Contents 1 Velociraptor 2 Naval Battle of Guadalcanal 3 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 4 Fermi paradox 5 Battle of the Eastern Solomons 6 Pope Pius XII 7 Belton House 8 Actuary 9 Azerbaijani people 10 Italian War of 1521 11 Albertosaurus 12 Redwood National and State Parks 13 Gremlins 2: The New Batch 14 Elfin-woods Warbler 15 Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) 16 Cape Town 17 O-Bahn Busway 18 Hurricane Katrina 19 Plano Senior High School 20 The Lord of the Rings 21 Venus 22 Chromatophore 23 Hurricane John (1994) 24 Cane Toad 25 Cystic fibrosis 26 Torchic 27 Dog Day Afternoon 28 Binary star 29 Watchmen 30 Battle of Midway 31 Iranian peoples 32 Football (soccer) 33 Stuyvesant High School 34 Deconstructivism 35 Definition of planet 36 Gremlins 37 Operation Auca 38 Hurricane Nora (1997) 39 Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 40 Enceladus (moon) 41 F-4 Phantom II 42 Pashtun people

Velociraptor

Note:This article is already an FA. Please discuss any further changes to the article on the article's talk page.

Recently collaborated on by the Dinosaur collaboration. Very good article & has come a long way from a few weeks ago. Would be great on the main page as it is a very popular dinosaur & the article is so informative I doubt much will need to be done to it. Spawn Man 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This article can (and should) become FA material but not in its present form. It needs some work still. The description section is too short and includes some one sentence paragraphs. The references are mixed up, with some in footnote form, others in Harvard style. I will fix that presently. Many red links in the history and provenance sections, which could use copyediting. The history of classification section is a little POV ("It is becoming increasingly likely..."). Information in the history section is repeated in the predation section and should probably be removed from one or the other. The entire article could use copyediting. So basically, not quite ready yet, but soon. I'll do some work tonight. Sheep81 01:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Will remove red links. Expanded Description section a fraction, & merged other sections to deplete 1 sentencers... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed red links. Also removed external link only available in German! Thanks, Spawn Man 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Shifted repeated text from the history section & placed it in the predation section. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed (by myself and others), but since I have worked so heavily on this article and am involved in WikiProject Dinosaurs, I feel I should abstain from officially supporting the article. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Couple of suggestions. First off "In Jurassic Park" and "In Popular Culture" should almost certainly be merged, as Jurassic Park is definetly a subseciton of Pop Culture in general. Second, if at all possible, an image of the "distinctive" claw mentioned numerous times in the article would be very very nice. I know one of the supposed claws featured large in the first Jurassic Park, though given the numerous mentions of literary license taken with those 'raptors a pic of the real claw would be nice. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Two sections merged. Will get pic soon. Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a picture of the sickle claw, but this picture has it shown. Will this picture do if none of the project members can't find a picture either? Thanks, Spawn Man 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. As soon as the popular culture sections are merged properly, I will support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, but as long as others have outstanding copyright and reference concerns, I'm afraid I can't strictly support yet. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference concerns have been addressed by nominator, myself, User:Firsfron, and others.Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, this article clearly is the best we've got...as long as someone else nominates a better article, my support is with this one. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Minor oppose, for two reasons. First, why are some of the references Harvard style and some in cite format? Second, I'm not wild about a couple of the photos, particularly this one and this one. The first one is just... well, it's just bad. I can barely tell what it's supposed to be. The lighting is washed out and there's a line (I assume an edge of the display case) running right through it. The second one, although I'll grant you that it's in the pop culture section, is silly. "Highly stylized" is really just a nice way of saying "completely inaccurate". It's a silly statue, and the park that statue is in is not mentioned in the section anyway. If the references can all get on the same page and the photos can be replaced (or just removed) I would support. Kafziel 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I will get someone to edit the 2 fighting dinosaurs photo. The "highly stylised" photo, to be fair is in the pop culture section. It is just a statue to show the way humans have distorted the dinosaur's image through time. However if you want it removed, I will do so. Can you confirm you want it moved? Will do footnotes soon... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what the picture of the statue adds to the article. It's like a sculpture of a third-grader's drawing. It's standing on all four (pretty much equally sized) legs, with zany coloring and goofy teeth. But if I'm the only one who thinks so, I can let it go. If retouched and clarified, the fighting skeletons picture might be cool. I do have another question, though - as I understand it, it's just a theory that Velociraptor had feathers. It hasn't been proven yet. But both anatomical drawings in the article show him with feathers. Not to say they shouldn't be there, but the captions should mention that the drawings are based on the bird theory, not the fossil record.

Moving on... the main thing is the reference formatting. The section entitled "footnotes" should be entitled "references"; all of the contents are cited works, not notes. A couple of specific examples of problems:

• There's a credit made to (Hwang, 2002). Footnote #5 is next to it, but #5 is for some completely different work from 2005, and it makes no mention of anyone named Hwang.

Removed, outdated. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• One reference, (Barsbold, R. and Osmolska, H., 1999) is in the "references" section, and nothing cites it.

Fixed. Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Another reference, this one Osmolska by himself and from 1993, is cited in the body but has no mention in the references section.

Removed, unnecessary. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be others, but I figured there's no need to beat you over the head with it. Anyway, to sum up, I won't continue opposing over the pictures, but the references are really in need of major fixes. Kafziel 02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of revising the entire set of references in the article, which will probably take me several hours. I've already made it down through the history section and should have the rest done in the near future. Also, (Halska) Osmolska is female. :) Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have now revised all the references, putting them all in footnote format, adding new refs, and citing more passages using existing refs.

No problem. I'm not really up to date with the references & footnotes section as the layout has changed drastically since I featured Dinosaur. I guess I could have a go on my own, but I have asked someone else to help me... Below, someone asked me to state the general refs section as refs & the refs section as footnotes or citations. This is who I thought it was done. Is it okay if I stick with it, as I wouldn't want to rechange it & anger the other guy opposing down there... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the bulk of my points have been addressed and fixed, so I have changed my vote to support. Good luck! Kafziel 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fair Use images lacking a fair use rationale. The references should preferably appear after punctuations (though I am not opposing for this). The section "General References" should be "References" and the current "References" be either "Notes", or "Citations". Couple of single sentence paragraphs can be merged into existing paragraphs to avoid breaking flow. Non-breaking spaces ( ) needs to be added between numbers and units. Once these issues are fixed, the article is worth the FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with fair use rationale, could you give me some pointers? I thought you just put on what it was from, eg tv program, & hey presto you have image? Will fix footnotes. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Non-breaking spaces ( ) needs to be added between numbers and units? Would you be able to explain more so I can fix the problem. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For Fair Use rationale see Help:Image page. As an example, you may want to refer to this image. I myself fixed the non-breaking space problem. Refer to my edits for future. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I also fixed extra spaces before references. I noticed at some places, references were provided in article text and not in footnotes. I have indicated an example in the text by commenting. I also found that though written professionally, in order to have consistancy and allow easy understanding (and expansion in the future), references may need to be standardised using one of the cite formats (eg {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}). Also, I noticed that the article everywhere uses hyphen-dash. Please use emdash, endash, or minus at appropriate places (See WP:DASH). For an example, I have corrected one use in the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed footnotes & references titles. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although you weren't opposing for it, I placed inline citations after punctuation. Hope this helps, Spawn Man 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided rationale for the pictures in question. I hope that is what you meant. Spawn Man 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FU rationale for time magazine is satisfactory, but not for Image:Velociraptor222.jpg. The image should be scaled down to web-resolution for use. The second problem is that it says it is from a movie poster or title card. For that you need to show the source from where you got it. As far as I can remember, I hadn't seen any such poster, and even if it existed, it is cropped (contrary to FU rationale provided). I feel that it is most likely a cropped screenshot of the movie. Please confirm. Also, the article is missing the FU rationale text; i.e.

