Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Central Coast Mariners FC

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A "good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.

As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.

In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ref #33 is missing.--Rmky87 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so Y Done. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:

  • Image:Dean Heffernan2.jpg has a watermark, which is generally disallowed in Wikipedia images.
    Y Done, with the removal of Heffernan from the section which the image was in, the image went also.
  • "The Marinators also have a Mariners fans forum and web site." - 1) "web site" > "website". 2) Rather trivial information, anything it's notable for?
    Y Done; not really, no - it is, in effect, unreferenced, so I've removed it.
  • Separate the notes section from the references, seeing as the first note contains improperly formatted references. It might also be confusing for the readers.
    May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.
    Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done. Looks much better, thanks. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Lacks references for achievements, records, and personnel.
    Doing.
    Y Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done for Notable players; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Socceroos" > "Australia national football team players". ...coping financially.[19] but after forming > No need in a punctuation here, move the reference to the end of the sentence. "They participate in the A-League, and are one > Remove the comma. ...local businessman John Singleton the clubs financial worries were eased - Add a comma after "John Singleton". The Mariners have been able to secure > The Mariners secured. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done. Thanks very much for raising those (I've converted your comment into dot-points for ease of use, I hope you don't mind). Any advice on what to use for the ref/note split would be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:

  • Why is Hefferman listed as a star player?
    Y Done. I don't know, exactly :) I originally thought when it was added he was a Socceroo squad member, but on further checking he isn't. Removed (with the picture, see above).
  • A rivalry with Newcastle United Jets is mentioned in the lead, but is not included anywhere in the body of the article.
    Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").
    Y Done, moved to History section. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The use of tenses is mixed in places (I might fix this one myself in the next day or two)
    I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)
    Y Done, I believe. Oldelpaso edited this to make some minor copy-editing changes; I presume this was to fix these tense problems. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Colours and crest section is a little thin. The second paragraph is a description of away form, which is not connected to the kit itself. The use of "clean sheet" in this context seems odd. Don't know if its different in Aus. Eng., but in Br. Eng. the term is nearly always used when talking about the defending team. Either way, "failed to score" is easier for a non-sports fan to understand.
    Y Done for the wording. There isn't all that much information on the strip, hence your concern. The most notable part about it is actually the 05-06 away form with the strip, hence why it's there. I'll look around for a little bit more info regarding the colours/badge.
    Haven't been able to find much else, sadly. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is the Central Coast Leagues Club "the home of the Mariners"? Oldelpaso 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done, removed. It is, really. Directly across from Bluetongue, all post-match stuff occurs there. However, because I recognise that it is really a POV, as such - the CCM offices are at Wyong - and because the reference doesn't point to that info, I've removed it. Thanks for all these suggestions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some suggestions regarding the comments I made above. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    That particular sentence is Y Done; however, I'm trying to arrange a copyedit for the full section from an unrelated person. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.

  • The lead mentions a rivalry with the Newcastle Jets, yet their is no further detail in the prose. If their is more to add then it should go into the history. If not, that paragraph should be move to the history.
    This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?
    Y Done exactly what you said, see above. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The notable players section lists five players and in its current format shows a POV. I believe this section should detail why and what these players are notable for. The references in this section are also all for either the CCM website or the ALeague website. If these players are indeed notable, then shouldn't they be mentioned in a reliable external source. I personally find it hard to believe that a 2 year old club has had so many notable players.
    I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (Flag of Australia: 4; Flag of Scotland: 1). I will try and find a couple of references, probably at the same time I add a little bit of content outlining that players' international (notable) career in <two sentences :)
    Y Done for notable players/personnel; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • One thing that this article is definately good for is references. However they are in the wrong places. Achievements and Records should have at least a refernece each, and they should be from an external source. In addition, does the Achievements section need to be completely bolded.
    As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.
    Y Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.[1]Todd661

Thanks for the input. I'll try and clean everything up over the next couple of days. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conditional[2] Support. Good article, but a few things:

