Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2007

Contents


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

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Birchington-on-Sea

Recently reached GA status and I think it meets the FA criteria. Epbr123 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
  • Some paragraphs are too short. A good paragraph should be at least four sentences or so. Generally, if you have a 2-3 sentence paragraph, it should either be expanded or combined with another paragraph.
  • Going along with the previous bullet point, I dislike really short sections. In the case of this article, the Sport and Notable residents section are borderline o.k. but the Local media and Twin town sections are too short.
  • You have some unnecessary wikilinks. Make sure only the first instance of a word is linked (for example, only the first instance of km and miles should be wikilinked).↔NMajdan•talk 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the short paragraphs and sections, but I don't think I can remove the links from the km & miles as its part of the {{convert|0|mi|km|0|lk=on}} template. Epbr123 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now worked out how to remove the links to km & mi and they have now been fixed. Epbr123 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - given the subject matter shouldn't be too hard to get a few photos (?). Also, a few sentence tweaks needed:
In ancient times, it is known that Minnis Bay was once... - remove in ancient times which is redundant.
Man-made artefacts have also been discovered in the area dating from Roman and prehistoric times - could be rewritten too. "Roman and prehistoric artefacts have also been discovered in the area"
Over the centuries,.. -remove as redundant.

I will look later but can't support until it has some piccies. sorry cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures aren't part of the featured article criteria, so I fail to see the relevance in the last comment as regards whether you'd support or not. LuciferMorgan 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
O-kay..the point being I would not consider supporting unless there were pictures given that it should be a straightforward task to get some. Now that there are I will have a look later today. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I still feel the same way, but it's best to leave the discussion at that. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm..no. There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added, which they have been. Now I have concluded. as you can see.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with the statement "There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added", and sincerely hope you're in the minority on this. The nominator chose to add pictures but wasn't required to. This FAC is an assessment of whether this article meets the criteria or not, not whether it has pictures or not. If you feel pictures should be part of the criteria then please discuss the issue at the criteria talk page. LuciferMorgan 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ummmmmmm...criterion 3 maybe?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your viewpoint of "where appropriate". And back on the subject, you wouldn't support an article just because it doesn't have pictures? That's awful. I sincerely hope other FAC reviewers do not adopt this approach of reviewing, and withholding a vote based on pictures. LuciferMorgan 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I decided what "appropriate" was and as far as "awful", who's supporting this article and who isn't? But you're right, we should take this to the talk page. I note it has not been discussed as of yet after checking the archives.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictures have now been added. Epbr123 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support looks good now. Thanks for hunting down the pictures. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Work on wikilinking, per WP:CONTEXT. Common terms should not be linked (and it's not clear other terms are linked as they should be — for example, why the choice to wikilink bridge but not chess ? And why isn't Chinese porcelain linked to Chinese ceramics? These are examples only — lots to be checked.) Sloppy prose — please don't use ampersand for the word "and" (article still needs copyedit). See also templates belong at the top of sections (see WP:GTL). Why is Visual Arts capped here: to become a specialist Visual Arts school? Is north-east hyphenated or one word (I'm not sure). Book sources should have page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no problem with wikilinking. Chess is clearly more well known than bridge. The ampersands were included to help clarity. It is not a requirement for book sources to have page numbers. Nice try. Epbr123 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "I don't have to do X because the rules don't specifically say I must" is a poor argument. Very clearly, page numbers should be provided for any volume of significant length. It's common practice in notes section. Ref 5 is also lacking publisher information. Finally, the last ref to IMDb is not a reliable source.
      • Chess may be better known than bridge, but it looks oddly inconsistent. Marskell 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't provide those references so I can't add the page numbers. I don't agree with you about the bridge link. Words shouldn't be linked just to make the text look nice. Epbr123 10:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Hi. Most of Sandy's comments were actually fixed this morning. Thanks for your opinion anyway. Epbr123 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look.

  • I can't determine how this site rises to the level of WP:RS: http://www.victorianartinbritain.co.uk/about.htm
  • Sites like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/06/school_tables/primary_schools/html/agg_886.stm have a publication date (07 December, 2006), which should be listed in the ref (I give this example here, so you can fix these on all of your noms) Ditto for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/education/04/school_tables/secondary_schools/html/886_gcse_lea.stm (19 October 2005)
  • I don't find the 750 pupils mentioned on the cited page, and that statement should be qualified by a date (as in 750 pupils as of whatever year). Also, the word "currently" should be avoided, as it becomes outdated ... you should say when, specifically. "It has around 750 pupils and is currently seeking government support to become a specialist visual arts school.[38] "
  • This isn't exactly what the sources says, slightly misleading: "The Parish Councillors do not have an allegiance to a political party.[37]" Please doublecheck that all of your sources support the text cited.
    • Its was clear what it meant. Epbr123 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • why is Local Elections capped here but not in the main article it links to? "As of the 2007 Local Elections, all five ... "
  • Totaltravel.com is a commercial source. (I started from the bottom, and stopped reviewing sources at that point, as work is still needed — now back to the other issues.)
  • The wikilinking issues (WP:CONTEXT) have not been addressed.
  • & in place of and has not been addressed.

I struck a few items above (templates), but most is still unaddressed. I'll wait for you to finish these sorts of items in all five noms before continuing to review the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a third look. Here, too, looks like just about everything addressed, but one more copyedit runthough is needed:

  • Church archive have shown that the village's All Saints church dates back to at least around 1350. (very redundant - Archives show the village's All Saints Church dates to around 1350 ???)
  • Perhaps too much delinking? Not sure on cliff stacks, since it's a term specialized to Geology.