<!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

An extensive Google Images and eBay search failed to turn up any trace of a poster with this image. However, the image can be seen on a random dinosaur website here. Believing it to be a screenshot, I scanned through my DVD copy of the film but also failed to find such an image during the course of either of the first two movies (the third is ruled out due to the absence of head feathers in the image, which were present on the raptors from the third film). However, I did locate the image while looking through the special features of the disc. I believe it to be a publicity photo, although I cannot find it listed as such anywhere online. Is a single publicity photo considered fair use? Sheep81 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A single publicity photo qualifies as fair use and is infact a good candidate as it can be said for sure that it does not reduce the value of copyright. However, there are other issues. I am assuming that you saw the image from an authentic DVD, and not a pirated one. The issue is that in such a case the image would be a landscape one and not a portrait one like this. So it is most likely a cropped version, IMO. As far as I know, cropping (a derivative work) of fair-use images is not allowed. If you want to use it, use the actual screenshot and attribute it as such. And don't forget to make it web-resolution. You may also wish to contact the uploader for source as he's still a bit active nowadays. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Original picture was deleted by the nominator. I went ahead and took a screenshot from my copy of the movie (which, by the way, is most definitely authentic) and placed it on the page. Hope that helps. Sheep81 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel we have fixed all of your requests.... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object. Good article overall, but there's at least one {{citation needed}} tag still there at the moment; obviously this needs to be resolved. Also, is a separate heading for "History of classification" necessary? There are no other sub-sections of "Taxonomy"; why not just have a single long section there. Kirill Lokshin 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Second title gone... Will find citation in my books somewhere... Or I could just delete the sentence needing citation.... Spawn Man 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation added by User:Firsfron. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good; support now. Kirill Lokshin 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely among the strongest zoological articles I've ever read. Soo 01:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. This article has come a long way since its nomination. For the record, I am a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, but I would not support this article for a FA unless I felt it really was ready. I am unsure about the Jurassic Park photo, but I'm certain a substitute can be easily located, if it turns out to be unusuable. I feel most of the remaining concerns have already been addressed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good. Most dinosaur articles aren't as detailed as this one. igordebraga ≠ 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given the particular way that the Jurassic Park image is used, I think that the use of a fair use screenshot is quite justified. It probably ought to be made smaller - the only justification of fair use images is that they are used in an article (which is why a justification has to be given for that particular use - there is no point having an image that displays more detail than is shown in the article. (The image page shouldn't be a "use in itself" - if you make it something worth clicking on as you can see a far more detailed version, then there's an indication the use of the image in Wikipedia has crept beyond the article it is fair use in.) Image:Time-magazine-cover-henry-fairfield-osborn.jpg is a different matter. The use of Time magazine covers has been a bane of Wikipedia (yes, I'm going to gratuitously link to the infamous RFC). If you read the image copyright tag it refers to the use of the image "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" which is clearly not the case here. Now it's arguable that a case for fair use could be made, and some Wikipedians would be satisfied with it and others wouldn't. It would help the argument's cause if the image was closer to a thumbnail, for instance, than the size it is at the moment: again, it is rather large for an image that we declare is "fairly used in particular articles" - the level of detail substantially exceeds what is visible in those articles. (Having big, detailed, freely licensed pictures to click on the image pages for viewing in detail is great because we are meant to be a "free", reproducible encyclopedia with high quality, free content. The fair use image pages have a different purpose: they should pretty much just contain the image as it appears in the articles it is used in, an "unfortunately this isn't free content" notice and an explanation of why it's in line with Wikipedia's copyrights policy to include it in the articles it's used in). I'm not even convinced that the use of the Time magazine image really adds that much to the article, especially bearing in mind that this is meant to be a "free" project. TheGrappler 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm guessing that you want me to delete the time picture? You never really said what you actually wanted me to do, so forgive me if this is wrong. I'll delete the picture & hope you can support.... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to be too prescriptive - if I wanted a particular change done, I'd do it myself. I'd accept a range of solutions, and this is certainly one of them. The Jurassic Park picture is much better a case of fair use, though do you think you could rehash its fair use rationale a little? As far as I can see, the heart of the fair use claim is that the article engages in critical commentary about the portrayal and appearance of velociraptors in the movie. If it did not, and the picture was simply included as eye candy, I think the fair use claim would be far worse. The fact that the fair use claim actually is this good should surely be reflected in the rationale. Also, would you put in a fair use comment into the text, perhaps in a similar way as, for instance, Starship Troopers#Background: The writing of Starship Troopers does? TheGrappler 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now altered the fair use rationale to indicate why use of this picture in the article is legitimate. Please advise if this is still unsatisfactory. Thanks! Sheep81 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Suport. I'm usually a stickler for proper use of fair use, and this seems like a reasonable call to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

I believe this article on a large naval battle from World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer and good article review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. The article was also reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. This is a self-nomination. Cla68 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 37KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