  • "The Mariners have a strong rivalry with Newcastle Jets, often referred to as the "F3 derby".[6]" May be a bit biased, but I can't believe that a two-year old derby is that "strong". I'd recommend that the Newcastle Jets rivalry information be included in the fans section, by the way.
    Y Done, moved from lead.
  • "The Central Coast Mariners' bid for the Football Federation Australia's (FFA) new A-League aimed to fill the space for one regional team in the competition.[8]" I don't understand that at all. I presume it means that the Mariners looked to fill the franchise spot designated for a certain area. But that's not clear from that sentence and needs rephrasing.
    Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.
    Y Done, I think that should read better. Daniel Bryant 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the 2006-07 season, the Mariners secured the services of then Australian international Tony Vidmar from NAC Breda for two years.[31] This was the Mariners' first marquee signing, following the lead of Sydney FC (Dwight Yorke) and Adelaide United (Qu Shengqing).[32]" What defines a "marquee player" sounds like a bit of arbitary description to me.
    A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like [3] (probably the best for an article reference), [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)
    I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done, too easy :) Daniel Bryant 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ""We all follow a yellow football team" (as the Mariners wear a primarily yellow strip when playing at home)." That can be cut down to "(a reference to the colour of the team's kit)" HornetMike 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done. Thanks for that, and all the other, suggestion. I would love a response regarding the marquee player, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.

  • The use of WP:DASH, e.g. the en-dash, for seasons such as 2003-04 ought to be 2003–04.
    Y Done. Ah, yes, the dashes. Thanks for that.
  • Highest attendance - against whom, was it a significant match, when was it?
    Y Done, added details; they were in the records anyways, but can't hurt to add it there as well.
  • "..only one football manager.." - it's a clear football article so I'd ditch "football".
    Y Done
  • Records section, this would be nicer in prose rather than a simple list. See Arsenal F.C. for a good guide on what I'm looking for.
    Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.
    Y Done, I've converted the recors to prose. I estimate that the Records section is currently at 80% completion; I still want to add a paragraph about how they hold the A-League record for longest undefeated streak at home (nearly 12 months), which recieved a lot of media attention. Shouldn't be too hard, I'll do it in a couple of hours' time. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done fully, see below. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Refs 1, 11 & 44 are in the wrong place if you follow WP:CITE strictly. And the citations in the notes section.
    Y Done for 1 (and 2), and 44. 11 I can't seem to see anything wrong with. I've also fixed the notes section.
    Y Yes, ref 11 is fine, don't know what I was talking about. The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In the supporters section there feels to me like an overuse of parentheses, it detracts from the excellent prose.
    Y Done, fixed.

Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it helped lots, thanks so much. I'll get to work regarding the Records, and if you could have a look at Ref 11 for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done, I had to scrap the last 20% because I was mistaken...thank goodness for WP:V :) Notified as per request. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, and thanks for all your suggestions (and help, with the en dashes - I still hate swapping them over, despite all the practice I'm getting :D), Daniel Bryant 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Regarding the ownership, I believe that this has been covered in the History section. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.

  • "The Mariners home jersey is yellow with a navy left sleeve and stripe on the right sleeve. The companion shorts have a yellow cut up the seam and are matched with yellow socks. Their away uniform is similar, with white jersey and socks and slightly different shorts." Apostrophe missing from the first word. "A" before "stripe". "Running" before "up". "Away" seems very loose in this formal register; is there another word you could substitute for non-expert readers (maybe not)?
    Apostrophe missing from "The"? I don't understand
    I would guess he means the second word - i.e. Mariners' The Rambling Man 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    That would make sense, I guess. Y Done. Daniel Bryant 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Stripe Y Done
    Running Y Done
    No, "away" is a formal term in this situation, quite clearly meaning "playing away from home".
  • "Away strip"—Do you mean "trip"? Sounds as though they performed a naked display, but that would be reserved for the calendar, surely. This link might be piped to the specific subsection in the related article.
    "Strip" is the common Australian English word for "Playing clothes". WP:ENGVAR; do you know a term which works for all, which admittedly would be better than the current situation.
  • "Whilst"—nowadays, "while" is the norm; please use plain English.
    Y Done
  • "It is within walking distance of the Gosford railway station"—Remove "the", which is unidiomatic here.
    Y Done