I suggest a day or two off, to get distance from the text of the articles, and then a fresh run through to spot redundancies and copyedit problems, after looking at the guide on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s page. Almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a fourth look. Please run through the text one more time: I shouldn't be able to find sentences like this on a quick glance (As a seaside resort, there various clubs for watersports.) "Various" is used throughout the sports section. Also, consider whether you want to use a word to avoid (claim) in the lead—perhaps it's intended, but if it's really only a "claim", why does it warrant mention in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I struck my oppose after making some final ce changes myself; please check to see if meaning was correct in those changes I made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose until Sandy's fresh concerns are addressed, and due to stubby sections which should be merged. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Short paragraphs have been merged where appropriate. Epbr123 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be an idea to include the civil_parish field and data in the InfoBox for completeness. Also, wouldn't some indication of the surrounding parishes, perhaps even using a compass-table, in the appropriate section would help place it into a larger context?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added the parish council to the infobox and have mentioned the surrounding civil parishes in the geography section, but I'm not sure about adding a compass-table as the town is neighboured by some unparished areas. Epbr123 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok. I've replied with one suggestion on my talk page to your question, but one other alternative is to simply enter "unparished" or "(unparished)" in those cells where relevant. Trying out a few alternatives in a sandbox and seeing how they look next to each other might be a way forward.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The table has been added. Epbr123 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern: Please include where the village gets its drinking water from and where its sewage goes. Is Quex Park the only park in the town? The introduction says "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and civil parish" - what is the difference between a village and civil parish? --maclean 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have added local recreation grounds to the culture section and about the water to the geography section. Civil parishes have now been explained in the politics section. Epbr123 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally do not think it was necessary to explain the differences between a village and a civil parish, as the link to civil parish was in place, and that could have been followed to find out. The fact is, many villages in England are contained in a civil parish, and in quite a few of these cases, the name of the civil parish is the same as the name of the village. It would be tedious in the extreme to repeat such definitional information in each such village article when a linked article that explains it is already there. In this case, it is a minor point, but if such a requirement was universally required, I don't think it would be a good thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is the village part I don't get. Why make the distinction? We don't say that "Boston is a city and municipality..." or that "A cougar is an animal and a mammal..." And, on a side note, where I'm from (not the UK) we call communities of 9800 people "cities" (a small city) with villages being on the order of 1000 people. --maclean 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Not all villages are parishes and not all parishes are villages. Epbr123 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Not all villages are civil parishes, and vice versa. Incidentally, Chew Stoke is also a village and a civil parish, and it is being considered for FA status as well at the moment. No one has asked for these terms to be explained. To go some way to explaining the village issue, I will link the reference to the appropriate article. However, in some cases, I have seen such links being removed by other editors on the grounds that to include them would be a case of Overlinking.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a foreigner so please bear with me. I don't oppose based on the whole "is a village and civil parish" in the lead sentence (it was just a question), but it just seems unnecessary to me, as it seems "village" is just a colloquial term according to the link provided (it is a good link, does help). Anyways... Questions/Concerns (Will Raul654 decide which are serious and which are just questions?):

  • Is this the civil parish website [1]? Why doesn't it call itself "Birchington-on-Sea"?
  • The "History" section stops at 1923, this can be made more comprehensive by going telling us what has happened since? Good times? bad times?
  • In the Geography section, why put "miles" before "km"? I thought UK was metric.
  • Why put the climate data for another town? Those big climate boxes aren't a requirement. if the data isn't available, then the data isn't available.
  • "Wakeboard and Water Ski Club, which was established in 2004 to help alleviate anti-social behaviour in the area." it is that easy?
  • Several of "references" in the Culture section are just ext.links to a club's homepage. --maclean 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Birchington-on-Sea is the town's full name. Officially, the UK is metric but UK people still prefer to use miles than km. The climate data for Wye gives a rough idea of what the climate for Birchington is like. Wakeboard and Water Ski Club was established to help alleviate anti-social behaviour. The club's homepages provide info supporting the article. Epbr123 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to search for more recent notable events to put in the history, but I can't find any that aren't already mentioned in other sections. Epbr123 12:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean "the village's full name". Unless the area is a town because it has a town council rather than a parish council, that is.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You're really fast. I switched the units to km|mi as the remainder of the article used metric|imperial. I wish my town had water skiing to help alleviate the anti-social behaviour. Some of the data in the census table is repeated in the text. --maclean 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The table is to help give an overview to the text, similar to the infobox at the start of the article. Epbr123 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As an addition: it is true that Birchington-on-Sea is the village's full name. The civil parish and the village are not the same thing, however, and slight name differences can happen. Indeed, the name of the parish may bear little in common to any of the settlements located within it. If required, the text could be altered to read something like "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and (as Birchington) a civil parish..."  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead has been reworded. Epbr123 11:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Western Ganga Dynasty

The Western Ganga Dynasty ruled over Southern Karnataka, India, for over six centuries and played an important role in the development of the region. Although a small Kingdom, their contributions are well worth documenting and that is what this article has tried to establish. The article was in PR for a week without any comments or feedback. I am looking forward to constructive feedback that could help take this article to FA.Dineshkannambadi 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Nice article, but it seems it's over-informative, which is not a negative point as such.Cheers! User:Luxurious.gaurav
  • Support: Great article with ample citations. But it seems that the 'History of Karnataka' template is not well placed. Please see if anything can be done here. But anyway I fully support the nomination. DSachan 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Comments by Kalyan

    • Suggestion: The lead para states that the peak empire lasted from 350 to 550 CE. i am assuming that the territory of the empire was the largest at that time. The map shows the territory as of 800 CE. It will be great if you can the largest extent in a different shade to the same map.

DK reply Actually they were as soverign power between 350-550, not the peak.This is reflected in the lead. The map generally should be considered their core area, though the author (Adiga) says 800 CE onwards. I have a similar map from Kamath which assigns the area generally speaking, without dates. In 930 time frame they also ruled territories in the Tungabhadra valley further north but this was for a few decades untill the fall of Rashtrakutas, their overlords. Maps are ticky and I dont want to use my judgement in calculating area coverage at their peak. Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "lasted from about 350 to 550" CE? BC? - add that reference

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "feudatory" - is there a wikilink or you need to provide an explanation to this term as the understanding of the whole sentence hinges on this term.

DK the term has no wikilink, but generally means a subordinate. I can change it to subordinate.

    • "fighting for the cause of the overlords" - i am assuming it is the chalukyas. On second thought, can you re-phrase the entire sentence "After the rise of the imperial ..."