• Support, excellent article; all of the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. I think, incidentally, this might set a new record (132!) for footnotes. Kirill Lokshin 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent work. Rlevse 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support on wheels. An outstanding article that deserves its FA star!! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well referenced. Suggest convenience links for books (e.g. Amazon Online Reader). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I added links for as many of the books as I could find with that feature available on Amazon. Cla68 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Citations for works listed in the "References" section should only have the minimum info necessary to identify the work. Usually the authors last name is sufficient, supplemented with year of publication, in the case that more than one work for that author is listed. So for example there is no need, and bad style, to include al those titles in the notes. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't really agree here. The titles are useful as a recognition factor, since someone familiar with the literature regarding this topic can more readily identify the work being cited (without having to also consult the alphabetical list of references) if the title is included directly in the footnote. (And, to be slightly pedantic, "Last name, Title, page number." is the exact footnote format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.) Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with objection per Kirill Lokshin. The additional info helps easily verify material without having to keep referring up to the references section. I would even go for more information, but would not require it. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The manual of style does call for "last name, title, page number" for each footnote. More information can be added, but not less. For example, if you look at Franks' book, one of the main sources that the article uses, he not only uses the last name, title, and page number in each footnote but also includes a brief quotation or explanation of the substance of the source cited. Cla68 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about notes used for citation when there is a separate "References" section which gives complete bibliographic information. I am not talking about so called "content" notes, used for providing explanatory information. I can't see where our WP:MOS recommends adding titles, can you point it out to me? If so then I will withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Our MoS, quite correctly, says nothing at all about what the content of footnotes should look like (beyond the obvious point that it must somehow identify the work being cited); the choice of which format to follow is left to the individual editor. In this case, said editorial discretion has resulted in adopting the Chicago style. I cannot find anything in WP:MOS which would suggest that this is not a perfectly acceptable course of action. Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Footnotes guidance clearly states that the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes is acceptable. Cla68 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the Chicago MoS handy. But in my experience it is normal to give bibliographic information in notes only when there is no separate "References" section or Bibliography. Are you sure that isn't the situation the Chicago MoS is referring to? Paul August ☎ 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite (I just checked again); you might be thinking of previous editions of the CMoS, which did use the "last name, page number" form. In any case, from the fifteenth edition: "The short form, as distinct from an abbreviation, should include enough information to remind readers of the full title or to lead them to the appropriate entry in the bibliography..." (16.41), "The most common short form consists of the last name of the author and the main title of the work cited, usually shortened if more than four words..." (16.42), and "First note citation in a work with full bibliography: 1. Doniger, Splitting the Difference, 23." (16.3, emphasis theirs). Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A separate bibliography or references section is necessary with the Chicago MoS because the footnotes omit important information, such as the copyright date of the source, the publisher, the author's full name, the ISBN number, place of publishing, full webpage address, etc. Cla68 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support - this is a first-rate article. The only concern I have is that almost all the cited references appear to come from just two books. --Nick Dowling 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Those two books are the best two books (at least that I found) on the subject. Both use extensive primary sources, especially the Frank book which uses original research into Japanese documents by the author. But, several key points in the article are attributed to a third source (the Hara book) that represents a firsthand account of the battle from a Japanese participant and is used as a source for 16 different assertions in the article. Cla68 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sources listed are well regarded and highly reputable.--Nick Dowling 02:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- excellent work. Jkelly 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up two minor issues out of five footnotes sampled. (Results are here.) Neither seems to be indicative of any systemic problems, so just fixing those should be enough. If those get fixed, consider this a support; I greatly enjoyed the article. --Robth^Talk 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive feedback. I've fixed the two items. Cla68 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. I now fully support.

• Support A truely wonderful article to read. I loved every minute of it. TomStar81 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Long, inlince citations and maps. One note: merge notes with references, it will be more logical that way (after all, notes ARE references, aren't they?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A very good article though I have some concerns:
  1. I detect a pro-Allied stance either from the writer or creeping through from sources that describe the battle from the viewpoint of the Allied ships. Note the use of the word "sudden" or "suddenly": "Suddenly...Akatsuki and Hiei turned on large searchlights ", "Two of the U.S. destroyers now met a sudden demise", "Laffey... suddenly encountered", "Monssen...was suddenly accosted", "Sterett was suddenly ambushed", and "South Dakota suddenly suffered" all refer to unfortunate events happening to the Allied vessels, with "Washington suddenly hit Kirishima" being an exception. Meanwhile, "Amatsukaze didn't notice" and "Yudachi... appeared totally unaware". I believe that equally valid wordings might be "Sterrett was unaware" or "Amatsukaze was ambushed". The aggregate implication of the word choice is that bad things just happened to the Allies while the Japanese were incompetent, which if true needs to be stated explicitly.
  2. Minor issues: (1) the previous bombardment of Henderson Field on 13 October 1942 is not mentioned and (2) according the combinedfleet.com record of movement I used to expand Kongo, she was providing "distant cover" to the battle but I find no mention of her, or a force of which she may have been a part. - BT 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is difficult to completely avoid a slightly pro-Allied stance for several reasons: Most of the English-language sources are written by authors who are glad that the Allies won the war, not the Japanese, and, much fewer Japanese sources exist that have been translated into English and/or are widely available. However, in spite of those obstacles I felt that I had accomplished giving equal coverage to the significant actions, plans, strategies, and motivations of the Japanese side, but I'll review the specific text you mention to see if some sentences can be worded differently.

2. In an article already as long as it is on such a large and complex event, it's difficult to choose which details should be included and which should be omitted. I'm including a description of the Oct 13, 1942 bombardment incident in the background section for the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, because I think it more directly affects that earlier battle in the same campaign. As for this article, several large Japanese ships provided "distant" cover, but otherwise had no impact on the course or outcome of the battle at all. Kongo fits into that category. I tried to include only details that had some impact on the actual outcome of the battle. Cla68 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed some of the subjective wording that you specified. Cla68 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My concern, perhaps not clearly expressed, is over what I feel is a lack of Japanese perspective when attributing perceptions of the combatants, which is not the same as rooting for the Japanese. The article consistently takes the viewpoint of a captain/s on an Allied vessel - so if he was surprised by an attack, the article states the attack was "sudden". If a Japanese commander was surprised by an attack, the article still views the engagement through the eyes of the Allied commander, describing how his opponent didn't seem to notice as he approached. Note that I do not doubt that the article is factually correct, just with a viewpoint that I feel should be minimized to the extent possible. This is admittedly a subtle point, but I noticed it quite clearly within a few paragraphs of the battle description. Reading between the lines of your response, it seems that this is a reflected bias of the sources used. It would be unreasonable of me to demand Japanese language sources for an otherwise fine article and I support promotion to FA status. - BT 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, informative article. As far as I can see, it meets all the criterias of a FA. Good work! --The monkeyhate 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the links in: [[November 12]]–[[15]], [[1942]]. They do not work with preferences and will look bizarre for some users. bobblewik 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on this article since I finished getting Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article up to FA status. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as that article, it was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. I believe that if the Revenge of the Sith article is worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I have helped work on this article for a while now, it has grown tremendously, and it grew from the Good Article review to what it is now, ready to be featured. Judgesurreal777 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per above. The Wookieepedian 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per my own nomination. The Filmaker 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Support This is my opinion and please dont flame me because I'm a newbie, but I found the dvd realease kinda useless and some infomation that could be abridged or removed, but other than that it is a great article -ScotchMB 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish there was more information to fill out that section. But so far I have found none. At the moment I think the section is fine. So would you mind being more specific on what about the section bothers you? The Filmaker 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again please don't flame me or call me anything but to me the DVD part sounds a bit like advertisement like the listing of features and what is inside. Don't get me wrong, this article is great and informative and is ready to be on the featured. I changed my opinion to support because I was browsing and noticed that Episode 3 was just like this article and since ROTS was on featured its only fair if this goes up.-ScotchMB 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I went through and tried to improve a few awkward-sounding sentences, but another round of copyediting would be beneficial. A few problematic sentences that I found were:
  • "Because of the enormous number of elements from different departments that are created in the practical and digital world, Attack of the Clones became to the first film to ever to be produced through what Rick McCallum refered to as "virtual filmmaking" because of George Lucas' method of creating shots through various sources that are sometimes miles and years apart from each other." I'd break this up for clarity.
  • "While Lucas had used other ways of producing motion-based storyboards in the past, with cutting documentaries footage together in A New Hope, using cartoon animation in The Empire Strikes Back, and using small models in Return of the Jedi, after The Phantom Menace the decision was made to take advantage of the growing digital technology." This sentence is a bit too busy.
  • "The films that outearned it were Spider-Man and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which also enjoyed a more favourable critical reception." The referent of "which" is unclear; does it refer only to Two Towers or to both higher-grossing films?
  • "Attack of Clones references The Empire Strikes Back most often as a nod toward them both being the middle film in their respective trilogies." The "them being" construction is awkward; technically, it should be "their being" but that's a bit jarring, too. Recast the sentence to avoid that wording.