Then further down:

  • "Stadium" section: lots of subby paras.
    I dispute this; I (and the others above) believe that the paragraphs here are of sufficent length. Instead of waffling to increase the, concise wording was applied. However, I will try and see if there's any more info related to CCM to flesh out the second and third paragraphd (which are shortish).
  • "membership based group"—hyphenate the double epithet.
    Y Done
  • "and have sponsorships from local businesses in the Central Coast region"—"Have" is ungainly here; where else would "local businesses" be but in the CCR?
    Y Done

Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this has already been done. However, I am currently trying to find at least one more copyeditor to have a look. Cheers, and thanks for the comments, Daniel Bryant 03:06, 31 March 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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Mayan languages

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.

  • I think the third paragraph of the lead section could use some work - possibly the removal of the second, third and fifth sentences? These are fairly jargony for the non-specialist. This material (the link with the Mesoamerican linguistic area) doesn't appear to be treated in the 'geneaology and classification' section' - in fact it appears to be contradicted by the statement "Mayan languages as a family are unconnected with any others."
  • This is a technical issue a linguistic area is not afamilial unit in a linguistic sense - a linguistic family is a group of languages with a shared ancestor - the languages of the mesoamerican linguistic area do not have shared ancestry but have converge only because they were spoken in the same area - sort of like english loanwords in chinese for example do not imply a shared ancestry between chinese or english. This is very basic linguist so it will be hard to specify in the article without writing very longwindedly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You might read the old nomination as there was a rather extensive discussion regarding the technical level of the lead already. Awadewit 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried to read the previous nom, which sheds some light on it, but I stand by my comment. I think reducing the lead section by a few sentences and expanding the Genealogy or possibly Grammar sections by a few more would make the article considerably better. The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there are some very short paragraphs that can be merged. However I wouldn't go too far down that road, as short paragraphs are best when dealing with technical material.
  • Could the number of present-day speakers be made more immediately clear - for instance, in a table? It's just a thought.
that is why we made the List of Mayan languages·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, that's an impressive table - I can see why it's not in the main article!! The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Avala 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very impressive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as before --Miskwito 01:29, 31 March 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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Final Fantasy XII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.

The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckiller 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Things...
  • The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).
  • I'm a bit of a comma fan, so it doesn't really bother me. — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.
  • Yeah; that should be standardized. I've always found the serial comma more intelligent and professional and less old school, but that's just me :) — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
  • Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
  • Should "License" be capitalized?
  • a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
  • Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckiller 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darthgriz98 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckiller 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
    • ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
      • Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
    • "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites. Y Done
    • ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context. Y Done
    • ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand. Y Done
    • ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006. Y Done
    • No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one. Y Done
    • ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was? Y Done
    • ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant. Y Done
    • Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
        • I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darthgriz98 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Firm, well written prose with a multitude of interesting facts and a comprehensive, yet uncrufty treatment of the gameplay. My only objection is to the review table but as that's a personal preference, this nomination has my full support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written and easy to follow. It's about time this article joined all the other FA Final Fantasy articles. ZenSaohu 06:11, 31 March 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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

George Washington (inventor)

