Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2006

Contents

Caroline Island

Self-nomination. Since creating this article about two years ago, I've developed it up to a point of rather remarkable comprehensiveness for such an obscure and unsung corner of the world. It's presently a good article, and having gone through peer review, and many rounds of being inflicted upon folks in the IRC channel for comment I feel that it's ready for the next step and for the worthy nitpickers of WP:FAC. -- Seth Ilys 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Superb article. Rebecca 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object a few easy fixes
  1. The lead could be a beter summary, for example shouldn't the lead mention that the islands are uninhabited, and how does "near pristine" fit with the cited fact that much South islet was deforested to make way for coconut palms?
Actually, the lead does mention that the islands are uninhabited, and sources are uniformly consistent in calling Caroline one of the most untouched islands in the world. However, I've reworded the introduction to mention human impact on the islands, which is an important part of their history, and to clarify that Caroline is "relatively" untouched I also moved the "near pristine" quote down to the flora/fauna section. (I was never thrilled with it in the introduction, but your comment finally helped me figure out where it should go.) Any additional hands at polishing the intro would be welcome. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. For the non-geographer, an expalnation of how several islets are considered a single island would be useful.
This is well-explained in coral atoll, but I've also added a clause to the geography section noting the common origin of all the islets. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. The article also says that there are 40 islets, the intro on the list says 39.
The article actually said "around 40," but I've corrected to the precise 39, the number given by the Kepler survey, which was the most recent and most detailed. - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Islet sizes are given in km2 and others in Ha, a consistent unit would be good.
Converted all areas in the main article to km2 - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
--Peta 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support, thanks for fixing those so quickly.--Peta 06:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Peta raises a good point. And, if you want nitpicking, I would like to ask that Imperial units be inlcuded after metric ones, for all of us in the United States who don't use the metric system. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to do this, but I've made another pass through the article and found a few places I previously missed. Let me know if you notice any remaining instances where I've neglected to include imperial units. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything's accounted for, and I have accordingly changed my vote. Thank you for your promptness in these changes. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some reason the map and pictures of celebration are external jump and not in footnote/refs?Rlevse 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Those two links are immediately relevant to the portion of the article where they occur and I felt like it would be most useful to readers to have them within the body of article text; however, I've now duplicated them within the "external links" section as well. Does this satisfy your concern? -- Seth Ilys 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in this case, yes. Rlevse 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks for your improvements to the article as well! -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I threw out my object vote... I modified some of the conversions on the page to be a lottle bit more precise, so now i'm all for this article.
Daniel: It would be useful to know precisely which conversions you are referring to. Some of the figures in the article I have quoted as approximate (such as distance to neighboring islands or the overall dimensions of the atoll) because sources disagree and I would rather be accurate but less precise than precise but less accurate. Let me know which ones you find deficient and I'll be happy to improve them. -- Seth Ilys 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Dan: You mention that some of the metric/imperial conversions are done "approximately or inaccurately." The reasons that some of the figures may appear approximate is that the original measurements are approximate. Sources disagree, for instance, on the precise north-south dimension of the island, which I have quoted as "9 km (6 mi)" -- I have done so because then both units have the same degree of precision (significant figures). Likewise, the maximum elevation of the islands above sea level (6 meters) is an approximate figure and does not warrant a precise conversion (which is why I used the round figure of 20 feet rather than 19.7, as you have done.
Furthermore, I believe that your attempts to "correct" my area conversions are also somewhat misguided. 1.04 km^2, for instance, is actually equal to 0.40 mi^2, as can be verified by Google's calculator tools. I believe that your changes actually decrease the accuracy of the article, and therefore request that you revert them to my original figures. -- Seth Ilys 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow up: User:Simetrical has done so. Thanks. - Seth Ilys 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – as reviewed in WP:PR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I did some copyediting and passed it for WP:GA over an month ago, the article is very good Jaranda wat's sup 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. However I am curious about the fact that the atoll is considered pristine, what with so many introduced species stil present. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources (cited in the article) are consistent about naming Caroline Island as pristine, although I tried to indicate (whenever such a statement is made in the article) that 1) this is a relative assessment, and 2) there was a significant amount of human impact. I'll see if I can't tweak those bits to make it clearer. -- Seth Ilys 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - doesn't need anything further done to it (I fixed a typo!). Superb. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Selena

Archive1

Re self-nom This article barely failed it's FAC the first time around, and I'm trying again. Since it failed it went though a copyedit, and reached GA status. I would be around for any concerns you may have. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - very accurate article; many wikipedians (especially latino music fans) would find the article interesting and relevant; well cited and organized; front page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My only comments are, with all that stuff about her father steering her career and controlling her love life, I wondered if the sources had anything to say as to whether he was a domineering personality, sometimes to Selena's dismay. Also, a couple paragraphs starting with "Selena released her next album..." seemed a little tedious/repetative to me, although I couldn't think of a way to reword them without making them passive sentences. About.com is referenced, although given that website copies a lot from Wikipedia itself, I wouldn't think of it as the greatest source. Other than that, good job. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would object based on the sources, but they can probably be fixed. Very good start, worthy of consideration. The first thing I look at is references, and they cause a problem for me. I should not have to click on a link to see what the reference is. Can you please convert them to a bibliographic style, and use a consistent style? For example, your first reference should be (depending on what reference style you choose) something like, Mitchell, Rick. "Selena". Houston Chronicle, 05/21/95 (with the link to the article as "Selena"). The idea is, if the Chronicle takes down the link, I should still be able to find the article. The problem is created by the use of cite web, when you are really citing a newspaper. I can't tell if most of your references are news media primary sources, or websites put up by fans. I have to click on each one to evaluate their reliability, and would prefer to see what kinds of sources you used without having to click on each one. For example, when I click on the reference for Selena and Coca-cola, I find what appears to be a fan website, which is not a reliable source. If Selena was a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, there must be a reliable source mention of it somewhere. The mention (above) of about.com as a source is a concern, as every article I've ever encountered on about.com had accuracy problems. I'll take another look if you'll improve the references. Sandy 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I replaced the Coke ref with a The Handbook of Texas ref, I don't know how to convert them to a bibliographic style though, do you still leave the link, also I didn't see any refs from about.com. Finding credible refs online is very hard and I'm trying my best to look. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want, I can do a couple for you as a sample. Let me know. I do them manually because I *really* dislike citeweb (it doesn't work well for medical articles), so let me know if you want me to tackle them. I'm sorry to have parroted the comment from above regarding about.com, if there is no about.com reference. Hmmm??? Sandy 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Working my way through the references, mystery solved. I think the editor above meant answers.com rather than about.com. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, so is circular reasoning as a source. Sandy 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the discography section could benefit from a table, similar to the one in the Alison Krauss article. Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's something I don't know how do to, several music FAs don't have them though like Celine Dion. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be a simple matter of copying from Alison Krauss' article and changing the text accordingly. See:

[table snipped from this FAC page] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I placed it but the table came out too big I think. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required.