In general, the article could stand to use more active rather than passive voice. Switching voices in some sentences would improve the vigor of the prose. The content is there, it seems; just tighten the wording. — TKD::Talk 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed all of your points, but I'm finding your words pretty vague, would mind going into more detail to what you mean by having an active vs. a passive voice? The Filmaker 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See grammatical voice. Active voice is "X did Y", while passive is "Y was done by X." Too much passive voice makes the prose dry. I haven't re-read the article fully yet, but it seems like this isn't as big of an issue as when I read it last. — TKD::Talk 06:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given the article a copyedit top-to-bottom. However, reading it thoroughly again, I spotted a few sentences that could stand to have inline citations. I've marked those with {{citation needed}}. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've fixed all citation problems you've pointed out. The Filmaker 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Support. Good work. I'm satisfied. — TKD::Talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's been a few years since I've seen this movie, and I'm wondering about this, "Anakin, Padmé, and Obi-Wan are drawn into the heart of the Separatist movement." If you say they were drawn into the movement it sounds like they joined the movement, which IIRC they didn't. Perhaps they were drawn into separatist territories? "As a disguise during filming, the film's "working title", intended sarcastically in light of the fan response to Episode I, was Jar Jar's Big Adventure." Perhaps a little context explaining who Jar Jar is, that people dislike Jar Jar and why they dislike him? "Back on Geonosis, Count Dooku tries to persuade Obi-Wan to join him, warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." I'd like a little more context here. Who is this character (I know it's Palpatine, but for the purposes of understanding the plot, what do the Jedi know about this character and why should they care whether he controls the Senate)? Which actor won the Worst Supporting Actor award? (and I'd add on a more humourous note, how could Anakin and Padme not win the Worst Screen Couple Award :-)?). "Also, it was not the top grossing film of the year, the first and only time that a Star Wars film has not had that distinction." ROTS topped the box office in the US, not worldwide. Maybe clarify? I also thought the references to other Star Wars section could use a bit more referencing. Other than these things the article is looking good to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, "As confirmed in a video on the StarWars.com Hyperspace section, a deleted scene involved the Jedi battling the droid army on Geonosis, with the droids all powered down (just as they did in The Phantom Menace after the Trade Federation ship was destroyed). This was part of an unused subplot involving Jedi master Plo Koon infiltrating the Trade Federation ship and destroying it. Dooku had planned for this and found an alternate way to power up the droid army." It's not really clear to me what this is doing in the cast section. Is this where NSYNC came in? Is there anything else to add to the cast section, anything interesting about how the actors chose to play their roles? Wasn't there a big search for an actor to play Anakin? Shouldn't that be mentioned, and an explanation given on how the part was cast? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've fixed most of your suggestions. I've also added a paragraph on the casting on Anakin, and I've taken out the the part on the supposed deleted scene because it is uncitable (atleast in any tangible way). Two things though, to expand on why the fans dislike Jar Jar is non-comprehensive mostly because if you want to know than you should be looking at the article on Jar Jar himself, or the Episode I article. Also with the Darth Sidious moment in the synopsis, to elaborate on that would also be non-comprehensive since the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film. Both the Sith and Darth Sidious are explained in the previous film and I shouldn't have to go over their history again in this synopsis. I have reworded both of those sentences though. Other than that, I completely fixed the rest of your suggestions. The Filmaker 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of adding a bit more about the search for Anakin. That said, I still have two comments: About more referencing for the section about references to other Star Wars films, what I meant was that it could use a few more footnotes. The Jar Jar material is now clear enough. However, I disagree with you regarding Darth Sidious. Whether or not "the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film" is George Lucas' problem. In truth I didn't remember him from Ep I or even Ep II (I only remember the stuff about him in ROTS), but that's beyond the point. Wikipedia's problem is to make sure the reader knows who he is without being required to see any movies or read any other articles. Let this article stand on its own. I'm not asking for Darth Sidious' article to be merged into this one, just some kind of brief explanation would do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You personally don't remember anything about him from Episode I or II. If what you said were true than I would also have to explain the concept of the Jedi and the Force. Each Matrix film article would have to explain what the matrix is. Why would someone read this article without having seen the other film, or at the very least read the previous article? Should the reader become confused, than they would realize that they are beginning in the middle of the grand story and would have to find another article to explain what they do not know, which is already conviently placed with a link to the Darth Sidious article. Finally, in the interest of the prose in the article, by giving the character a description, it appears that he is being introduced as a new character, and he is not. The Filmaker 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually the article is a bit more clear now than what it was when I first read it, "warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." The version now explains he's a Sith Lord. That said, the article should stand on its own. People like me might have seen the movie and may want to read about it without remembering all the crufty details. What if I were a Natalie Portman fan, and I absolutely hated sci fi, and I wanted to know about her work without sitting through this movie? Lastly, if this were a featured article on the main page, everyone would see it, not just Star Wars fans. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's say on the off chance that I didn't know what peanut butter was. If I read about Elvis' favorite food being peanut butter and banana sandwiches, should the Elvis article have to explain that? If the article was on the main page, everyone would see it, not just food fans. By entering an article on a subject so vast like Star Wars you will realize that one article cannot comprehensively take in the entire concept. But am I beating a dead horse? Are you fine with the sentence now? The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • P.S. The Elvis article that does not explain what peanut butter is, is a featured article. And Star Wars is not a sci-fi movie. :P The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm OK with the sentence now, though perhaps it could benefit from another descriptive term or two, like "mysterious Sith Lord". Anyway, peanut butter and bananas are things one would have lying around the house, and even if they weren't by saying they were Elvis' favourite food you'd know they were food. It's been a long time since I've had Darth Sidious over at my house. Concepts like the Force and Jedi are probably more or less sufficiently well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting article with nice well-rounded writing. I found the "Historical and cultural allusions" section most fascinating. Most of the other sections didn't deilever any new information on the subject, but I thought it was well done nonetheless. I think if it has the potential for feature article status. If not now, soon. Cormacalian 24:14, June 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Neat, tidy, comprehensive, ref'd, just like Revenge of the Sith. Well done. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up three problemmatic footnotes out of five sampled. (Results are here.) Please go through and make sure all citations lead to information supporting the footnoted statement. --Robth^Talk 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • All three citations have been fixed one way or another. :) The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Good job with those three. My point, however, was not just that those three need to be fixed, but that if three out of five randomly selected citations have serious problems, it seems unlikely that those are the only problematic citations in the article. Please go through and check for any other errors and correct them; if there are actually no others, that's all well and good, but I'm inclined to suspect that at least a few more are going to be iffy. --Robth^Talk 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've run through all of the references in the article and I've had to change only a few lines. I hope you can support the article now. :) The Filmaker 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Objection withdrawn. --Robth^Talk 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC
• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [1] and [2] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)
• Neutral for now. I'm satisfied that the citation and weaseling problems have been cleared up, but I need a chance to read the article more critically before I can support or object. Thanks to the Filmmaker and Wookieepedian for doing the legwork to fix the citation issue. — BrianSmithson 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Object per Robth. There are a couple of weaselly sentences, too: "This scene appears to be influenced by an execution method employed by the ancient Romans at the Colosseum where lions and other dangerous predatory animals were permitted to have their way with condemned prisoners." (Please say exactly who said this, not that it "appears to be" so.) "NSYNC reportedly filmed a cameo appearance which was cut from the movie. This was reportedly put in by Lucas to satisfy his daughter." (Two "reportedlys" in a row. Give a name for the person or agency who reported this.) — BrianSmithson 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • All of Robth's points have been corrected and the weasel words have been removed or changed. The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Can we clean up some more weaselling? "The end credits erroneously list Alan Ruscoe as playing Neimoidian senator Lott Dod.[citation needed that this is erroneous] In fact, not only is there serious doubt as to whether the Neimoidian abetting Nute Gunray is actually Dod (as some sources identify the character as Gilramos Libkath),[citation needed listing which sources] the character was actually played by an uncredited David Healey and voiced by Christopher Truswell.[citation needed that this is indeed the case]" It's possible all of this can be cited from one source; if so, all the better. But it needs to be more clear: "In fact, [so-and-so] has raised doubts as to whether . . . (as [this source] identifies the character . . . ). And later: " Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed" should be "[Source] reported that Leonardo DiCaprio was in the running, but this has never been confirmed." The whole "Cast" section needs some work; for example, shouldn't the quote about Haydn Christensen and the discussion of casting Anakin go under the heading "Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker"? Alternatively, the part about casting might fit somewhere in the "Production" section. — BrianSmithson 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Your objections have been taken care of where applicable by The Filmmaker. The Wookieepedian 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But Robth's point has not yet been addressed, and I am also objecting based on it. For example, the article says, "Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed." The source cited says, "The actor's rep tells USA Today that the 25-year-old star did meet with George Lucas about the 'Episode II' prequel. But the conference was all for naught. Says DiCaprio publicist Ken Sunshine: '[H]e is definitely unavailable.'" In other words, nothing about speculation or confirmation of that speculation. Like Robth said, don't just fix the examples he provided; there's likely more where this comes from. — BrianSmithson 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Robth's point is well taken. I've run through all of the references and had to change a few lines here and there. But now I believe that all of the references are in place. The Filmaker 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fermi paradox