This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks nice. I haven't any major things prepending FA status (and I agree it'd make a fantastic MP one for April 1!). there are a number of little things that should be fixed,though:
    • Multiple uses of the same ref should be collapsed (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once about that)
    • Full dates (i.e. in references) have to be linked for User preferences to work properly
    • Maybe the patents should be listed on 2 or even 3 columns? They take an awful lot of screen space.
    • There are a number of one-line paragraphs. They have to be refactored.
    • The parallel to Ouspensky looks unnecessary and distracting to me.
  • Overall, though, I'll be glad to support after those are tweaked. Circeus 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've now cleaned it up per your suggestions.--Pharos 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Made a few tweaks to the refs, and I think it's all good now.Circeus 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed have university database access; not sure if it's through that company. It would be impractical, I think, to keep decades of newspapers in my basement.--Pharos 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My feeling is that it's too short to be a FA. It could also conform closer to {{Biography}}. -Malkinann 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Congratulations on writing such a comprehensive article in such a short space of time. The output is exceptional, and deserves FA status. Bensmith53 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we mention that he invented this after the Boston Tea Party? (In this case, several decades after the Boston Tea Party, and not as a direct result, but we can leave that out.) My wise-guy comments aside, here's a couple questions: "There have been several "American Party"s in history — in 1920, former Texas governor James E. Ferguson actually ran under that label." This is confusing. I don't think this is a fact about George Washington at all. Similarly, is the following quote from a Brooklyn polician about George Washington, or James Ferguson? Other than that, I don't think I have any major concerns. Even though this is a quirky article about a relatively unimportant topic, it can get to FA status. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've relegated Ferguson to a footnote. The Brooklyn politician was talking about George Washington, in a joking context that reflects the color of the time period. I hope it's clear that the nomination of Washington was entirely non-serious, and that Washington didn't even know about it till the New York Times reporter tracked him down.--Pharos 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we get a picture of him? Raul654 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks pretty good. Since we're on a tight schedule, I've made a few minor changes myself and will probably make a few more tomorrow. --- RockMFR 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article done in a short space of time, though some of the prose could be tightened. I've tried searching for a picture on the web, but its a complete nightmare - George Washington, George Corbin Washington (politician) and George Washington Carver (also an inventor) complicate matters, and the fact that along with the above two this inventor also had a surname beginning with c conspired against me. RHB Talk - Edits 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Rare photo of George Washington in his army uniform
Well, based on a tip from RockMFR, I found a rare photo :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was trying to do is to hide both the spoon and the words "prepared coffee" so it is more ambiguous. But also keeping a square 100x100px image that is commonly used on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I've been lending a hand, and ferreting around the article, but not adding substantially. Looks good. Carcharoth 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — despite the apparent lack of dates. I have a few comments if you really have nothing else to do:
  • 29 March 1946, 4 January 1920 - Change to constant formatting.
  • Create a new "Notes" section to avoid confusion with references, see here as an example.
  • ...and also attained - "also" redundant.
  • At this time > At the time.
  • He died just three years after his company was sold, on March 29, 1946,[2] after an illness, at the age of 74. - Reword the sentence. Remove "just" for NPOV.
  • Link all full dates at the image captions. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:49, 31 March 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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Cholangiocarcinoma

Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Except for the staging section, metastasis isn't mentioned anywhere. Metastasis significantly influences prognosis and operability so I think this should be added (even though cholangiocarcinoma rarely has metastasized at the time of presentation). --WS 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Only for lymph node metastasis: PMID 17278119 PMID 17006609 PMID 11224627 But it is also interesting to mention what the most common sites of metastasis are and like you say that distant metastasis is rare. --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another comment: after resection a five year survival of 17% is mentioned. Both emedicine and the oxford textbook of surgery pu it at 40%. Any idea which would be more correct? --WS 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done There are a range of survival statistics, depending on the location of the tumor and which series you look at. I've expanded the section considerably to reflect the varying estimates of long-term survival - please take a look. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Better now. Support --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done. The lead could use some additional context to make it more accessible to the average reader. A large percentage of readers would not know where the bile ducts are or what they are. The second sentence tell us they're in or near the liver, but that would be better in the first sentence to ease the reader in. The picture helps, but not quite enough. In the sentence mentioning the left and right hepatic ducts that wording is really only useful to medical practitioners. It's particularly important that the lead is as accessable to everyone as possible. Need to reduce the number of short, one and two sentence paragraphs. There are several throughout. Otherwise looks quite good and I'd support with all that fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and tried to merge these. I think the short paragraphs don't look as awful or eye-catching to me because I'm using an 800x600 monitor (stone age, I know). It only takes a few sentences to fill the screen. If you see some more that are sticking out to you, feel free to merge them. MastCell Talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments very good, needs a couple of tweaks though:
    • When you say 'higher prevalence among Asian people', you should specify that (I presume) you mean people in Asia, not people of Asian ethnicity who live elsewhere.
    • I didn't think of this before, but the existence of HIV infection as a risk factor is only mentioned as a possible explanation for increasing rate of occurrence, but it's not strongly supported by the risk factors section. Is the mechanism for this known?
    • Did you manage to dig up any images? The pathophysiology section would be clearer with some pictures.
    • The very last sentence is very long and stringy; break it up into two (or note the use of a semicolon ;) Opabinia regalis 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I think. Take a look. As far as HIV, it has only been mentioned as a risk factor in one (fairly large) study. It did hold up as significant in multivariate analysis, but I think there's still a question as to whether HIV is directly involved or whether it's a marker for increased risk of hepatitis B/C and cirrhosis, which are clearly linked to cholangiocarcinoma. The mechanism by which HIV might predispose one to develop a cholangiocarcinoma is unknown, as far as I could find in my reading. Images: unfortunately, so far we've got what we've got, unless someone out there has something to upload. MastCell Talk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with the suggestion that the epidemiology section call HIV a 'potential risk factor' or somesuch. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done MastCell Talk 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments Thorough, well-written article, nicely organized into sections and with neat, uniform citations. Here are a few suggestions, though, which are really just some loose ideas, because the article is very good as it is currently.
    • The article was understandable to a reader as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, but, as FAs are intended for a wide readership, I'd still recommend a few tweaks for accessibility. Perhaps more in-article explanation of technical terms would help. It's not a major concern, though, and the wiki-linking of technical terms already present in the article is very helpful.
    • The only national incidence statistics under the "Epidemiology" section are for the United States. Perhaps more data from such countries as Canada, the U.K., and Australia would be useful for comparison (although the difference between incidence in the Western and Eastern world is clear). Perhaps these data could be assembled into a table, which could be right- or left-aligned, if there was a concern that integrating this information into the section's prose would interrupt its flow.
    • Some illustrations of particular locations where cancer can develop in the bile ducts might help readers to better understand the points relating to the different effects that these different locations can have. This could be as simple as taking the bile duct diagram and adding a coloured dot. -Severa (!!!) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done for the table. It's my first table, so I'm sure if it helps or hinders the article, but we'll see. I tried to de-jargon the article a bit. As far as the illustration, I've seen a couple of beautiful illustrations of the various sites at which cholangiocarcinoma can arise, but all such images I've seen are copyright and not freely available. I don't have the skills to create one on my own, but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, very helpful addition. Support. Although further reccomendations for the table would be to rearrange the country statistics in alphabetical order, formalize abbreviations like "U.S.A." to the full country name, and wikilink the names of the countries. This is the standard I've witnessed on articles that feature by-country tabulations of information. Maybe if you asked around WikiProject Medicine, someone might be able to help you find an illustration, or even create one. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my illustration skills are far too amateur to be of any use in creating anatomical diagrams. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 30 March 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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Armament of the Iowa class battleship