DK Done, emphasized better nowDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: Need date when they started serving under the Chalukyas --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "When the Chalukyas were replaced" - provide date

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • a few issues with this:"the Western Gangas successfully fought along side their new overlords against their traditional foes, the Chola Dynasty of Tanjavur in the battle of Takkolam resulting in the Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil Nadu." - (1)new overlords - this means that their existence after 550 CE is as a subject nation to a larger empire. can you make that clear in the sentence that chalks history from 350 to 550 CE. Thus the addition of 550 to 1000 CE would provide a complete overview (2) traditional foes - the previous sentence had the pallavas as their foe. avoid usage of the term "traditional", unless you would like to add substantial evidence in the lead section (3) "occupation of northern Tamil Nadu" - provide dates. remember that the lead section needs to stand on it's own and dates are essential in these type of history articles

DK Simplified. removed mention of Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil nadu as it is perhaps unnecessary to the article lead. As such, it is mentioned in the History section. It is mentioned more in detail in the Rashtrakuta Dynasty article. Regarding the time frame from 550-1000, they were really independent from 750-850 (approx), constantly at war with the Rashtrakutas. There after they again became subordinates. So one cant really say they were a subject nation technically throughout. How does it look now?Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "In the late 10th century, major political changes were taking place in the Deccan." - violates Show, don't tell policy. reword/re-phrase or remove

DK Done. removed "major political..."Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "The Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire north of the Tungabhadra river" - grammatical error. I think it should be "North of Tungabhadra river, the Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire"

DK Done. Copied your sentence.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "Though territorially a small kingdom," - all the above dealt with geo-spread of the empire and subsequent sentences deal with culture and other aspects. it is best to seperate it out as a new para. combine all military prowress/empire extent into one para

DK Done. seperated.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "resulting in the construction of fine monuments" - avoid usage of terms "fine". could be considered POV. Also, let the reader make the judgement of the monument being fine or otherwise

DK done. removed "fine".Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

** The lead para does not have details of how the empire came into existence in 350 CE. Please add the same.

DK The invasion of Samudragupta having caused disturbance in the south is only a theory, perhaps not proven by inscriptions. This is why even historians merely mention it without giving it too much credibility, but more as a geo-political event. Adding it to the LEAD may make people think that the Gangas had something to do with Samudragupta. This is why I prefer no to add it.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:My try: "The general belief is that the Western Ganga empire began during a time period when multiple small kingdoms arose after the weaking of the Pallava empire, a geo-political event sometimes attributed to the conquests of Samudra Gupta. Does that sound fair? --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK I have addd this to the lead. Please take a look.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    • How is the shravanabelagola temple and idol related to the History section? Move it to a different/more appropriate section

DK Done. Moved it down and moved Kings template up.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "of southern India by Samudra Gupta, a king from North India and carved out a small kingdom for themselves. " - which year (or approx. range of years) did Samudra gupta invade? and when did the gangas carve a "small kingdom" for themselves. also, remove "small" unless you are going to quantify it

DK Samudragupta ruled from 335-380. I dont have a date for his southern invasion, but it must have been just prior to 350 as this is mentioned in more than one book. Generally, such major geo-political changes throws up smaller kingdoms who break away from their earlier overlords.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** At times, they also controlled some areas in modern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh." - years/dates? which areas in AP and TN?

DK done. I have added the info. They consolidated Ananthpur in AP aroud 450 and Kongu region in TN in 6th century. But their hold there was not permanent.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "capital around 350 and " - add CE in this sentence as well as everywhere else in the article as well

DK This issue has had its share of conflicts. Many reviewers feel that CE need not be added everywhere, only in the lead. I have had to do-redo-do this kind of edits repeatedly and finally stuck to what I felt was majority view. same with 350 kind of linking.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Fair enough. CE is lead and none elsewhere will be my mantra going forward. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." - i am confused. the previous sentence states that the empire was created with kolar as the capital. this sentence contradicts that. need clarification and re-wording

DK Majority of the historians view that they became independent from 350. A few like Baji feel they still owed some alligience to Pallavas for a few decades. This is normal as these things dont happen overnight. I went with the majority view in the lead. I can remove the above sentence "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." since it is not critical to the article. Sound ok?Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: Yeah, please remove or re-word the sentence. as i stated, the previous sentence states that the gangas made Kolar their capital and the next sentence stated just the opposite. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK removed sentence for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "the Gangas had consolidated their kingdom with Talakad as their capital." - why did they choose Talakad as their capital?

DK closer to the rich pasture lands and agricultural lands of Malnad, considering they were still under pressure from Kadambas in central Karnataka and Pallavas south of Kaveri. I did not want to go into these details to keep the article concise. In an earlier FA, I was asked not to dwell into details.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: I think the details of why an empire shifted capitals is very important and pertinent to the wiki article. Please add the same here. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dk Done. Added info. A strategic move to contain the Kadambas.Dineshkannambadi 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "By 430 they had consolidated their eastern territories" - any info on which regions in AP/Kar/TN are covered in this "eastern territories".

DK Historians here , at this time, refer to Bangalore, Kolar, Tumkur, perhaps Anathapur (not many inscriptions from here) .Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

** 'his younger brother who was favoured by King Avinita." - who is Avinita? provide wikilink for his page and if possible, some reference to his involvement in the history of the dynasty.

DK King Avinita is King Durvinita's father. Not much is written about Avinita, though I can create a stub.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DK created a stub for Avinita.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

** "accounts suggest that in this family feud the Pallavas " - copyedit required, remove "in this family feud" at a min and add the phrase towards the end of sentence else re-write the sentence

DK rewrote.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Follow-up comments: Manu should be wikilinked to Manu (Hinduism) and not Manu (hinduism).

DK linked correctly.Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "King Sripurusha fought the Pallava King Paramamaheshvara Varman successfully" - which year? I noticed that there are 2 Paramamahshvara Varman (I and II). but their reign was 672 - 700 and 705 - 710. whereas your article implies that it is after 725. please reconcile

DK Copy edit mistake. corrected. The king was Nandivarman Pallavamalla. Earlier, in early 8th century, Parameshvaravarman was killed in a duel with Ganga -Chalukya Vikramaditya II alliance.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "A contest with the Pandyas of Madurai over control of Kongu region brought mixed results" - what is "mixed results", did they lose teritory? did that make any political impact? Not having that info seems to provide only one sided view of the events.