This is a former featured article, which I took to WP:FARC two months ago (see here). Some massive changes were made at that time and since: refs from 3 to about 30, K down from 65 to 55, enormous TOC reduced from close to 60(!) to about 30 sections. I think it's much tighter now and while it needs a few more tweaks there's nothing that can't be worked out through a new candidacy. A note to those unfamiliar with the topic: it's enormously speculative, which means our page on it is subject to tangent after tangent. I have tried to make sure the dozens of hypothetical answers to the paradox get at least mention if only in a word while cutting the fat that has been added; info that has been removed is properly linked on other pages. Marskell 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The overall tone and language sounds wrong for an encyclopedia to me. Questions are all over the place, and it has an awful flow. I found it difficult to read, personally. — Wackymacs 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence section is the most worrying - too many subsections, and I don't think the titles are right. A general summarized "Reasons" and "Explanations" section might be better, and maybe "Theories". — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It does get weaker toward the end and the number of headings has been an outstanding problem. However, the topic is usually approached with lists of this sort. I'll try and work on it. Marskell 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I understand the various subsections, and for this article, I think that this approach really works well. My one minor criticism (and this is in no way standing in the way of me supporting) is that I'm not a big fan of inline external links. Other than that, fantastic job. Cheers! The Disco King 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rrpbgeek 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object based on the opening paragraph. The precise definition of physical paradox wasn't clear to me, though I knew what the Fermi paradox was. Is it really necessary to include that term? It seems to me that for the opening paragraph, it would be better to speak of something like the "apparent contradiction" between the high estimated probabilities and factual absence of contact.