This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Well-written, lots of citations. Very well done. --Bryson 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Support Well written and coherent. Some claims need to be referenced, "Main battery" section needs some organization (sub-sections), there's only a mention in passing that the battleships have been decommissioned which might warrant a section or at least "see also" on what has replaced them. Some of the specifications of weapon systems might possibly be more appropriate on its respective page than on this page, use {{see also|}} templates. Madcoverboy 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a rather large section on the main Iowa class battleship page that discusses battleship reactivation vs battleship replacement through the eyes of the USN, Congress, and other parties privy to the discussion. Also, I can not cite your uncited claims if you do not mark said claims with {{fact}} or some other template to that effect; note that some claims contained in paragraphs have their citations at the end of the paragraph since one source was used for the section. I will look into the other suggestions forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I went through and cleaned up a lot of spelling mistakes (in Mozilla's spellcheck, at least) and started to throw some fact tags on (see Discussion). I would also get a spot copy-edit job to verify the grammar, verb tenses, punctuation, and other style issues that can crop up, though nothing specifically jumped out at me. Madcoverboy 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Fact tags have been more or less addressed. I will check for Spelling and Grammar when my laptop recharges. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is very well writen congradulations. Tirronan 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This article needs to have information about the year and preferebly month when each of the Iowa class battleships was fitted with or lost the arnaments mentioned in this article. This article omits another weapon the commander of this battleship had at his disposal - Marines and armed sailors, how many small arms (pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns etc) were on board a Iowa class battleship? Mieciu K 12:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a two parter, so for the sake of convience I will split it into two parts to answer the questions: 1) In broad strokes: New Jersey lost her 40 mm AA guns when reactivated in the late 1968 for the Vietnam war, and all of the Iowas had all of there AA guns yanked between 1982 and 1988 and replaced with the missile systems and CIWS systems mentioned in the article. The exact date that the refitting occured isn't mentioned in this article in part becuase that information is considered part of the ships history, and could be better presented in our articles on each of the individual ships, and in part because the dates offered only reflect the times in for the modernization. I will take a stab at finding exact dates, if you wish, but I do not hold much hope of finding exact information. 2) The nature of this question caught me off guard, I didn't figure anyone would raise any interest over thess particular types of weapons, so I didn't do a thorough look into it. Off the top of my head I known that Missouri had 40mm grenade launchers and 25mm chain guns installed in 1987 when called up for Operation Earnest Will, and as you pointed out I would assume that the battleships would carry firearms for marine use. I will do some reasearch into this, and if I can gather enough info create a section for your pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc, I will add a section to this effect; however, it may have to wait until the end of next week because I have upcoming tests I need to study for. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoa. The small arms of the Marine detachment on any man-of-war are NOT part of that ship's "armament". It's irrelevant and distracting to the nature of the article. The presumption that because the Marine detachment was aboard, it was at the "disposal" of the ship's captain is dubious at the very least for an Iowa class BB.--Buckboard 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A great article. Qjuad 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. References are not fully formatted in any consistent bibliographic style. For example, Do battleships move sideways when they fire? is a website link, indicates no publisher, last access date, or author/publication date if available. Examples of reference formatting can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or cite templates can be used. If footnotes are manually formatted, at minimum, publisher should be identified on all sources, and last access date should be given for all websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
    • Well, that was...unexpected. I didn't figure that folks would call me for the refernces. I have taken steps to adress the issue; as far as I can tell, I got them all, but you may notice one or two that need something else. PS: don't forget to sign your posts! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 March 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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.

Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).