    • "Born the youngest child of a Mexican immigrant couple,..."—Spot the redundant word.
    • "four number one Spanish hits"—hyphen required.
    • The link As of June 2006 takes me to stuff about the German intelligence agency, Iran, and Cape Town. Delink it.
    • "The family soon went bankrupt, and they were evicted from their home." Spot the redundant word.
    • "Taking all their musical equipment and an old bus,..."—"In" would be better than "and".
    • "There they performed whenever they could; at street corners, weddings, quinceañeras, and fairs." No, the semicolon should be a ... (you tell me). Tony 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok fixed all, mostly edits a annon user made not long ago, I don't know how to use an hyphen well so I might have done it wrong thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The examples were evidence that the whole text needs editing. Can you network on WP to find people who are relatively unfamiliar with the text to improve it? Tony 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd be willing to look at the text, but after the article is thoroughly referenced. For now, there are still three personal or fan websites as references, so I have to object based on prose and referencing. Sandy 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Objection removed, article is referenced and prose has been addressed. Sandy 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it all. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Struck references above as completed: all of the references are now to reliable sources, but you should check that every statement in the article is referenced before we work on the copyedit. Sandy 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking a second look, there are still numerous statements that aren't referenced. A few examples from early on in the article (I didn't go through the entire article):
She continued her education on the road; at age seventeen she earned a high school diploma from The American School of Correspondence in Chicago and was accepted at Louisiana State University.
They initially performed at the Quintanilla family's restaurant, "Papagallos," but the restaurant failed shortly afterwards.
I also saw this in the lead, so wonder about the copy edit that was done: her 1994 album Amor Prohibido produced four number one Spanish' hits. Sandy 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alot of the info comes from the same refs, might be a bit of an overkill. As for the sentence, that was when I tried to fix Tony1 objection, but as I really never used an hyphen before. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I ref the family resturant one, but I don't agree with every sentence has to have a ref part, as it's not a contverisal article, and would be an overkill to add the same refs, people just can read the refs. Thabks Jaranda wat's sup 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work, Jaranda, but there's still the need to engage collaborators in the task. Here are examples why, which are from the first part I inspected this time, at random—the opening of the "Legacy" section.
    • "In fact, the Guinness Book of World Records, in 2003 (she had previously graced the book's pages as the "most dominating artist"),..."—Stop-start structure; remove "In fact" to start with, since it adds nothing; perhaps replace it with "In 2003,".
    • "López was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best Actress."—Do you mean for her role in that film?
    • "Over 12,000 people tried out for a role in the film.[17] This film stirred some controversy in the Mexican-American community since López is Puerto Rican and was playing the role of a singer who was of Mexican descent." To qualify as "compelling, even brilliant" prose, it might be something like this: "More than 12,000 people auditioned for a role in Selena.[17] The film stirred controversy in the Mexican-American community, since López is Puerto Rican and played the role of a singer of Mexican descent." And just why that community was upset is not quite clear.

Someone unfamiliar with the text needs to sift through it to make it really good. Nothing less is sufficient. Tony 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok User:Hoopydink did a decent copyedit, even though I had to revert like half of it, but most was useful. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd go through the text in order to help, but I think it's still rather incomplete and not quite ready for a thorough going over. Jaranda, I know the woman is idolized, but is there *no* criticism of her anywhere? With bios such as hers, you have to carefully watch that the article doesn't veer into POV fan worship. A little more content addition, and I'll help with the copy edit. Sandy 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a major problem, all the sites I went to has no crticism of her, maybe some older newspapers and magazines have them but they are not in the web, also her career was cut short by the murder before she managed to reach the U.S english market, limiting the critism there. I would look but it will be hard to find. Jaranda wat's sup 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing that I can't find that is not blogs etc Jaranda wat's sup 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I really need some help in getting older newspapers and magazines. I just removed an unsourced paragraph. Finding this stuff is hard to find in the internet that is not a fan site, as they don't really archive it and when they do, you have to pay like the New York Times articles, or like Billboard which clears it's articles after 3 months :(. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose she sucks, talentless, not notable we already got FAs on crappy singers, we don't need no more 205.188.116.202 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Striking out obvious bad faith vote Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Best not to strike out bad-faith comment, but to append a rejoinder to it. Tony 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think in the above one, I think it could be safely to cross it out.
  • Support once Tony's objections are met. Overall, there are tiny fixes that should be made, but I pointed these out to Jaranda already. Mostly, I asked him to get page numbers for the book references, like the Guiness world record reference. I like the article, good job. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? What book references, and what Guiness reference? Sandy 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the paragraph, I can't find it in a non-fan site any where, maybe if someone has a 1999 or 2003 Guiness Book of World Records laying around. Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I went to the main libary in Downtown Miami to look for more refrences, and I couldn't find anything. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I've been asked to copyedit the article a bit, so for now I'm going to stay neutral (I'll change my vote later). Right off the bat, however, a citation could be used for the sentence in the lead "She took the award for Female Vocalist of the Year in 1987 at the Tejano Music Awards which helped land her a recording contract with EMI." Not a citation that she won, but a citation that the award was a factor in her contract. If there isn't a citation for the connection both pieces of information still warrant inclusion, but as seperate sentences. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I reworded the sentence. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now. I agree with Tony, the article has undergone wonderful changes. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose is much, much better. Well done; objection removed. Tony 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Four out of five citations checked as part of a citation spot check came up problematic, to varying degrees (results here). Please go through all the citations and make sure that the sources cited contain information directly supporting the statements in the article. --RobthTalk 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok fixed Jaranda wat's sup 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To be clear: I'm waiting for confirmation that all the citations, and not just the ones I checked, have been checked and fixed as necessary before I withdraw my objection. --RobthTalk 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Confirmation received on my talk page. Objection withdrawn. --RobthTalk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I really want this closed soon, I already fixed all the objections and they are crossed out and I'm personally burning out over this fac and a few other reasons. Jaranda wat's sup 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Jaranda is going to take a Wikibreak, so I will watch over this FAC for him. Any concerns should be brought up to me, please. While I need a little bit to catch up on any issues, I will try and get back with yall ASAP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comment on my object: It is better than it was, but if it's going to be promoted, I shouldn't be able to easily find things like this stubby little paragraph with imperfections:

"In October of 1995 a Houston jury convicted Saldívar of first degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison, with the possibility of parole in thirty years."—See WP:MOS about the "of" before a year. Comma after "1995" might be nice. AmEng goes easy on hyphens, but US editors would still insist on a hyphenated "first-degree" here.