DK I read it again. The author says that the Pandyas incriptions claim the Ganga control over Kongu was "threatened" by Pandya invasion in which the Pandya seem to have won the battle, but it is not clear if they held Kongu because there was a marriage between Ganga princess and Pandya prince.(K.A.N. Sastri in Adiga). The 771 Salem plates of Sripurusha and the Koramangala grant however indicate the Kongu region remained in Ganga control.(Ramesh in Adiga)Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Please add this summary in the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Added summary with citations.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "In 753, the Badami Chalukyas were replaced by Rashtrakutas as the dominant force in the Deccan to which the Gangas offered stiff resistance for about a century" - this does not get reflected in the lead section. request a phrase addition in the lead section.

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married).[33]" - year and was any king missed in-between?

DK Yes. Not much is mentioned about Rachamalla II, Ereganga Neetimarga II and Narasimha who ruled in (870-938). Perhaps an uneventuful time as the Rashtrakuta overlords were the supreme power in Deccan at this time..Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Fair enough. Follow-up comment: "After an uneventful period, Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne in 938 " - remove "was the next famous king who" - POV and not required. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha I gave his daughter Chandrabbalabbe in marriage to Ganga prince Butuga I"; later "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married" - are these 2 different events or the same event with mistake in the roman numerals. If there is no mistake, what happened to Butuga I, why did he not become the king after his father's death?

DK Butuga I never became the king. There is no mistake with Roman numerals.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "A later " - year?month?decade?

DK dated to 963

    • "a minister in the Western Ganga court is a well known personality to students of modern Karnataka's history " - def. POV

DK Removed phrase.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "He served King Marasimha II and his successors ably and helped them during times of distress." - violates Show, don't tell policy. Please elaborate on what distress did he solve for the king?

DK Done. Hepled supress a civi war.

** "Large areas of south Karnataka came under Chola control for about a century until the region was annexed by Hoysala Vishnuvardhana who defeated the Cholas in a decisive battle at Talakad.[44]" - strong object to this sentence. please explain the need for the sentence.

DK Removed. put it for continuity, but i guess its not necessary.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes. it is not necessary. It gives an impression that you are pursuing an agenda of highlighting the superiority of kannada people's rule over modern karnataka region. sticking to facts provides little/no ammo for vandals. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** The Western Ganga administration was influenced by some principles stated in the ancient text Arthashastra." - how did they receive arthashastra? which principles (provide number evidence) did they follow?

DK I have added this info. It was the role played by village elders. The same citation in following line holds good.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Not convinced. remove the term "some" and i think that should be fine. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

** Niyogis - provide wikilink

Dk Done. will add stub.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Isn't the niyogis mentioned here, the same as Niyogi. Please let me know. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done. The article on Niyogi has been written with todays POV that they are predominently Telugu. 1500 years back things may have been different given the fact people have moved around a lot. So I hesitate to link to that, to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict. In fact I would request not to link. (I have linked anyway)Dineshkannambadi 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • pergade, nadabova, nalagamiga, prabhu and gavunda - what do these titles mean? Oh, i get it - either move the sentence to the next para or combine the 2 paras.

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Image of Roof sculpture, Panchakuta basadi at Kambadahalli is repeated twice.

DK Actually they are two seperate sculptures, resembling each other. I have commented out one.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, i didn't know that. if they are different, you can add both as well as ensure that the difference is made visible to all. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • With respect to images, please make a gallery and add these images in the same. The gallery goes under the religion/architecture sections and you can have multiple galleries - i see one for shravanabelagola and another for the rest.

DK regarding this, I request a waiver. This issue came up in another FAC and reviewers felt that the reader would loose the context if a gallery were added. This is why I have not used galleries in any FA.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: I am not convinced but i shall go with you on this. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "The Western Ganga rule was a period of brisk literary activity in Sanskrit and Kannada, though many of the writings are now considered extinct and are known only from references made to them." - need reference

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • signed --Kalyan 17:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply-->Please give me a day or two to answer, modify, correct or confirm all the points you have brought up.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: I have struck off comments which have been addressed. There are a few still that needs to be done, before i want to add my support to the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK I will take a closer look today.Dineshkannambadi 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT: All comments have been closed. --Kalyan 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has too many opinionated sentences. I have tagged some. By virtue of a Hindu belief that killing of a brahmin (Bramhatya) was a sin, capital punishment was not applicable to them is POV. Severe crimes committed were punishable by the severing of a foot or hand - what is a severe crime? Don't you think the article should be renamed as Western Ganga Empire or Western Ganga Kingdom? A dynastic page ought to focus on the succession primarily. Anwar 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply-->These are opinions of Scholars for which citations have been provided. Not my opinions. Additional Citation has been provided. Infact citation already existed just a few lines ahead. I dont see why a dynastic page has to merely focus on succession. However, I have no problem if its called Western Ganga Kingdom, if there is concensus. I can study he book again and see what the author may have meant by "severe crime", though I suspect its unlikely he would have listed what was severe and what was not because that would be considered "opinionated". Dineshkannambadi 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that another article Political history of medieval Karnataka does not have any section about Western Ganga dynasty at all. Which version is correct? The society, language, literature, architecture and religion sections of WGD should be shifted to the PHMK without much ado as they are apparently common traits of all Kannada kingdoms then. Anwar 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DK A pargraph on Gangas exists in the very first section bottom of the article you mentioned. The section is called "Kadambas and Gangas" in bold. Why should these sections from Western Ganga Dynasty be shifted to Political History of medieval Karnataka? PHMK is meant to be a brief commentary on all empires that ruled from Karnataka with limited focus on kingdom history, some focus on language, architecture. literature etc. I think you are getting confused. WGD on the contrary is a detailed description of the Gangas. BTW, this FAC is on "Western Ganga Dynasty", not PHMK.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Impressive presentation of the matter. Ample references and some real good pictures are adding value to the article. Would make a fine history FA. - KNM Talk 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think all issues that were raised have been addressed and article is in excellent shape now. Gnanapiti 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Well written article with a good number of references. -- Naveen (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Æthelberht of Kent