The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckiller 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments on tense — past tense is used to depict events occuring before the game, during flashbacks. Present tense is to depict events occuring during the non-flashback parts, or when introducing a character. This is for clarity. — Deckiller 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading through the whole thing, I'm very impressed. I would've liked to see a "groups" section (with SeeD, Galbadian Soldiers, etc.) and a "cosplay" section, but I realize these are very difficult to source. One problem I *think* exists is that you bring up people/events/things without explanation. In Squall's paragraph you bring up Seifer and Rinoa for the first time, and fail to explain who they are - Seifer could be called a "fellow student", but I'm not sure what to do with Rinoa. Can you also explain what a Limit Break is? This seems to occur later on as well, but I don't think the problem is too big. Another small problem is the merchandise image - it could be free use. Do you think you could talk to the owner of the site about it? Anyway, although I've just presented you with a bunch of suggestion, I'm still going to support - this article is well referenced, well written, has a good use of images, and is quite comprehensive. Well done. --Teggles 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment. The groups section will probably fall under "World of Final Fantasy VIII" when it is started (usually factions are kept separate from the characters). That'll allow locations and factions to be wikilinked. I was thinking about a cosplay section too, but it's so hard to find enough material. As for the image, I can just replace it if it continues to be an issue brought up. I believe Limit Break is linked the first time it appears, as are the other names (the protagonists and main characters are explained in the lead, with wikilinks provided). — Deckiller 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow, I'm not sure how I didn't spot that. I previously did a search for Seifer and Rinoa and the first results were in Squall's paragraph. I was wrong about the Limit Break too. My apologies. :) --Teggles 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, you were spot on about the limit breaks; I added that in after your post. Speaking of a World of Final Fantasy VIII article, I'll start it up in my sandbox. If we can follow something similar to a combo Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Locations in Spira article, with more out of universe information, we might have a chance at another GA. — Deckiller 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for this impressive article. I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be an FA. Not only is it an interesting read, it has been well copyedited by Deckiller and Axem. Well done to all those who edited and created this article. Darthgriz98 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — Likewise I see no reason it should not be an FA. I would, however, like to see how the past and present tenses are used in the article explained within the prose. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, can I open a little discussion about the use of past tense? While copy-editting, I also noticed how the shift seemed a odd from a reader's perspective. Would it be possible to shift the past tense into present if it is explicitly denoted (somehow) that it occurs in the "past" of the game? Axem Titanium 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that might work. "During the sequences" and whatnot might work. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I changed Quistis' beginning section back to past since it would sound awkward otherwise. The intention is still quite clear though. Axem Titanium 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose anything I say would have to be a co-nom and support because of all the time I've invested in the improvement of this article. Large kudos to Deckiller for initiating this; all I did was brush up the edges and put a nice pretty bow in the top. BTW, this is quite possibly the best character page on all of Wikipedia (that is until we get to all the other FF character pages, mwahaha). Axem Titanium 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I wish that every character article looked like this. Clear, concise, OR-free, and so well sourced that the reference section is longer than half the articles on WP. I wish I could write articles like this. --PresN 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well you can! Are you tired of scrounging the bottom of the editing barrel? Well, just buy my 12 hour training video for 3 easy payments of $99.99 & you'll be able to write FA's like the pro's! But wait there's more! If you order now, you'll also recieve my special somputer software valued at $39.95 absolutely free! That's right, free!!! Just call 0800 65-555-789 to recieve the oppurtunity of a life time & be the Wikipedia editor you were born to be! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hands down support - Great article, no quarrels here whatsoever. I wish more game articles were like this... It's just so great! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, the only FF's I played were the SNES ones, but the article is great, illustrated, referenced and well-written... however, I must Comment: why in the FAC and not the WP:FLC? igordebraga ≠ 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, Deckiller and I felt that this article transcends being a simple list of the characters because it also includes information about their design and development, their reception, merchandise and a million other things that make it less like a list and more like a full-fledged article. Axem Titanium 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed; this is an article, not a list; lists have much less prose content, and are usually for organization. Thanks for the support! — Deckiller 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This article meets the criteria for featured article. Flubeca 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support everybody! — Deckiller 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Are you aware that Image:Ff8-squall.jpg is marked as not having a source? Jay32183 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The no source tag has no merit. Apparently the tag was added because the location of the original publication of the image was not provided. --- RockMFR 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that he source tag has no merit. The website clearly states that they are character designs are from Nomura. We state that in the image file. If we had to be that strict with images - providing a source of the source of the source - we might as well completely de-feature all our content. I'll go ahead and change the resolution, if people are really that nitpicky about images. — Deckiller 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In case AMIB still has issues, I sent a message to the webmaster.— Deckiller 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on images — from image policy: "Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources)." The author is provided both on the image link here and the website, so there should not be a problem. Again, if there are still issues, I contacted the webmaster. — Deckiller 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As I suspected, the webmaster e-mailed me back and said that the original uploader stated they were from the V-Jump Art Book. He's in the process of obtaining a copy to verify for himself, but I think it's clear that this is not an issue. — Deckiller 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. An article that proves character pages need not be lists or guides to be helpful. Much better than List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which itself is featured. Nice job! Nall 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work. I'm not sure how you managed to get 100+ references for this, but that's super. I can tell a lot of work has been put into this. I think this deserves featured article status. MahangaTalk to me 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Full Support Like I mentioned in the GA-nom for this article, going for FA-class is, to me, merely a formality. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:53, 27 March 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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangellcitation needed 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid