendations? Also not sure who the colleague(s) are. Is it worth avoiding the pronoun "he" for Mrs. Chippy by using "the cat"? Either that or explaining that the cat was actually male. It jarred me when I read it.
  • This appears to be fixed....ya, I put the bit in about "he" (it WAS a he....), but you are correct....it was jarring to read. Article now reads "it". Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Family : it would be nice to know more about this. His children get mentioned later in the Legacy, but perhaps could introduced earlier as part of the mention of his wife and marriage. In general I would like to know more about this side of the man.
  • Done, please let me know what you think of the changes. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

--Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please resolve SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'problematic' links listed actually work fine from the page itself, but maybe I am missing something? --Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links also work when clicked on from the wikimedia tool. Huh. Wild and wacky stuff. Though, I'm not sure how these tools work, it is possible that I am in error. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I too had no problem accessing the links shown in red on the link checker. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This article provides a fascinating, inspirational account well worthy of its subject. The authors keep the focus on Shackleton, the man himself, rather than on his extraordinary expeditions. Despite the excessive in-line citations (sadly de rigueur for featured articles), the text flows well. The editors take a shrewd line in dealing with conflicting views and information from the published authors.

Also, and irrelevant to the featuring of this article, Talk:Ernest Shackleton could be a featured article too, though not by conventional Wikipedia standards. It shows purposeful, cooperative editing by people with a variety of interests and skills dealing sensitively with subject matter which is surprisingly contentious (at least for those interested in polar exploration!). Thincat (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kind words and support! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: 1c (reliable sources) issues: Please see my edit summaries: there are numerous missing publishers, and commercial or self-published sources which don't appear to be reliable sources. I identified a few; there are more. Also, please review image caption punctuation of sentence fragments per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm working on it....will update when finished :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think they've all been fixed. I removed the unreliable sources which you mentioned and replaced them with books (thank heavens for Google Books....I can't imagine sourcing a Wikipedia article without it!) Further, all works cited now have publishers. Lastly, I think that the captions conform to MOS, but I could be wrong. Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've performed a copyedit. A few issues remaining:

• The cited work 'Cape Horn the Terrible' doesn't appear to be of particularly scholarly origin.
• "For almost two months, Shackleton and his men camped on an ice floe not far from the Endeavour (Ocean Camp)" - Endeavour?
• There is a bit of inconsistency in capitalization when referring to a 'party' from the Nimrod expedition. I'd prefer to see 'party' in lower case throughout, but whichever standard is used, the capitalization in "Although every member of the Weddell Sea party that Shackleton had led survived, three members of the Ross Sea Party lost their lives" is off.

Maralia (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the copy edit! Also, I removed the Endeavour part--I'm not really sure from whence that came and the rest of the information is easily verifiable in the sources. Also, 'Cape Horn the Terrible' has come up before--so, it's gone now too. Really, it's fine because we can use Worsley's account to the same affect. Lastly, 'party' is now capitalized when in the form of "Ross Sea Party" but lower case when it is used as "the party walked...". Does this seem right to you? Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (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 candidates. 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 18:02, 30 January 2008.

Reese Witherspoon

Hi all, this is an FAC nomination for an actress biography. I've been working on it based on the standard of some other actors FAs, with thanks to helpful input from other editors. It's become a GA recently, and I feel the FA criteria is now reasonably met. If you spot any problems, please feel free to leave comment(s) here. I'm often around and I hope we can address the issue(s) as soon as possible. Thanks! PeaceNT (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is in dire need of a copy-edit from a third party. Just skimming, I see numerous mistakes in grammar, wording, and punctuation throughout. Just a few examples from the lead:

• "who has established as the highest-paid actress of Hollywood in recent years"; missing "been"?
• "Her performance received positive reviews, which became a motivation for her to continue an acting career"; it is vague as to what "which" is referring to, the performance or the reviews.
• "and led to roles in three major movies Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville and Twilight in 1998"; punctuation
• "Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which garnered her first Golden Globe nomination"; which garnered her her first GG nom.

It seems to be adequately sourced, but the prose obviously needs work. You could always contact someone at the League of Copyeditors, or perhaps you know of someone not affiliated with the article who can give it a thorough and professional look over. It always helps to have someone who is able to look over the article with a fresh eye. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've made the appropriate changes; I'll ask an uninvolved copyeditor to take a look at the page. Thank you for your assessment! PeaceNT (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several sentences regarding the amounts various movies have grossed both in the US and internationally yet don't give a currency. Peanut4 (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's been fixed, they're all US dollars. Thank you for your comment and your help on the article. :) PeaceNT (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, but fixable (see comments at the end of FAC) A worthy topic but needs to be re-written. The early life part starts out ok. Her "early work" is a massive list written in prose forms. Why is one paragraph 1991, 1996 is the next paragraph, 1999 yet the next paragraph. The awards chart being preceded and succeeded is strange. Those awards are not like political offices or university presidents. You get an award and that's it. It's like Motor Trend Car of the Year. It's not like the award is a term in office or period. The introduction calling her the highest paid actress needs a source. Basically, read every sentence and see if someone could say "prove it". She's American. Nobody in their right mind would ask you to prove it. Highest paid - certainly. A minor thing, Type A Films is actually Type A Films, Inc. It was formed the day after 9-11 (12 September 2001). The references are not the same style, just look at the style of dates. After you have re-done it then have it copyedited. Good luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Four things:

• First, the material in the "early work" section has been organized by time sequence. I'm not quite sure about your concerns (is it about the logic or the clarity of this structure?) Anyway, I'll try to make it clear how I came to divide the content into the three paragraphs you mentioned: first paragraph (1991-1994) introduces her earliest roles in movies and a few TV series, the second paragraph (1996-1998) is about her rise as a young actor with leading roles in several major movies and her earliest critical awards (note that she made no appearance in commercials during 2005), and the third paragraph (1999) basically gives information on her critically acclaimed performance in Election and that first golden globe nomination.
• Second, regarding the succession box, it is used in some other actors FAs too; and there is a guideline which lays down that important awards (like the Oscar, etc) can merit a succession box. You may see that I only include major awards in the table. :)
• Third, I don't cite sources in the lead section, since it is essentially a summary of the article and contains no new information at all. The sentence about her being the American hight-paid actress in the lead is not sourced, but you can find the relevant references in the "Witherspoon in the media" section. I hope this clarifies the issue.
• Forth, I agree that consistency makes the citations look better, the dates in the refs are fixed now. Thank you for your suggestion!

Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • It may also be advisable to say that WP:LEAD says only cite the lead, where appropriate (i.e. challenging claims). Rt. 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Improved but work on it a bit more before calling in the copy editors. Copy editors won't re-write content extensively. The headings do help. Will try to offer useful suggestions later. An improvement over a few days ago! Congolese fufu (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Aside from the prose issues, there are some other problems:
  • She shouldn't be introduced as "Academy Award-winning" before her profession is mentioned (NPOV) and following some discussion about this in the past, it's probably better to call her an actor, not actress.
  • I don't know whether the last paragraph of the lead section is really necessary. Is she actually widely known for any of the things mentioned there - I don't think so, but I'm not an expert either. To me, this seems marginal for the lead.
  • Throughout the text, simple and uncontroversial statements have two sources, what's that all about?
  • Again, throughout the text, a lot of common words are unnecessarily linked (debut, board, middle-class, ...)
  • All newspapers mentioned have to be in italics.
  • The awards section shouldn't be one long succession box, a proper table would be much better (see Jake_Gyllenhaal#Awards). One succession box for her Oscar should be enough.