Major rewrite and expansion done; I think this is at FA standard now. Other FAs of Anglo-Saxon kings, in case comparison is useful: Ælle of Sussex, Penda of Mercia and Æthelbald of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I like it, but the lead paragraphs need to bolster some of the bold claims. This can be done in the sentences themselves, without any distracting and alienating notes. E.g. "In his Historia Gestae Britanica, the Venerable Bede, lists Aethelberht as being third ..." No need for a note there, but it's clear to readers. Similarly for "earliest written code in any Germanic language." The moment we say "first," hands shoot up among the audience. In this instance it's quite true, but an historian can be given so that you don't bear the brunt of the criticism. E.g. "<Expertdude> says that Aethelberht's Kentish code is the first written in any Germanic language." (You and I probably know that this fact has a great deal of significance because of what it is not. The code being in A-S means that it's non-ecclesiastic and not ecclesiastically derived. That suggests a secular state apparatus prior to the conversion that demands great stability.) (More in a moment, but saving to prevent edit conflicts.) Geogre 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to respond under each of your bullets, if that's OK: I know some reviewers don't like that approach but as you've signed each bullet separately I'm going to assume that's the easiest way to go. For your point above, there's actually a footnote for the Bede reference: as you say, footnotes in the lead aren't very desirable, so I simply cut it thinking the later footnote would do it. I think you're right that the sentence on Bede should be expanded, along the lines you suggest; but I'm not so sure about the "first Germanic code" one. The (later) footnote for that assertion is to Stenton, but I felt that readers wouldn't know who Stenton was either, so it wouldn't really help. Bede is different, since a reader has to understand who Bede is to understand the sources of information on Æthelberht. I can certainly make the change if you think it's necessary, but can you comment on the difference I see there? Meanwhile I'll go make the Bede edit. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • More of the comment: "Historical background" is good, but it seems to mix historical and historiographic backgrounds. It's interesting to discuss the validity, biases, and interests of our sources (conceivably even our modern ones), but I would expect -- rightly or wrongly -- that this section would give the readers some material, legal, and ecclesiastic history of the area at the accession of Aethelbert. This would be where I would expect information on the Anglo-Saxon religion (flavored and accented Norse, which we know only really from Tacitus's Germania), the trade relationships between the tribal states of the A-S (as we get pictures in Icelandic sagas), the chieftain-driven society, the posse comitatus, the presence/absence of coinage, the attempts by Gregory to get the island back into the church, successes or failures in Ireland, etc. You know -- this is how things were when our hero emerged kind of stuff. Geogre 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with all the points you make; I'll go do some research and come back with some changes. On the history vs. historiography question: should I separate out the sources para? I could make the main section "Background", with two subsections: "Historical context", and "Sources". Mike Christie (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • More of it: The Accession section is kind of tough slogging. As an encyclopedist and synthesizer of information, you should do your best to report the debate without going into such detail that only fans of a particular source can read it. (I'd put my money on Bede, for example, over the Chronicles, every single time, and Tours didn't really need to know.) My point is that you should vastly consolidate it, report that there is divergence and uncertainty (which will surprise no one), and give folks the simple version of ranges of dates. Geogre 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I knew this was a lot of detail, but I sort of liked it; I got some feedback on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelbald of Mercia FAC that going into the sources in detail was good, and maybe I overdid it this time. I've cut it a bit, so if you could have another look and tell me if I need to do more I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to leave some of the gory details in -- this sort of analysis is what you have to do to draw conclusions about dates for this time period, and I'd like to leave the readers with a sense of it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sickeningly more of it: The last sentence in "Relations with Franks" seems like it is left over from a previous version of the article, as it makes little sense in this place at this time. It's rather inexplicable where it stands, so it either needs expansion and better lead in or needs excision. For that matter, you indicate the presence of Frankish influence on agricultural and legal practice, and yet that seems to be one of those really important facts that could help explain much. The legal under/over lording matters less, to my view, than the cultural subsuming of Kent to a Frankish (and hence ready-to-convert) system. What are the indications, here? Do they imply experts coming over and going back? If there is an exchange of people as well as goods, we've got a story. Geogre 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Several different points here, so split responses. That last sentence is based on this sentence in Yorke: "Frankish fashions in dress, weaponry and drink are reflected in the burials, though these are never exclusively Frankish suggesting 'influence' rather than settlement." I felt the sentence was justified because otherwise a reader might say "How do you know this is cultural connection? Couldn't these just be Frankish graves?" Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For the agricultural and legal practice: I've cited Stenton for the agrarian influence, but unfortunately he doesn't footnote it so I can't trace that to a more detailed argument. I have seen the comment made elsewhere, but I think only in survey works; I would assume the underlying reference is to some papers that establish the connections. Do I need to hunt those down? I agree they would be interesting, but in an article about Æthelberht, rather than about the settlement of Kent, I was thinking that was enough detail. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For people travelling back and forth, I'm not aware of any evidence at all other than the existence of trade. I did consider merging the trade and Franks sections, as they are obviously related, but one seemed primarily political and the other economic, so I eventually kept them separate. I also see the case for talking about religious influences, but I think the section on Augustine's mission does need to be separated, so I put a more detailed discussion of Frankish pressure to convert in that section. What do you think of that approach? I didn't want to duplicate material in two places, but I can move things around if need be. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And you thought I was gone: Ok, in "Bretwalda," or actually before, you mention a particular AS Chronicle. Which one? Isn't C the Parker Chronicle? If so, please do indicate which of the Chronicles has the sui generis material, as there is much to be gained from such knowledge. Geogre 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Done -- I tweaked the caption to point at the surviving manuscripts section of the ASC article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Still here: I hate to be a pest, but the "historical background" section could have done something that would alleviate reader confusion later. The business of the overlord is highly meaningful to anyone who has studied the Anglo-Saxons, or the Norse, or the Franks, but it's not necessarily obvious to non-specialists that a king could spread Christianity to his thanes without legal order and yet very effectively. I think people expect resentful, grumbling minions with "overlord" rather than thanes and thane-lords. Geogre 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea: I added a short paragraph on this. Let me know if that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Alas, it's him again: The section on Augustine's mission contains information the reader needed to contextualize the import of the king and could well have been moved far up. However, there is one flat misstatement that really must be amended. You say that the invasions separated the Celtic church from Europe for centuries. C. 400, Roman troops withdraw. C. 440, Picts and Scots invade and invade and invade. C. 440, the infamous Hengest and Horsa. C. 500, Anglo-Saxon dominance. By 600, we generally think there was virtually no Christianity on the island, except in Wales, if there, and the conversion of the Saxons is not a reconnection of an isolated church but a new conversion of a people who had been pagan from the beginning. No doubt the "work of giants" (Roman engineers) and of "ghosts" (Celtic decorative arts) that remained and spooked the Saxons helped them accept the new old religion, but the sentence really leads to an incorrect view. Geogre 17:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I need to ask you for the specific sentence you feel is a mis-statement: I'm not seeing it. I did tweak one sentence to say the Roman church had "no presence" instead of "little presence", which strengthens things in the direction you're asking for, but I'm not clear what else to change. The story of Augustine meeting the British bishops at Augustine's Oak relies on Bede, but that seems pretty definite evidence that there was an active church in Wales, at least. I agree that the tone of this section implies a reconnection, but it's the church reconnecting, not the people, that I meant to refer to. For example, later in the seventh century the British and Roman churches have the big fights about the date of Easter and some other liturgical and ritual issues, and the Roman side (well, by that time the A-S church side, which is by then back in the Roman fold) wins the argument. I know it took some time to reintegrate the church hierarchies even after that, but I thought it was the case that once Rome and the new A-S ecclesiastical hierarchy were clear on the divergence of the British clergy from Roman ritual, there was a definite goal of bringing them back under the Pope's authority. Am I missing something here? Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Back, but on the super minor: In the laws thing, let's link Offa and blood feud, and any other items mysterious to the uninitiated. Geogre 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Done; I also linked Ine of Wessex. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: If I have tweaks and tips, I'll go to the article talk page and/or make edits. It's a strong page. I still feel that the prose bogs down under the weight of the scholarship here and there, but, while that is an argument for improvement, it is not an argument against this being a featured article. The article is more than worthy, and the author deserves all praise for the work. Geogre 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—Haven't looked properly yet, but lots of hyphens that should be en dashes in the reference list (MOS insists now); the opening "c.560–February 24, 616" has an en dash that should be spaced, because both items are spaced—well, both should be spaced (MOS). Tony
Done, both for the date ranges and the page ranges in the refs. I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency in the MOS, by the way: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#En_dashes says that there should be spaces around the en dashes when the items contain spaces, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death says it can be a hyphen or en dash, and says it can be spaced or unspaced in this case. I assume this just needs to be brought up to date with the new MOS section. Anyway, I think it's now fixed for the Æthelberht article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The article is well written and well referenced. Unlike the earlier FAs of Anglo Saxon kings, which I supported before, this one has some real meat (not to fault the earlier FA's, but it appeared the sources just weren't there). This is an EXCELLENT article and deserves promotion as an FA. I can find no obvious fixes needed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None