And the next sentence I saw was:

"Meanwhile, "I Could Fall In Love," while ineligible for the Hot 100 at the time due to it not being released as a commercial single, did reach #12 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart and the top 10 on the Adult Contemporary Chart. To date, "Dreaming of You" has sold approximately four million copies in the USA." Meanwhile ... while. "Due to it not being released is awkward and, indeed, ungrammatical. What is the earthly point of writing "to date"? How will our readers know when you're referring to? Just remove it and update when necessary.

And:

"People magazine published a commemorative issue in Selena's honor, this being only the third occasion on which People had released such an issue."—The same grammatical issue, in the second clause. Tiresome repetition ("People" and "issue"). Reword the whole sentence.

And:

"Stern's comments, predictably, outraged the Hispanic community"—Remove "predictably" as POV (if it's not POV, it's unnecessary).

I'm not yet satisfied that this is FA-standard prose. I want to be able to pick out a few sentences without finding these types of problems. Tony 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those above examples were fixed, and fixed a little bit in the last section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I provided the examples at random to show that the entire text needs a final, good run-through if it's to be promoted. Just fixing the examples is not the point. Can you ask someone new to look at it? Do you have a list of good copy-editors? (I do, but I keep it to myself.) Tony 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, what I will do is try and place a tag for copyeditors to come and look at it. After doing a bunch of FAC's, you know that copyediting is not my strongest point, and about 9 times out of 10, I get someone else to do it for me. I'll see what I can do myself, too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, but you know what they're like (rather passive); try active networking with a few—flatter, engage, then ask.Tony 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And since grammar is pretty much the only sticking issue with this FAC, at least we should get this down right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some copyediting was done by Reimelt recently, the others sections looked fully copyedited to me and is ok. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba

A meticulously referenced article about an important and controversial figure in Holocaust historiography. Authored the first report regarding the death camps that was taken seriously and acted upon; after the war, his accusations regarding the Zionist leadership have been used by many widely varying groups for political purposes. This article lays out all the known facts, and all the controversies regarding Vrba, giving each side fair play, and achieving a remarkable level of NPOV on a topic which is usually raised or used for polemical purposes. This is a semi self-nomination; SlimVirgin and I have essentially written it. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment—It's generally well-written, but there are a few problems.
    • In the second sentence, don't refer to him as an inmate until you've told us that he was a prisoner at Auschwitz; as currently worded, it looks as though UBC is a prison, which ... may well be the case. :)
    • Please consider closing the gap before each reference, and between references where more than one are clustered. They're intrusive enough visually without the added space.
      • The gaps between multiple references are now closed, but the gaps between punctuation and the first ref remain. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please go through and check the ambit of every reference. For example, does [13] refer to the remainder of its paragraph? (It's unclear.)
      • The refs refer to the quote or point (whatever it is) immediately before the ref. The refs don't refer to anything after them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are snakes that need chopping up for readability: e.g., "Historians differ as to whether there is any truth in Vrba's allegations, which have revealed a fissure in Holocaust historiography between "survivor discourse" and "expert discourse," [14] the latter fiercely protected by some academic historians suspicious of the emotional, subjective approach of the survivors."
    • There are a few stubby parapgraphs; why not merge the second para of "Early life" into the first? Check other stubs.
      • Will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I already merged those two paragraphs. I'll look for other stubs as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "On Friday, 7 April 1944, at 2 pm, on the eve of Passover, [12] with the help of the camp underground, the two men climbed ..."—This succession of five commas can be reduced in number.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of humanity that doesn't use the US system. Tony 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The subsection header "How much did Vrba really know?" fails to follow the manual of style, and the "See [[foo]] section below" seem to violate the avoid self-reference guideline. Both of these served to break the flow of the narrative for me. These are pro-forma and perfunctory objections only, lest I be accused of going soft when I say "Excellent work!" - brenneman {L} 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the "see below" sections are important in an article of this length. We can try to think of another subtitle for "What did V really know." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jay changed the subhead to "What Vrba knew". SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you shorten the lead a little bit. It's too long. CG 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel it's about the right length for the length of the article, and it covers all the main issues the article will raise, as recommended by WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This was the first thing I noticed. The lead is indeed long, but SlimVirgin is right, it would suffer from any serious shortening. - brenneman {L} 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It has been shortened. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Happy to see a referenced article: if you can correct the problems mentioned above, I'll take another look. Sandy 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Meticulous, well-researched. A paragon of what a Wikipedia article should be. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please fix all the footnotes and put the categories in alphabetical order. I also thought the lead was a bit long. Sandy 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure they're all fixed; what still needs to be done? Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which footnotes, Sandy, and what's the problem with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has corrected them now. Sandy 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put the categories in alphabetical order. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost certain they've all been fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the lead is far too long - think about what would appear on the main page and cut it back; see WP:LEAD. The text of the aticle isn't that extensive to require a four paragraph lead, and it goes into far more detail than is necessary for a summary. There is a bit much emotive langauge sprinkled though the text, for example death camp appears several times. What are the items in futher reading, if they were used to write the article they should be in references, if not what are they doing there? Why are awards and films stuck down at the end of the article, can't they be worked into the text somewhere?--Peta 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The further reading section is for material that's relevant to the subject and interesting, but which wasn't used as a reference. We can try to work the films into the text. I'm not sure I would call "death camp" emotive. Auschwitz-Birkenau was known as a death camp (Todeslager) or extermination camp, as opposed to a concentration or labor camp. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've slightly shortened the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've included awards and documentaries in the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All the lead needs to say is that he escaped with the report, he criticsed the timing of the release and that current historians are still in disagrement about whether he was right. The current 475 word monster is too detailed.--Peta 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead section should given an overview of the whole article, one capable of standing on its own. Up to four paragraphs is recommended for an article of this length. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The text of the article isn't that long when you take out all the citations. I would say that it is medium sized.--Peta 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's about 10,000 words. WP:LEAD recommends three-four paragraphs for anything over 30,000 characters, and it's well over that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you put your finger on what you find off-putting about the current lead? Is it a visual thing, or does it flow badly? You wrote that it was too detailed: does the detail get in the way of understanding, and if so, which details exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph goes into more detial that it needs to, the blood for trucks discussion could be shorter for example. I also don't like the long quote at the end of the fourth paragraph, that kind of analysis should really only be in the body of the text.--Peta 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph is about the heart of the dispute, so it can't really be shortened. The fourth paragraph deals with how historians are responding to his allegations, and Yehuda Bauer is probably the leader of the group of historians who are critical of Vrba. The long quote from him sums up the feelings of those who talk about survivor v expert discourse, which is that the survivors know what happened to them but they are too distressed, and not knowledgeable enough, to attempt to analyse it and place it in context. And yet, of course, they do, and this leads to clashes with the academic historians, who may not have the personal experience of the Holocaust, but who do have the overview, or at least that is their argument. We could cut it out, but we'd lose the summary of an important aspect of the dispute. I like this lead because there's a paragraph devoted to each of four important points: (1) who he was; (2) what impact his report had; (3) the controversy and what it's related to; (4) what historians have said about it. It would be a shame to lose one of those, in my view, although I did slightly cut the long quote you didn't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I again agree that the lead is of the appropiate length, and that it follows the guideline. - brenneman {L} 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellently referenced and presented. Well done. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Balanced, heavily referenced, image support. I have no problems with a longer WP:LS if the topic warrants this. JFW | T@lk 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. Outriggr 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "As his job involved him being present"—Ouch. Try "As his job involved his presence". I find the caption for "selection" to be too small and far too long. Can you integrate most of it into the main text? PS It's a good article! Tony 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :-) I tweaked the "involved him being present" sentence; reduced the image cutline; and increased the image size slightly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a model article. Although it won't be of interest to many readers, it shows that Wikipedia can match the standards of Britanica. I think it also exemplifies the spirit of NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there an infobox possible? Why are there many references begenning with "__________"? Please use citation templates for references. Date wikilinking needs to be done consistantly. Apart from the Wikilinking issue, there is inconsistancy in using comma between dates. Avoid using words like "allegedly" (see WP:WTA and copyedit). Avoid using FA-star in templates used in the articles. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The citation templates are just a nuisance. It's far easier to write out citations without them. The line represents the name of the author in the preceding example: it's used to avoid repeating the same name over and over. Which dates are not linked in a consistent way, and can you give an example of the comma inconsistency? There's no reason to avoid using "allegedly." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Changing to Strongly abstain till issues are cleared on the talk pages. The citation templates are not a nuisance. They exist to provide uniformity to article citations and usability of the article while interacting with machines. If any new person comes in and adds reference, there should not be any problem for him/her to understand how to go about it. Also, with use of citation templates, the references become machine readable. For example, see Persondata to see how that specific template is used. It is not a citation template, but I am providing its link as the usage is well documented. What's easy is not always the right way, and I strongly suggest that citation templates be used. I am not aware of the line representation in citations, and hope that you have confirmed that it is an encyclopedic way of writing it. In "Early life and arrest" section, fourth paragraph has unlinked "June 30" (See MOSDATE). Similarly "April 10" in "Escape" section. Find other similar instances (there are many others). The article text has dates with no commas, while the references consistantly have commas (another reason why I strongly prefer citation templates). Also, all web-references need last accessed date. If possible, I would suggest separating the "Notes" section from the "Inline citation". Note: All issues mentioned by me are not objections. My objection is for the many issues mentioned, so please don't respond that a specific one is not a reason to object. Even those that are not are suggestions that will make the article better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your various points: (a) There's no requirement to use citation templates; one good reason not to is that they're not flexible and can't, for example, handle the need not to keep on repeating the author's name; (b) the only dates that the MoS suggests linking are complete dates so that date preferences work, and so I'll make sure these are all linked; (c) I still don't know what you mean about the dates and the commas, but I'll take a look; (d) I don't know what you mean by separating notes and inline citations. The notes are the inline citations. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I still can't see what you mean about dates. April 10 in the Escape section doesn't include a year and therefore doesn't have to be linked. Also, I can't see what you mean about commas being used in the References section but not in the text. Can you give an example of a full date with no comma? (I'm assuming you mean the comma between 31 and 2006 as in July 31, 2006, which should also have a comma when linked, if your preferences are set for the U.S. way: July 31, 2006). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is not a requirement, as I said in the note above. But using it would have solved another problem of inconsistant commas that I mentioned. Dates like "June 30" should be wikilinked. Quoting from WP:MOSDATE: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." (italics mine). As it is clear from the quote above, partial dates "should normally" be wikilinked. I see no reason why this article should be any exception. Notes and inline citation are completely different. See Rabindranath Tagore for example, that goes a step ahead by using inline references inside notes. I hope you didn't miss my pointing out of requirement of last accessdate of external links. It is something that's essential. Coming back to your arguement about use of ciation templates, you don't need to use the full template everytime, again see Rabindranath Tagore. So the flexibility part doesn't come into picture. Hope this clears up your doubts. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then someone has changed the MoS recently because that's not what it's meant to say. Only full dates need to be linked. You may link others if you want to, but most people don't. Last access is not essential. The citation templates are not even recommended to the best of my knowledge; they are just an option, and one that many people don't like and don't use. See WP:CITE, which is the guideline for citations, and which this article, to the best of my knowledge, adheres to. Can you please point to an example of the inconsistent use of commas you've mentioned twice? By the way, what did you think of the actual article? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The citations in this article all follow a standard and uniform format. Citation templates are not even recommended, and are a huge nuisance; they're a special language that must be learned to insert citations, yet they add no particular value, and are extremely inflexible. They certainly don't allow for the kind of lengthy, complex, and nuanced footnotes used in this article. It astonishes me that two people can write an 11,000 word article on a complex topic, using dozens of high quality references and hundreds of footnotes, yet the only comment other people can make is to oppose it as a featured article because it doesn't use a fiddly citation template, and follow their preferred date style. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Slrubenstein and all of the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Countdown (game show)

This article has recently undergone a massive overhaul at the hands of me and User:JonONeill. We've rewritten the whole thing, sourced every last statement, and added some interesting GFDL images (and, inevitably, some fair use ones). There are no FAs or GAs on game shows at the moment, so it's hard to compare it to anything relevant, but hopefully the article speaks for itself. Soo 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Too many sections and not enough information for each section. QuizQuick 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed two of the subsection headings. I can't see how any more of them are superfluous. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object. This page is really quite good. I think the sectioning is within reason. I have two issues and a (stupid?) question.
  • Far too many fair-use images. Including an allegedly-fair-use scan of a page from the Oxford Dictionary of English.
    • Now only two. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Three, actually (the lead logo is as well), but it seems reasonable now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Over-reliance on The Countdown Page as a source. There is something about pages with pebbly background images and Comic Sans MS fonts that, somehow, for me, doesn't scream "reliable source".
    • The Countdown Page is to Countdown as IMDB is to movies. It may not be a gem of web design but that doesn't reflect on reliability. You can't record two decades of Countdown results without knowing a thing or two about the programme. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe. But if an article on a movie, or on the movie industry, were mostly sourced to IMDB, I would raise the same objection. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Objection stands. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Only about a third of the references are to TCP, which I find reasonable, especially considering its authority which you question on the grounds of it looking crap. In the mind of myself and probably most others, there is no question of its reliability. Jono 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked through Spreading The Word again and replaced many of the references to TCP. Needless to say, all the facts agreed, which ought to give you some faith in the rest of them. I'm sure this argument would never have been raised if the site didn't look so awful. Soo 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you. Did you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I did, it made for interesting reading. I'm still unsure of the status of TCP in that respect. A lot of the guidelines make sense in the context of scientific topics, but less so in popular culture terms. There's not much chance of finding a printed source for scores from a TV game show. Nevertheless the site has been extensively fact-checked by fans of the programme, so it's about as good as you could ask for in the field. Soo 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And the (stupid?) question. What's up with spelling "role" "rôle"?
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rôle is a legitimate spelling variant in English (the OED lists it too). --Oldak Quill 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. I enjoyed reading that article, great job working on that. I have a few suggestions and comments, although I've crossed out anything I've done.
  • In fact, Countdown was the first programme to be broadcast on the new channel. - Could the 'In fact' be removed from this sentence, I don't think it's neccessary.
  • rôle - Could this be switched to the more conventional spelling? My spell checker doesn't recognise it and I've never seen it spelt like that before. Perhaps if you don't want to use "role" another suitable word could be chosen instead? Just looks a bit weird.
    • Switched it to the more conventional spelling. Rôle is perfectly okay English, and looks cooler in my opinion, but I guess 'role' will do just as good a job. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The letters round example could be taken to mean the consonants and vowels have to be selected in sets. For example, 6 consonants and then 3 vowels. Could they be mixed up a bit to show they can be selected in any order?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer should that be "10 points is given"?
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer, 7 points for a solution within 5 of the target, and 5 points for a solution within 10. - This could be misunderstood to mean the scores are accumulative. Could that be clarified to avoid confusion?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 4,000 has a comma near the top, but not in a section lower down.
  • Contestant One requests two large numbers - They usually say the amount of small numbers as well, I think.
    • It's a trivial truth, but it makes sense to have it there, so I sorted it. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • However not all games are soluble - Should that be solvable?
    • They are synoynmous. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • crucial conundrum - I think on the show they call it a "Crucial Countdown Conundrum". Yay for alliteration!
    • Yeah, CCC is the convention on TV. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the examples real? If not, would it be possible to add real ones? I can record it tomorrow and get you some real examples if you like.
    • They're not real; as far as I know the greyhound round was used in the audition and the numbers game is the work of Soo's head. I don't think getting real rounds would change a whole lot, but if you can be bothered to and think that they exemplify the format in a similar good fashion, then by all means go ahead. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In 2002 film About a Boy - Maybe have "the" after "in" to make it easier to read?
  • This was edited out of the programme but has since appeared on many outtakes shows. - What happens when a round is edited out? I think they have a sort of pretend round where it's rigged to get the same score but with a more acceptable word for the time of day.
    • That's exactly what happened, although it's not easy to source and not that interesting, so it was kept out. If you can source it though, you can add it, as I know other people find that sort of thing interesting. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • knickname and occured - Spelling mistakes.
  • superlative forms of one-syllabled adjectives - My spell checker doesn't like that word. Would "syllable" be an acceptable replacement in that context?
    • You can make any noun into an adjective in that fashion, but it does look quite clumsy, so I've swapped it for 'monosyllabic', which I think makes sense and keeps the sentence concise. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Cool. Thanks for getting all those things sorted. I've changed my status to Support. Icey 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain:
  • The prose doesn't flow well for me at all. It has too many start-and-stop type sentences (hard to explain). The Character section, for example, is really bad about this. It seems to just be a list of random statements that don't connect with one another.
    • I disagree in general, but you're right about the Character section. It has a lot of true and interesting statements with no real flow. I'll try to revise it. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at fixing this but it's worth checking over by someone who isn't cream crackered. :-) CountdownCrispy 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's better now. Soo 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of references looks very superficial. Are all of those really needed? Not to mention your main source, "The Countdown Page", looks like a GeoCities page.
    • You can always just not look at them. Who benefits from an article with fewer references? For discussion of The Countdown Page, see above. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excessive citations can disrupt flow of reading (too many little numbers). It's not that I mind having a lot of references, it's just that more diversity is nice. Looking at the references and seeing too many cites from the same source isn't good. At the very least, surely there must be something more official than that "The Countdown Page". Also, New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines is a broken link for me.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally I would rather have a citation for every assertion than an article which is slightly easier to read. Diversity is nice, yes, and wherever possible we have referenced other sources, but TCP really is the only website of its kind; the most official thing you're likely to find is the Channel 4 page, which certainly lacks the breadth of TCP. Is there anything you actually dispute on there? New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines seems fine to me. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Final 8 seconds of the Countdown clock music": My player only says its 7 seconds long. --SeizureDog 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Depends whether your player rounds up or down. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "<8 seconds" would be better then?--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than involving algebra, I just changed it to something a bit simpler.
  • Soo is better than me at these and has promised me he will do it soon. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno how that one slipped the net, but it's handled now. Thanks for pointing it out. Soo 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll admit to not having read the entire article yet. I'll give a fully analysis at a later date.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn vote due to not having time to fully assess article. --SeizureDog 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; External links should be after refs, but other than that, it seems fine (I'm impressed that you managed to get free images of a TV show). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Jono 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment only:
  1. I feel like there is insufficient information on the overall tournament structure, as opposed to individual games. The manipulation of the structure to ensure higher viewer interest is one of the key reasons of Countdown's success, at the moment "seeded knockout" looks like the only hint of this. Given some of the comments on the talk page on the subject, I suspect more could be written on the subject.
    I don't see what more detail can be provided. The eight players are arranged into the standard single elimination format, e.g. Seed 1 plays Seed 8 in the quarter-final, etc. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    For a start, are they seeded before the tournament begins? Judging from the talk page comments, there is an initial seeding so that projected octochamps don't knock each other out early on. Secondly, look at the link that is given to Single-elimination tournament. That article specifically refutes the idea that seeded knockouts all have 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. If Countdown is "perfectly seeded" this way, then that does deserve a mention. It would also be nice to be given a rough indication how many games you need to win to get through - do all octochamps end up qualifying? TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thinking about it, I definitely stand by this. There's obviously more to it than seeding at the quarterfinal point (is that based on accumulated points, by the way? Or by wins, then splits decided on points?). And there is a clear need to point out that it's 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. The article on seeded knockouts points out alternative ways that this could be done, it's not just 1 vs 8 etc. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, good point. This has now been made explicit. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Could the free use images be released on the Commons under a slightly freer license, like CC-BY? One problem with GFDL images is that if a print publication publishes them, it has (in theory) got to include a full copy of the text of the GFDL license, which is one of the problems with using a license basically meant for instruction manuals to cover images too. It's really nice to have free use images of a TV show, and since these photos are therefore quite unusual it would be nice for them to be as freely usable as possible without losing the authorship-acknowledgement requirement.
    Good idea, this has been handled now. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Unlike many popular British TV gameshows this doesn't seem to have been copied widely overseas (I guess, judging from the absence of any information in the text). I presume this is because it is the original French format which would be copied elsewhere - perhaps some explanation of the international popularity or not of the particular format would be relevant here?
    There is something on the talk page about an American version being rejected for its intellectuality... the quoted source, though, is in my opinion unreliable in this respect... "too intellectual" reeks of bullshit to me. I've also heard of a Spanish version but that was only today; perhaps I will look into it. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. It isn't made explicit just how closely it follows to the original format. Some more information the key differences and why they were made would be good; otherwise a statement that the format was essentially retained identically would be informative. If the format is internationally popular, based on the original French show, what are the distinctive features of the British version?
    It's evolved quite a lot from the original, but it's approaching POV territory to comment on that in the article. There just aren't any sources for an intellectual comparison of the two. This is a game show, after all. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you could mention whether certain key features have been carried over or are original inventions: for instance, the aims of the rounds, the timer, the 30 second period, "big and small" numbers, the random number generator, the vowels vs consonants choice, the final conundrum?TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, I think... a few more sentences in the Evolution section are appropriate and I'm fairly confident of the DCedL format so I will sort this out either tonight or tomorrow. But as Soo says, there's no real way to have a critical comparison unless there is one already knocking about. If you're interested in it you can write an article on it and we will source that. :-) Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh I don't think a critical comparison is necessary :-) But this game is very formulaic - it's the very embodiment of the "formula game show" - and it would be nice to know where some of the individual elements of the formula come from. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, you're right. We've added something on the most glaring differences between the two programmes. They really are quite different now. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot. The only thing that's bothering me is that "Des Chiffres...'s" looks awful! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've changed it to the perhaps more conventional abbreviation of DCedL, but it's a personal choice really (unless there's some Wikipedian guidance on the subject that I'm overlooking.) :-) - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just for your consideration rather than "criticisms" or "objections" really, but hopefully worth thinking about. Sincerely, TheGrappler 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Also worth thinking about - Carol Vorderman appears to occupy an extraordinary and unusually elevated position in British culture, presumably coming off the back of this show. Perhaps something more needs to be made of the "brain plus looks" approach the show's creators went for when selecting her and the image and media presence she's managed to produce as a result.
    The "brain plus looks" you speak of was developed later, I think, and her cultural significance, I think, is due to her presence elsewhere in the media, like adverts for First Plus and whatever. She has something of a cult following, and I'm not sure if it correlates with her Countdown career, although obviously the former is as a result of the latter. Even so, I think it's moot, because although interesting it's hard to source, and including it unsourced would be unencyclopaedic. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I really don't see it as a moot point. So many gameshows follow the model of having a strong male host and some candyfloss women, yet the creator's consciously employed a Cambridge graduate. That's a distinctive feature of the show. Whatever their intentions were, it's surely not a coincidence. I have distinct memories of her publically talking about how she got the job, and she definitely fitted a profile they were seeking out. I wonder if that ever got into any biographical material on her? An alternative would be to report the early critical or media response. She can't have slipped under the carpet then. Employing a Cambridge graduate as the "glamorous assistant" was a really extraordinary move - I really can't think of any parallels. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a brief section and a reference about how Carol got the job which hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can build upon. (Oh, and by the way, could this this candidate's section be sorted out so that's it's clear what is being said and suggested, please, including removing the duplicate of this section? I would do so myself but I don't want to accidentally delete what someone else has said.) Regards, CountdownCrispy 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's an improvement. Do you think it's worth mentioning that she is Cambridge graduate or a MENSA member? Something to convey the idea that she is pretty smart, at any rate. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a reference (in both senses of the word) to Carol's MENSA membership. - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Additionally, the reasons for the show's unusually strong appeal aren't really explored. I appreciate it's probably been a long time since a TV critic took a look at this, but would it be impossible to find some kind of information on the critical response? TheGrappler 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's touched upon in the Character section, but anything further is difficult; unless you back it up with strong and explicit sources it's hard to avoid POV, otherwise it is original research. If you can suggest some sources then I will gladly add some more prose, otherwise I can't see how we can effectively add this in. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate the difficulty of sourcing, but I at least expected to see the early critical reception. TV critics must have reviewed the first outing of the show, surely? TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'll look into this, but realistically it's going to be difficult to find much. Countdown is now so well established that no TV critic really bothers themself with it any more, and early critical reaction certainly pre-dates the days of Internet archives. I'll see what I can find in the university library but realistically an issue of the Radio Times from two decades ago is not easily obtained. Soo 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I guess the Radio Times is near the definitive place to check for reviews of UK TV. Unfortunately newspaper archives (at least online ones) don't tend to go back this far either, but I bet on opening night they will have reviewed Countdown. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Has it always been on at the 3.30pm slot? Or has it moved about over the past 20 years?
    Made this explicit. I don't think a lot of detail is necessary, but the teatime slot is a key part of the programme. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that was worth doing. Especially since it was raised in the UK Parliament! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. I've just realized there's an omission so glaring I'm tempted to move from merely commenting to oppose - while viewer ratings might not be completely stable and there's no point updating this article each time new figures come through, shouldn't this article really make include some detail on how many millions of people were thought to watch, perhaps averaged over the course of 2005? And would a similar figure be available for one of the earlier years? Some idea of the scale ought to come across - is this nearer the 500,000 mark or the 5,000,000? (Similarly, is it known whether this is one of Channel 4's most expensive advert slots?) TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Another good point. We're looking into this. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Found more info than I expected, in fact. Hopefully I've resolved this omission now. Soo 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, that's really nice! I'm impressed. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice that this image: Image:Studiodiagram.png is made up of various shapes. Would an SVG version be any use to you? I downloaded an SVG image creator thingamy and I want to make something useful! Is there anything you would like to be different on it? Like colours, layout and so on? Icey 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought about doing an SVG version of that image, but decided that my skill in Photoshop is unmirrored in any SVG program - by all means, go ahead and SVG it. That would be very helpful. Jono 09:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you haven't already made the image then it might be nice to have the desk area reflect the creamy colour of the 'carpet' in reality, and also the studio floor features a blue arrow on a very pale cream - see Image:Countdownset.jpg. As I say this is only worth considering if you haven't already made the graphic since it's purely aestethic pedantry for me to even suggest it! Regards, CountdownCrispy 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your suggestions. I've created a new image based on the PNG version with your suggestions and a couple of other things I've noticed in the pictures, like the clock on the floor. Here's my current draft. I'm not sure about how the raised floor goes on the left side, because I don't have a picture of that. Perhaps you know? Let me know if there's anything you would like changed on it and I'll get it sorted. Icey 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think the SVG idea is a good one and you've made a good start, but it's now too realistic and looks cluttered. Its use in the article is to illustrate where the various people sit, but that's now crowded out by excessive details on the floor. The clock in particular is confusing because the article refers to the clock being the centrepiece of the set - a reader who had not seen the programme might easily conclude that this centrepiece was located on the floor! In diagrams like this, less is more. Soo 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Aye, you're completely right. I went a bit crazy there! Here's the second draft. I've removed the blue lines, raised area, clock and the gradient on the main clock. Hopefully that is a bit better :) Icey 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Excellentay! Nice one. Jono 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I'll have to agree with Jono - whilst the first was nicer as a piece of art the second is a better diagram. Lovely work. :-) - CountdownCrispy 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yep, good stuff. Thanks! Soo 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Cool! I've uploaded it here: Image:Countdown_studio.svg. Let me know if there's anything you want changing on it. Icey 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's good. My only request is that you upload it to the Commons under a freer licence than GFDL (see the discussion somewhere above). Soo 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is generally good, and I wouldn't object to it becoming featured. That said,
  1. The article focuses on the mechanics of the game, and barely mentions Whiteley's distinctive style of presentation, nor the alternative style of Des Lynam. The section on "Character" would seem the natural place for a brief discussion of this.
    Yeah, you're right. I'll try to add something on this. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Similarly, the article doesn't mention the filming process at all (unless it's recently changed, one week's worth of shows are filmed in a single day, three weeks worth being filmed over three days in a single week), and the whole series being shot well ahead of time. It might also be worth mentioning that the applause etc is live, not canned.
    Your information is correct, but it's extraordinarily difficult to find references for it, due to the show's insistence on maintaining the pretense of being broadcast live. I'll see what I can do. I'll give the studio audience a mention, too. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. A small thing, but it is described as a "program" in the intro, which is unusual for British English, "programme" being more usual.
    Urgh, yes, a straight typo, and now fixed. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The article states "The programme's longevity is often considered to be a consequence of its cult status" without ever explaining why it is considered to have cult status (perhaps the previous line is meant to be the explanation, but if so, the link should be made explicit).
    I've changed the order of a couple of sentences to hopefully make this clearer but, as I always say, these sorts of edit are not my forte so if someone wants to read it through then I've laid the foundations. :-) CountdownCrispy 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That said, it's good work, and I hope to see it featured soon. Warofdreams talk 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakish Object. Good article, but a citation spot check (results here) on this article turned up enough cases of citing sources that were related to but did not directly support the statements in the article that I'm worried that this may be a systemic issue. Someone needs to go through, check all the footnotes, and fix any problematic ones. --RobthTalk 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the particular problems you highlighted, and I can't find any others, but you might want to get someone else to check those over. Soo 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd have to agree with Soo regarding sources. First of all, scanning the sources there are a lot of sources other than the Countdownpage. Secondly, it is by far and away the best site. Most of the other sites made since (including my own) rely heavily on information from the CDP anyway, so using them as supporting sources is questionable. Thirdly, you can't really compare it to football, cricket, baseball or whatever where there are hundreds of website detailing games. The CDP is not surprisingly just about the only one. Soo's site is also excellent because it's one of the few that's based on viewers written records (via the coutdown webgroup) but those sites are really the only two reliable ones.