It also seems unclear what "a lack of evidence" refers to. There's no need to try to be neutral here, the Fermi paradox is the dual assertion that by reasonable a priori estimates, life should exist, but it doesn't. I suggest rewriting the opening paragraph. RandomP 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote the first. "Physical paradox" was indeed probably poor word choice. Marskell 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :-) RandomP 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with Wackymacs on the tone arguement. This reads a lot like something from Popular Mechanics or another similar magazine. The tone is just all wrong for an encyclopedia article, especially the section "Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence" — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 10:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, the old "actionable" herring. Haven't seen that one in a while. You didn't even read his complaint, Marskell: the action here would be to change the tone. --Golbez 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Golbez, Marskell most likely wants a particular sentence or paragraph quoted here that needs specific work on the tone. — Wackymacs 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, ya Golbez, I do want something specific and, sorry to sound resentful, but I read his quote properly. "Oh hey--change the tone" is not actionable. Actionable is not a dirty word. I'm not entirely responsible for the tone on this page to be clear, which was much more bloated when I found it. It's a popular topic (or more precisely, it's a "respectable" topic to talk about if you want to talk about "little green men") and it's given to tangents and speculation. All of the sources, more or less, use a point A, point B, point C structure (or they take one of A, B, or C and look at it at length). I think it would be a disservice to suddenly gut that structure. But it can be worked on, which is why it's here. So yes, give me something actionable :). Marskell 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, the tone is too familiar. A formal tone is expected in an encyclopedia, not a tone which interlaces humourous quotations ("... begging your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky." — Billy Bob Thornton as Truman in Armageddon), first-person writing outside of quotations ("The simplest explanation is that we are alone in the galaxy." and many others if you do a CTRL+F search for "we "), non-standard italics and bolding, the informal and non-standard section headers, and the colloquial style with which the article is written, in general. The article is formatted as though it is appearing in a science periodical (i.e. PopSci), as opposed to an encyclopedia. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I rather like the quote as a light point on a long page but I will remove it if you like (probably in the morning at this point). Hit the history back 300 hundred say, and do a search for "we" and note the comparison--it has been a raging crusuade to remove. An otherwise very helpful editor had a tendency to use the first person plural as the subject of every sentence. The bolding for (what would otherwise be) level five headlines is not non-MOS (is it? it was actually suggested during FARC). As for the comparison to Popular Mechanics or whatever, I don't particulary care if that's how it reads if it does justice to the topic. We aren't using exclamation points for everything! The aliens are here or maybe they're not! Not to sound disinteresed, but gutting this for a vague objection won't help the topic. This sounds "popular" in the broad sense because it is "popular" in the broad sense (unlike the Crab nebula or Neutron stars, say). You can only make "the aliens are here and attempting to communicate with us" so encyclopedic. Marskell 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Despite my protestations, the point about first-person was actionable: all uses of "we", "our" and "us" have been eliminated (thx User:Zafiroblue05 for helping in this regard). This was needed--we'd roundly debated it on talk but the problem hadn't been systematically addressed.
    • The Billy Bob Thorton quote has been removed.
    • Any other specific points welcome. Marskell 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you make the lead image smaller? CG 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I shrunk that pic. I had gotten so used to it and I never really paused to consider how massive it was. Marskell 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's looking good again. Nick Mks 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object In the refs section, you can't have lots of inline citations, then 2 bulleted refs. It's bad form. The non-inline refs should go into a seprate section. That's why many articles have notes sections in addition to refs sections. Tobyk777 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I placed them in a "Suggested reading" section. I'll save a "Notes" header for if and when we decide to actually have explanatory notes. Marskell 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tobyk777 (talk • contribs) .
• Support, after pickaxing out all the 'we's. Its parent article, SETI could do with this kind of treatment, as it is god awful. Proto||type 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank-you sir. God, there was a lot. Marskell 10:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't find the tone overly unencyclopaedic. A couple more images to break up the weight of the text might not go amiss, but otherwise I see no problem. BillC 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Highly readable article on an interesting topic. I think the structure is well-chosen, but the titles themselves are too populist I think. If the various subheadings are rephrased in a more encyclopaedic manner then you have my support. Would like to see this on the front page. Soo 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Status. This is approaching decision time. The small things have been taken care and what seems to remain is a difference in kind over the headings of the last section. Yes, they could be drastically made over but I don't know how while still doing justice to each individual response to the problem. Our headings are similar to our sources (as they should be) and with the first person removed they are arguably more formal. See here for the largest popular look at the topic. So that's my take for now--I don't think we should compromise the article because of headings. Marskell 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - I have some misgivings about the tone. Phrases such as "seems likely" or "seems plausible" are used too often, and this article does not feel polished. The lead, for instance, is disorganized and a little fuzzy. All criticism aside, this is really quite a good article, and on a difficult topic, and if it were featured right now, I'd be fine with it. -- Rmrfstar 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The "seems to" is hard to avoid with a speculative topic like this. I'll try and look for other examples. Marskell 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead looks like it could use ilinks in third para, and the see also is long - should be merged with text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There really is nothing in that para that could be linked (that isn't already). The see also has nine--fairly modest. There's a couple only partially related things I'll remove now. Marskell 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. This article may be a little unconventional, but it does deserve recognition as a well written, interesting article which conforms to our standards. One problem, perhaps, is it not identifying religious non-scientific theories clearly as that. Another is little explanation about what the Drake Equation is. --Oldak Quill 09:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the sentence "Although not generally considered a testable scientific explanation, the belief that a creator deity has placed humanity at the unique focus of creation has broad historical support" meet your first concern? Beyond that, there isn't a lot of religious discussion on the page. We do have a section on the Drake Equation but we don't list its factors; for a +50k article we need to let the sub- or related articles do some of the work. Marskell 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that sentence is fine. I have also reread a few sections and realise that the theories' religious nature is mentioned. --Oldak Quill 12:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Support - concerned about the following statement "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible with minor investment in energy and resources." Evidence please? Who states this? The drake equation also needs to be explained very briefly, there is no context as to what this is, and I have to click on another link to understand it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed the sentence to "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible" dropping the bit about "minor investment" which is assumptive. The next sentence points the reader to the main section on this topic where sources are provided. Is this acceptable? I'll get to the Drake Equation soon. Marskell 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Added for Drake equation: "The speculative equation factors: the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the number of stars with planets and the number that are habitable; the number of those planets which develop life and subsequently intelligent communicating life; and finally the expected lifetimes of such civilizations." OK? Again, given size concerns I'll leave fuller explanations for the sub-article. Marskell 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Support, great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

I believe this history/war article meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. Cla68 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article in every regard. One minor thing to check, though: the times seem to be sometimes given in pure military time ("At 1629...") and sometimes in regular 24-hour time ("...at 16:46..."); it would probably be best to stick to a single format throughout. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have caught that before. I've changed all the times to 24-hour time format. Thank you, Cla68 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Article looks good. I am slightly concerned about using too few sources for inline citations which may have resulted in a POV article. Hopefully the editors have taken care of that. The article, though, requires extensive copyediting. Clean it per WP:WTA and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the WP:WTA guidance and the only word on that list that I see in the article is the word "however." But, the way that word is used in the article, to contrast different decisions made and actions taken during the course of the battle, doesn't appear to be used in the way that the guidance suggests shouldn't be done. As far as the number of sources, even though there are only three main sources used, I believe they do cover the event comprehensively and neutrally, the only obstacle being that not as many Japanese sources appear to have survived that document their side of the battle. The Frank book uses extensive western and translated Japanese documents as references and is very well sourced. The Hara book is a first-hand account of the battle by a Japanese participant. The Hammel book leans more towards the U.S. side, but does include POV from the Japanese side, although not as much as Frank's book. The attack on the U.S. ships (especially Enterprise) is given more detail than the attacks on the Japanese ships because more details are available, plus, one of the significant actions and effects of the battle for the Japanese, which was the loss of many of their aircraft, occurred during their attacks on the U.S. ships. Cla68 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but is there a way to get rid of all of the white space at the top of the article? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support good stuff. Makes me proud to be a wikipedian. —D-Rock 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• SupportQuestion I find the massive white space break in 'Background' disconcerting. Can you get rid of it? Rlevse 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from on the question about the white space. I've tried different things to get rid of it, but I'm stumped as how to do it. The problem is that placing the image link at the beginning of that paragraph moves the image and paragraph down to the bottom of the campgain box, creating the white space. If the image link is put at the end of that paragraph, then the image will run into the next section. If the image link is put in the middle of the paragraph, then white space appears in the middle of the paragraph. If anyone knows how to resolve this problem, I'm open to the advice. Cla68 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no excess white space. Running Firfox/Windows. —D-Rock 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with having images overlap a section break. In fact, I think that it's a positive thing from an aesthetic viewpoint, since it reduces the extent to which the line after a second-level heading interrupts the flow of the article, and is more consistent with how images are positioned in printed material. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to support. I can only think this is an issue with my browser at work. At work (IE), there was a huge white space breaking up that section, but at home (both IE and FF), there is no break. Maybe my work browser is an older version. Kudos to the author for the rapid fixing of all the feedback. Rlevse 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When I view the article on my laptop, the white space disappears. Cla68 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great and detailed article worthy of FA status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not too long but not too short, very descriptive, amazing pictures-ScotchMB 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Minor comment: In hiding the TOC, I notice that the campaign's navigation box gets covered by the photo of the Wasps. For what it's worth, I'm using FF at 1024x768.--Monocrat 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but with a few minor suggestions I like the article, and I believe it is very well-referenced. However, there are a lot of book references, which could make it hard for someone who doesn't have that book to verify the material. Providing a link along with the book (e.g. a link to Amazon, which often allows searching inside the book, or to a summary/review of the book somewhere) could be helpful. Also, there are a number of repeat references/notes: use of the ref name attribute would group these together. But these are minor issues. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but, from what I've seen in other articles, links to Amazon and other commercial book sellers are frowned-upon by the Wikipedia community. However, I'll try to find neutral (i.e. not trying to sell the book) media reviews of those books and add the links to the end of the book reference in the "books" section. Cla68 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, using Amazon's search inside is one of the methods reccommended by Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Finding a good source may require some effort for fact-checking book references. Of course there are other options. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added some links for several of the books, including Frank's, to Amazon's Online Reader for those books. Cla68 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 : ) I added a few more Amazon Online Reader links... I don't think Amazon has it for the rest. I also combined a few of the repeat inline citations... you can see what I did... great job on the article! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)