This article is FA. Citations, out-of-universe, brilliant prose IMO, lead summarizes article. I firmly belive that it satisfies all FA critera.Paaerduag 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, well-written and comprehensive. Spoilers should be retained, regardless of the anti-spoiler campaign.--Nydas(Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - It's a plot summary: the presence of spoilers is horribly redundant. There is no reason why they should be kept. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's only 'redundant' to people who spend large amounts of time on Wikipedia.--Nydas(Talk) 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Or people who know what the words "Plot summary" means? Atropos 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been fixed! Please return back to the discussion at hand, about whether this article should be FA.--Paaerduag 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support good article, although a very minor issue for me is the one sentence paragraph in the development section. It should be merged or extended if possible. Great article nonetheless.Lemmington 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I merged it with the paragraph about the Wii release--Paaerduag 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to give this article a copyedit, but I don't think it needs one. My one gripe is that the sections of 'Characters' and 'Setting' are too short. Can these be expanded somehow? Like for 'Characters' can you describe their abilities and how they interact with one another (and how that affects the game)? If not, then just merge the two sections into one main 'Characters and setting' section.UberCryxic 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was considering expanding these, but in my other FAC at Voyage, people told me to cut back on the in-universe stuff, and focus on the out-of-universe stuff. If anything I'll probably combine the sections, because I'm reluctant to expand these per others' comments.Paaerduag 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it's properly copy-edited. Why are there bloopers in the lead? ...
    • "follows very closely to the plot".
    • "novel, the novel" (and "further the connection" is clumsy).
    • "Reactions to the game ranged were mixed".
    • "Recently"—what will that mean in three years' time?
    • "with some calling"—there are better connectors than "with".
    • "motion sensitive"—must by hyphenated.

There's a sense of deja vue, having just reviewed your other game here. Take care using the same formula. BTW, aren't all games "point-and-click"? I'm ignorant of this area, though. Tony 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to address all your concerns. The term 'point-and-click' refers to games in which the player moves around by clicking on various points of the screen, and all the backgrounds are prerendered. Like 'Myst', if you've heard of that.Paaerduag 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, with the use of the word recently, is it incorrect to use a word drawing the article to a particular time? I mean can't I just remove that when it isn't recent anymore? I've removed it for now, but unsure on the policy of that sort of 'recentism'.--Paaerduag 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you might remember to remove "recently" from an article that you care about, but other editors are not so diligent. There are examples of "recently" in other articles and when you read them and deduce that it all happened three years ago, it's a bit jarring. It's better to avoid it. Is it significant that the announcement was made in March 2007? Instead of saying "On March 19, 2007, The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console.[4] The Wii version of the game is expected to be released during November 2007.[4]" - wouldn't it be easier and more specific to say "The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console with an expected release date of November 2007". Assuming that the release date is important, and the date of the announcement is not. It also saves what I consider to be excessive linking to sources - and reduces two links to one without losing anything. (I like both your articles BTW, but I want to read them more carefully before I comment further.) Rossrs 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Fine prose and comprehensive. --Tjkirk 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced and exhaustive. Most game articles lack such as nice Development section. Kariteh 11:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Article well done. --SkyWalker 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - very well done. Comprehensive, focussed and well structured. Rossrs 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix needed Years shouldn't be linked if not accompanied by both a day and a month. Epbr123 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Providence, Rhode Island

previous FAC

This is an immediate renomination. Final feedback from people commenting hadn't been received, so I felt this was prematurely archived. I was told, given the circumstances, an exception to the "don't renominate immediately rule" would be made. Here it is. I believe all recommendations received have been worked into the article.--Loodog 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Needs the following fixes:
    • Referencing:
      • However, some fear that the new development will ruin the historic look of the city. Additional concerns include an equitable taxation policy for several of the new luxury highrises. No reference for these concerns. Where are such concerns published.
      • Nearly 30 percent of the city population lives below the poverty line. Where is this fact published?
      • The Pie Chart in the economy section needs a reference. Consider using the caption option in the image markup to put one in.
      • Vincent Cianci, Jr, who was often credited with Providence's 1990s renaissance, Credited by whom? If you credit someone, you should, you know, CREDIT them with a reference.
      • Between these schools the number of post-secondary students is approximately 44,000, or 25% the population of Providence Sometimes, a sentance can be overreferenced. Does this statement need SEVEN ref tags? If many references are needed, consider using a single ref tage with an explanatory footnote that explains how they all relate. This seems just gratuitous though.
      • The Providence Public School District serves about 26,000 students from pre-Kindergarten to grade 12. Funny. There are seven references for the post-secondary student population, and NO references for the K-12 population. Huh?
      • The animated television series Family Guy takes place in Quahog, a fictional suburb of Providence and prominently features the most pronounced segment of Providence's skyline several times an episode (the buildings are One Financial Plaza, 50 Kennedy Plaza, and the Bank of America Building respectively). The city and its name were used in the television series Providence, and Showtime's new series, Brotherhood, was also filmed and set in Providence. Needs some references to back up these claims.
      • Most baseball fans — along with the local media — tend to follow the Boston Red Sox. According to whom. Look, I believe you, but it needs a reference.
      • The references as a whole need some clean up, in terms of consistancy of style. Each reference needs full bibliographic info, if seeking to be a featured article: Author (if availible), Title, Work (if part of a larger work), publisher, date, url linked to title (for websites) and accessdate (for websites). As an option, the citation templates can help organize this information. Use them or don't use them, but the bibliographic info needs to be complete.
    • Organization issues:
      • The neighborhoods section has a confusing map which is in a bad place (it clashes with the bullets); plus the section should be part of, or at least next to, the Geography section. The map needs fixing; consider labeling each neighborhood. Its a useless map without labels. Plus, the entire section is merely a list. Consider prosifying the section with maybe a sentance or so describing the location and significance of each neighborhood. If worth mentioning in the article, it probably merits at leats a sentence.
      • Sister cities is droped in without context. This might be better at the end of the article as a small section on its own, rather than tacked on to the end of the Government section, which seems random. Plus it could benefit from explanatory text rather than just a bullet list.
      • The education section seems to need general clean up. Its choppy and poorly organized. Why are there not wikilinks for schools that probably have articles? Subsections would improve the article, (K-12, Post Secondary) and the list should be prosified.
      • The lead needs expansion. Several sections of the article are entirely unaddressed by the lead. This needs work. If the article has an entire section dedicated to it, it needs a summary in the lead. The lead should be a full summary of the entire article, and should be able to stand on its own as a mini-article. See WP:LEAD
Those fixes are all needed to make this FA, IMHO. Doable, considering it looks like the article is well cared for. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Response
    • The pie chart has references on its image page. I'm not sure how I would add sources to it as an image.
      • Did it myself. Does it look OK? Now it has a ref in the image caption.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The schools note needs seven reference tags because that 44,000 is the sum of each individual school's declared number of students. I can't really think of a way to streamline that.
      • Try this : <ref>This figure (44,000 students) is calculated as the sum of each individual school's declared number of students. See: {{cite web | first reference}} {{cite web | second reference}} etc. etc.</ref> That way, you can leave an explanatory note, and include all seven references without having seven footnotes.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Follow up Done.
    • The citation templates you speak of are use in every citation, though they need "publisher". I'm not sure what to put if there's no obvious publisher, though.
      • Cite #11, the CNN/Money Magazine Home Appreciation list is missing the following information which I have cut and pasted from the link itself: work = CNN/Money.com | publisher = Cable News Network LP, LLLP | date = 2007 | accessdate = 2007-06-13 . This information exists on nearly every reliable source as a website. If the website doesn't list publisher information like the copyright holder of the website or the date it was published, it probably isn't reliable. Looking through your list of refs, MOST look like they are formatted OK, and have all of the information needed, so I wouldn't go through and reformat each one, but check carefully to ensure that nothing is omitted like with cite #11.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Cite #96 is to a Providence Journal article with an author. Give him credit. Again, check your refs to ensure that full bibliographic info is included as appropriate.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Follow up Done.
    • I considered prosifying the neighborhood list, but I feared that would add needless length to the article.
      • Looked again. The map looks better with the neighborhood names. Maybe the list could be reformatted or the map resized to eliminate white space? Just an aesthetic thing, though. Not a huge deal.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what is meant by explanatory text in Sister cities. Among FA's, only Tulsa, Oklahoma seems to make any explanatory note, and that's about what Sister Cities are in general. Every U.S. FA city article just has a bulleted list here.
      • Yeah, I guess you are right. No problem there I guess.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Loodog 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Follow up Hopefully, I've addressed your other comments. Let me know.--Loodog 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Article is much improved, with the neighborhood map adding a lot. Though, the neighborhood section seems like a good fit to go in the Geography section, maybe as a subsection?
    • The government section seems short, but I don't know what if anything might be missing. Also, some more cites are needed (e.g. "making him the first openly gay mayor of an American state capital.")
    • Something else missing... what's the level of crime in Providence? Crime trends? --Aude (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Good idea. I've added a brief crime section, moved neighborhoods to geography, and made the citation on Cicilline more explicit. Don't know what to add to the government section, though.--Loodog 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You know the most about Providence. If you don't think there's anything missing, then the government section may be okay.--Aude (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Education section lists only postsecondary schools. I think some reference to other schools, maybe just the name of the school district or districts and maybe number of schools might be in order. John Carter 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Maybe you were looking at just the first subsection. Classical, Nathanael Green, and the private schools are all listed. Though, mentioning of districts is a good idea.--Loodog 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A vote
Since no one's responded in the last two days and I've tried to address every comment made, I'd appreciate a vote if no one has anything further.
  • Support Obviously, since I'm the one promoting it. I can't think of anything else to addd to the article. It is well-sourced, and IMO well-written and thorough.--Loodog 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I added two ref requests that are minor and can be fixed quickly, but I'm happy to support. Great article. Postoak 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Followup Done. Thanks!--Loodog 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Change vote from above. Fix those ref tags that Postoak noted, and you have yourself a fantastic article there.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Followup Done. Thanks!--Loodog 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments A few more minor issues... More copyediting is needed, such as in the history section where the paragraph says "Revival began in the 1970s." In the crime section, and possibly elsewhere, there is a reference that is misplaced. References should go after the punctuation. The "See also" link in the culture section should go at the top of the section, per WP:LAYOUT. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Followup. Done. I'd actually already fixed all the refs, but somebody snuck in that little bit about the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Commission without proper referencing. I assure you the rest of the article, the ref placement is sound. Good?--Loodog 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I can't think of any other suggestions or comments. The article is much improved since it was nominated. Good work. --Aude (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, everyone for the feedback and support. I think we have concensus. If there's an admin around, feel free to close this up.--Loodog 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. The Featured Article Director will make the determination on consensus. I also wouldn't mind if some more reviewers looked at the article. But don't have anything else to add or suggest myself, and think you have done a good job with the article. --Aude (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok.--Loodog 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - some available publishing dates of web sources are either missing or incorrect. Epbr123 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment will gladly fix. Please mention which sources you mean. Thanks.--Loodog 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some points and concerns:
    • "Providence thrived postwar, waves of immigrants and land annexations brought the population from 54,595 in 1865 to 175,597 by 1900." sounds awkward and I don't think it is a proper paragraph. The Crime section also has two stubby paragraphs.
    • That "Matt Hyson" paragraph is the Sports section really comes out of nowhere. Why is that important to the city and justify a one-sentence paragraph?
    • The article doesn't mention anything about utilities. Where does the city get it drinking water from and sewage go to (I assume this is a service the city provides)? electricity, natural gas, anything?
    • Good Cityscape section. --maclean 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Follow up Done. Let me know if it's better.--Loodog 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Support. Those are minor concerns, nothing that should stop this from being featured. This is very well written article. You can place the info on drinking water and sewage disposal in the Geography section. Here is some info on sewage (pdf) --maclean 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks Maclean, though I didn't see any info in there on present sewer utilities. So far as I read, it's a report from the 80s on the efforts to clean up the water, which did really need it. Unless you see something I didn't.--Loodog 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Self nomination. This article has been through the peer review process and was promoted to Good Article status in February of 2007. Since that time I have considerably tweaked and expanded the article to such an extent that I believe it may be at the FA-level. Put it to the vote or make any suggestions here that you think may improve the article. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Great article. Succinct and to the point, yet comprehensive, well-written, and informative. Two minor quibbles: some words are wikilinked when they don't need to be (rather common terms like "lunatic" and "brother-in-law" in the lead, which I fixed), and the references to the issues of Video Watchdog Magazine need the dates of publication, if they are available. Otherwise, great work. WesleyDodds 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I appreciate your comments. I've added the dates for the two referenced Video Watchdog issues.-Hal Raglan 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support great article--Candyfan 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything looks to be in order. —imaek 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing's missing, it's well put together.--Digipatd 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What is all of that bolding? Is the Film Project advising that? Pls see WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • When you write "all of that bolding", are you referring to the title of the article and the cast listing? Those are the only examples that I can see in the article. For the bolding utilized in the cast listing, the "Cast and crew information" section of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used here: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information."-Hal Raglan 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Naïve comment - Most similar articles I've seen contain a spoiler warning before the plot summary. I don't know whether it would be appropriate here but just wondered whether you'd considered it. Verisimilus T 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not really a naive comment at all. Many articles on wikipedia do seem to contain spoiler tags. However, according to wikipedia's spoiler policy, "it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works. If they do, they often avoid terms such as 'spoiler'. Because of this, spoiler warnings should generally be avoided." The general consensus appears to be that if an article on a fictional work contains a synopsis section, the reader should simply assume that plot details (i.e., "spoilers") are included.-Hal Raglan 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. Verisimilus T 20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Battle of Cape Esperance