As for footnotes, I agree that they should come after external links. If anything, wikipedia should change the page headings to article, discussion, edit, history, follow and sources so you don't get all the little blue links on the main page.

Mglovesfun 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - A few suggestions:
  1. The first reference to Susie Dent in the main text is not linked (although she is later in the text and in the side panel). This was enough to make me search to see if she had an article.
    Fixed. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. The conundrum section should probably mention that the conundrums are not totally random letter order but normally a combination of shorter words
    Difficult to source, and not always true. For example, see http://www.thecountdownpage.com/final2.htm . There are more recent examples where the conundrum didn't spell any shorter words, e.g. YURICOLUS.
  3. The article doesn't mention whether dictionary corner or Carol cheat or entirely use their own brain power. I vaguely remember reading an interview with a guest some years ago saying that he was fed words through his earpiece. JMiall 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I remember reading that too, I think it was in the Daily Mail. Would be hard to get hold of now. The truth is that Dictionary Corner cheat (with the aid of the production team) and Carol does it herself. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    See [1] JMiall 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with comments, jwandersTalk 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC): First off, great job, both on the article itself and on your tireless ability to respond to the concerns and comments posted here. That said, I'm afriad I have a few more nitpicks to add to the list
  1. I too find the "rôle" spelling of "role" distracting and have not encountered it before. I believe someone said above that it would be changed to the more conventional spelling, but there's still an instance of the accented version in the third paragraph of the Presenters section
    That one slipped the net. Fixed. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. All of the information in the Evolution section feels like it should be in the History section. I thought, for example, that the increase in the number of rounds had been omitted until I reached the later section.
    I disagree. It doesn't make sense for the article to talk about, say, the changes in the scoring for the number round before it's even explained what the number round is. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Letters rounds, paragraph 2 reads: "Contestants write down the words they have found during the round, in case they have the same one. If a word is not written down, the player must declare this and reveal their word first, in case it is the same as the one their opponent has written. After the thirty seconds is up, the players declare the length of their chosen word, with the player who selected the letters declaring first." The sentence order here seems to imply that if a word isn't written down, it must be declared before the 30 seconds are up. The second sentences should be moved to later in the paragraph.
    This is awkward to explain concisely. See what you think now. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The letters example might explicitly state that Contestant One scores no points.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Conundrum section could use a opening transition, e.g. "The final round of the game is the 'Countdown Conundrom'...", or something similar
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. In Popular Culture, paragraph 2, I found this sentence very confusing at first: "Countdown has also generated a number of popular outtakes, with the randomly selected letters producing the occasional moment that was deemed unsuitable for the original broadcast." Perhaps replacing "moment" with "word" would be clearer.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. There is no mention of what occurs if the game is tied after the conundrom (forgot this one before 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
    You were right the first time; "If the scores are level after the conundrum, additional conundrums are used until the match is decided." Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support obviously ... I'm curious as to why it is still here though. Jono (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jono on the length of time this has been here - I make it six supports to one 'weakish' object, and even that last one might now be considered questionable because the suggested change/check has been made. Soo and Jono have been extremely quick to sort out any problems or act upon any suggestions in the course of this process and have created what I consider a truly comprehensive article.
Given that last statement, I will do what I'd forgotten to and add my support to this article. I've done very little major work to the article, only tidying a few little odds and ends wherever I could, so I'm pretty sure I can't be considered a major contributor. So that's seven in support now. :-)
Regards, CountdownCrispy 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant

Self-nominationThis article has been through a major overhaul. The content has been reorganized to give a more comprehensive coverage of the topic. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by several editors, and has gone through a peer review. This is a great demonstration of the advantages to Wikipedia not being paper, using both images and sound files to illustrate the essay. Thanks for your consideration! Peirigill 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I'd like to see this promoted, but the prose is not yet good enough. Here are examples.
    • The opening sentence is a long snake that needs splitting. I'd love an en dash for "800–1000"—perhaps "the ninth and tenth centuries" might be safer, or are you sure of those exact boundaries? PS I've learnt a new word: "redaction"—nice.
      • DoneBridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm moving "Catholic Church" per WP:LEAD. The first sentence ought to define the term, and the context of Catholicism is essential to the definition. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "but came to be associated"—are you contradicting the previous statement? If not, use "and" instead.
      • I think this is a valid contradiction of popular belief.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Bridesmill is correct; Gregorian chant didn't arise until a good 200 years after Gregory, but popular lore (both in the middle ages and today) credits Gregory with composing or at least organizing the chant. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Musically, it is organized ..."—I think we've lost sight of what "it" refers to.
      • Does anyone else insist? Unless there is a serious short term memory problem, flows good here to me.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Every use of "it" and "its" in the lede refers to "Gregorian chant." I've reworded the lede slightly to make that more clear.
    • "outside OF"—please no.
      • If you insist

- though I have a bit of a musical problem with that statement...Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

        • I have a bit of a musical problem with your edit here, Bridesmill. The B-flat isn't a "deviation" from the diatonic scale, it's a result of Guido's hexachords. "Deviation" has a negative connotation of "introduced error" that strikes me as incorrect and even POV. Moreover, a very small number of Gregorian chants include E-flats and F-sharps - not enough to dwell on, but enough that your statement "B-flat is the only deviation" is incorrect. If the concern is with the phrase "outside of," a simpler fix is to just say "outside the diatonic scale." Unless you disagree, I'd prefer to use this wording, and revert your edits, Bridesmill. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I had the sense of 'deviation' as 'exception to the rule' rather than 'deviance'. My real problem though it the B flat - my music theory was in 1974 or so, hence I'm quite rusty, but seems to me this would be the case only in key of C; my recollection is that the rule is actually the 6th note rather than specifically B flat. If that's the case, it could read "...hexachords using the diatonic scale and (in solfege notation) Te" ?216.168.114.215 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid your music theory is, in fact, a bit rusty, at least as regards the medieval use. There was no "key of C" during the period when Gregorian chant was being made to conform to the system of modes. The theory involved "hexa"-chords - patterns of six notes - so there was, in fact, neither "ti" nor "te" in Guido's solfège, only ut re mi fa sol la.It was very specifically the B-flat, and no other note, that was allowed. Specifically, the "B" from the the G hexachord was the "hard B," and the "B" from the F hexachord was the "soft B." This latter was drawn as a rounded b, which is the origin of the flat sign. If anything, it was the note beneath the clef marker, not the sixth note, that became linked with the flat. This is why the E-flat was the second "accidental" to be used; there were two "clefs" in common use, one clef where the C was marked and another where the F was marked. The soft-b sign originally placed beneath the C line was eventually stripped of its meaning as a "B," reinterpreted as a flat, and placed on the space beneath the F line to indicate an E-flat. The B-flat was not an "exception to the rule." It was an application of the hexachord pattern (whole tone-whole tone-semitone-whole tone-whole tone, the intervals between ut, re, mi, fa, sol, and la) to the core notes C, F, and G (the Pythagorean tonic, fourth, and fifth of the diatonic scale). But this takes us into territory that isn't germane, and belongs not in the Gregorian chant article but the solfège and music notation articles. The original wording - minus the redundant "of" - is more accurate.Peirigill 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "a vocabulary of particular musical motifs"—Can you clarify "particular"? Either remove it, or disambiguate.
      • I believe this is clarified further down, to do so in lead would make the lead too big, at the same time, the point shouldn't be left out of lead altogether.Bridesmill 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Nowhere in the article do I write out these motifs. There are hundreds of them, each consisting of around ten to thirty notes. As the article states, some motifs are used only as incipits, some only as cadences, some only in between. Honestly, I don't believe that writing out the particular musical phrases is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about chant, as opposed to a monograph. Even a representative sample, such as the motifs used for the Iustus ut palma chants, takes several pages in Apel. However, they're not completely absent from the article; a few of these motifs are included in the Tract "De profundis." One cadence motif in particular occurs several times. I could draw the reader's/listener's attention to that more explicitly, if you think it necessary. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "from which the modern five-line staff would develop"—Since you've already located the development of the GC in time, can you specify the century here?
    • "Gregorian chant also played an important role in the development of polyphony." "Important"? No, be stronger: "critical" or "crucial".
      • Strong word would be 'nice', but without ref would be hyperbole, reading the article makes it obvious how important it was.Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • How about "fundamental"?That's not hyperbolic... and it's even not a terrible abuse of the musicological meaning of the term. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "It is the music of the Roman Rite of the Mass, and of the monastic Offices"—"of the" occurs three times.
      • Fixed Bridesmill 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • "Roman Rite Mass" is problematic; I'm going to change this slightly. Peirigill 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Although it is no longer obligatory, the Catholic Church still officially considers it the music most suitable for worship"—maybe a reference for this? Unsure. And can you go through the whole article to audit the use of "it"; I find the referent unclear sometimes. Here, the first "it" might refer to "the Catholic Church"; although this becomes clearly not the case as you read on, you shouldn't have to be left hanging, even for a few seconds. There are three "its" at the end.
      • One 'it' & ref for Cath.Church opinion done Bridesmill 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If you look at the talk page, you'll see that this issue has been raised and addressed.There's a more direct (and less biased) source than the Catholic Encyclopedia cited later in the article.Is it really necessary to cite this in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article, when this exact point is elaborated and given a citation in the main body of the article?Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with Bridesmill's citation for modern notation in the 16th century; per WP:LEAD, the lede isn't supposed to contain information not in the article, and that detail isn't in the article.I'd prefer to move that added phrase about the 16th century down to the section on Me