Thank you. Cla68 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent read, good information, nice sourcing. Themillofkeytone 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, lots of inline citations and has a great map.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Peer Review 1
Peer Review 2

Self-nom (although others have worked on this as well). This is an extremely comprehensive, well-referenced, and neutral biography of an important and somewhat controversial Pope. It received Good Article status on April 27 and has had two peer reviews since then which turned up no major problems and improved the article further. Its size (~53K) is appropriate in my judgment; if you feel it is too large, keep in mind that the size is inflated by the extensive references and end materials. This article has had its share of edit warring over the years; however, the current version has been free from major disputes for a long time. It has also been stable for a few days since I finished making a series of minor edits. I hope that you’ll see fit to join me in supporting this article. Otherwise, I will do my best to address any actionable objections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 38KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

• Support A very well-written, well-sourced, well-image'd article. Happy to be the first support and now I'm going to go enjoy reading it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Minor suggestions Looks like a really good and well-referenced article, but here's a few minor suggestions. Firstly, some of the references could probably have a bit more bibliographical information. (I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, that would be great.) Secondly, while certainly not required, links to summaries/other helpful online material for offline references could help people who do not have the offline material try to verify it. For example, for books, Amazon often provides an Online Reader that allows searching inside the book (this is suggested by WP:RS). Anyways, impressivly-referenced article, overall. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For the works included in the "further reading", I included only author, date, and page number. I did this because there is no need to give the full cite repeatedly for works cited multiple times. I made this clearer with my most recent edit, I think. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it makes more sense now. Support. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and learned a lot. However, here are some thoughts: I'm not a fan of one- or two-sentence paragraphs or sections with only a single subsection. The lead, "Theology," and "Views..." are rife with the former, and "The Holocaust" and "Notes" (the latter) could probably be made their own principal sections. You might also consider stripping "Apostolic Constitutions" and "Encyclicals" of their status as subsections (perhaps massaging the text for flow). Perhaps "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" could be merged, as the former seems way too short to warrant its own subsection. "Post-World War II" seems a little inelegant to me, so something like "Post-war reign" might do. Better would be to combine that section with the following section and rename it "Later reign and death." These are all optional, but I think they would greatly improve an already fantastic article. Great work!--Monocrat 05:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the one sentence paragraphs and made "The Holocaust" and "Notes" their own sections. However, I am hesistant to merge the sections that you suggested. The canonizations section I just intended to provide links to the people that he canonized. A lot could be said about his choices, but that would probably violate our original research policies. This could even be changed to a box on the left side of the papacy section, rather than making it a section (I'll play around with that and see if it looks aescetic). I also would rather not merge the post-war section with the later life section because that would imply that he basically just started dying after WWII and in fact some of the more important elements of his papacy occured then. In my mind, the later life section starts thematically with his illness. As for the section title, I'll let you change that if you want to, but if having a section called "WWII" is fine, then "post-WII" makes a lot of sense to me. Breif and specific. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern about the sections "Post-WWII" is that the last paragraph, which looks to be about half of the section, could easily go under "Views..." or under "...Legacy," leaving only his activities in anti-communism and advocacy of clemency. I also think the current location of "Theology," "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" is disruptive to the historical narrative. The first could be made its own section, possibly, and the others subsumed into it, or moved into an independent "Legacy" section. If this were done, "Election and coronation" could be included in "Church career". Just thoughts.--Monocrat 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the Corriera della Sera controversy in the post-war section because unlike many of the criticisms or defenses of Pius, this one was localized to only one of his specific post-war activities. I didn't want to separate the Foxman comment from the actual facts, though. As for your changes to the Papacy section, I don't really think it disrupts the historical narrative. What happens at this point is that the narrative splits into his spiritual and worldly activities. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and documented article. I agree with Monocrat on the length of some of the subsections. I also like to see {{persondata}} on biographical articles.--NMajdan•talk 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An enjoyable, well-referenced article. --ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I thought it was pretty good weeks ago when I looked at it about GA nomination, and well, I still think its pretty good, FA good I mean, not GA good heh. Homestarmy 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject this onesided, POVy article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, unless the article undergoes a review concerning the following items:

- Many facts are lacking context, since they are described with just one sentence. I.e. "On October 28, 1943, Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, telegrammed Berlin that the pope "has not allowed himself to be carried away [into] making any demonstrative statements against the deportation of the Jews."" There is a story behind this fact. It was Weizsäcker's aim to appease Berlin not to invade the vatican. Pius overwhelmed him with protests, Weizsäcker again warned Pius that provoking Berlin could have the contrary effect. Thus, Pius did not repeat the protests publicly and Weizsäcker did not deliver them to the government, but on the contrary appeased Berlin. Source: Pinchas Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, who is not quoted one single time in this article, whereas he has rendered the earliest (1967) and most thorough research on this matter. - Another example: When mentioning the Reichskonkordat, it should be mentioned that the german "kulturkampf" of the Bismack era lead to the vatican's desire of making a concordate. Furthermore, the concordate should promote international diplomatic reputation of the young vatican state. Without these facts, the whole Idea about the concordate is completely turned upside-down. -When mentioning the circumstances of passing the enabling act, please don't forget to mention that the SPD members could not cast their votes because they were all arrested the night before (Göring was the chief of police in Prussia and there was no immunity of representatives). If the SPD members (among them also catholics) would have attended, the enabling act would not have been passed. That much to Pius and his alleged influence on the enabling act. UAltmann 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As the nomination has already been closed, I'll address these on the article talk page. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Belton House

This is about one of England's greatest buildings, albeit not one of its best known. I found this page as a stub a couple of weeks ago, but it is mostly a self nomination, but with a lot of good advice and copy-editing from other editors. Particularly Bishonen. I think the pictures are great, but then I took them! It seems to me the page is as complete and referenced as is possible and it meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Excellently written and quite interesting article; my only question in this regard would be to ask if you have the map coordinates of the house available. However (and I suspect you'll throroughly hate me for this) I have a number of concerns with regards to the references for the article. There are a few parenthetical citations still remaining in the text that should be converted to footnotes, as well as a number of websites listed in the footnotes that need, at a minimum, assess dates (and perhaps a listing in the "References" section as well?). More curiously, the ISBN (ISBN 0802112285) listed for Chesshyre's Belton House seems to instead resolve to The English Country House in Perspective by a Gervase Jackson-Stops; perhaps you made an error in transcribing it? Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistranscription The English Country House in Perspective was one of the major refs used, sorry. Map ref is now in the lead, it was actually a link before. I hope I have now addressed all your points. The only links left now in the notes, are those which were not used as references, but are there for the benefit of anyone interested further in a particular area mentioned in the text. Just put of interest do you know - there are two books listed both published in the 1960s which don't give their ISBNs anywhere that I can find on them - is that common? Giano | talk 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the ISBN wasn't introduced until 1966 (and didn't become a standard until 1970), anything published before that date may not have one unless it was reprinted. Everything else seems fine now; full support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks that's great. Noting Jim62's point (below) concerning the map reference do you have any comment? It would be nice to keep everyone happy. Could it be a footnote after Lincolnshire? Giano | talk 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A footnote could work. Alternately, there's a template I've seen that places the coordinates in the top right corner of the article, but I can't recall the name offhand; I'll see if I can find it somewhere. Kirill Lokshin 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It's one of {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, or {{coor title dms}}, depending on how exact you want the numbers to be. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh! a Giano nom... (jumps excitedly from torpor of constant 'object' votes...) Anyway, Conditional Support. Could the map with lettered rooms have have its explanation be a subsection, or paragraph in another subsection, instead of an overlong picture caption? That's my only quabble (Is that a word?) RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm thrilled your thrilled and even more thrilled with the conditional support, and I don't want to lose it, but I would like to attempt to change your view by explaining why it's captioned like that. The best idea would have been to have the room names actually written in the rooms, but that would not show up clearly at low resolution. The plan is referred to continually throughout various sections so a sub-para would be repetition, yet I think the plan need to have an explanation close at hand, it's tiresome to have to keep scrolling up and down. What do you think? Giano | talk 07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Lovely. Tony 05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Looks really good...being a facts and figures kind of editor, do we have any numbers as far as the dimensions of the exterior, the square footage, or the height so that we can get a rough idea of size?--MONGO 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've noted your comment Mongo and am working on it. The figures or at least some of them must be given somewhere, just a question of where. I'll look more thoroughly this evening. Giano | talk 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine...I Support anyway, I just thought that if those numbers in metric or standard were available, it may help get an idea of scale..the images actually do a fairly good job of this...it's almost as big as my summer cottage. Ha.--MONGO 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well your vote is very welcome - thanks, because I can't find dimensions anywhere "Country house in Perspective" is full of plans and line drawings, yet does not give a dimension anywhere, I'll bin the useless book! Google is worse than nothing, having seen the place I would say the kitchen "A" on the plan is about 5m X 15m. Otherwise take a look at the amazingly professional fotos and take an inspired guess. In the meantime I'll keep searching. I'm afraid I can't return there with a measure, because I was practically evicted while taking interior fotos with my fone and they may remember me! Giano | talk 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Very nicely done (although the latitude and longitude bit seems unnecessary and breaks the rhythm of the intro). •Jim62sch• 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your vote.Kirill Lokshin has come up with a brilliant (IMO) solution to your point and fixed it. Giano | talk 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Solid article. Just went through and added metric equivalents to the two land areas given. Also, what did you mean with "encourage people to spend longer"? Is there some sort of missing word? But otherwise nothing wrong. Daniel Case 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the vote. I see what you mean, I'll fix it now. Giano | talk 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very thoughtful and thorough article. DVD+ R/W 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, well-referenced, with many images that help illustrate the subject. Great job! --Aude (talk contribs) 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Good, well written article. I've fixed the vernacular link to point to Vernacular architecture rather than the literary sense. I'm a little concerned with the assertion that:- '(Belton House) has been described as a compilation of all that is finest of Carolean architecture, the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England has produced since the time of the Tudors.' Do you have a citation for this? I'd have thought that at least Georgian architecture could be considered vernacular if we take it's meaning to be an indigenous architecture that does not necessarily require the intervention of architects.--Mcginnly 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, the article Georgian architecture states; 'Georgian styles were assimilated into an architectural vernacular that became part and parcel of the training of every carpenter and plasterer, from Edinburgh to Maryland.'--Mcginnly 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the vote. I don't want to argue with someone who has just supported either ;-). It is cited the very first one (after "has been described"). Georgian architecture is a collective term that covers 18th and sometimes early 19th century classically based architecture, it is not exclusive (in spite of its name) to England, its evolved from palladianism, it was not really something new and different in its conception whereas Carolean is a clear style easily recognized. I suspect this is one of those things that could be argued for ever. It is cited though not just my opinion. I have never edited (the unreferenced) Georgian architecture but a quick glance of the two images there described as Georgian one looks like what the British call "Queen Anne" ( a late Carolean before Georgian), and the other is quite definitely and famously Neoclassical [3]. If you want to continue this we can on my talk page as it is quite convoluted Giano | talk 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Appologies! Just seen there was a typo in the quote "has" should read "had", but above refering to Georgian still stands Giano | talk 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm much more comfortable with Carolean being the only truly vernacular times since the time of the tudors, rather than ever. I've actually heard of carolean, described as a kind of 'proto-georgian' anyway, now fully support --Mcginnly 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wow! Nice article. Prose, citation, content, everything checks out. However, I wonder why all of the nice photographs are in GIF format (Ironically, the only non-GIF is the floor plan JPEG, which should be a PNG). Since all these images were taken by Giano, I wonder if he might upload the original JPEGs? Converting them now would not be beneficial to the quality, but the dithering is a real shame when you view the full resolution. It's not big enough a deal for me to oppose, but I can't support it either as long as this remains so. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Because having lightened, bri