Respectfully self-nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle for featured article. The article has been through a peer review ([2]) and A-class review ([3]) with WP:MILHIST. CLA 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written article of FA level. Kyriakos 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. but see if you can make more wikilinks. Rlevse 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There's been a trend lately to reduce the number of wikilinks but I'll relook it for this article. CLA 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A very well written and clear article on a very confusing battle. --Nick Dowling 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix needed. Most of your measurements are in yards, and metric equivalents aren't given. Also, WP:UNITS (non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement) isn't addressed. You can kill two birds with one stone by using {{convert}} on units of measurement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. That's a nice tool. CLA 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Still Reigning

Before i started work on this article it was one paragraph - seen here. After receiving two very dodgy GAC reviews i submitted it to GAR where it received helpful feedback and almost doubled in size. Over the last few days i added the finishing touches, and while it is short it is comprehensive. I am happy to fix any editors concerns that are valid as soon as possible. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the quality of the article has left you all speechless :) M3tal H3ad 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Some places it rocks hard. I've never heard Slayer so I got a couple of requests. (1) In the beginning of "Conception" can you make it clear that Reign in Blood is the 1987 album, (2) in the same section Hanneman is mentioned for the first time but context of who he is (guitarist for the band) is not given until two sentences later. (2) Reference 2 (RIAA.com) gives me a 404 Not Found, (3) I don't think the first footnote in the second paragraph of "Production" is the one you want, it doesn't doesn't actually say "death threat" (which is wikilinked twice in the article) and it is the same as the one at the end of the paragraph (why two of the same?) (4) why call the non-album songs on the DVD "Bonus"? Maybe I missed it but what are they anyway? new songs? played at the same concert? (5) Consider making the "Track listing" parallel like this. --maclean 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that's what you call useful feedback, i will get to work, thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad 08:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as Slay